11 ms·
To me, it feels on the face of it, the experiments are really really reductionist and fail to recognise the role of human subjects and social cues in the equati
by TrevorJ 11y ago
To me, it feels on the face of it, the experiments are really really reductionist and fail to recognise the role of human subjects and social cues in the equation.
For instance, in the first experiment outlined they had one set of subjects eat radishes instead of cookies before trying to solve an impossible puzzle. Now, if you are a subject and the first thing you are asked to do is eat radishes, isn't this a pretty good signal that you are probably being messed with? The logical reaction to that is to conclude that there's a greater chance that the puzzle is also some sort of trickery and you are much less likely to spend a long time trying to solve it.
- Spooky23 11y agoI was compelled to participate in this sort of nonsense when meeting my general education requirements in college. It was time-consuming and the experiments were ridiculous, so I always behaved erratically as a "screw you" gesture to the university. The mix of students in PSY 101 were people like me stuck with taking it and people who wanted to enter the field. I imagine both populations skewed the results.