Banaji and Greenwald define mindbugs as, “ingrained habits of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions.” (4) These habits occur when our retina takes in an image and processes it two-dimensionally instead of three-dimensionally. This misinterpretation of information can have large consequences, as our brain can take in information and apply implicit biases largely due to societal enforced stereotypes without even recognizing them. 

The issues with mindbugs have a much larger scope when there are legal implications. In criminal court cases, eyewitness testimonies can be incredibly convincing to juries, yet, it is difficult to determine how accurate these testimonies are due to the implicit biases that are inherent in our minds. This reminds me of a research study I participated in for my Psychology class last year. In the study, I was placed in a group that was shown a video of a man running away in a dark alley and then cut to a shot of his face for a second and then cut back to the man running away. After viewing this clip, there were six pictures of men on the screen, and the class had to record which man they thought was in the video. The responses were fascinating; as each of the six men was selected by at least one person in the class, and none of the suspects were picked by more than 30% of the class. In both cases, it illustrates how we cannot fully trust our brains to always accurately process information, either due to our ingrained habits or lack of context. This study along with our reading this week demonstrated to me that eye-witness testimonies should not always be given such high consideration, as they do not give insight into what kind of mindbugs the individual may have. Although we may not be able to control our mindbugs, being cognizant of their presence and their implications can at least make us think more critically about how we perceive our surroundings.