Hello, hello!
Man, it has been a long time! I checked my last post and it was about 6 years ago at this point... I knew it had been a while, but I didn't realize exactly how long it was. Craziness!
Why am I even picking up the (metaphorical) pen again? Jonny and I had recently met up with Claire and we were going through a nostalgia trip. One of the items mentioned was my blog... I've just been thinking about it in the back of my mind, but it's intrigued me little by little. I feel like I finally have an idea today of something to possibly write about. I don't know if I'll keep going (seeing my consistency before, not likely!), but it feels nice typing something out.
For a quick life update, I'm currently working as data entry and analysis for an oil company. It's been a great learning experience, and I've developed a love for Excel and VBA. Macros are amazing! Well, programming itself is amazing, but I digress... If anyone ever needs any Excel help, I'm always down to lend a digital hand.
Hopping back to analysis, I've seen so many statistics getting thrown around these days... Whether it be talking about the health benefits/detriments of substances or the percentage of support for a candidate, it's hard not to see some percentages pop up these days. It reminds me of an old phrase,
"90% of statistics can be used to say anything 50% of the time."
While quite silly, it points out that statistics can be misleading... The facts themselves may be true, but there are two main points of contention:
1. The population of the data
2. The usage of the data
Take, for example, the statistic that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Orbit gum, something they touted in old commercials (I don't have cable anymore, so I may be dating myself). Let's say they were given the options of Juicy Fruit, Orbit, and Take 5. To make things simple, let's say all scientists...
1. Chewed Orbit for 21 seconds
2. Chewed Take 5 and Juicy Fruit for 20 seconds
3. Had to put a :) or :( next to each brand; 4 dentists put :) near Orbit, with one dissenting.
4. Wrote an adjective next to each brand of gum, with two dentists putting "flavorful" for Orbit. Only Juicy Fruit received one other "flavorful" description
Some statistics you can make are:
1. Orbit lasts longer than all other competitors
2. More dentists preferred Orbit over other leading brands
3. 4/5 dentists prefer Orbit
4. Twice as many people think Orbit is more flavorful than Juicy Fruit!
Ok, hopefully my point is coming across. While all these factors themselves are true, they don't mean much in terms of absolutes. If you looked at the base data, you can see that there is not that much of a difference between all measures of this study. Yet, saying "Twice as many people..." carries some weight behind it if you don't look at the data.
Also, even if these stats are true, how applicable is to different populations? Are these dentists all people who have grown up near an Orbit gum factory and chewing Orbit gives them the nostalgia of home? Are these dentists all over a certain age? There's dozens of points you can come up with, questioning how applicable these studies are to everyone.
I remember for psych classes and experiments, there are certain guidelines and reviews that are followed. I'm really rusty at remembering what (considering it's been over 5 years since I've been out), but there were controls to help avoid some common issues. Yet, even then, there was talk of pressure to find something. Typically, with statistical experiments and analysis, you are trying to find something. If I remember my high school stats (Mrs. Smith, please don't hate me) right, it's specifically trying to "reject the null hypothesis." If you fail to find statistical evidence going against the hypothesis in place, you "fail to reject the null hypothesis." Part of the issue is that if you receive grant money to study something, yet your experiments don't turn up anything new, it doesn't look the best for you... If your experiments aren't fruitful, it's hard to receive more money to conduct other experiments. This results in a lot of pressure in trying to find something, anything to help reject the null, which in turn can be misleading..
My point is, in order to prevent being misled, you would have to go down to the basic data and analyze it there. Yet, honestly, who has the time to examine the methodology for every single statistic that pops up? Even just reading the above takes some time and it's meant to be simple... While that does raise questions about my verbosity, the point still stands; it's unrealistic to analyze every single stat and fact that comes our way. Yet, in not doing so, we make ourselves susceptible to false information.
Why does it even matter?
We tend to disagree with statistics that question our world view, but we readily accept any statistics that further our own. Humans are naturally cognitive misers, which means that we want to know everything with the least amount of effort. If something comes up that's new/haven't heard before, normally we accept it. If it's new information that conflicts with our current worldview, only then will we break it down to see where the fault lies within. With the amazing world wide web, you can find information about so many things. Unfortunately, it also means that you can easily find statistics and information supporting your own views, whether they be right or wrong.
My point is, I think it's wise to take a step back every now and then to question what we take as fact. It's fine to have an opinion or take a stand for something, but it's important to recognize how you got there. Opinions, like stress, can affect you in small dosages. If you're hit by a great stress, your body can recognize and work against it. On the other hand, if there's a multitude of small stresses, some that you may not even be aware of, it may do more damage/change in the long run. It's all too easy when reading or browsing to find other facts or opinions shaping and agreeing with your worldview without your recognition *cough cough Reddit*. As long as you're aware and take a step back to recognize your own growth and change, though, you may help to eliminate your own biases.
Anyways, I feel like my hands can't fully translate what's floating around in my brain completely just yet. I may have to take another crack at writing something else in the future...
If you made it this far, thank you for reading!
