The Objectivist Theory of Perception vs. Optical Illusions

[sjw]

Have you read Kelley? Why do you not take him into account?

I have not read his book, so no, I can't take it into account. I'm not opposed to reading it, I just haven't happened to have read it. The only book of his I've read is the "Truth and Toleration".

Shayne

Here's an interesting review of Kelly's book: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3I8UKVIEVOAUN/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0807114766&nodeID=283155&tag=&linkCode=

I see that I've stepped into a controversial area of philosophy. What's new, I guess every area of philosophy is controversial. Long-standing controversies on fundamentals seem particularly pointless to argue about.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne,

Watch the video. I know you will be surprised. Selectivity and grouping occur at the sensation level on the cell, through the inputs.

This guy has also removed the DNA from cells and they have continued to function perfectly for months. His idea is that memory (or partial memory) is on the cell's membrane.

And he deals with how this stuff is integrated in the brain.

Or don't watch the video.

Whatever...

Michael

I plan on watching it, it looks interesting regardless of my preconceptions.

Shayne

[sjw]

So, if one believes as I do that there is a significant degree of volition involved in perception, but also that knowledge of reality is possible on the right approach, then what school of philosophy is that? I disagree with the Objectivists because I think their "just look and perceive" is tantamount to a religious person's "I just know." But I disagree with subjectivists because I don't think volitional perception corrupts perception unless one chooses for it to.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Have you read Kelley? Why do you not take him into account?

I have not read his book, so no, I can't take it into account. I'm not opposed to reading it, I just haven't happened to have read it. The only book of his I've read is the "Truth and Toleration".

Shayne

It is by far the best book in the Objectivist cannon and answers all the questions you are raising. I can't think of a more rewarding book to recommend you.

[kiaer.ts]

Have you read Kelley? Why do you not take him into account?

I have not read his book, so no, I can't take it into account. I'm not opposed to reading it, I just haven't happened to have read it. The only book of his I've read is the "Truth and Toleration".

Shayne

It is by far the best book in the Objectivist cannon and answers all the questions you are raising. I can't think of a more rewarding book to recommend you.

Ryan's review is somewhat inaccurate. Kelley introduces and expands upon the idea of the "perceptual judgment" in a separate section from his identification of perceptual form, with the latter not depending upon the former. Ryan doesn't clearly express Kelley's concept of the perceptual judgment. He also doesn't mention that Kelley consistently speaks of consciousness as relational and uses the Randian methodology of identifying and refudiating stolen concepts. The book in no way steps outside Objectivism, while it does go beyond Rand.

Peikoff's jealousy over this achievement was the cause of his eventually excommunicating Kelley, the single most important and destructive act of Peikoff's life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

The problem is putting either-or thinking on things that are not either-or and making selective omissions to make it all fit.

This was Rand's mistake in saying that all concepts are integrated volitionally.

Just because you can do something like integrate a concept by choice, that does not mean that that is the only way one is integrated.

To use a metaphor, when dealing with the brain, there are not only all shades of gray between black and white, there is the entire color spectrum.

As an aside, one of the reasons I became fascinated with this is because of the physical changes in the brain (the increase in dendrites and axons) in creating neural pathways. I believe this is directly related to normative abstractions and one of the reasons people who should know better make the weirdest rationalizations when they love or hate something.

Also, it's one of the reasons bad habits are so hard to change.

On another point, I believe there is such a thing as a story concept, which is a special form of pattern and causality.

From what I have read in other places, stories are older in human communication than language per se. I'm still mulling over this.

Michael

[Jonathan]

It may be the case that through even higher levels of choice and effort one can dramatically alter one's everyday perception as well. Though it is clear that even ordinary objects can sometimes appear ambiguous. It is difficult for me to recall particular instances, but I vaguely remember where I had to take a second glance at something that appeared to be one thing but it was really something else, or where I had to get a different vantage on something to see what it really was. All of this demonstrates that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct.

