Problem:  When viewers' sketches of a target are analyzed after a session, they often represent various approach angles: for example, one may see a bridge from overhead while another might view it from the ground level. Furthermore, we know that viewers have particular affinities for specific types of data - such as colors, forms, sounds, emotions, concepts, etc (see "How Do You Score Sessions?" under PSI FAQ's
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/QandAIndex.asp)

- What processes or mechanisms could account for this physical perspective variability, and is there any consistency in the approach of individual viewers? At the least, recognizing that one is likely to view a target from a particular angle on initial approach might help a viewer make a more educated guess as to what his ideograms could represent. Could this viewer profile also be used to "customize" the tackling of the target by a particular viewer, in order to improve both target contact and the likelihood of focusing on the relevant aspects?

- What can we do to stabilize the perspective - that is, to ensure that as we perform repeated sweeps, the vantage point does not move all around the target from one probing to the next?

Suggestions: Identifying one's own approach predilection would be relatively easy to follow for any interested viewer, by keeping a record of preferred perspectives as observed from, say, the initial three visual sketches or ideograms; and by analyzing their significance in terms of structural/ functional impact. The classification could be broken down into

- overhead
- ground level
- inside of main structure
- peripheral elements
- function/ conceptuals

A more formal way would be for experimenters to select simple artificial targets (such as computer-generated 3-D representations of cubes, staircases, stars, etc - which have no intrinsic history or timeline associated with them) and see what type of perspective each viewer produces.

Replies / References