Dusty
Friday, October 25, 2019
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
To Infinity... and Beyond!
Hey all! I hope everyone's doing well... From what I've heard, school is starting up again for the quarter system peeps and going strong for those in the semester system. It's weird considering I have no connection to UCLA anymore. I just left my job at ASUCLA so I actually feel pressure to go out and job search rather than being comfy. I may have a possibility lined up, though, so here's to hoping!
Anyways, I don't really feel like writing anything too psychological or didactic, so I'm just going to be throwing out a random problem I've been thinking about... Some of you may have heard of him, but there was a famous philosopher named Zeno who had a bunch of paradoxes. Not all of the paradoxes may have been his (according to wiki, but I'm too lazy to check for sure), but they're definitely associated with him. The paradox I've been having trouble with is what is labelled the Dichotomy paradox.
Essentially, think of getting from where you are to another place, like your front door. At first, it just seems like a simple ten feet to get there. But! In order to walk those ten feet, you must first walk five feet. But! In order to walk those five feet, you must first walk two and a half feet. You see where this is going?
In order to walk any distance, you must first walk half of that. Yet, the problem is, you can take the half of something infinitely... If this is truly the case, then that means there's an infinite number of points between your seat and the front door. Yet, infinity itself is not something that can be covered, hence the definition of infinite... So, how does one cross infinity?
This is a concept I just cannot warp my head around. I start to think that it's a finite distance, and thus one is easily able to cross it. Yet, there is still an infinite amount of points in that finite distance. Does that make the distance between where you are and the front door infinite? Theoretically, maybe, but realistically, no... We do happen to cross over an infinite number of points every day, meaning that it can happen... Right?
Iono really, anymore... Zeno hypothesized (according to Wiki) that motion is just an illusion, and that's how we "cross" over the infinite... We're not doing any crossing, so to speak, but we are deceived into thinking so. I know there's a better way to explain this, sorry, but that's the basic gist of it.
If motion is infinite and an illusion, the same could be said about time... Between you and an hour later stands, well, an hour of time. Yet, to wait an hour, one must first wait thirty minutes. But, even before that, one must wait fifteen minutes, and ad infinitum. So, again, the same idea, but an infinite amount of time has to pass for a finite amount of time to pass... It just blows my mind...
One thought that should be brought up here is that maybe this phenomenon has to do with the point that time is relative... In other words, maybe time itself is not absolute. I know that sounds weird, but I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't really know at all... With thought experiments like the Twin Paradox (found here), the passage of time is shown to be relative to speed. The basic idea of the twin paradox is that two twins are born on earth, yet one goes on a super speedy rocket around the earth. When the rocket twin returns, he's only aged five years. But, the twin on earth has aged ten years. It has something to do with special relatively, but the closer one approaches the speed of light, the slower time passes for him, even if it appears the same. In other words, it felt like five years for the rocket twin, but if felt like ten years for the twin on earth. Trippy...
Maybe time itself is an illusion... That, or we don't properly understand time yet. I could be more inclined to Zeno's stance of time being an illusion, but that's really, really weird to think... I mean, I believe I'm sitting here typing this and minutes are passing by, but is it really happening gradually or something all at once without me realizing it?
Is it really possible to exist outside of time, though..? I mean, it doesn't seem like one should be able to do anything if you are not subjected to being a part of time. Yet, God himself is supposed to exist outside of time... I guess that could make sense, considering that God made light in the first place, which means he shouldn't be subject to time (if we do understand time correctly), but it's very hard to wrap my head around. I guess this explanation would lend itself more towards the idea of time being an illusion, but... I don't know, I just can't process that... Odd stuff.
Anyways, my head is starting to hurt, so I think it's time to call it quits. Peace out, y'all!
Anyways, I don't really feel like writing anything too psychological or didactic, so I'm just going to be throwing out a random problem I've been thinking about... Some of you may have heard of him, but there was a famous philosopher named Zeno who had a bunch of paradoxes. Not all of the paradoxes may have been his (according to wiki, but I'm too lazy to check for sure), but they're definitely associated with him. The paradox I've been having trouble with is what is labelled the Dichotomy paradox.
Essentially, think of getting from where you are to another place, like your front door. At first, it just seems like a simple ten feet to get there. But! In order to walk those ten feet, you must first walk five feet. But! In order to walk those five feet, you must first walk two and a half feet. You see where this is going?
In order to walk any distance, you must first walk half of that. Yet, the problem is, you can take the half of something infinitely... If this is truly the case, then that means there's an infinite number of points between your seat and the front door. Yet, infinity itself is not something that can be covered, hence the definition of infinite... So, how does one cross infinity?
This is a concept I just cannot warp my head around. I start to think that it's a finite distance, and thus one is easily able to cross it. Yet, there is still an infinite amount of points in that finite distance. Does that make the distance between where you are and the front door infinite? Theoretically, maybe, but realistically, no... We do happen to cross over an infinite number of points every day, meaning that it can happen... Right?
