In general, vision works because light is reflected from objects and enters the eye. However, ancient models of the nature of vision often argued for extramission: vision occurs because energy leaves the soul, exits the eyes, and either changes the physical medium or actually contacts objects in the world. Although the intromission model is clearly correct, many beliefs appear to derive from an intuitive model of perception that is largely extramissionist. For example, many people, when asked, will state that they can feel someone staring at their back when they didn't know someone was there. Many common expressions also convey an extramissionist model of vision (e.g., cast a glance). In fact, most children and many college students explicitly accept extramissionist statements about how vision works (see work by Winer & Cottrell). These errors may represent a misunderstanding of the difference between seeing and looking. Looking implies an attentive mechanism that in many ways is extramissionist. However, this misunderstanding can also lead to incorrect interpretations of real physical events. That is, if people assume that looking and seeing are equivalent, they may mistakenly believe that vision is based on extramission. This project explores the limits of these intuitive perceptual beliefs both by asking subjects to accept or reject extramissionist statements and by asking them to make decisions about physical events. We find that even when observers know the intromission model of vision, they still incorrectly interpret physical events according to an intuitive extramissionist belief system. In other words, college students often reason as if the eyes work like flashlights.