Shayne

Does it demonstrate that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct? Or does it demonstrate that when confronted with ambiguity or incomplete stimulation, we automatically and correctly perceive an ambiguous/incomplete stimulation? Doesn't it demonstrate that when we see a 2-dimensional shadow of a 3-dimensional solid (or an accurate simulation of a 2-D shadow of a 3-D solid), our minds will be presented with a situation in which we don't have enough information to determine which of two possible positions and attitudes the solid is in, so we will automatically and accurately perceive it as possibly being in either or both? Notice that we can't "volitionally perceive" it as being it any position. At any given point in time, we can only perceive it as being in one of the two possible positions which could result in the shape of the projected shadow.

Let's assume, if only for the sake of argument (and for the sake of falsifiability), that perception is automatic and automatically correct. If one's perception were automatic, how should one perceive the silhouette of the spinning woman (or any other silhouette)? Which direction would you suggest that the woman should appear to be spinning if perceived "automatically correctly." Or should she not be perceived as spinning, or perhaps not as a human, but as nothing but an unidentifiable, moving 2-dimensional shape which in no way suggests a 3-dimensional solid?

J

Edited November 21, 2010 by Jonathan

[sjw]

Let's assume, if only for the sake of argument (and for the sake of falsifiability), that perception is automatic and automatically correct. If one's perception were automatic, how should one perceive the silhouette of the spinning woman (or any other silhouette)? Which direction would you suggest that the woman should appear to be spinning if perceived "automatically correctly." Or should she not be perceived as spinning, or perhaps not as a human, but as nothing but an unidentifiable, moving 2-dimensional shape which in no way suggests a 3-dimensional solid?

Let us suppose for sake of argument that this is actually a spinning woman (presumably one could reconstruct this with a real woman and proper lighting). Then, one's first perception might be of a woman spinning clockwise. Certain people might very easily become stuck in this perception, making no effort to try to shift the other way, even given others who disagree. In reality, the woman is spinning a particular way. Some who saw it the right way first might feel puffed up with pride, even though in fact they had no justifiable grounds for their conclusion. So, there is a right way, even though it is wrong to think that you have concluded it from perception.

The issue is that one can perceive it both ways: ones sensations can, with a certain volitional mental shift, be automatically integrated one way or another over time. There seems to be a hysteresis in this -- once you start seeing it spin one way, then it takes effort to get it to switch to the other (there may be personal variation in this -- I'd be interested to hear how others perceive this). That is, my mind (and presumably yours) seems to get locked into a certain mode and without the conscious effort, I'm stuck perceiving the way I was before (on the other hand, some times second look here seems to shift it, I haven't tried an experiment of looking at it at random intervals to see if it's always tending to spin one way vs. the other). In other words, perception in at least this instance is clearly not automatic and clearly volitional. So we must conclude from just this one experiment that perception, properly defined, is volitional at least some of the time.

But I think what you are trying to do is redefine perception. You are saying it's perception when it's automatic and automatically correct, and something else otherwise. I see no basis for this distinction. When there are few to no ambiguities, then perception feels automatic and automatically correct. But as ambiguity is introduced, then to that degree, volition becomes more and more apparent. But what qualifies as an ambiguity? Prior experience with an object will cause us to rapidly perceive it a given way even in ambiguous circumstances, particularly when it is a field of other objects we already know, and where no object we know of could produce the same appearance. But if you take a different person, they will not so quickly come to the same conclusion about what it is. In other words, your perception is partly governed by what you see, partly governed by what you already believe or remember, and partly governed by what you choose to think about what you see. It is not purely based on its appearance. Which is why the world is probably mostly just a sensory chaos to newborns -- they have no past memories to go by in order to judge what something is from its appearance.

Now if perception is subject to judgement, then think about how much more abstract thought or indirect sensation (whether through instruments or accounts of happenings by others) must be. We cannot take things for granted even at the perceptual level -- we must be active-minded even there. Which is another way to say that reason's sphere is larger than Rand supposes. This isn't an argument for skepticism, it's an argument for active-mindedness instead of mental passivity. Just look at orthodox Objectivists, who are conditioned to take certain things for granted without ever really questioning -- I think they're just taking Rand's theory at face value, which indeed, says to take things at face value.

