Perception's Illusion: Horse, Frog, or Human?

Perception's Illusion: Horse, Frog, or Human?

I recently came across an intriguing article discussing an "Optical illusion personality test: Horse or frog? The animal you see first shows if you are calm or easily get stressed." This seemingly simple test of perception, where a single image can be interpreted in two distinct ways, immediately illuminated a profound truth about how we navigate the complexities of our world, especially when it comes to deeply human issues like migration.

Are we seeing a horse—a powerful, sometimes overwhelming, presence that might evoke feelings of stress or a need for control? Or do we perceive a frog—perhaps a smaller, more vulnerable entity, eliciting a calmer, more empathetic response? Our initial interpretation, much like the illusion itself, often sets the stage for our entire emotional and intellectual engagement with a subject.

This made me reflect on my earlier writings about migrants and refugees. I've often pondered how society’s perception shapes policies and public sentiment. In my blog, "Migrants : Economic vs Persecuted," I discussed the tendency to label individuals seeking a better life as mere "economic migrants." This categorization, a form of selective perception, often overshadows their struggles and dehumanizes their journey, leading to marginalization rather than integration. It's akin to only seeing the 'horse' and missing the 'frog,' or vice versa, in the illusion – a single facet dominating our understanding.

Years ago, I also explored the idea of a limited perspective in my piece, "Land of Koop Mandooks - Frogs in Well." The metaphor of "frogs in a well" speaks to a narrow worldview, where one's understanding is confined by their immediate surroundings and experiences. This is precisely where optical illusions challenge us – they demand we look beyond our first impression, beyond the boundaries of our 'well,' to see the alternative reality hidden within. I had brought up this thought years ago, highlighting how a restricted perspective could limit our ability to address complex global issues. Now, seeing how these discussions unfold, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context of migration debates.

My reflections in "No Safe Haven?" on the UK's asylum policies, and in "Citizenship is a Complex Issue" regarding the educational rights of Rohingya children, further underscore this point. The legal frameworks and policy decisions we create are direct consequences of how we choose to perceive those seeking refuge. Do we see them as a burden, a threat (the horse), leading to restrictive measures and judicial pushback? Or do we recognize their inherent human dignity and potential contributions (the frog), fostering inclusive pathways and compassionate responses?

The personality test aspect—whether one is calm or easily stressed—also offers a lens through which to view societal reactions. Are we calm enough to discern the nuances, or does the initial perception of a perceived threat immediately trigger a stressed, defensive stance? The challenge, as always, lies in transcending these initial, often biased, perceptions and embracing a more holistic, empathetic view of humanity.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh