Is your mind corrupted?

[Zoltri]

TAKE A LOOK AT THE PICTURE BELOW. WHAT DO YOU SEE ?

http://www.jillsjokeline.com/whatdousee.jpg

Research has shown that young children cannot identify the intimate couple because they do not have prior memory associated with such a scenario.

What they will see are the nine dolphins.

Additional note: This is a test to determine if you already have a corrupted mind. If it's hard for you to find the dolphins within 6 seconds, your mind is indeed corrupted.

Ok.... look at her crotch..... the V is the tail of one, start at the V and follow it down along her left leg. look at the space between her right arm and her head, the tail is on her neck, follow it up. look at her left hip, follow the shaded part down, it's another one, and on his shoulder..... see them now?

[lucas9000]

i'm kind of shocked at how long it took me to recognize the dolphins after reading what you said about kids seeing dolphins. who knows how long it would have taken me to recognize them if you hadn't mentioned it at all.

[Shajen]

I don't think it's corruption, I think it's children are typically unaware of sexual acts/images.

Adults (usually) are. It isn't a "you're depraved, you effing pervert!"

It's more along the lines of: "Nice cans".

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm kind of shocked at how long it took me to recognize the dolphins after reading what you said about kids seeing dolphins. who knows how long it would have taken me to recognize them if you hadn't mentioned it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pshreck]

I don't buy this at all. Surely children can atleast recognize a figure of a woman. Even the youngest children understand what breasts are and a body looks like. They might be confused at what exactly is going on, but I'm sure they see the body.

[A_C_Slater]

That's not the point. The point is that they notice the dolphins first. And we do not.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the point. The point is that they notice the dolphins first. And we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw the dolphins in under 6 seconds though, but I don't find that as 'scientific proof' that my mind isn't 'corrupted', which means literally nothing scientificially anyways.

I'm really calling BS on this one and saying children would see the naked woman, unless I can be linked to something that proves otherwise.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm kind of shocked at how long it took me to recognize the dolphins after reading what you said about kids seeing dolphins. who knows how long it would have taken me to recognize them if you hadn't mentioned it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really calling BS on this one and saying children would see the naked woman, unless I can be linked to something that proves otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Go find us some children then. We need you to prove to us that it's BS. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Btw, you saw the dolphins THAT fast?!
I had to strain to see them.

[A_C_Slater]

I disagree with the term "corrupted." I do not view this as a topic of "morality" as the initial poster does. To me it represents an interesting facet of awareness and how human beings interpret images in a way that is most convenient to them.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the term "corrupted." I do not view this as a topic of "morality" as the initial poster does. To me it represents an interesting facet of awareness and how human beings interpret images in a way that is most convenient to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just quote you and not add anything like other posters have been doing lately. But I can't "follow the crowd".

I totally agree with what you said. I don't feel that "corruption" is the right way to look at this.

[pshreck]

I saw no dolphins initially, when I scrolled down and saw that there were dolphins in the picture, it probably took me 3 seconds or so to see all of them, and I'm sure there are plenty of other adults (who have even had sex in that position) that could do the same.

It is interesting, don't get me wrong... but as for having any scientific value whatsoever, it seems bogus.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I think you guys are all just geeking out just a little too much over this.

[A_C_Slater]

Why is this so difficult to accept? What do you think an infant sees when it looks at this image? Dolphins or two people having sex? The infant just sees a conglomeration of differnet patterns because it has yet to learn what dolphins or sex is yet. Have any of you stopped to consider there might even be another "level" to the picture. An image besides the dolphins and the dirty, dirty, sex? I assure you there is another image, though you may have to be a member of another culture in order to see it.

[daryn]

could be... but i doubt it.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
and I'm sure

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you sure?

People say this all the time.

[Voltron87]

This is always a biased test as its the white image might stick out more than the gray one. The only way to figure this otu is to give a group one with the colors reversed.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and I'm sure

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you sure?

People say this all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then I'm the only adult on the face of the planet with this ability...

I'm pretty damn sure.

Another reason I am being skeptical is I have recently read up on bogus stories on the internet... specifically related to pictures.

Read anything on snopes.com, almost all stories distributed next to some interesting picture on the web have some fakeness about them, if they are not entirely untrue. It was amazing to see how many times I had been personally duped by some of the pictures I had already seen and the story that went with them.

I am just saying it seems crazy to think children wouldn't see at least the female body first, and I'm sticking to that. I also doubt that there was any scientific research actually done on this, as the term 'corrupted' is being so incorrectly used (in a scientific manner).

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty damn sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, then I'm the only adult on the face of the planet with this ability...


[/ QUOTE ]

[AngryCola]

That's not answering the question.

You are just avoiding the question and making a silly statement.

That's okay though. I don't mind. I was just wondering if you actually had reasons for your opinion.

[daryn]

man it's a figure of speech.

[pshreck]

I'm pretty sure about this too, your the only one who doesn't understand my post.

That's okay though, I don't mind.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
man it's a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is?
I'm honestly confused.

"Im sure" ??

You got on me the other day for not backing up my opinion with reasons (which I did btw). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure about this too, your the only one who doesn't understand my post.

That's okay though, I don't mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. Because I understand your post completely.
I understand you don't have factual reasons to back up your claims. I wasn't originally trying to be an ass. I was just curious how you could make such bold statements. I thought that perhaps you had some knowledge about these kinds of things.

That's okay though, I don't mind.

[daveymck]

Theres another similar picture where you can see a witch or a beutiful woman which I dont think scintifically points anything out except that its an optical illusion.

I may show this too my 5 year old tomorrow if I remember and see what she sees.

http://www.dshed.net/digitised/neighbourhood/contents/images/resources/woman.gif

[daryn]

yeah.

when someone says:

i'm pretty sure xxxxxxx


it's a figure of speech that is generally perceived as: i believe with a high degree of certainty that:

[pshreck]

Angry, I'll explain it slowly since you don't understand.

Someone posts a 'scientific study'. The study has implications that your mind is corrupted if you don't see a picture in an alloted period of time. No definition of corrupted is given.

You continue to not only prove that your mind is not corrupted by seeing the picture in the alloted amount of time, but you find it funny that you also can easily see the sexual position and are equally familiar with that as you are the dolphins.

It is scientifically acceptable that I assume others (in a massive test pool) can do what I can do, as it would be almost scientifically impossible that I had a mental and visual capacity to do what 4.5 billion other adults on the face of the planet cannot.

I said "I'm sure", because both scientifically speaking and otherwise, I am.

If that's not good enough, I'm not going any further.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

it's a figure of speech that is generally perceived as: i believe with a high degree of certainty that:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know that.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to be a jerk at first.

I was really curious how he could know that with a high degree of certainty. I'm interested in these types of illusions and psychological stuff.
So I was interested in hearing the reasons behind such a statement.

:shrug:

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Angry, I'll explain it slowly since you don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to basically call me retarded.

Actually, your post that I'm responding to gives me exactly what I was looking for. You gave me your reasons. I didn't think you were trying to give me reasons before.

It just seemed like you were trying to get cute and dodge the question.

I may not agree with your position, but at least I know what it is now. That's all I was asking for. Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif