Видео

Unfortunately, artificial intelligence now makes it possible and even convenient to fake data in research like this, without leaving the kind of footprints discovered in these cases.

This whole situation is ridiculous. The topics of the studies themselves are what I would expect from a high schooler or undergraduate student. Then the actual manipulated data is the same way, like it's done by someone who has never seen what a distribution of real world data looks like. It's unbelievable that these people were not only Phd's but very well-regarded in their field.

Hmmm 🤔 she's attractive hmmm 🤔🧐 I Wonder 🤔🧐 Elizabeth Holmes syndrome????🎉🎉🎉😮😮😮

The first thought I have when I hear about any new 'ground breaking' research is: has the findings been reproduced by a separate team of researchers?

Like I am not going to buy I phone again the way it is in design and features it’s very annoying irritating in many features, yet it’s an established brand which needs new makeover, reinventing

When attractive aesthetically beautiful lines get built in anything they automatically attract attention, but doesn’t mean all of it can be priced way high, it’s not good business sense because purchasing power lies with moderate in economy pockets your company’s revenue dept. and you owner ceo or whatever must sit together and go through entire revenues from operating revenue, making of product till packaging , staff, salaries outlet upkeeps and then it should correlate it with income it makes segregating expenses to what percentage profits is comfortable without discomforting consumers pockets that much percentage of profits are going to be consistent and not fizzle out of course very important what you are giving in products which is new consumer friendly useful

I am not sure about halo effect in perpetuity, you may try it once if it’s not up to your taste,or expectations you will switch to what suits you

So many new gadgets got discovered in Apple earlier good ones

We should never simply “trust” science.

But nothing important happens. Your mind knows it's not important because nothing on a video is a danger to the body. This guy has a poor concept of the human mind and perception

This isn't new. There's videos of this such thing from decades ago. Long before this idiot was even in high school

Sprry. But there is no positive. Peer review is supposed to check papers and detect such fraud. The problem is not just the fraudxers but the whole discipline has a problem. I research in computer science and rezlly doubt you would get away with something like this in a reputable journal.

This is the coolest podcast :)

You said casted. No such word. The past tense of cast is cast.

Altering data is one thing and can't be defended. On the other hand, using a similar description of the Milan fashion district or even the Milgram experiment is pretty weak tea. I bet if we challenged a hundred people to briefly describe Milgram., we would get some very similar descriptions.

Where are your timestamps man!

I’m shocked that Biden didn’t pardon her!!!

As a qualitative researcher, we have to provide significant amount of transparency and work and yet be critiqued , because It is a lot about taste in how to report "grounded" research in social science. Whereas the type of studies she does require articulating a hypothesis and using experiments online to see quickly if they are confirmed or not. BTW, I v seen those experiments take few minutes compared to years of collecting longitudinal data and analysis inductively etc- .. Of course as the researchers in the video noted, it all goes back to incentives- when you can quickly do experiment, check hypothesis, and write an article based on it, WHY not!. This sort of incentives for different types of research genres within the same field is very unfair on the side of grounded qualitative researchers.

Since computers are really bad at waiting when collecting data someone is entering data on the slow as a turtle speed for sure a lot could happen because of that. While for example bus drivers who have been driving for over 10 years do tend to be on time often unless of course construction crews cocerning more than one bus station renovation project is taking 3 years to complete which is excessive. Well good thing nobody I know personally had to be bus driver since the year 2000.

I would much rather be accused of plagiarism than data fraud. 😂. It's like a lawyer citing fake case law to win a case (think chat gpt guy), it's like a doctor deliberately prescribing false medication to scam insurance. That is unthinkable 😮. She is a joke

Sadly this does more harm than good, and this video overlooks the replication problem in science right now. And peer reviewing imho needs huge reforms .

I wonder what people with OCD or ADHD, autism or schizophrenia would score on the tests with the gorilla, and other unexpected things in videos.

lmfao yeah he's so brave

These are half truths, probably because the presentation is from a psychological perspective rather than neuroscience perspective. The underlying facts are that humans (and other primates, rats, dolphins...) have two neural networks with which to perceive and respond to reaility, they are the Default Network and the Task Positive network (the latter is actually a "network of networks). The first is internally directed involved in autobiographical memory, emotions, subjective experiences or ego centered pursuits, etc. The latter is expernally directed involved in objective task execution These two are "anti-correlated which means that the more active one is the less active the other is. The less demanding or more practiced a objective task is, the more involved the subjective Default Network is allowed to be. But demanding or unpracticed tasks require more disconnection of the Default Network for accurate task execution. If, for some reason the Default Network does not allow its activity to be reduced, errors will occur in the task execution. There is a third network called the Salience Network that is the "control knob" that gets all sorts of sensory, emotional and motivational information then determines which and to what degree the above two systems will be active. The sad part is that we are developmentally, socially, and culturally designed to have a more dominant Default Network. It is the first to develop, it develps faster and it is associated with all sorts of reinforcing pleasing motivators. by Age 2-3, it is well established while the task systmen takes over a decade. Maturation and parenting are essentially the process of developiong and strengthening task network so that it is strong enough to not succumb to the Defalut Network. Sadly dysfunctional families, and societies and culture get in the way of this process. Note: the part of the Task positive network involed in the gorrilla experiment are the Dorsal and Ventral attention networks. the first is desinged to stay on task for the current goal, the second is to break this process to notice the irrelevant to the short term goal but relevant to some longer term or more fundamental goal. Some people have a stronger DAN than VAN so may not notice the gorrilla, especailly since noticing gorrillas in an urban environment is not a fundamental priority. (I would not be surprised if jungle inhabitants did better in this task). Regarding talking on the phone while driving - driving is a well practiced task when the road poses no novel situations allowing for talking on the phone. The latter is a very personal experiences (Defautl network function) so would detract from the task of driving if a novel situation occurs or unpracticed maneuver was required. (task network funciton)

Knowledge NO GPS knowledge beats GPS FACT

Nice! U of I....I worked on that campus for 14 years

The stock footage overload is so weird.

