I still love Hank best (he seems like he's having fun) but Brit is a close 2nd, she's awesome. I don't find her as attractive as most guys here seem to, but maybe her "average" looks (to me) make me take her more seriously -- and you're said it, she does everything right.
I have said for a long time now that while useful on some levels, the subject pool for a lot of psychological research is heavily skewed. My favourite example of this is eating disorders. For a long time, it was though eating disorders only affected affluent, adolescent, white females. But in reality, those were the only subjects able to or sent to treatment. We now know they can affect anybody, regardless of race, gender, age, culture, or income level. What we don't really know are the exact numbers because it is hard to find a broad enough sample range.
Add that mental illness until recently was very shameful even among relatively rich people. Poor uneducated parents know they cannot support an adult child. The only thing they can do is try to hide the disease because they fear that their children will otherwise be stigmatized from society and "has to live on the streets".
1:00 Who does the study is not the benchmark, the benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST. A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West. One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
@@laique8797 If the native Chinese man is conducting his study using a broad sampling range to get inclusive data, or is extrapolating information to apply strictly to his sample's situations, then sure. The problem is taking a narrow sample and applying it broadly to all of humankind, whether it's from an Eastern or Western perspective or what have you. Back to my example with eating disorders, how many times have you heard people dismiss EDs with, "There are people starving in Africa, you know," as if people in Africa do not also have eating disorders among their population. They make have different symptoms and underlying psychology, but that's exactly the point--eating disorders can affect anyone, regardless of race, gender, culture, age, financial status, religion, or whatever else. Trying to draw conclusions about why and how they develop in people using only a narrow sampling of rich, white, adolescent females and applying it to everyone really bones both researchers down the line and people suffering looking for help that don't 'fit' the results. And that is the issue. It has nothing to do with the nationality of the scientists and everything to do with how they apply their findings based on their sample.
I don't like how in psychological evaluations, it'll state that, "patient denies any history with drug and/or alcohol abuse." "Denies" denotes a dishonest connotation. Why don't they use "does/does not report" instead?
Not only does most psychological research use undergrads.....they typically directly recruit Psychology...undergrads, which are an even 'weirder' group, right?
I only noticed it was HP-themed when I saw the glasses, they looked out of place on a holiday sweater. Then I noticed the Hallows and everything else. Subtle. I want one~
1:00 Who does the study is not the benchmark, the benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST. A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West. One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
We need studies that cover people as a whole (global) as well as studies of various smaller groups. Then we can determine how certain occurrences will most likely affect each type or group of people and how the effects will vary among the groups.
Generation may have an effect as well. People in college today may be more risk-averse because they grew up in a recession, as well as a post-911 America (and the whole "modern parents never let their kids out of their site" thing).
This video sparked my little American brain! ⚡️ I'm glad you're encouraging seeking out different perspectives because it's true how Americans are extremely egocentric. 😅
You believe it's better anywhere else? I've been to places (not the US unfortunately) but I've got the feeling pretty much every culture is egocentric. Especially men.
It's not sexist if it's true. What I'm trying to say is, if you would go around the world, pick a sample of men and women from different cultures and compare them against each other, the data will show that men within a culture will have certain personality traits expressed more strongly than their female counter parts, on average. That doesn't mean every man is egocentric, nor that all women are not, but both our biology and cultures naturally lead us to become that way. Men and women are different, it's a fact. It's not a question of bad vs good, it's just assessing reality. Can you honestly say there's nothing to my claim, when you look around you?
Soooo...right and left are egocentric, whereas behind and above are allocentric? "On the right side of the shelf" is not relative to me; it's on the shelves right side. "Above the shelf" falls under the same category to me; it's not relative to me, it's relative to the shelf. If someone moved the shelf say to the right of the object, the object is no longer "on the right side of the shelf", but on the left side. Or am I simply not understanding correctly what is being presented here?
Had the same thought. When I say an object is to the left, I do not always mean that the object is on MY left. Example: "The left door of my car." I do not mean the door that is to my left, I mean the door that is on the car's left. Same with above and behind. No more or less relative to me than left or right.