Does it demonstrate that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct? Or does it demonstrate that when confronted with ambiguity or incomplete stimulation, we automatically and correctly perceive an ambiguous/incomplete stimulation? Doesn't it demonstrate that when we see a 2-dimensional shadow of a 3-dimensional solid (or an accurate simulation of a 2-D shadow of a 3-D solid), our minds will be presented with a situation in which we don't have enough information to determine which of two possible positions and attitudes the solid is in, so we will automatically and accurately perceive it as possibly being in either or both? Notice that we can't "volitionally perceive" it as being it any position. At any given point in time, we can only perceive it as being in one of the two possible positions which could result in the shape of the projected shadow.

I didn't mean we "volitionally perceive", I say that we volitionally do something to shift our minds into one frame of mind or another, where each frame automatically integrates in one way or another, and where it takes some effort to shift our mental frame. The frame automatically integrates -- we have no choice over that -- but we can choose between different mental frames.

To be clear: perception itself does appear to be automatic, but the choice of perceptual frame -- which is what automatically integrates sensations into perceptions -- is not.

Shayne

Edited November 21, 2010 by sjw

[kiaer.ts]

It may be the case that through even higher levels of choice and effort one can dramatically alter one's everyday perception as well. Though it is clear that even ordinary objects can sometimes appear ambiguous. It is difficult for me to recall particular instances, but I vaguely remember where I had to take a second glance at something that appeared to be one thing but it was really something else, or where I had to get a different vantage on something to see what it really was. All of this demonstrates that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct.

Shayne

Does it demonstrate that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct? Or does it demonstrate that when confronted with ambiguity or incomplete stimulation, we automatically and correctly perceive an ambiguous/incomplete stimulation? Doesn't it demonstrate that when we see a 2-dimensional shadow of a 3-dimensional solid (or an accurate simulation of a 2-D shadow of a 3-D solid), our minds will be presented with a situation in which we don't have enough information to determine which of two possible positions and attitudes the solid is in, so we will automatically and accurately perceive it as possibly being in either or both? Notice that we can't "volitionally perceive" it as being it any position. At any given point in time, we can only perceive it as being in one of the two possible positions which could result in the shape of the projected shadow.

Let's assume, if only for the sake of argument (and for the sake of falsifiability), that perception is automatic and automatically correct. If one's perception were automatic, how should one perceive the silhouette of the spinning woman (or any other silhouette)? Which direction would you suggest that the woman should appear to be spinning if perceived "automatically correctly." Or should she not be perceived as spinning, or perhaps not as a human, but as nothing but an unidentifiable, moving 2-dimensional shape which in no way suggests a 3-dimensional solid?

J

Exactly.

[kiaer.ts]

I didn't mean we "volitionally perceive", I say that we volitionally do something to shift our minds into one frame of mind or another, where each frame automatically integrates in one way or another, and where it takes some effort to shift our mental frame. The frame automatically integrates -- we have no choice over that -- but we can choose between different mental frames.

As I said before, this is one of the dimensions of attention, how we choose to attend to the object.

I hope you have ordered Kelley's book.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Ted Keer

[sjw]

It may be the case that through even higher levels of choice and effort one can dramatically alter one's everyday perception as well. Though it is clear that even ordinary objects can sometimes appear ambiguous. It is difficult for me to recall particular instances, but I vaguely remember where I had to take a second glance at something that appeared to be one thing but it was really something else, or where I had to get a different vantage on something to see what it really was. All of this demonstrates that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct.