Iono really, anymore... Zeno hypothesized (according to Wiki) that motion is just an illusion, and that's how we "cross" over the infinite... We're not doing any crossing, so to speak, but we are deceived into thinking so. I know there's a better way to explain this, sorry, but that's the basic gist of it.
If motion is infinite and an illusion, the same could be said about time... Between you and an hour later stands, well, an hour of time. Yet, to wait an hour, one must first wait thirty minutes. But, even before that, one must wait fifteen minutes, and ad infinitum. So, again, the same idea, but an infinite amount of time has to pass for a finite amount of time to pass... It just blows my mind...
One thought that should be brought up here is that maybe this phenomenon has to do with the point that time is relative... In other words, maybe time itself is not absolute. I know that sounds weird, but I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't really know at all... With thought experiments like the Twin Paradox (found here), the passage of time is shown to be relative to speed. The basic idea of the twin paradox is that two twins are born on earth, yet one goes on a super speedy rocket around the earth. When the rocket twin returns, he's only aged five years. But, the twin on earth has aged ten years. It has something to do with special relatively, but the closer one approaches the speed of light, the slower time passes for him, even if it appears the same. In other words, it felt like five years for the rocket twin, but if felt like ten years for the twin on earth. Trippy...
Maybe time itself is an illusion... That, or we don't properly understand time yet. I could be more inclined to Zeno's stance of time being an illusion, but that's really, really weird to think... I mean, I believe I'm sitting here typing this and minutes are passing by, but is it really happening gradually or something all at once without me realizing it?
Is it really possible to exist outside of time, though..? I mean, it doesn't seem like one should be able to do anything if you are not subjected to being a part of time. Yet, God himself is supposed to exist outside of time... I guess that could make sense, considering that God made light in the first place, which means he shouldn't be subject to time (if we do understand time correctly), but it's very hard to wrap my head around. I guess this explanation would lend itself more towards the idea of time being an illusion, but... I don't know, I just can't process that... Odd stuff.
Anyways, my head is starting to hurt, so I think it's time to call it quits. Peace out, y'all!
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Bob Talbert is Part of the Mafia?!
Hey all! Long time, no write. Of course, I say that just about every time I write now, so I guess y'all should be used to it.
Anyways, things have been really calm over on my end. I'm done with school now, so I've just been working with a bit of gaming (read as: gaming all day). I talked recently with a few friends, though, so some ideas have been revitalized. Forgive me if I'm a bit scatterbrained while writing this post since I haven't done this for a while...
Some of you may know about Bob Talbert, and others of you may not... For those of you who read the title of this post, though, I want you to know that Bob Talbert is not actually associated with the Mafia. The funny thing is, though, that that's probably not going to change your opinion about him. What do I mean by that?
Simple, really... Anyways, I don't have access to the scholarly article, so you'll have to trust me on this one... But, in an experiment by Wegner, Wenzlaff, Kerker, and Beattie (1991) (http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6333 for a secondary article reference), the use of innuendo was tested for impressions of public figures. Essentially, various participants were given an article about a man named Bob Talbert. What the researchers manipulated was the title of each article. Some articles were neutral and talked about Bob Talbert arriving in the city. But, other articles were directly incriminating, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia." Yet, others articles insinuated something negative, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia?" or "Bob Talbert not Linked to the Mafia." After all the participants read their articles, they were asked to rate how favorably they viewed Bob Talbert.
For those that read the article with the neutral title, Bob Talbert was rated, on average, neutrally (big surprise, right?). For those that read the article with the negative title, Bob Talbert was rated negatively (again, another big surprise). Yet, the crazy thing, the participants that had the articles that insinuated something negative rated Bob Talbert just as negatively, on average, as those that read the negative article about Bob Talbert. Crazy, right?
Theoretically, the articles that had negative insinuations shouldn't have Bob Talbert rated as negatively as the articles that are directly negative. Why would an article that asks or even states that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia lead to people viewing him so negatively? The researchers hypothesized that the first impressions people have of others are very hard to dispel... Even if it's stated that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia, the main idea that sticks out is 'Bob Talbert' and 'Mafia.' Thus, even if you consciously think otherwise and know better, it is hard to unconsciously not associate the two.
One of the initial concerns is that this shows how devastating rumors may be... Even if rumors and gossip just raise the question and aren't direct accusations, they may still give way to these negative impressions. This can lead to people having a negative interaction with the person (or 'victim') of the rumors, thus reinforcing their own suspicions and negative impressions about the 'victim.' This could be true for negative first impressions as well. If it's a first time meeting, ceteris paribus, and the 'victim' gives a negative impression to others, it would be difficult for others to change their view of the 'victim.' But, I digress.
So, how would one break out of this vicious cycle? Quite simply, people would really have to get to know the 'victim.' If after interacting people see there's no evidence for the accusation, or even if they come to start to like the 'victim,' impressions should change. Of course, like I mentioned before, it's hard to change a negative impression if people already view you negatively, so it would probably be something that would require a bit of work. If somebody holds a view against you because of rumor or gossip, though, it may be a testament about that person themselves...