"looking at it from the front?" You just answered your own question. Since we know which end of the car is the front we can use that to determine which side is the left side of the car.
Cars have a front...because they are made to move forward. So there are left and right sides relative to the front. Where youre standing makes no difference. Just like a "left shoe" or "right shoe" isnt based on your line of sight...but is based on their use. If you were facing someone would you call the shoe on their right foot their "left shoe"?
I think for the sake of brevity, ie not making this a 30 minute video, they may have glanced over quite a lot of details regarding these kind of issues. I'm no expert either, but if we we're talking face to face, left and right would be egocentric, whereas the sky would be above both of us.
Reminds me of this one article I read which claimed that science had disproven the "early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise" quote. The study it claimed to have done this was an experiment in which all the subjects were teens, and completely neglected to mention that peoples' sleeping habits have been found to change depending on age, gravitating towards going to bed later as youth, and sooner as grown-ups. Knowing that, it seems more likely the results of that experiment can be chalked up to the age of the subjects, not Franklin's being wrong about men (note his quote direction mentioned men, not youths; men weren't even studied here).
And this is why you need to ground psychology in some observable and testable neurological effect. Otherwise we are back all the humbug of the last 100 years and all the awful misunderstandings that's lead to.
Or just like not have a positivistic outlook from which you claim to study such a thing as "the pure individual" by filtering away all the "noise", amongst others also known as culture, even though this very much seems to be absolutely fundamental to how we function and not just some modifier (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; and so on).
Even if the students themselves aren't Western, most Phychology schools ARE. This also makes studies more difficult to apply outside of Western Culture.
How does using egocentric directions instead of allocentric terms relate to the way men and women tend to view the environment? Men tend to overwhelmingly use allocentric terms, particularly when giving directions, whereas women tend to use egocentric terms. I've heard this explained using evolutionary psychology as a result of the fact that men tended to be hunters and developed navigational skills that relied on direction and distance, since herds of mammoth tended to wander, whereas women tended to be gatherers and relied more on landmarks, because berry bushes aren't migratory. I'm just wondering if that has something to do with why WEIRD populations tend to use egocentric terms. Perhaps, since our nations tend to be far more settled and industrialised, we rely more on landmarks for navigation, and that's reflected in our language use.
I recommend you to make some research in the way Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamies, Chinese and practically anyone form east asia perceives the world in a far more collective, allocentric way than here in the west. Honestly is fascinating.
How are behind any different from left or right? All 3 are in relation to yourself or yourself relative to another object. Only above can be used in non-human relative ways...
I suppose behind does depend on whats the relative 'back' of an object but in most cases its typically used when there's no direct way to get to it without first passing by the thing it's 'behind'. Otherwise we'd say "right next to" Example: it'd be behind something if the object was against a wall, sandwiched between the wall and another object. If it's two objects back to back with equal access to each other then they're 'right next to each other' Everythings always technically behind something. It's not like we use the term willy nilly. Its like saying North is 'Egocentric' because although something may be North of me its South of something else.
kabbinj2 Dude you misunderstood it. When you describe things like "left of me or right of me" the other person has to try to take into consideration that it's your perception, but when you say things like "above of me" or just "near me" he doesn't have to do that, because it works for both your perception and his. I hope that clarified something.
it does seem they study the same types of people over and over again. not gonna get an accurate picture of normal humans by choosing from a select group. i think they need to just go door to door or something, or stand outside shopping centers or whatever, or something, idk.
QUESTION: Ive just saw Sophia robot gaining citizenship in Saudi Arabia, and it remind me a doubt I about something Ive noticed about robotic design and many other things: ¿WHY DO HUMANS HAVE THE(PRIMITIVE) BEHAVIOR OF TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING(Gods, animals, nature, robots) IN THEIR OWN IMAGE, APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR, TO RELATE AND CONNECT TO THEM? Why are robotic guys trying to make creepy copies of humans, when they could make could make Chappie, Optimus Prime, Voltron, Jaegers? That would be so freaking awesome! Anyway, that "primitve" behavior of trying to make things like us to relate to them, has really damaged our understanding of the universe and reality. Like thinking nature has a mind like ours, stars, animals and other phenomena, when in reality, they DON'T, but instead have AMAZING mechanisms that work them and make them what they are. Science, biology, astronomy, chemistry, physicist, psychology, etc. Give us robots THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE, like badass awesome looking robots!
