Why look into the distance when deep in thought?

February 25, 2006 12:00 PM

Why do we look upwards or into the distance when trying to recall something, answer a difficult question or solve a puzzle? This arose from a word game we were playing in the office, during which I pointed out that those taking part were all displaying this behavior. Best guess was that it was perhaps some instinctive thing - automatically scanning the horizon for predators or prey whilst engaged in another task.
posted by Dr Phibes to Grab Bag (16 answers total)

I don't think anyone knows why this happens.

I once read some set of ideas that suggested that, depending on which direction your eyes look when you are lost in cerebration, you must be of a visual or a somatosensory or an auditory cognition type. Apparently different people habitually look in different directions, although it wasn't clear how this was established.

As appealing an idea as it was, there wasn't any attempt to prove this, and I don't see how you could. So I guess it's all a bunch of bunk.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2006

Postulation, based on no research: the glance is actually just changing the focus from who you were talking to/what you were looking at.

If you're talking to a person, most likely, you're facing them. Then, you try to tell them this one celebrity's name, and describe his features. It escapes you, for the moment, so to 'focus,' you turn your head to where there is 'no activity;' a blank space for your eyes to rest on while you think.

I mean, think about it--when you are trying to recall something, in this bobbed-head-pai-mei-tiger-fist-stance, what you're looking at doesn't really 'register.'

Why up rather than down? Easier movement to maintain, I think. Also, your body is directly below you, so that might not be desirable according to this 'blank space' theory.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 12:13 PM on February 25, 2006

My understanding is that people who are visual learners often use this technique when processing their thoughts.

"Learning styles" are the new thrust here in our local schools. One of our daughters was tested a few years ago for giftedness, and the G/T specialist in the school mentioned this to me during one of the testing modules.
posted by Flakypastry at 12:16 PM on February 25, 2006

I believe the set of ideas that ikkyu2 is referring to is called neuro-linguistic programming. The father of a friend of mine in college was a practitioner of this, and according to his son, could cure complex and seemingly intractable psychological maladies in only one session of counselling.

Intrigued, I looked into this a little more carefully. It seems to have been developed by Bandler and Grinder, and the theory posits that most people have a preferred modality through which they interact with the world, and that by discovering this, you could use linguistic cues to make suggestions that could instantly create a strong sense of rapport. The rapport would make the theraputical session more effective. This modality could be ascertained by asking questions requiring that the subject recall something, and watching their eye-movements (for example, it could be that visual recall results in looking up to the left, where auditory recall results in looking up to the right.)

Anyway, I went to the medical library on campus, found one of their books and perused it. I also did a few medline and psycinfo searches. The book I read had a fair amount of common-sense therapy suggestions, but I could find no controlled scientific studies testing the predictions concerning eye-movements (outside of a few incredibly low-impact journals). I work in a cognitive neuroscience lab as well, and know of no neurological basis that would even suggest a mechanism for their theories.

Anyway, I remain skeptical about the whole thing and about the claims made regarding "instant cures" for psychological problems-- and this skepticism was not helped when I found out that these ideas have been appropriated by a bunch of sleazy onlinepickup-artist types (imagine Tom Cruise in Magnolia). Even if you dont buy it though, tracking down this theory was fascinating, and as a sort of fictional "what if" account of how the mind works, it was worthwhile for me to investigate.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2006

I always figured it was because there's less visual information in those directions, thus less to distract.
posted by Hildago at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2006

I read somewhere that when people look up to the right they are mentally picturing something from memory (using the left brain.)
When they look up to the left they are constructing an idea, quite possibly a lie (using the right brain)

I may have that the wrong way round

Apparently it's something professional interviewers take great notice of.
posted by Lanark at 12:46 PM on February 25, 2006

This thread had some cool ideas on this.
posted by tristeza at 1:12 PM on February 25, 2006

I look around for the visual input while trying to remember something. Different objects set off different trains of thought, and hopefully one of those thought processes will cause me to remember what I needed.
posted by Anamith at 1:15 PM on February 25, 2006

According to the experts whenever we look to the left we are recalling information and to the right we construct.
posted by bru at 1:40 PM on February 25, 2006

Better quote from the same link ^^

Looking up (whether to the left or right) is the visual area. E.g. remembering car colours (up-left) or making them up (up-right).
posted by bru at 1:44 PM on February 25, 2006

"whenever we look to the left we are recalling information and to the right we construct"

The thing is, for me, if the view to the right is restricted, if for example, I'm sitting right beside a wall, I won't/can't look that way, because it is too hard to defocus.
posted by b33j at 2:02 PM on February 25, 2006

I wonder too if there isn't a learned social signal being employed to indicate someone is thinking when a question is asked. It is a little unnerving to have someone stare deeply into one's eyes after having asked the person, "do you remember where we put the bottle opener?"
The gaze into space shows the question is not being ignored without creeping out the person who asked.

A bit how Iain M. Banks decribes the politely unfocused look that his characters assume when they are using implants to access information.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:05 PM on February 25, 2006

I vote innate for a social utility. Alternately, to move to a less cluttered visual field while thinking—you are still quite aware of your environment, notice of motion is still very high where eye-closing would be too risky

I usually de-focus, not look away.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:33 PM on February 25, 2006

NLP accessing cues (google image search)
posted by Moistener at 4:05 PM on February 25, 2006

As far as the NLP accessing cues go, these are for a normally organized right handed person. People can be all different, but they will be fairly consistent within their own cues. It can also depend on how people are remembering things. People will react differently if they have different strategies for remembering. For instance, if you ask someone to remember a phone number, they might say the phone number to themselves (so they would be using an auditory cue), or they might see they number written down (so they would use a visual cue). But not all people look up when they are visually remembering, there are people who look down or to the side. But they will "mostly" consistently do the same thing when visually remembering.

As far as why this might be so, I have no idea. The explanation you give is as good as any.
posted by jefeweiss at 6:28 AM on February 26, 2006

Since the action occurs while alone, for example in front a computer screen trying to remember that url or how to track back to a site, it seems to be to limit the information that goes to the brain. When the eyes are rolled any direction it limits focusing on anything in the field of vision, thus not interupting the train of thought.
posted by shawnzam at 7:52 AM on May 5, 2006