The lies we see
As kids, we’ve all come across the concept of lateral inversion in school while studying the topic of light or mirrors. Like every other plebeian, I brushed it off as a redundant scientific phenomenon that has no real use and exists for the sake of increasing our syllabus. Only recently did I discover how we’re all being blatantly lied to. And how we’ve never really seen ourselves, probably won’t ever be able to.
Ever wondered why you look different in the mirror and in photos? Or by extension, why does a selfie image of you differ so much from your picture clicked by someone else? Well, say hello to lateral inversion once again. Selfies and mirrors show you an image flipped horizontally, whereas your picture clicked by another person is ‘the right way up’, in a way. But then, we’re still seeing ourselves, so why does it matter?
Like me, if you’re not genetically blessed with a perfectly symmetrical face, chances are, the difference of lateral inversion bothers you too. Interestingly, this is where the ‘mere-exposure effect’ comes into play. When we see someone or something on a regular basis, we get familiarized with it. Psychologically, familiarity breeds likeness. That’s not to say that you won’t like things at first glance, it’s more along the lines of, the more you see something, the more you like it. You are accustomed to seeing the version of your face in the mirror which is different from your face in pictures, hence you like yourself more in the former and less in the latter even though it’s still the same face. If you don’t believe me, try it out for yourself. Take any face you like, flip it horizontally and in the majority of cases, your perception of it will morph.
However all of this got me to realize- as humans, we won’t ever actually have an opportunity to see ourselves. All we have is a fragment of what others perceive us to be or an attempt at capturing ourselves through a lens, which is still not entirely us. We will never see ourselves, and we have to live with that. What about perceptions then? All this time, our perceptions of ourselves and someone else have actually been different all along. Luckily, a scientific study has proven that someone else still prefers the ‘real’ us, and we would still prefer ‘mirror’ us. Just to sum it up, you prefer the fake version of yourself while others prefer a real one. Sound familiar?
A deeper dive into the mere exposure effect led me to realize why babies hate me. Since humans like things the more they see them, babies smile more at people who smile at them. No way I’m changing a resting frown face for a toddler’s validation. Moving on to a more practical approach, the mere-exposure effect plays a vital role in advertising and content marketing. That’s why we still have pop-ups on websites. It’s because ads work even when people don’t click on them. As a Handels student who might major in marketing, feel free to be the reason people use ad-blockers.
With all this talk of psychology and mirrors, I did wonder if people really do even want to see their real selves at the end of the day. It doesn’t matter these days when a selfie isn’t complete without a filter or touching up here and there, which got me thinking about humans and their definition of beauty in general. Our obsession with symmetry is something that might serve to be good food for thought. In fact, speaking of beauty, I also came across another research paper that said an average human finds themselves to be more attractive than they actually are. So, in conclusion, if you think you’re ugly, you’re probably uglier. Too bad I think I’m fucking hot.
Sources
Bornstein, R.F. and D'agostino, P.R., 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(4), p.545
Mita, T.H., Dermer, M. and Knight, J., 1977. Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(8), p.597.