Who would be working the mines, Tom? Only children can fit in those tight spaces Tom. Where are you going to source your thousands of dwarves, Tom? Have you thought about that Tom!?
Now I wonder if those psychologists are on the same parts of the internet as me, where people have anecdotes that they find chores easier with a silly or on theme costume on, either as a role playing thing ("I am not a computer programmer who hates cutting vegetables, I am a 50s housewife lovingly making dinner for my spouse") or a tangible, visible symbol that they were in chore mode ("Mildred is wearing the giraffe headband, best not to disturb her while she's deep cleaning the bathroom.")
Always a pleasure puzzling with you all, thanks for having us on!! Though this episode will probably get us automatically rejected from any future IRB approvals 😆
Hell- why stop when studying? Attend the exam in costume as well! And while I love Sagan, I submit a Batman costume would provide the benefit of motivating others as well! A public service, if you will.
“I think it would be particularly effective for ages 4-6” “Were they watching Star Wars?” very quiet possibly unintentional roast of Star Wars fans there
No, the "Stanford marshmallow experiment" was bonkers because the researchers didn't consider the social background of their test subjects when they drew their conclusions...
Depends on what you mean by "consider". As long as different social backgrounds were _represented_ (in a realistic proportion) that doesn't make the study invalid, just more generic (i.e., you can still get a valid average for the population, you just won't identify the potential correlation with that factor).
@@RFC3514 there were two variables they tested for: first, whether or not the kid ate the first marshmellow, and second, how the now adult kid performed later in life. Their conclusion was that kids who restrained themselves were more successful later in life, meaning that the first variable caused effects on the second. This conclusion is the problem, not the data set. Researchers many years later looked into the social background of the kids in this study and found that kids with poor backgrounds were more likely to eat the first marshmellow and to perform worse, while kids with rich(er) backgrounds waited for the second marshmellow and were more successful later in life. Both variables are actually connected to a third variable, which was ignored or looked over by the interpreters of the first study. Other research from sociology gives some good reasoning why changes in this third variable is very likely to be the *cause* of the observed effects in the other two variables, but those effects are otherwise unrelated to each other. Perfect example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
@@RFC3514 Yes, the study might be valid, and the methodology might have been correct, but that doesn't mean it supports the conclusions drawn by the population at large. If you eat the marshmallow now, is it because you can't control your impulses, and that poor control leads to worse outcomes later in life? That's what people think. But maybe it's because you're hungry, and that hunger is caused by food insecurity that also tends to correlate with worse outcomes later in life. I've even heard it suggested that, if they controlled for the amount of trust in the adult that promised the second marshmallow, they'd find that the trust was more significant. If you have an abusive or uncertain childhood, adults promising treats later may be lying or may be unable to fulfill that promise, so better eat now before it gets taken away. They didn't prove what people think they proved, is the point, whether or not they had a representative sample.
@@RFC3514 To simplify the issue with the marshmallow test, think of it like this: I conducted a survey on thousands of random people, and found out that people carrying lighters were more likely to have lung cancer later on in life, therefore lighters cause lung cancer. The statement is obviously incorrect because while there *is* a correlation, the assumed causation is incorrect. It's not that lighters directly cause lung cancer, but those carrying lighters are more likely to be smokers, and thus have a higher chance of getting lung cancer. It's the same with the marshmallow test. A kid eating the first marshmallow doesn't mean that they're bad at making decisions about future rewards, but more that if they come from a poor household, that they're used to stuff being taken away from them (like money or food or belongings) for the family's or parents' needs, and so their brain has made the connection that if they have something, it's best to use it before it gets taken. The poor background also links up to doing well later on in life, because richer households will tend to have better access to education and have a more stable foundation in terms of basic stuff (food, water, electricity, shelter, etc).
I hope someone's tried this with adults, both a costumen and a variety of workwear (bonus points for also varying the repetitive task to see if wearing the "correct" clothing for the task helped)
Jenny’s rat in a bucket experiment sounds like a Morris Water Maze. This is a model of despair which is seen as a correlate of what humans report as depression when testing rodents. There are plenty of academic papers out there which will describe it better than I ever could here.
This study could be easily topped. Dangle some candy on a string, ever so slightly out of reach, and those kids will be jumping and hopping for hours longer! An 800% increase!
I've always thought the marshmallow experiment would be better if they demonstrated it to the kids first like they allowed the kids to see that they would actually receive two, maybe with having the second one visible and/or letting them watch another kid do it successfully and get rewarded would go some way to resolving the trust/resource scarcity problem
No luck with my guess. I thought perhaps the second group wasn't actually told to do the task - maybe they were just left in a playroom with a jigsaw puzzle and took it upon themselves to try to complete it, while the first group were told "you must do this jigsaw".