I guess it's just important to remember that sometimes our first impressions aren't always the best impressions. Even if we happen to hear something about someone, it may be good to try and hold off judging that person before really getting to know them. Atticus always did mention walking a mile in another person's shoes, right? Sounds like a good way to go.
Anyways, things have been really calm over on my end. I'm done with school now, so I've just been working with a bit of gaming (read as: gaming all day). I talked recently with a few friends, though, so some ideas have been revitalized. Forgive me if I'm a bit scatterbrained while writing this post since I haven't done this for a while...
Some of you may know about Bob Talbert, and others of you may not... For those of you who read the title of this post, though, I want you to know that Bob Talbert is not actually associated with the Mafia. The funny thing is, though, that that's probably not going to change your opinion about him. What do I mean by that?
Simple, really... Anyways, I don't have access to the scholarly article, so you'll have to trust me on this one... But, in an experiment by Wegner, Wenzlaff, Kerker, and Beattie (1991) (http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6333 for a secondary article reference), the use of innuendo was tested for impressions of public figures. Essentially, various participants were given an article about a man named Bob Talbert. What the researchers manipulated was the title of each article. Some articles were neutral and talked about Bob Talbert arriving in the city. But, other articles were directly incriminating, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia." Yet, others articles insinuated something negative, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia?" or "Bob Talbert not Linked to the Mafia." After all the participants read their articles, they were asked to rate how favorably they viewed Bob Talbert.
For those that read the article with the neutral title, Bob Talbert was rated, on average, neutrally (big surprise, right?). For those that read the article with the negative title, Bob Talbert was rated negatively (again, another big surprise). Yet, the crazy thing, the participants that had the articles that insinuated something negative rated Bob Talbert just as negatively, on average, as those that read the negative article about Bob Talbert. Crazy, right?
Theoretically, the articles that had negative insinuations shouldn't have Bob Talbert rated as negatively as the articles that are directly negative. Why would an article that asks or even states that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia lead to people viewing him so negatively? The researchers hypothesized that the first impressions people have of others are very hard to dispel... Even if it's stated that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia, the main idea that sticks out is 'Bob Talbert' and 'Mafia.' Thus, even if you consciously think otherwise and know better, it is hard to unconsciously not associate the two.
One of the initial concerns is that this shows how devastating rumors may be... Even if rumors and gossip just raise the question and aren't direct accusations, they may still give way to these negative impressions. This can lead to people having a negative interaction with the person (or 'victim') of the rumors, thus reinforcing their own suspicions and negative impressions about the 'victim.' This could be true for negative first impressions as well. If it's a first time meeting, ceteris paribus, and the 'victim' gives a negative impression to others, it would be difficult for others to change their view of the 'victim.' But, I digress.
So, how would one break out of this vicious cycle? Quite simply, people would really have to get to know the 'victim.' If after interacting people see there's no evidence for the accusation, or even if they come to start to like the 'victim,' impressions should change. Of course, like I mentioned before, it's hard to change a negative impression if people already view you negatively, so it would probably be something that would require a bit of work. If somebody holds a view against you because of rumor or gossip, though, it may be a testament about that person themselves...
I guess it's just important to remember that sometimes our first impressions aren't always the best impressions. Even if we happen to hear something about someone, it may be good to try and hold off judging that person before really getting to know them. Atticus always did mention walking a mile in another person's shoes, right? Sounds like a good way to go.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
To Walk a Mile in Another Person's Shoes
“When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce..."
― Thich Nhat Hanh
Hey all! Long time, no write. I know the majority of people are studying for finals right now, so good luck to everyone!
Anyways, I was going over some Social Psych stuff with peeps yesterday, and one of the things that really stuck out to me was this thing called the Fundamental Attribution Error. The best way to understand it is through examples...
Think of a golf ball. What causes a golf ball to roll? The most obvious feature is that the ball is round. While this is true, if the golf ball is on a flat surface, it wouldn't roll. You also need some kind of push or force to get the ball to roll. Thus, it's both the force and the shape that get the ball rolling.
The basis of the Fundamental Attribution Error is that humans are like golf balls: they both have some kind of disposition and are acted on by external forces that lead to the results. In other words, it is not only the disposition of the person, but the situation that they are in that leads to the resulting behavior. Let's say that you are walking by and you see a man named Chris kick a dog. It would be natural to assume that Chris is just a mean person. Yet, if you knew the situation he was in, such as the dog was biting him, then you might think it's reasonable Chris acted the way he did.
Essentially, the Fundamental Attribution Error states that outside observers tend to disregard the situation one is in, thus incorrectly leading the observer to assume that a person's behavior is a direct result of the disposition. Using the example before, it means we would assume Chris is just a jerkface rather than understanding the circumstances behind the actions (in this case, the dog biting him).