I felt the needs to like and subscribe. I just knew I wanted to.

Fiji water: your daily dose of arsenic. Go buy a Brita filter, they are expensive but probably priced so that filtered water is in the middle between tap water and the cheapest bottled water (containing arsenic?) Oh no, dont buy a filter, US customers are just sueing BRITA US .

Why the heck is this not going viral?

The violin in the subway is a stupid test in the first place. You are assuming people like violin music and would actually know the difference between a pro and an amateur. Which cast doubt on how accurate any of these test are given all the unaccounted for variables in any given study. None of this bears any weight in my opinion because there is no way to account for the individual differences between one person and the next. Its all hogwash and patting one another on the back for nonsense.

Tunnel vision, and it's very common.

Mel Brooks taught me this in the movie High Anxiety

Nearly everything people are told these days is faked or hyped up. No surprises here.

I know I can only concentrate on so much at a time!! I presume most people are the same, unless they have an especially high IQ. And even if we are talking about a high or low IQ, we all have times when we are firing on all cylinders and times when we are not.

Let me help you. I remember ads that are annoying 😂 even when I tell myself I won't use something because the ad was annoying still i end up using products from annoying ads. Probably bcz they burned into my head.

I’d like to see a study where they do some word association or something afterwards with the “didn’t see the gorilla” group to see if they DID see it, and DID know it was a gorilla, but just not consciously.

She was surrounded by enablers. Only a couple stood up to her and paid a price. Schultz's grandson was an employee and brought his concerns to his grandfather when George was still on the board. George just out-of-hand dismissed his grandson's objections.

Still can't see the people 😮

You can simulate this easily on a large scale in video games. People are focused on other tasks and miss things. Or they’re yapping on mics and even in normal gameplay without experiments they’re missing snipers and ambushes. I could tell the violinist was an expert in the video though I’m not interested in music much or know who Joshua is. I wouldn’t have stopped because i would’ve been wanting to get to the thing I’m out trying to do. Actually it seems a little rude to be playing loud music in public inside like that where people conversations would be drowned out or important phone calls might be inaudible.

12:40 i wish more people realised how fallible our memories are, even our good memories are not 100% true. People seem to act like they can trust honest testimony, but we get stuff wrong all the time. Our brains fill in the gaps, and we can tell a story we believe is absolutely true, while still being wrong. This goes for everyone.

have you ever spotted a continuity error in a film, rewound it and discovered upon review that there was no error?

You can only not see it once.

When I was shown the video, I did not notice the gorrilla. In fact, the place where I was shown it was in the office of U. of Illinois professor John Hummel, a person I have become acquainted with through social media and later traveled to Champaign-Urbana to meet. So you can add my results to the sample!

I hate the misuse of the word intuition as it implies a lie. Intuition and self awareness are not the same. The average person, when referring to intuition would assume you were referring to the ability to mentally see something that is not physically visible. Or to mentally deduce something in an educational guess kind of way. Or even an elevated instinct comparative to the average person. The narrator here says we can’t trust our own experiences or intuition. So what do you trust? All humans on earth are the offspring of survivors that were the offspring of survivors going back millennia. Trust your intuition. As he stated everyone noticed the gorilla but not everyone made a mental note. It wasn’t necessary to the task and the brain didn’t need that info. It’s very efficient that way. Trust your intuition. Don’t believe these educational looking lies. They open a door to manipulation.

FNORD

How do those 50% vote? 😅

I did not see the gorilla the first time I watched the infamous video. And i hate that.

I have never understood the thought that a phone call is not a distraction. It seems so counter-intuitive to me that paying any amount of attention to a phone call (just being on one) does not draw attention from something else.

This is the typically sloppy work of psychologists. The gorilla experiment is designed to find the result he's looking for, that's all. Many people do try to follow directions. The directions specifically targeted counting. That made counting the focus of attention, and it's an artificial distraction from the changing environment. IOW,. the experiment is designed to make subjects ignore distractions. Normally our attention changes as the environment changes. Yet even then, in this experiment, only 50% of people give him the results he's looking for. This doesn't stop him from making generalizations about people without mentioning half the people do not behave as he generalizes. What conclusions does he draw about that other half? Does he give them any thought at all? Any competent experimenter would have a control group which was not told to count. How many of them would notice the gorilla? If still 50%, then the experiment is a flop. It shows nothing of value. Let's assume the control group recognizes the gorilla more often. Why would that be? Could it be that the experimenters were not testing what they think they were testing? The results may simply show how some people can focus, and focus at a high degree, on things that they are told are important at the time, even when distractions are present? Autistic people may do well on that test. IOW, two researchers could look at the same results and draw two different conclusions, even nearly opposite conclusions. This is not me trying to give permission to cell phone drivers. I'm against such behavior. I'm simply rejecting the validity of this experiment.