As far as IRB approval... some linguistic research goes completely against IRB thinking. In some post-Soviet States, you never sign anything except when you admit you did something wrong. So if you try to get your language experts to sign the research approval you may be affecting your research adversely.
I imagine there are many, many ways to make children do a boring, repetitive task for longer. Pile up these wooden blocks vs pile up these wooden blocks *that have cute faces on* - surely that's obvious? But it's not just children, it's all people. Like the whole industry of the gamification of exercise - turn it into a game, or a challenge, or a competition and suddenly people will do things they previously wouldn't. Do twenty push-ups vs do twenty push-ups *so the princess escapes the tower,* or do 10,000 steps per day vs do more steps per day *than Bill in accounting* are completely different motivations.
@@pattheplanter As far as I know, literally all it is is a child is sat at a table and shown a marshmallow, told that they can eat it now or wait for a second marshmallow. The child then makes the decision of either eating it now, or waiting a few minutes for the second one. Testing patience is not torture.
Is it possible that the difficulty of the task was the boring repetitive nature of the task, and so the longevity was less controlled by persevering features, and more controlled by variety and complexity features. i.e. It wasn't because they thought batman could do it longer, it's that thinking of batman adds complexity, roleplaying and creativity to the task, so it was engaging for longer.
Until the final answer, I was confindent that the answer would be, the kids who worked harder were addressed with their real name, and the kids who didn't, were addressed with just some random test subject number.
So what I heard about the marshmallow test is that there is a difference between the two groups but the marshmallow is too small a reward to test delayed gratification and really your testing there willingness to please adults (or maybe trust) which even in that age group is a test for class and wealth (being a good a reliable parent is to some degree a privilege)
Meanwhile, we go to our jobs all dressed up and looking professional... because corporate overlords ... When really, in order to be more productive and generate more money for said corporate overlords is to dress up as our favorite characters and role play them. workplaces could and should be fun! Why do we make workplaces so soul crushing?
Similar things are used by people with ADHD. 🙈 I was told the idea to think of yourself as a robot, that just does whatever task it gets assigned. But at the same time a costume is just fun. Whan we (people in general or just with ADHD?) are tidying up and find a cool hat or glasses, putting them on makes it more bearable to proceed with the boring task.
I can very much relate to this! I've had family members walk in wondering why I'm doing my work with a blanket cape, shades, and a pillow on my head. 😄
My immediate thought was "whips. They persevered longer under threat of violence" Not because I thought it was the right answer, but just because I wanted to see how Tom (and everyone else, I guess) would react to that.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
They always say that Batman has no actual superpowers, but now we know he's 23% superior to us.
THE CHILDREN YEARN FOR THE MINES, TOM
Who would be working the mines, Tom? Only children can fit in those tight spaces Tom. Where are you going to source your thousands of dwarves, Tom? Have you thought about that Tom!?
Let's be real, that's why they're called Miners.
The question is what character should we tell the kids to pretend to to make them want to mine
@@ArifRWinandarMinecraft’s Steve/Alex of course.
Frostpunk players be like:
I would absolutely watch "unethical psychology experiments" XD or "psychology students' intrusive thoughts"
Now I wonder if those psychologists are on the same parts of the internet as me, where people have anecdotes that they find chores easier with a silly or on theme costume on, either as a role playing thing ("I am not a computer programmer who hates cutting vegetables, I am a 50s housewife lovingly making dinner for my spouse") or a tangible, visible symbol that they were in chore mode ("Mildred is wearing the giraffe headband, best not to disturb her while she's deep cleaning the bathroom.")
I like how the captions say Tom said "the flavour factory" and Becky said "the flavor factory"
I know! His team really goes above and beyond, I _love_ that they apply that approach to the closed captioning too! 😊❤
This episode went for 23% longer because Tom got that compliment towards the end.
This episode is about 23% longer than six minutes and a bit, most Lateral clips are around six minutes and a bit, the math adds up.
At 4:43, the caption is "that wouldn't pass irony" instead of "that wouldn't pass IRB". Great episode!
Always a pleasure puzzling with you all, thanks for having us on!! Though this episode will probably get us automatically rejected from any future IRB approvals 😆
And unfortunately, the usually excellent subtitles incorrectly subbed "IRB" [institutional review board] as "irony".
@@JonReevesLA Ah, thanks, now it makes more sense!
I should try this now that I have to study for exams. Carl Sagan wouldn't give up, so neither will I!
Hell- why stop when studying? Attend the exam in costume as well!
And while I love Sagan, I submit a Batman costume would provide the benefit of motivating others as well! A public service, if you will.
“I think it would be particularly effective for ages 4-6”
“Were they watching Star Wars?”
very quiet possibly unintentional roast of Star Wars fans there
No, the "Stanford marshmallow experiment" was bonkers because the researchers didn't consider the social background of their test subjects when they drew their conclusions...
