61–70 of 221 posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&pp=ygUUZG9uJ3Qgd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propose we differentiate between students "playing along" and students really having false memories? Couldn't I discard any psychological study by saying "well, the participants could have faked it", since it's by definition not falsifiable (any test could also be faked)?
Yes, you could discard any study under that rationale among others. And the interesting thing is you'd likely be far more 'informed' for doing so. Social psychology has the lowest replication rate of any field. You're looking at top journals with replication rates in the twenties. [1] What this means is that if you were to take any give study in social psychology, and simply assume it was 'wrong' (either saying the o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propose, in this specific study, they verify what you want? Please be specific regarding what questions you want asked, when they should be asked, and how these questions can't be discarded by saying "well, they could be faking it".
I think this whole experimental paradigm is inherently unfixable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should indeed be extremely skeptical of studies whose only dependent variable is a voluntary participant response and where the participant has an incentive to tell the experimenter what they think they want to hear (for example, to make the experiment end faster).
How would you propose, in this specific study, they verify what you want? Please be specific regarding what questions you want asked, when they should be asked, and how these questions can't be discarded by saying "well, they could be faking it".
This is one of many reasons why you should never talk to police. There's nothing you can say that will better your position, and almost anything you do say will hurt your position. Famous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&pp=ygUUZG9uJ3Qgd...
I wonder if this is why people can become angry and aggressive when you accuse them of something. That would provide a natural defense against this kind of suggestibility. It obviously wouldn't work with the modern police, because they would overpower you, but a few thousand years ago? I think it could've worked.
Thinking about anger as a defense makes a lot of sense to me. The cost to the individual whose opinion might be changed is pretty big: you will have to re-evaluate any thoughts that branches off the thought that is being challenged, so it might have a cascading effect. There needs to either be some natural stopping points (i.e. the thought graph is acyclic), or some other mechanism must keep us from going in circles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except in this case for the follow up interviews there was no incentive to lie.
They’re incentivized to tell the experimenters what they want to hear so they can get paid and go home faster.
After the exam the researchers just endlessly hounded me from a hundred different angles trying to get me to express doubt or uncertainty in how I performed on it. If I just wanted my $20 and credit, it would have been far easier to just give them what they wanted. But I've been ever the contrarian. They also said they'd email me my results in 8 weeks. They did not. I've always wondered if I ended up getting culled from their 'study' as an 'outlier.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except in this case for the follow up interviews there was no incentive to lie.
They’re incentivized to tell the experimenters what they want to hear so they can get paid and go home faster.