Shayne

Does it demonstrate that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct? Or does it demonstrate that when confronted with ambiguity or incomplete stimulation, we automatically and correctly perceive an ambiguous/incomplete stimulation? Doesn't it demonstrate that when we see a 2-dimensional shadow of a 3-dimensional solid (or an accurate simulation of a 2-D shadow of a 3-D solid), our minds will be presented with a situation in which we don't have enough information to determine which of two possible positions and attitudes the solid is in, so we will automatically and accurately perceive it as possibly being in either or both? Notice that we can't "volitionally perceive" it as being it any position. At any given point in time, we can only perceive it as being in one of the two possible positions which could result in the shape of the projected shadow.

Let's assume, if only for the sake of argument (and for the sake of falsifiability), that perception is automatic and automatically correct. If one's perception were automatic, how should one perceive the silhouette of the spinning woman (or any other silhouette)? Which direction would you suggest that the woman should appear to be spinning if perceived "automatically correctly." Or should she not be perceived as spinning, or perhaps not as a human, but as nothing but an unidentifiable, moving 2-dimensional shape which in no way suggests a 3-dimensional solid?

J

Exactly.

You keep missing the point, which is that we have choice of our perceptual frame. It us true that one frame may be right and one wrong, but the fact is that we can choose, and therefore need to exercise judgement with regard to our choice.

Shayne

[sjw]

I didn't mean we "volitionally perceive", I say that we volitionally do something to shift our minds into one frame of mind or another, where each frame automatically integrates in one way or another, and where it takes some effort to shift our mental frame. The frame automatically integrates -- we have no choice over that -- but we can choose between different mental frames.

As I said before, this is one of the dimensions of attention, how we choose to attend to the object.

I hope you have ordered Kelley's book.

I may yet, but my understanding based on the reviews was that he did not contradict Rand. My concept of perceptual frames does.

Shayne

[sjw]

The frame automatically integrates -- we have no choice over that -- but we can choose between different mental frames.

I want to qualify this. I think we can learn new frames by understanding the underlying sensory data and do have choice over that process. Once learned the frame automatically integrates. This is akin to emotional responses.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

I didn't mean we "volitionally perceive", I say that we volitionally do something to shift our minds into one frame of mind or another, where each frame automatically integrates in one way or another, and where it takes some effort to shift our mental frame. The frame automatically integrates -- we have no choice over that -- but we can choose between different mental frames.

As I said before, this is one of the dimensions of attention, how we choose to attend to the object.

I hope you have ordered Kelley's book.

I may yet, but my understanding based on the reviews was that he did not contradict Rand. My concept of perceptual frames does.

Shayne

Not really, but time is limited, and if insisting so makes you happy, that is more important than technical philosophy.

[sjw]

Not really, but time is limited, and if insisting so makes you happy,

The difference between you and I Ted, is that I am capable of backing up my propositions, whereas you run and hide behind be hide pathetic "my time is limited". Thanks for the book recommendation, but I have no interest in your unjustified assertions and arrogant posturing.

that is more important than technical philosophy.

On the contrary, what is important to you is to prance about pretending you know something. You pop in in order to prance, and then pop back out. Prancing is more important than providing coherent arguments. And then when I point out the fact that you are prancing and not reasoning you get offended.

Shayne

[Jonathan]

You keep missing the point, which is that we have choice of our perceptual frame. It us true that one frame may be right and one wrong, but the fact is that we can choose, and therefore need to exercise judgement with regard to our choice.

You didn't answer my questions about in which ways you would expect automatic perceptions of visual ambiguity to be different from volitional perceptions of visual ambiguity.

In your initial post, you wrote, "If you make the effort, you can volitionally change the direction the dancer spins."

Well, people also report that even when they don't make the effort, the figure still appears to change direction now and then. They also report that despite making the effort, they often can't make her change direction, or that once they make her change, they can't always keep her going in the same direction for very long. All of which would suggest that we may not have volitional control over which direction she appears to spin, but that we mistake the automatic shifting of perception as volitional because we happen to try to use volition prior to automatic changes in perception (which would be like wishing the sun to rise just prior to dawn, and then, after the sun rises, claiming that it is proof that our wishing made it happen, and disregarding the fact that wishing the sun to rise doesn't work so well the next day at 3 am -- "Just wait a while, sometimes my wishing takes a few hours to kick in.").