This needs to be higher up. Looking back at it is SO much worse than people realize.
Depends on what you mean by "consider". As long as different social backgrounds were _represented_ (in a realistic proportion) that doesn't make the study invalid, just more generic (i.e., you can still get a valid average for the population, you just won't identify the potential correlation with that factor).
@@RFC3514 there were two variables they tested for: first, whether or not the kid ate the first marshmellow, and second, how the now adult kid performed later in life. Their conclusion was that kids who restrained themselves were more successful later in life, meaning that the first variable caused effects on the second. This conclusion is the problem, not the data set.
Researchers many years later looked into the social background of the kids in this study and found that kids with poor backgrounds were more likely to eat the first marshmellow and to perform worse, while kids with rich(er) backgrounds waited for the second marshmellow and were more successful later in life.
Both variables are actually connected to a third variable, which was ignored or looked over by the interpreters of the first study. Other research from sociology gives some good reasoning why changes in this third variable is very likely to be the *cause* of the observed effects in the other two variables, but those effects are otherwise unrelated to each other. Perfect example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
@@RFC3514 Yes, the study might be valid, and the methodology might have been correct, but that doesn't mean it supports the conclusions drawn by the population at large.
If you eat the marshmallow now, is it because you can't control your impulses, and that poor control leads to worse outcomes later in life? That's what people think. But maybe it's because you're hungry, and that hunger is caused by food insecurity that also tends to correlate with worse outcomes later in life. I've even heard it suggested that, if they controlled for the amount of trust in the adult that promised the second marshmallow, they'd find that the trust was more significant. If you have an abusive or uncertain childhood, adults promising treats later may be lying or may be unable to fulfill that promise, so better eat now before it gets taken away.
They didn't prove what people think they proved, is the point, whether or not they had a representative sample.
@@RFC3514
To simplify the issue with the marshmallow test, think of it like this:
I conducted a survey on thousands of random people, and found out that people carrying lighters were more likely to have lung cancer later on in life, therefore lighters cause lung cancer.
The statement is obviously incorrect because while there *is* a correlation, the assumed causation is incorrect. It's not that lighters directly cause lung cancer, but those carrying lighters are more likely to be smokers, and thus have a higher chance of getting lung cancer.
It's the same with the marshmallow test. A kid eating the first marshmallow doesn't mean that they're bad at making decisions about future rewards, but more that if they come from a poor household, that they're used to stuff being taken away from them (like money or food or belongings) for the family's or parents' needs, and so their brain has made the connection that if they have something, it's best to use it before it gets taken. The poor background also links up to doing well later on in life, because richer households will tend to have better access to education and have a more stable foundation in terms of basic stuff (food, water, electricity, shelter, etc).
Molly your darkness is mesmerizing. We love the dark guesses. They're wrong but entertaining.
I will propose this to my boss. I AM BATMAN!!
"Commissioner Gordon, I would like to take off this silly mask and work 23% less."
Jenny going super dark. Love it
The first two chords of the theme song hit really different when they're immediately preceded by the word "Batman".
Oh, good catch!
I hope someone's tried this with adults, both a costumen and a variety of workwear (bonus points for also varying the repetitive task to see if wearing the "correct" clothing for the task helped)
> "correct" clothing for the task
the study better involve programming socks
Very recently read about the study, so guessed from the video title. Still fun to watch others figure it out.
Genuinely wondering how I can incorporate this into my work routine
I am so going to do this with my kids while they're folding the clothes!
Fair warning, I think you repeated the description from last time.
No, Tom’s just expressing his dislike of children
That's fair
@@JamesWhite-no2hj'I was a child once, I'm trying to put it past me...' -Tom Scott
SPOILER WARNING:
Jingle bells, Batman smells
@@ji604 Robin flew away
Santa Claus got stuck upon the motorway
"Batman would listen to his parents."
"Umm. No he wouldn't."
Actually he would. Perhaps in a less direct manner than usual, but he would I'd say.
Jenny’s rat in a bucket experiment sounds like a Morris Water Maze. This is a model of despair which is seen as a correlate of what humans report as depression when testing rodents. There are plenty of academic papers out there which will describe it better than I ever could here.
And here I was thinking they just gave the kids experience points and levels
@4:03 Blue clues- well that brings back memories
I thought it was a mirror in the room, like they didn't like to see themselves being lazy or giving up... 😅
I thought "mirror" after 5:07.
Draper For The Win ! Love seeing J. Draper 😊
This study could be easily topped. Dangle some candy on a string, ever so slightly out of reach, and those kids will be jumping and hopping for hours longer! An 800% increase!
Oh I really love this one.
