The circumstances that precipitated the refugee problem, as seen from the Israelis' and Palestinians' vantage points, weighed heavily in shaping two diametrically opposing perceptions between the two sides.
As in the broader context of this so-far intractable conflict, each side holds a diametrically opposed perception of who poses the threat.
This experience is called "random" because "it comes to us by chance, and since "we have no other experiment to oppose it"; perception attained in this mode it "remains with us unshaken".
In case short-term perceptual history and long-term perceptual history are opposed (because perception has recently switched after prolonged stabilization), the long-term influence recovers after the effect of the latest percept has worn off, indicating independence between time scales.
Opposing this general perception, the single genotype described here supports the hypothesis that plasticity is the sole mechanism driving this genotype's success in heterogeneous and novel environments.
However, a critical aspect that has not been addressed is that previous experience can exert 2 opposing effects on perception: An attractive effect, sensitizing the brain to perceive the same again (hysteresis), or a repulsive effect, making it more likely to perceive something else (adaptation).
It is important to note that this study is interested in the potential adopters' perceptions, as opposed to adopters' perceptions while using the technology.
Did these opposing endorsements change your perception of the candidates?
I understand the tongue-in-cheek jest of the opening of this piece, but I also think it's indicative of a bigger issue that perpetuates erroneous perceptions of opposing viewpoints by oversimplifying them and patronizing those who hold them.
Another irony: Opposed to the perception disseminated by the G.O.P., it's not the liberal elite exploiting the insecurities of the masses to gain and retain power, but a group of conservative elite playing the populist to those ends.
