4 ms·
> "An experiment began when a subject was shown the code “41234” on a screen and asked to type it out as many times as possible for 10 seconds and then take a 1
by tuyguntn 5y ago
> "An experiment began when a subject was shown the code “41234” on a screen and asked to type it out as many times as possible for 10 seconds and then take a 10 second break. Subjects were asked to repeat this cycle of alternating practice and rest sessions a total of 35 times."
This makes me suspicious of finding. Doesn't it decrease our focus/attention span with so many breaks? Isn't it equivalent of checking Twitter/FB every minute and not able to deliver anything?
- yosito 5y agoWhen results don't match your hypothesis, it's usually your hypothesis that was wrong, not the results.
- tuyguntn 5y agototally agree, not saying my hypothesis is correct, but it is already proven that checking social network frequently is bad for mental health, especially notifications which is related to dopamine generation. not apples to apples comparison, but something is common on these things
- mgummelt 5y agoThere's a big difference between checking Twitter and sitting in silence.
- fighterpilot 5y agoDepends on the amount of noise in the domain that you're studying. The more noise and the more implausible the alternative is, the stronger the evidence you need to be shifted off the null.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoYou're suspicious because the results don't match up with your bias? The ten second break doesn't really provide the ability to change focus to something else. It's not very long and you are limited to what you can focus on, so the ten seconds will more likely be spent on determining how to improve performance.