So I ask again, in which ways would you expect automatic changes in perception of the direction of the spinning dancer to be different from volitional changes in perception of the direction of the spinning dancer?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about both happen?

That's where I'm at.

Sometimes we run on autopilot and sometimes we handle the controls.

Michael

[sjw]

You keep missing the point, which is that we have choice of our perceptual frame. It us true that one frame may be right and one wrong, but the fact is that we can choose, and therefore need to exercise judgement with regard to our choice.

You didn't answer my questions about in which ways you would expect automatic perceptions of visual ambiguity to be different from volitional perceptions of visual ambiguity.

In your initial post, you wrote, "If you make the effort, you can volitionally change the direction the dancer spins."

Well, people also report that even when they don't make the effort, the figure still appears to change direction now and then. They also report that despite making the effort, they often can't make her change direction, or that once they make her change, they can't always keep her going in the same direction for very long. All of which would suggest that we may not have volitional control over which direction she appears to spin, but that we mistake the automatic shifting of perception as volitional because we happen to try to use volition prior to automatic changes in perception (which would be like wishing the sun to rise just prior to dawn, and then, after the sun rises, claiming that it is proof that our wishing made it happen, and disregarding the fact that wishing the sun to rise doesn't work so well the next day at 3 am -- "Just wait a while, sometimes my wishing takes a few hours to kick in.").

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

So I ask again, in which ways would you expect automatic changes in perception of the direction of the spinning dancer to be different from volitional changes in perception of the direction of the spinning dancer?

J

Not different at all, presuming there are only two modes of perception available (clockwise or counter-clockwise). I'm saying the volition for this scenario enters only in regards to selecting what mode of perception is operating. However, I would also say that volition can enter when building new perceptual modes, but for the particular scenario of the dancer, there are only three reasonable modes: clockwise, counter-clockwise, and "it's not spinning, it's just a sequence of flat images." I have not been able to create this last mode but it seems plausible one could. The way I am able to switch modes is to "decide" that the leg is in front when it appears to be in back, then the perception flips to match what I "choose to believe" (I use quotes because that is not literally the truth -- but in some sense I am seeing exactly what I want to see).

Shayne

[sjw]

How about both happen?

That's where I'm at.

Sometimes we run on autopilot and sometimes we handle the controls.

Michael

I wonder if both is equivalent to neither?

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

You're only demeaning yourself Adam. I take it that you either can't perceive a direction at all, or that you can't change it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spinning_Dancer

"Depending on the perception of the observer, the apparent direction of spin may change any number of times, although some observers may have difficulty perceiving a change in motion at all. One way of changing the direction perceived is to use averted vision and mentally look for an arm going behind instead of in front, then carefully move the eyes back. Some may perceive a change in direction more easily by narrowing visual focus to a specific region of the image, such as the spinning foot or the shadow below the dancer and gradually looking upwards. One can also try to tilt one's head to perceive a change in direction. Another way is to watch the base shadow foot, and perceive it as the toes always pointing away from you and it can help with direction change. You can also close your eyes and try and envision the dancer going in a direction then reopen them and the dancer should change directions. Alternate versions of the image exist in which an additional visual cue facilitates the perception of counterclockwise spin and clockwise spin."

Shayne

Edited November 22, 2010 by sjw

[Selene]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

You're only demeaning yourself Adam. I take it that you either can't perceive a direction at all, or that you can't change it.

http://en.wikipedia....Spinning_Dancer

"Depending on the perception of the observer, the apparent direction of spin may change any number of times, although some observers may have difficulty perceiving a change in motion at all. One way of changing the direction perceived is to use averted vision and mentally look for an arm going behind instead of in front, then carefully move the eyes back. Some may perceive a change in direction more easily by narrowing visual focus to a specific region of the image, such as the spinning foot or the shadow below the dancer and gradually looking upwards. One can also try to tilt one's head to perceive a change in direction. Another way is to watch the base shadow foot, and perceive it as the toes always pointing away from you and it can help with direction change. You can also close your eyes and try and envision the dancer going in a direction then reopen them and the dancer should change directions. Alternate versions of the image exist in which an additional visual cue facilitates the perception of counterclockwise spin and clockwise spin."

