4 ms·
In both experiments highlighted in the article, they're both given equal status but one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturall
by waboremo 3y ago
In both experiments highlighted in the article, they're both given equal status but one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart or balancing in play and makes sense why people would lean that direction. It's like being offered two shirts, but one of them comes with a candy.
Which is why your hypothetical and the above theory doesn't make much sense. In your case, the coach would be told that one of them is naturally gifted, leading to bias. You're theorizing that visual effort is the reason, but the article goes into some ideas as to why this bias exists (ie: the idea of naturalness being better, religious beliefs, status effects, etc) and visual effort is not one of them. Again, all else is equal, but one side is explicitly told to be naturally talented.
- zoogeny 3y agoA careful reading of the source article states: > With each track, the participants were given a short biographical text that either emphasised the natural talent of the performer, or the hard work that had helped them to develop their art. You said: > one side gets explicitly talked about as a natural talent, or being naturally gifted. This is a bonus with zero counterpart Which is incorrect. It is important to clearly and accurately read the source material to avoid your own bias. We cannot know, based on the article, which statements (the emphasis on the natural talent or the hard work that helped them develop their art) were the primary cause of the findings. You can either assume or you can create a new experiment that tries to distinguish between them. I can't say that I am correct, but to suggest my analysis "doesn't make much sense" is both inaccurate and frankly rude.