This also goes back to the "Elevators, Etiquette, and Empathy" post I wrote before... If you see what appears to be a healthy person getting on the elevator to travel only one floor, it's natural to assume that the person is lazy. To fit it to the model, we would think there are no mitigating circumstances (or situation), and thus the behavior (riding the elevator for one floor) directly reflects their disposition (we think they're lazy). But, now imagine that the person has knee troubles, resulting in extreme pain to climb up any flight of stairs. Now, the resulting behavior (taking the elevator one floor) wouldn't really say anything about their disposition, for we know that the situation they're in (extreme knee pain) is probably the reason why they're taking the elevator.
Even though conceptually it may make sense, and thus be easy to avoid, it's amazing how often we commit the Fundamental Attribution Error... Like the quote from Thich Nhat Hanh above, whenever we have trouble with anyone, not just friends or family, we naturally assume that there's something wrong or rude about that person.
Why is to so unnatural for us to look at what's going on in a person's life rather than just labeling them? Well, simply because it takes effort to do so... You see, the paradox is that humans like to know everything, but we're also cognitive misers. In other words, we like to think we have answers to everything, but we'd rather not expend energy to truly find out if what we know is correct. It's much easier to see someone and label them rather than think about why they do what they do. And yet, we still like to think that we are right. I mean, who likes to admit that they're wrong or that they don't know? It's just something so foreign and unnatural to us...
Anyways, the big idea of this post is that it's Finals week, so we know that every student is most likely going through major stress right now. For weeks like this, we all have an idea of the situation others are experiencing. But how about every other week? How often do we understand another's behavior as being a result of homework, midterms, or even familial problems? The thing is, we all know these things are happening. Yet, we tend only to see it as why we ourselves may act rude or apathetic some days. For everyone else, we may naturally assume that being rude is just how they are. Of course, this is less true for friends than people we may just meet or greet, but it can still apply.
Regardless, sometimes it's not best to trust the automatic reasons or assumptions we have of others. Like Atticus said, sometimes it helps to walk a mile in another person's shoes in order to understand where they're coming from. Even though it may sound dumb, please remember that others are stressed and have problems, also. It's all too easy to acknowledge that someone exists but to forget that they're human, too, ya know? And with that, I shall bid you adieu, and the best of luck with finals!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Eat! Eat and Forget, Yeah!
Hey all! I hope everyone is surviving in this heat. I guess it wouldn't really be summer without that one week of crazy high temperatures. Air conditioning has definitely become one of my best friends recently.
Anyways, since it's been so hot outside, I've been staying inside and enjoying one of my favorite pastimes: eating. It's weird, but eating is something I enjoy quite a bit, but not something I ever really pay much attention to. I'll eat and enjoy good food, sure, but it's more of an automatic process than anything.
I mean, how many people really pay attention to the food in front of them when they're watching TV? It's more like you keep on watching and happen to pay attention when it goes to commercial, which is usually a good excuse for grabbing more food. Wansink, Painter, and North (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v13/n1/abs/oby200512a.html) happened to note this, and thus they decided to run a little experiment on it...
It was all quite simple, really... People come in and get to watch a television program. Better yet, they even get a free bowl of soup to go along with the program. Pretty nice experiment, huh?
Well, of course, it is an experiment, so there had to be something going on behind the scenes. Or in this case, underneath the table (but not like that!). The experimenters actually rigged some of the soup bowls so that they were automatically refilling. So, even if a whole bowl's worth of soup was consumed, it would look like only a 1/4 or a 1/2 would be gone. Trippy, eh?
What did they find? Well, the most surprising thing is that no one really caught on to the gimmick... In fact, the results showed that those who drank from the refilling soup bowl thought that they only drank so much as the bowl was drained. In other words, they believed they had only consumed 1/4 to 1/2 the bowl, even if they drank a whole bowl's worth. This means that, on average, those who had the automatically refilling bowl not only objectively consumed more than those who didn't have a bowl that automatically refilled (about 73% more!), but they only felt as satiated as they perceived they consumed. In other words, those that had the automatically refilling bowl only felt as full as they believed (key word!) they had consumed, which was about 1/4 to 1/2 of the bowl, even if they had objectively consumed a whole bowl's worth.
So, in other words, people were only as satiated as they believe they had eaten. That, I believe, is very odd... This means that we may eat more with our eyes than our stomachs... The researchers hypothesized that this concept may be more associated with the American way of eating, where the emphasis is on eating quickly and preventing any food from being wasted. Researchers contrasted this style to the French, where the emphasis is on enjoying the food. The French tend to eat longer (about an hour or so per meal), and they also tend to stop eating when they feel full, not when they have more food left on their plate. So, this American emphasis on efficiency may be part of the reason why we judge with our eyes rather than our stomachs. It's odd to think that something as simple as what we see can affect something we believe is objective as satiety. Then again, part of the fun of psychology is learning that we aren't as objective as we think they are, eh? Oh well, just some "food" for thought hahaha. Yeahhh, last time I'll be using that joke...
Anyways, since it's been so hot outside, I've been staying inside and enjoying one of my favorite pastimes: eating. It's weird, but eating is something I enjoy quite a bit, but not something I ever really pay much attention to. I'll eat and enjoy good food, sure, but it's more of an automatic process than anything.
