5 ms·
That's not rejecting what they saw. It's the opposite - trusting what they saw when re-presented with "their" answers combined with what the researchers told th
by foxglacier 2y ago
That's not rejecting what they saw. It's the opposite - trusting what they saw when re-presented with "their" answers combined with what the researchers told them about whose they were. They had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead.
That's like going to a shop once and remembering it was on street X, then returning later and finding that it's actually on street Y. Nobody would think "The sign looks like it says Y but it really says X and my eyes are deceiving me.". They might think the sign was changed or the shop moved or they remembered it wrong or some other explanation that doesn't involve rejecting what they can see.
- intended 2y ago>hey had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead. This wasn't a memmory test. The participants didnt simply "choose". They thought about the issues/questions and then selected answers, and also shared their reasoning. The particpants then rejected and criticized that reasoning, when the name was not provided. Are you saying that they "forgot" their own logic? Is that even 'logic' at that point?
- foxglacier 2y agoWhat else could it have been besides forgetting their own logic? It wouldn't be logic anyway, just some rationalization/justification which they could have made to go in either direction. I don't see how this is rejecting what they see.