I've always thought the marshmallow experiment would be better if they demonstrated it to the kids first
like they allowed the kids to see that they would actually receive two, maybe with having the second one visible and/or letting them watch another kid do it successfully and get rewarded
would go some way to resolving the trust/resource scarcity problem
No luck with my guess. I thought perhaps the second group wasn't actually told to do the task - maybe they were just left in a playroom with a jigsaw puzzle and took it upon themselves to try to complete it, while the first group were told "you must do this jigsaw".
So is this the reason people are sometimes fond of "Dress for the job you want, not for the job you have"?
Initial guess: the ones who did it longer were told they had a (shorter) time limit
Dress for the job you want.
Comes to office dressed as Batman
So wholesome.
This would never have worked for me as a kid because my favourite characters were Garfield and Whatamess
The repetitive task was that they were defusing live mines.
And to spin it back around to a negative, the children endured further by dissociating
Not needed. You can make them work harder by increasing the frequency and strength of the canings.
Subtitle error: 4:41 should read "IRB" instead of "irony"
Call it a hunch, but I think Jenny wants to dress up as Elsa.
What was the task they were doing?
hey i think the description for this vid is wrong
As far as IRB approval... some linguistic research goes completely against IRB thinking. In some post-Soviet States, you never sign anything except when you admit you did something wrong. So if you try to get your language experts to sign the research approval you may be affecting your research adversely.
Did anyone else go straight to the Distractionator at 3:57?
Shanty/ work song in the background?
"What would Brian Boitano do?"
I imagine there are many, many ways to make children do a boring, repetitive task for longer. Pile up these wooden blocks vs pile up these wooden blocks *that have cute faces on* - surely that's obvious? But it's not just children, it's all people. Like the whole industry of the gamification of exercise - turn it into a game, or a challenge, or a competition and suddenly people will do things they previously wouldn't. Do twenty push-ups vs do twenty push-ups *so the princess escapes the tower,* or do 10,000 steps per day vs do more steps per day *than Bill in accounting* are completely different motivations.
I don't think any ethics committees will allow replication of the Marshmallow Child Torture Experiment.
How is it torture?
@@BaeYeou Have you watched the experiment?
@@pattheplanter
As far as I know, literally all it is is a child is sat at a table and shown a marshmallow, told that they can eat it now or wait for a second marshmallow. The child then makes the decision of either eating it now, or waiting a few minutes for the second one.
Testing patience is not torture.
So the kids thought they were good people, but not as good as Batman? Makes sense.
Is it possible that the difficulty of the task was the boring repetitive nature of the task, and so the longevity was less controlled by persevering features, and more controlled by variety and complexity features. i.e. It wasn't because they thought batman could do it longer, it's that thinking of batman adds complexity, roleplaying and creativity to the task, so it was engaging for longer.
Nice
Batman would be proud of you four
Until the final answer, I was confindent that the answer would be, the kids who worked harder were addressed with their real name, and the kids who didn't, were addressed with just some random test subject number.
Candy!
👍👍
aw, so now our clothes are being made by little batmen
I will start wearing Batman suit in busy days
more reason to wear your fursuit to work
So what I heard about the marshmallow test is that there is a difference between the two groups but the marshmallow is too small a reward to test delayed gratification and really your testing there willingness to please adults (or maybe trust) which even in that age group is a test for class and wealth (being a good a reliable parent is to some degree a privilege)
Who's Elsa?
from Disney movie Frozen. kids luv her
it's sad that elsa contracted ligma
@@wiseSYW What's steve jobs?
@@wiseSYW ya I went to sawcon and they're was a huge ligma epidemic there 😥
Do you live under a rock or something? What’s it like back in 2009?
Most dangerous episode out all of them I guess?
Meanwhile, we go to our jobs all dressed up and looking professional... because corporate overlords ...
When really, in order to be more productive and generate more money for said corporate overlords is to dress up as our favorite characters and role play them.
workplaces could and should be fun! Why do we make workplaces so soul crushing?
So disscociating from your physical self helps improve productivity? Capitalist hellscape indeed.
Batman would like this video.
Similar things are used by people with ADHD. 🙈 I was told the idea to think of yourself as a robot, that just does whatever task it gets assigned.
But at the same time a costume is just fun. Whan we (people in general or just with ADHD?) are tidying up and find a cool hat or glasses, putting them on makes it more bearable to proceed with the boring task.
I can very much relate to this! I've had family members walk in wondering why I'm doing my work with a blanket cape, shades, and a pillow on my head. 😄
My immediate thought was "whips.
They persevered longer under threat of violence"
Not because I thought it was the right answer, but just because I wanted to see how Tom (and everyone else, I guess) would react to that.
This is just 'Citation Needed' with a rotating cast.
No, absolutely nothing like Citation Needed. That was gold and I desperately wish they’d bring it back.