I mean, how many people really pay attention to the food in front of them when they're watching TV? It's more like you keep on watching and happen to pay attention when it goes to commercial, which is usually a good excuse for grabbing more food. Wansink, Painter, and North (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v13/n1/abs/oby200512a.html) happened to note this, and thus they decided to run a little experiment on it...
It was all quite simple, really... People come in and get to watch a television program. Better yet, they even get a free bowl of soup to go along with the program. Pretty nice experiment, huh?
Well, of course, it is an experiment, so there had to be something going on behind the scenes. Or in this case, underneath the table (but not like that!). The experimenters actually rigged some of the soup bowls so that they were automatically refilling. So, even if a whole bowl's worth of soup was consumed, it would look like only a 1/4 or a 1/2 would be gone. Trippy, eh?
What did they find? Well, the most surprising thing is that no one really caught on to the gimmick... In fact, the results showed that those who drank from the refilling soup bowl thought that they only drank so much as the bowl was drained. In other words, they believed they had only consumed 1/4 to 1/2 the bowl, even if they drank a whole bowl's worth. This means that, on average, those who had the automatically refilling bowl not only objectively consumed more than those who didn't have a bowl that automatically refilled (about 73% more!), but they only felt as satiated as they perceived they consumed. In other words, those that had the automatically refilling bowl only felt as full as they believed (key word!) they had consumed, which was about 1/4 to 1/2 of the bowl, even if they had objectively consumed a whole bowl's worth.
So, in other words, people were only as satiated as they believe they had eaten. That, I believe, is very odd... This means that we may eat more with our eyes than our stomachs... The researchers hypothesized that this concept may be more associated with the American way of eating, where the emphasis is on eating quickly and preventing any food from being wasted. Researchers contrasted this style to the French, where the emphasis is on enjoying the food. The French tend to eat longer (about an hour or so per meal), and they also tend to stop eating when they feel full, not when they have more food left on their plate. So, this American emphasis on efficiency may be part of the reason why we judge with our eyes rather than our stomachs. It's odd to think that something as simple as what we see can affect something we believe is objective as satiety. Then again, part of the fun of psychology is learning that we aren't as objective as we think they are, eh? Oh well, just some "food" for thought hahaha. Yeahhh, last time I'll be using that joke...
Sunday, July 22, 2012
What's In a Name...
Hey all! I know summer's a good time for relaxing and all, but lots of studying for other tests (GRE, MCAT, and LSAT, anyone?) has been going on. That reminds me that I should start studying for the GRE myself. But before that, I'm also reminded of (another) psych experiment...
Most people know the stereotypes associated with math performance. According to popular belief, Asians are good at math, but women are bad at it... But, how well do Asian girls do? This was one of the questions that Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) raised (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/10/1/80.short).
You see, other experiments have shown that stereotype activation has an effect on performance. Studies have shown that if people are made aware of the stereotypes associated with their characteristics, they'll perform in ways that fit with those stereotypes. For example, when White and Black students took a test that was "diagnostic of their abilities," Black students scored lower than White students, which is consistent with the stereotype. Yet, if the test was passed as non-diagnostic (the researchers said that they wanted to see how people solved tough verbal problems), there was no significant difference in the scores of White and Black students. This is huge because it shows that just even being aware of certain stereotypes can affect one's performance...
So, back to the original study. All the participants were female Asian college students. The three conditions were female-identity-salient condition, Asian-identity-salient condition, and no-identity-salient condition (the control). In each condition, participants had to fill out a survey asking about residential life at their university. What changed in each condition is that the survey's questions differed for each. In other words, for the female-identity-salient condition, participants had to indicate their gender and answer questions related to it. The same idea essentially applies to the Asian-identity-salient condition. As for the no-identity-salient, participants filled out questions that were about residential life but specifically avoided ethnic or gender identity. After the survey, all participants took a math test.
For ease of explanation, let's just say that the participants in the no-identity-salient condition scored what others score on average. In other words, the control condition is like the anchor of which the scores for the two other conditions are judged/based off of. Some of you may have guessed already, but participants in the gender-salient-identity condition, on average, scored significantly lower than those in the no-identity-salient condition. In other words, Asian females made aware of their gender tended to score lower than those who did not have their gender or ethnicity mentally reinforced. Also, participants in the Asian-identity-salient condition, on average, scored significantly higher than those in the no-identity-salient condition. In other words, Asian females made aware of their ethnicity tender to score higher than those who did not have their gender or ethnicity mentally reinforced.
This is not only quite amazing but disturbing as well. Sex and ethnicity are two factors that are very innate and are (arguably) difficult to change. Yet, such concrete factors can have a significant effect upon performance, as witnessed by the previous experiment. Is there any hope? Or are those that fit stereotypes doomed to fulfill them..?
Actually, the experiment already proposes a simple solution: don't make people aware. It may sound overly simple, but the control seemed to be balanced between the two other conditions, suggesting that it may be the most balanced. Thus, if people didn't have their gender or ethnicity reinforced, tests may be a more accurate measure of the test taker's innate ability.
