|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #975188 added February 10, 2020 at 12:21am
Restrictions: None
Well, Actually...
I'm starting to think Cracked has improved again. It was funny, then it kinda sucked, and now I think it's often funny once more. But it's also educational.
https://www.cracked.com/article_26746_5-famous-psychological-studies-that-were-h...
5 Famous Psychological Studies (That Were Hugely Overhyped)
Since this has to do with science and science reporting, I have things to say about it.
We cling to certain psychological studies like they're the only mental life preservers in this great big raging ocean of crazy.
Of course, they are not. There is also booze.
5. Your Answer To The Trolley Problem Has No Relation To What You'd Do In Reality
The infamous Trolley Problem is a popular thought experiment in Intro to Philosophy, as well as a beloved pop culture trope.
It has certainly been mined for Comedy Gold by writers for Cracked and other sites.
The result found almost no correlation to what participants said they would do and what they actually did.
Stop the presses! People say one thing and do another? THIS IS HUGE!
Okay, but seriously, though, there are practical applications to the Trolley Problem, but they don't necessarily involve individuals.
Consider an outbreak of a completely hypothetical contagious virus. This completely hypothetical virus has a fatality rate of 2%, meaning 1 person in 50 who contracts it dies. Further assume that it infects 1/10th of the world population, so it kills one person in 500 overall. These are, of course, all numbers I'm extracting from my nethers, but so are the Trolley Problem numbers.
Now, some scientists invent a vaccine for Hypothetical Contagious Virus, HCV. But owing to genetic differences among individuals, the HCV vaccine is itself deadly to 1 in 50,000 people. Administering this vaccine is, consequently, a Trolley Problem - assuming you could spread it to the entire human population, you're killing 150,000 people with it. But without it, 15 million people could contract HCV and die.
There might be overlap between the two groups, but it's likely that some vaccinated individuals will die who wouldn't have if they'd just contracted the virus. Overall, though, you're saving 14,850,000 lives.
The Trolley Problem is, at least in part, about the ethics of action vs. inaction. The above numbers really are completely hypothetical (and in no way reflective of how pandemics or vaccines actually work), but you can apply a similar calculation to, say, the invention of self-driving cars; if 30,000 people a year die in autonomous vehicle accidents, but 40,000 a year would die in human-driven vehicle accidents, is it not better, overall, to go with robot cars? Or are we just going to focus on the lives lost and the fear of the unknown, rather than the reduction in fatalities?
4. The "Bystander Effect" Isn't The Whole Story About Kitty Genovese
I've known for a long time that the Bystander Effect is completely overblown (although it did create an excellent origin story for Rorschach in the Watchmen graphic novel).
So at this point, "Genovese Syndrome" should be the name for when people parrot old myths to look cynical instead of bothering to check basic facts.
I can be cynical with the actual truth; I don't need myths for that.
3. Power Posing Doesn't Change Anything In Your Body
Your body language says a lot about how you're feeling, which is why you don't give a big presentation while slouched over like you're four hours into a Gears Of War marathon. And supposedly, a "powerful" posture can make you powerful.
Yeah... the only surprise here is that someone took this shit seriously in the first place.
But while the original study found a positive correlation with power posing, later experiments didn't. In 2017 alone, 11 different experiments tried to replicate the original's results, and all of them found that power posing apparently does nothing for your body.
This also speaks to that other cognitive bias we have that I can never remember the name of: we tend to believe the first thing we hear on a subject, and subsequently ignore contradictory information. This is why it's so damn hard to convince people of anything, even though it's one thing the scientific method was designed to overcome.
2. No, Your Ego Doesn't Get "Depleted"
Unfortunately for fans of thinking less, psychologists tried to replicate Baumeister's results and very much could not. A previous meta-analysis was also reviewed, and the results weren't pretty there, either. The theory appears to only apply if you personally have been convinced that your willpower is a finite resource.
Again, a finding that fails upon attempts at replication - and again, one that wasn't nearly as widely publicized as the original hypothesis. This is my problem with science reporting, in a nutshell.
1. Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs Needed More Real Science
It's the idea that there's a logical order to human need. First you fulfill your physiological needs, like sleep, water, and pizza. Safety, like not being beaten up for your pizza, comes next. Once you're safe, you can look to fulfill your need for social belonging (getting invited to pizza parties), esteem (being lauded for bringing good pizza), and finally self-actualization (building a pizza oven and inviting people over to witness the depth of your pizza skills).
Dammit, Cracked! Now I'm hungry!
When research into Maslow's structure came along, it showed that humans can fulfill their needs in any order, and can feel self-actualized even when their basic needs aren't being met.
Yep. I'll happily eat pizza even when sleep-deprived.
Being connected to others, knowing what the hell you're doing, and feeling like you have some control over your life is the best way to happiness. Well, unless someone tries to replicate the latest data and determines that it's all bunk.
Drinking beer, listening to music, and being snarky on the internet is my best way to happiness.
Your mileage, as always, may vary. |
© Copyright 2020 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