Eduardo Gutierrez Humans are selfish. We make stuff in our own image because if it's not like us then we don't care about it. That's why the uncanny valley is really important.
Selfish? I mean, yeah I agree we humans are kind of selfish for the most part. But making robots look like humans is more about egocentrism and less about selfish
As a westerner living in India I have been befuddled by how many Indian people have a poor grasp of 'left' and 'right'. Every day people around me get this basic function confused, no matter their social or economic standing. It never occurred to me that it may have come from a sense of self. Getting directions from an Indian is often an exercise in frustration and confusion.
This, combined with the whole p-hacking replicability crisis seems to be undermining the credibility of social sciences as a whole. Is it necessary to start from scratch, barring some fundamental axioms?
Though I totally understand how WEIRD biases are a problem, the fact of the matter is, the data is useless no matter which way you look at it. For example, if just where you live affects the level of self-esteem you have, how is that helpful information regarding psychology? If something like age and educational background affects your generosity, imagine how many other factors could have an impact too. So, why even write an article about your research it if the data isn't even accurate among your own social circle? Even if you account for the world's population, the data is so variable that it's pretty much meaningless; these studies wouldn't retain much value even if it only accounted for the largest demographics in the world. When it comes to science, accuracy matters. If your research doesn't have reproducible or at least globally consistent results, it may as well go ignored.
You're dismissing a lot off-hand here. You say the data is too variable to be useful... but maybe it's not. We'd have to measure a representative sample, and its sub-groups, and then decide whether the variability makes the results non-significant. Maybe we shouldn't be studying just one "all humans" group, but maybe if we research a few sub-groups instead we can find more useful information.
But how many hundreds or possibly thousands of sub-groups will you have to account for? Who is going to collect all that data? Seeing as age affects people's perspectives over time, what's to say time itself won't transition people's thoughts? It doesn't matter how many data points and how centralized you make them. Studies like this are too variable to be of any use.
It should be noted that the psychological studies weren't only done on native people. At least here in Scotland we have students from a bit of everywhere, China, India, various parts of Africa, Brazil, etc. Also not to mention offspring from people of parents from different regions of the earth. So it may be that the values are skewed but I find that in the video it was portrayed a bit too much of "the west vs the world."
It's not too much. Those people you mentioned from China, India, etc. are from a culture that is far more mature in terms of development due to the fact that it's older. I mean culture because culture has nothing to do with technology. And that's why those kind of people are much more aware of the fact that the way to make peaceful interaction with westerners is to unquestioningly conform to their social norms. That's why they literally gave you the illusion that they're not so different from westerners in psychological research that you're talking about.
How is "behind" or "above" different from "left" or "right"? You can say the refrigerator is to the left of the stove... (Which is relative to the wall and the direction the appliances are facing) Or you could say the ceiling fan is above me...the couch is behind me.... (Which is relative to the speaker) Using those words themselves really has no bearing on the perspective. And Western, or American, people dont tend to use cardinal directions too much (aside from driving directions) because we simply dont know which way our house and other places are even oriented. Our modern culture basically makes that pointless knowledge. We use GPS for one...and also...very little about our society (besides roads) is based on cardinal directions. In more primitive societies the houses, villages, etc. are likely to be laid out with cardinal directions in mind...since they dont have electric lighting and air conditioning. Not using cardinal directions in our society isnt the result of ego...its the result of practicality. When it is practical for us...we use them. Before Americans had electric lighting, air conditioning, GPS, etc. they too referred to cardinal directions far more often. Not because they were less egocentric...but because it was a useful way of communicating at that time...and now it isnt. Why would i tell someone my bathroom is on the south side of my house...when they dont know which direction they are oriented? I would tell them its straight ahead, or to the left, etc...based on where we are standing and facing.