Shayne

Shayne:

I made no statement about what I can perceive in the image and its motion. I asked you a simple question. I am quite familiar with perceptual theory and optics. I've studied them for decades. Tessellation, holography etc.

You chose to take it as some kind of attack, so be it.

Adam

[sjw]

I made no statement about what I can perceive in the image and its motion. I asked you a simple question. I am quite familiar with perceptual theory and optics. I've studied them for decades. Tessellation, holography etc.

You chose to take it as some kind of attack, so be it.

Adam

Speaking of perception, I perceive you as a creep. The reason I choose to see you that way is because you make the kinds of statements like you did above, and never state your motive. So, for example, you say "I don't mean this as an attack", but then you given no sensible clue as to the actual motive. And when I ask for your motive, you never answer. Thus, you are a creep, or some other kind of unsavory character. What possible motive does someone have in asking "did you ever do LSD"?

Shayne

[Selene]

I made no statement about what I can perceive in the image and its motion. I asked you a simple question. I am quite familiar with perceptual theory and optics. I've studied them for decades. Tessellation, holography etc.

You chose to take it as some kind of attack, so be it.

Adam

Speaking of perception, I perceive you as a creep. The reason I choose to see you that way is because you make the kinds of statements like you did above, and never state your motive. So, for example, you say "I don't mean this as an attack", but then you given no sensible clue as to the actual motive. And when I ask for your motive, you never answer. Thus, you are a creep, or some other kind of unsavory character. What possible motive does someone have in asking "did you ever do LSD"?

Shayne

Now that would have been a question you could have asked. Had you, my response would have been "Do you think that the use of a psychotropic had an effect on your control of the image?

Carlos Castaneda has developed an entire philosophy concerning perception and psychotropic plants etc.

http://www.castaneda.com/

"Carlos Castaneda borrowed the word tensegrity from the architect, scientist, navigator, innovator and visionary, R. Buckminster Fuller, whose perception of energy led him to observe a principle of fluid interconnectivity in nature which he called “tensegrity,” a combination of tensional integrity, which describes the forces at work in a structure that is formed by a finite network of compression, or rigid elements interconnected through tensile, or elastic elements which give the structure its overall integrity. Due to this elastic property of interconnections, when one element of the tensegrity structure shifts, all the other elements shift as well, or adapt for a new configuration, yielding without breaking. "

"He also used the term "nagual" to signify that part of perception which is in the realm of the unknown yet still reachable by man, implying that, for his party of seers, don Juan was a connection in some way to that unknown. Castaneda often referred to this unknown realm as nonordinary reality, which indicated that this realm was indeed a reality, but radically different from the ordinary reality experienced by human beings. Nagual has been used by anthropologists to mean a shaman or sorcerer who is capable of shapeshifting into an animal form, and/or, metaphorically, to "shift" into another form through Toltec magic rituals, shamanism and experiences with psychoactive drugs (e.g., peyote and jimson weed).^[5] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda

So, that is why I premised my question so you would not perceive it as an attack. Unfortunately, you chose to disregard that approach.

Adam

[Jonathan]

The way I am able to switch modes is to "decide" that the leg is in front when it appears to be in back, then the perception flips to match what I "choose to believe" (I use quotes because that is not literally the truth -- but in some sense I am seeing exactly what I want to see).

I had been trying the same thing by focusing on various parts of the body, and nothing was reliably effective for me until just now when I switched to focusing on the foot which stays in the center, and now I can control the direction of the spin at will. So I guess that answers my questions. :-)

J