Cookie cutters

In a book called "Great Scientific Experiments: 20 Experiments that Changed Our View of the World," there’s one about cookie cutters. Are you curious?

Anthony reads the post:

The author of this experiment is James J. Gibson. The idea is relatively simple. The participants were blindfolded and there were cookie cutters of different shapes (heart, star, etc.). What did they do?

• a cookie cutter was pressed on the palm of the participant’s hand.
  
• a cookie cutter of a different shape was moved on the palm of the participant’s hand.
• a cookie cutter was given to the participant, who could touch it as they wanted.

Then the participants could see the cookie cutters they manipulated and had to identify them. Which one was pressed on my hand? Which one was moved on it? Which one did I play with?
Which one do you think was the easiest to identify? I think most of you guessed it. Almost 100% recognized the cookie cutters from the third case, the one they could play with. In the first case, the participants who guessed were right about 50% and about 70% in the second case.

Maybe you are thinking "Did you need an experiment for this?" or "Is this an experiment that changed our view of the world?" For the first question, I would say that the scientific method requires us to prove things, even those that seem obvious. The second question is a little more complicated.

Before this experiment, our senses were seen as passive instruments. We receive external information, it meets our senses, and the brain processes it. Easy, isn’t it? Yes, it is, but it’s not correct. If it was, there wouldn’t have been a big difference in cookie cutters recognition rates.

But what changes in the last case? What is the extra "piece" that allows all participants to recognize the cookie cutters shape? It is the action. Our senses are not passive instruments, but active instruments. They must interact with the environment.

Our senses have therefore adapted to our environment so that we can better recognize and respond to it. Does the word "adapt" suggest something to you? Perhaps Darwin’s Evolution Theory, which I’ve talked about it in previous blog posts. Many psychology discoveries make sense only in light of Evolution Theory. Our chances of survival are higher when we can interact with the environment and we can use all our senses.

What do you think about this experiment? Do you really think it may have changed your worldview at the time it was proposed?

If you want me to describe in my own words a topic of psychology, please request it in the comment section.

Cited sources: Harré - Great Scientific Experiments: 20 Experiments that Changed Our View of the World. Gibson (1962) - Observations on active touch.