Of course, you may think that reinforcement like the surveys found in this experiment ever happen on tests. So, it shouldn't be a problem in real world testing. Oh, if it was only the case... You see, apparently, my Social Psych Laboratory teacher Dr. Goff was telling us that even writing one's ethnicity and/or gender has enough of an effect. In other words, simply writing "Black" at the top of a test has been linked to Black students scoring lower on tests. In fact, Goff was telling us that this was really big for the GREs, and the makers of the GRE were/are being sued for refusing to add questions about ethnicity to the end of the test rather than the beginning.
So, there you go... If something as simple such as writing one's ethinicity or gender can cause a significant difference in test scores, it makes me wonder how accurate the statistics reported that have measures of intelligence for each ethnicity truly is. Of course, people could say that it could be helpful for certain groups like Asians, for if Asian identity was reinforced, Asians may score higher on average than if they had no identity reinforcement (just like the experiment). Yet, is it really ethical for a group of people to have an advantage over others just because of such a concrete factors as ethnicity? And are there more positive or negative stereotypes related to race in general..? Just some stuff to think about, I guess... Anyways, keep on enjoying summer, everyone!
Most people know the stereotypes associated with math performance. According to popular belief, Asians are good at math, but women are bad at it... But, how well do Asian girls do? This was one of the questions that Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) raised (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/10/1/80.short).
You see, other experiments have shown that stereotype activation has an effect on performance. Studies have shown that if people are made aware of the stereotypes associated with their characteristics, they'll perform in ways that fit with those stereotypes. For example, when White and Black students took a test that was "diagnostic of their abilities," Black students scored lower than White students, which is consistent with the stereotype. Yet, if the test was passed as non-diagnostic (the researchers said that they wanted to see how people solved tough verbal problems), there was no significant difference in the scores of White and Black students. This is huge because it shows that just even being aware of certain stereotypes can affect one's performance...
So, back to the original study. All the participants were female Asian college students. The three conditions were female-identity-salient condition, Asian-identity-salient condition, and no-identity-salient condition (the control). In each condition, participants had to fill out a survey asking about residential life at their university. What changed in each condition is that the survey's questions differed for each. In other words, for the female-identity-salient condition, participants had to indicate their gender and answer questions related to it. The same idea essentially applies to the Asian-identity-salient condition. As for the no-identity-salient, participants filled out questions that were about residential life but specifically avoided ethnic or gender identity. After the survey, all participants took a math test.
For ease of explanation, let's just say that the participants in the no-identity-salient condition scored what others score on average. In other words, the control condition is like the anchor of which the scores for the two other conditions are judged/based off of. Some of you may have guessed already, but participants in the gender-salient-identity condition, on average, scored significantly lower than those in the no-identity-salient condition. In other words, Asian females made aware of their gender tended to score lower than those who did not have their gender or ethnicity mentally reinforced. Also, participants in the Asian-identity-salient condition, on average, scored significantly higher than those in the no-identity-salient condition. In other words, Asian females made aware of their ethnicity tender to score higher than those who did not have their gender or ethnicity mentally reinforced.
This is not only quite amazing but disturbing as well. Sex and ethnicity are two factors that are very innate and are (arguably) difficult to change. Yet, such concrete factors can have a significant effect upon performance, as witnessed by the previous experiment. Is there any hope? Or are those that fit stereotypes doomed to fulfill them..?
Actually, the experiment already proposes a simple solution: don't make people aware. It may sound overly simple, but the control seemed to be balanced between the two other conditions, suggesting that it may be the most balanced. Thus, if people didn't have their gender or ethnicity reinforced, tests may be a more accurate measure of the test taker's innate ability.
Of course, you may think that reinforcement like the surveys found in this experiment ever happen on tests. So, it shouldn't be a problem in real world testing. Oh, if it was only the case... You see, apparently, my Social Psych Laboratory teacher Dr. Goff was telling us that even writing one's ethnicity and/or gender has enough of an effect. In other words, simply writing "Black" at the top of a test has been linked to Black students scoring lower on tests. In fact, Goff was telling us that this was really big for the GREs, and the makers of the GRE were/are being sued for refusing to add questions about ethnicity to the end of the test rather than the beginning.
So, there you go... If something as simple such as writing one's ethinicity or gender can cause a significant difference in test scores, it makes me wonder how accurate the statistics reported that have measures of intelligence for each ethnicity truly is. Of course, people could say that it could be helpful for certain groups like Asians, for if Asian identity was reinforced, Asians may score higher on average than if they had no identity reinforcement (just like the experiment). Yet, is it really ethical for a group of people to have an advantage over others just because of such a concrete factors as ethnicity? And are there more positive or negative stereotypes related to race in general..? Just some stuff to think about, I guess... Anyways, keep on enjoying summer, everyone!
Sunday, July 15, 2012
I Think Old, Therefore I Walk Slowly
Hey all! I hope everyone is enjoying summer. I know I definitely haven't relaxed this much in a really long time... Well, that's what summer is for, right?
