Through the looking glass

In general physics, but particularly in quantum physics, the observer effect is a well known feature. Frequently mistaken for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it states that any observation, by its need to interact with the observable, is bound to alter its state, in the same way that measuring the air pressure in your tires will unavoidably let a small amount of air out, lowering the pressure. The relative size of the observed magnitude and the modification define the precision of the measure.

However, the observation does not only tell us something about the observed. The result of two observations of the same phenomenon may vary due to the differences among observers: a trained bird observer will bee able to tells a starling from a goldfinch, where as anyone else will probably see "just two birds", so the result of every observation includes already some detail about the observer.

Photo: Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pixabay

One example of these revelations, as I have mentioned before, are the horoscopes in a wider sense (astral charts, numerology, physiognomy), which leverage on the Barnum-Forer effect: using vague multi-term descriptions, one tends to avidly nod to the parts perceived as right and waive the incorrect ones as "well, this is not so accurate". They can help us understand the way we see ourselves, in the same what that the undefined (and essentially meaningless) shapes of the Rorshach test can reveal the workings of our subconscious mind, but they hold no predictive power.

The news themselves can have a similar effect: for instance, whenever the Secretary of the Treasury is nominated, it is very easy to tell the liberals, who will always complain about the servitude of the Secretary to the corporations, from the conservatives, who will always complain about how the Federal Government intends to plunder our savings.  The fact is the same in both cases, but by expressing the aspects where the candidate has too much or too little, we also reveal ourselves. Of course, this division gets compounded by the differences in the media outlets that each side chooses, so that the conclusions might come "pre-found", but that is a discussion for another day.

Observing the way we respond to reality can be helpful to understand our own way of thinking, but it has two major limitations: on the one hand, one can only gauge the reaction to things that actually happen, not to the ones that could have happened or did not even stand a chance; on the other, these situations frequently hit too close to home for us to analyze with with a bit of objectivity, because it is hard to admit our weaknesses and flaws. That is where the therapeutic value of literature comes into play.

Literature has the great advantage of allow us to slip into somebody else's skin (or even several people in rapid sequence) and experience what it is to be them without running any risk. Even if the story turns too ugly it is enough to close your book and sit back in your armchair waiting for heart to calm down. And because the reactions described in the books are somebody else's, you get to know yourself by understanding when you agree or disagree without having to admit shortcomings of your own. Furthermore, the stories in the books can be set in real or imagined backgrounds, they can repeat themselves, happen in different order, be connected, all that the will of the writer, who might choose to follow some (or all) of the rules of reality but does not have to. And this allow us to explore a much wider set of situations that the news, or a walk in the park does not allow.

Sometimes your situation is just too daunting or too painful to be faced straightaway. En these occasions, walking, like Alice, through the looking glass can take you to a place where you can rest and regain your strength. The problems are unlikely to go away on their own, but it is always better to come well prepared for the battle. I often get ready inside a book, or a movie, or a video game. What is your choice? Have a nice evening.