Circling

Over at Not Exactly Rocket Science, there's a discussion of a study on how well people do at moving in a straight line. Answer: very well if they have obvious visual cues to follow (the sun, the moon, a trail, some mega landmark), and very badly otherwise.

I was curious about this one because I became lost once in a forest with no trail to follow, and I realized I'd gone in a circle when I came across something I recognized (I think it was a large, distinctive, rock). I managed to reorient myself and get back to the group once I started paying very close attention to the landmarks around me. Thankfully, I hadn't wandered that far from the group anyway. Interestingly, it was cloudy that day, so I couldn't use the sun as a directional guide.

Here's the thing, though: there are usable landmarks in a forest. Yes, they're not ones most of us are used to paying attention to, but they are there. So now I wonder if (a) forest tribes would do better at this, since they're used to recognizing those landmarks; (b) people who spend a lot of time in forests would do better, for similar reasons; (c) people could be trained to use those landmarks. An empty field or a trackless desert? There I'm not sure that training or familiarity would make much difference, but it might, and it would be worth investigating.

Also, how can I get in on a study that drops you in the Saharan desert and instructs you to walk a straight line?!? That would be fun!