--------------------------------------------------------
Quick apology to long-time readers that I keep re-hashing things already discussed here long ago...
Have been reading and enjoying Malcolm Gladwell’s 20-year-old bestseller, “Blink,” basically about what I often call “intuition,” though he mostly calls it the subconscious, and several more recent volumes use yet other terminology for the same subject -- it all reminds me of an aspect of birding, essentially done rapidly at a subconscious level, which is even briefly cited in Gladwell’s volume.
Anyway, first, two illustrative experiences from decades ago in my own birding life:
1) Once when much younger I was with a very experienced birder when I pointed out a large-ish black speck in the distance, saying that it might be interesting… he looked at it for probably less than 2 seconds before saying, “oh, it’s a Turkey Vulture”… I was pretty surprised at the time, and inquired, “You can tell from here that it’s a vulture and not a hawk?” and he responded, “well, yeah”… I continued, “and I suppose you’re guessing it’s a Turkey Vulture just because they’re so much more common here than Black Vultures.” I think he was a tad insulted, and replied “No, not guessing, it IS a Turkey Vulture” and then he explained the basic and few traits he was seeing, even at great distance, that clearly defined it as that species and no other; traits that registered on his mind immediately (...and now do on mine as well).
2) Some years later I was on an outing, carpooling with birders and as we drove down a road adjacent to a hedgerow, one of the most experienced in the group suddenly shouted out, “Whoa! stop the car, Orange-crowned Warbler!”… the car stopped, we backed up and everyone got looks of a very nondescript, smallish, Orange-crowned Warbler foraging through the hedge, just feet in front of us, through a cluster of leaves (an uncommon bird for our area), but how the spotter had recognized it in such a fleeting moment he couldn’t even explain, except that 90+% of all warbler (and other) species were immediately ruled out in his mind in that quick glance leaving only a few options.
What I’m referencing here is often called the “GISS” or “jizz” of a bird — GISS for ‘general impression of size and shape” though even more characteristics, like flight-style/movement and colors, may also be involved — and it is how a great deal of field birding is actually done by experienced birders… and done successfully in but split seconds! Rather than looking for a myriad of details or wordy field marks noted in a field guide, a more overall ‘gestalt’ experience with the bird is enough to ID it accurately.
Pete Dunne, one of my favorite birders, has written extensively on it (especially in his wonderful "Essential Field Guide Companion"). I don’t know what his current attitude is toward the IBWO (HEY Pete, chime in if you care to! ;), but he was one of the few “name” birders who, early on, stuck his neck out to voice support for the claims Cornell made in the Big Woods. He recognizes (as do I) the power of “sightings” coming from multiple experienced birders versus the constant mantra of skeptics that, well, everybody makes mistakes on occasion (and granted, my cognitive psychology background also lets me appreciate that view!).
Skeptics will say, GISS is fine-and-dandy, but you can only have it with birds with which you have familiarity or experience… and NO ONE living today has such experience with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, so there is no GISS for IBWOs. But this isn't entirely true, for like my second example above, GISS also allows you to ELIMINATE choices in an instant, and in the instance of an Ivory-bill there may only be a few possibilities needing elimination before IBWO is the one remaining (also, past descriptions of IBWOs, as well as the Singer Tract videos do allow for some GISS characteristics). Yes, mistakes can still be made (especially by inexperienced observers) or there may be genetically mis-plumaged birds, but plenty of claims remain that are difficult to discount easily other than by the fallacy of ‘overgeneralization’ — i.e., 90+% of past claims have proven bogus, therefore this claim is surely bogus.
Sometimes I almost feel like the entire IBWO debate boils down to the "all people make mistakes, and thus ALL IBWO sightings are mistaken" crowd versus the "experienced people can ID this species in an instant and on at least some occasions have" crowd. (There are though other categories: people of less experience but claiming lengthier or better views of the bird, and still others claiming deep analysis of video or auditory evidence confirms its existence, apart from sightings.) Anyway, the same birders who readily accept GISS birding when it suits their purposes, challenge it when it doesn't suit their narrative.
I've written of GISS birding several times in the past (so I already know how cynics will respond to all this), but will end with a David Sibley quote, that I've used before, and is included in "Blink" (though, in fairness to David, I know he would say that what applies to "most of bird identification" does not apply to the unusual cases of especially rare birds):
"Most of bird identification is based on a sort of subjective impression — the way a bird moves and little instantaneous appearances at different angles and sequences of different appearances, and as it turns its head and as it flies and as it turns around, you see sequences of different shapes and angles…
"All that combines to create a unique impression of a bird that can’t really be taken apart and described in words. When it comes down to being in the field and looking at a bird, you don’t take the time to analyze it and say it shows this, this, and this; therefore it must be this species. It’s more natural and instinctive. After a lot of practice, you look at the bird, and it triggers little switches in your brain. It looks right. You know what it is at a glance."
As long as I'm citing non-IBWO stuff this also is too good not to pass along:
On Facebook Sean Tuttle posts this wonderful, inspiring 1/2 hour film on conservation efforts for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker:
1 comment:
The IB can be a conspicuous bird and fairly easy to ID and discount other species. And, the human eye and brain is capable of hundreds (if not more according to some research) of "moments" or impressions per second. This should be enough, combined with the experience level of many people who sight the bird, to convince someone the sightings are real.
Post a Comment