So, is Nicolas Cage a vampire? More importantly, is he locked in an ageless battle royale with fellow immortal John Travolta? And are they the reason there are iPhones in old paintings?!
Uh…no. But the reason we think they are is due to something called “pareidolia”—the phenomenon that also explains why we see a man in the moon or castles in the clouds. And, because it might be useful to you, dear readers, in your content and presentations (or just in your understanding of the people who are your clients, customers, and audiences), I wanted to dive a little deeper into it, courtesy of this article:
iPhones in old paintings — Is this evidence of Time Travellers?
First, the article itself is courtesy of my friend and unofficial #swipefiler Scott Monty, who first sent it to me. As you can see even from the title, it’s a good candidate for your (or anyone’s!) #swipefile: an unexpected contrast—between iPhones and old paintings—plus an intriguing question. (Since the original post is on Medium, I’ll cover the highlights here, and link where I can to other images of the paintings it features.)
- The article opens with a tease of its larger point, promised at the end: that the real reason some people see iPhones-that-aren’t-actually-there in old paintings “reveals something rather fundamental about the human experience and life.”
- But then we get right to the fun stuff of the post: that some people see iPhones in old paintings where iPhones couldn’t possibly be. Why? And How?
- First up, “The Expected One” by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller (1793–1865), where a woman coming up the path doesn’t see a lover? would-be beau? stalker? awaiting her further up the path because she’s head down looking at her… that’s an iPhone, right? I mean, there’s even a glow. So, could this be one of the earliest possible warnings about not paying attention to your surroundings when walking alone?
- Nope, because she’s looking at… a prayer book (so maybe it’s a holy glow?).
- Next, It’s “Mr Pynchon and the Settling of Springfield” (which you can see in this article if you don’t have access to Medium). Again…iPhone?
- Nope, probably a mirror.
- Then, this painting…whose title already gives away that it is not an iPhone: “Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House” by Pieter de Hooch (1629–after 1684).
So, what gives? Well, that pesky pareidolia I mentioned earlier. You can think of it like a visual form of confirmation bias: we see best what we’re most familiar with. Since we’re not walking around 17th-century Dutch interiors very often, we don’t see people handing other people letters. And we certainly don’t see people walking down lonely country roads transfixed by their prayer books.
But we do see smartphones (and laptops!) all the time, and we have brains that are constantly trying to make sense of what we see. When we’re presented with something unfamiliar, our brains’ first attempts at making things make sense involve seeing if that “something new” is actually “something familiar,” and voilà! iPhone.
Because of this, as the article points out,
When faced with an amazing claim (ghosts, gods, ESP, aliens, bigfoot, etc…) you would be wise to step back and appreciate that what you are being presented with is a wholly subjective sincerely held interpretation and not an objective truth [emphasis mine]. We all interpret things in the context of our cultural expectations. There are no exceptions, it is the way we are and is part of the human experience, we all do this.
How you could use it…
The most obvious use for this is your own edification: a new insight that can help you understand yourself, and the people around you, just a little bit better.
When you know that both you and your audience are likely to take in new information “in the context of your cultural expectations,” and that the result may be a “wholly subjective, sincerely held interpretation and not an objective truth,” it allows you to be both more understanding and more empathic towards both.
A second use could be to help someone else understand this new concept in a fun and non-threatening way (much like the original author did). After all, it’s a lot less threatening to show the phenomenon at work with the unexpected introduction of an old painting than in, say, an active conspiracy theory.
One additional, more meta use: how to construct a piece of content that uses examples and analogy to illustrate or teach a point. In other words, looking at how others make use of their #swipefiles can teach you a lot about how to use your own. Notice and ask things like:
- How does the author engage your interest with the title?
- How does he pay off and continue that interest with his introductory text?
- Why do you think he used three examples and not just one?
- What’s the effect of waiting until after the examples to introduce the name of the concept?
- How does he tie that concept to a larger point he wants to make?
Now, as usual, it’s your turn! How and where would you use “pareidolia”? Or these images? What else could you use to illustrate the same idea? I’d love to know.
When we're presented with something unfamiliar, our brains' first attempts at making things make sense involve seeing if that 'something new' is actually 'something familiar.' Click To TweetPlease note that many of the links are affiliate links, which means if you buy a thing I link to, I get a percentage of the cost, and then donate it to charity.
Like this content? Be the first to get it delivered directly to your inbox every week (along with a lot of other great content, including my #swipefiles). Yes, please send me the Red Thread newsletter, exclusive information, and updates.
Leave a Reply