Anyways, I was talking to my brother Dave recently, and one of the things that he was talking about was Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow. From what I remember, the book talks about two different systems in terms of processing... I might write more about other stuff later, but one of the things that stood out to me most is what Kahneman labelled as "The Florida Effect."
This effect goes back to an experiment done by Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996). The researchers told participants that the experiment was to test language proficiency. Participants had to form sentences of four words out of five given words. The participants had to do this about thirty times. After this, the participants were thanked for their time and the experiment was finished. Or, that's what the participants thought at least...
You see, the two conditions of the experiment were an elderly prime condition and an age neutral condition. For a basic refresher, priming refers to the idea of getting someone to mentally process a certain theme or set of words. In this experiment with the elderly prime, participants had to do the sentence forming task with four out of the five words. The way the priming worked is that all the words participants in the elderly condition had for forming sentences were associated with the elderly, such as Florida, old, lonely, grey, wise, etc. For the control condition, words such as thirsty, clean, private, etc. were used.
So, what's the point? The experimenters didn't care about any of the sentences formed by the participants. It's quite ingenious, but experimenters wanted to see how long it took for participants to walk to the elevator after they had left the room the experiment was held in. This may sound odd, but the crazy thing is that differences were found... Participants in the elderly prime condition walked significantly slower to the elevator than the participants in the control condition.
Part of the craziness is that none of the words in the elderly prime condition had anything to do with slowness (something that the experimenters made sure of). Yet, participants were still shown to walk at a significantly different pace... The researchers concluded that whether or not the participants were aware of it, participants had mentally activated an 'elderly' stereotype. One of the associations with elderly folk is older people tend to walk slower. Thus, activation of the stereotype resulted in behavior consistent with the stereotype and its associations, hence the participants walking slower.
One of my teachers said that some of the craziest experiments are the one with the smallest of manipulations... This experiment is one of these cases, and that's why it's so mind blowing to me... It's crazy to think that something so small as just forming sentences with words associated with the elderly can lead you to acting like what you think the elderly are like, as well... Of course, in an experimental setting, the results seem clear-cut. Yet, how many times in a real life setting are we fully aware of all the other associations or themes we are dealing with? I guess the root of it all is that outside influences can affect us in ways that we aren't even aware of... Like other social psych experiments have shown, we may not be as objective and free of outside influences as we like to think... Perhaps if we're having trouble dealing with a situation, it may be good to take a step back and just take a breather to try and refresh our look at it, no? Anyways, I think that's good for now... I shall be back at it soon enough!
Anyways, I was talking to my brother Dave recently, and one of the things that he was talking about was Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow. From what I remember, the book talks about two different systems in terms of processing... I might write more about other stuff later, but one of the things that stood out to me most is what Kahneman labelled as "The Florida Effect."
This effect goes back to an experiment done by Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996). The researchers told participants that the experiment was to test language proficiency. Participants had to form sentences of four words out of five given words. The participants had to do this about thirty times. After this, the participants were thanked for their time and the experiment was finished. Or, that's what the participants thought at least...
You see, the two conditions of the experiment were an elderly prime condition and an age neutral condition. For a basic refresher, priming refers to the idea of getting someone to mentally process a certain theme or set of words. In this experiment with the elderly prime, participants had to do the sentence forming task with four out of the five words. The way the priming worked is that all the words participants in the elderly condition had for forming sentences were associated with the elderly, such as Florida, old, lonely, grey, wise, etc. For the control condition, words such as thirsty, clean, private, etc. were used.
So, what's the point? The experimenters didn't care about any of the sentences formed by the participants. It's quite ingenious, but experimenters wanted to see how long it took for participants to walk to the elevator after they had left the room the experiment was held in. This may sound odd, but the crazy thing is that differences were found... Participants in the elderly prime condition walked significantly slower to the elevator than the participants in the control condition.
Part of the craziness is that none of the words in the elderly prime condition had anything to do with slowness (something that the experimenters made sure of). Yet, participants were still shown to walk at a significantly different pace... The researchers concluded that whether or not the participants were aware of it, participants had mentally activated an 'elderly' stereotype. One of the associations with elderly folk is older people tend to walk slower. Thus, activation of the stereotype resulted in behavior consistent with the stereotype and its associations, hence the participants walking slower.
One of my teachers said that some of the craziest experiments are the one with the smallest of manipulations... This experiment is one of these cases, and that's why it's so mind blowing to me... It's crazy to think that something so small as just forming sentences with words associated with the elderly can lead you to acting like what you think the elderly are like, as well... Of course, in an experimental setting, the results seem clear-cut. Yet, how many times in a real life setting are we fully aware of all the other associations or themes we are dealing with? I guess the root of it all is that outside influences can affect us in ways that we aren't even aware of... Like other social psych experiments have shown, we may not be as objective and free of outside influences as we like to think... Perhaps if we're having trouble dealing with a situation, it may be good to take a step back and just take a breather to try and refresh our look at it, no? Anyways, I think that's good for now... I shall be back at it soon enough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