How did you manage to leave out the spectrum of racial and ethnic diversity in the US, and the long history of scientic racism that still isn't being addressed in psychology?
This is why I dislike Zimbardo's Prison Experiment so much. People are soooo quick to make universal claims about it, when they're all white, middle-class college boys from the US. Pretty small and specific group if you ask me, who have a specific relationship with the justice system that might influence how they identify with absolute power... Not to mention the study is a hot mess; if the researcher gets sucked into the scenario, they're not objective anymore, and worse yet, they're directly influencing the study as a major factor. The boys wouldn't have gone so far if he was observing compared to the reality of him ENGAGING too and essentially silently approving it.
No. Just acknowledge that predicates do exist. For example generally speaking Aussies love Marmite, but Finns don't. (wouldn't count on it though, for we take pride in eating sh**) Combining these two wouldn't answer the question whether Marmite is a delicacy or not.
People clearly see colours differently than me. I'm constantly being told about all these white and black people, but I have yet to see a single person who is one of these colours. All I ever see are really ugly shades of brown from light tan to dark chocolate.
I always thought that "weird" meant something like this: W- wonderful E- entertaining I- interesting R- real D- different This Acronym fits me and my family perfectly! But of course what yall were talking about is way awesomeness too!!! #fanofScishow
1:00 Who does ghe study is not benchmark, what benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST. A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West. One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
you guys need a citation for the comment that ppl preceve colour equally... i say that cuz when you try to find such is when you realize your folly. perception is what your brain sees, and is NOT what your eyes transmit (which is the part that is closest to ppl being equal, if you ignore the disparity in cone counts...).. Booourns!
empmachine remember that “what color is this dress” meme that had everybody confused as to whether or not the dress was blue and black or white and gold
Jens Schmidt LMAO the page was funny, good link.. it somehow reminded me of another video I should have linked initially.. you see this one? it's pretty cool. ruclips.net/video/VIg5HkyauoY/видео.html
so what we need are more agrarian societies to spend money on psychological research to help round out the demographics. come on Africa, Asia, and S. America get your stuff together and contribute.
My first thought was that I saw more students from abroad while at uni for my second set of degrees compared to my first set 20 years ago, and that means more demographics will be included by default. But, then I realized that the first two letters in the WEIRD acronym, rather than being separate "Western" and "Educated", it's becoming one "Western-Educated". Not sure that will help to remove the bias, but at least it helped me understand the bias a little more.
Only you and your close ones can know eho you are, not the west, I live in india and i have seen so many varieties of people, they arent narsistuc or whatever, they are just themself and different flavours, if i dont like em, doesnt means someone else wont, so it is all subjective. Therapy is bulsht cycle only
I didn't realize i was being egocentric when describing the relation to objects from my prospective my mind was kinda blown by that i am going to try and change the descriptive language i use from here on another word i am trying not to use any more is "luck" its a western term the rest of the world uses less or more fortunate "luck" leaves an impression on the brain that you don't have control of your decisions
I would think that humans would _usually_ be psychological outliers in _some_ area, just because of how complex we are. Each person is just too large a sample size. Maybe some of the most visible outliers get hammered out by social conformism.
psychology is the general study of the mind and human behavior, while psychiatry is applying psychology to diagnose and treat people with mental health problems. think research psychologist vs therapist
Tone, inflexion, gestures, facial expressions... Brit does everything right! The best SciShow host imo.
Hot too
olivia best host
I still love Hank best (he seems like he's having fun) but Brit is a close 2nd, she's awesome. I don't find her as attractive as most guys here seem to, but maybe her "average" looks (to me) make me take her more seriously -- and you're said it, she does everything right.
Something tells me the women in your life would be disappointed (and perhaps completely unsurprised) by this comment.
Eduardo de Montenegro i like hank too tho
I have said for a long time now that while useful on some levels, the subject pool for a lot of psychological research is heavily skewed. My favourite example of this is eating disorders. For a long time, it was though eating disorders only affected affluent, adolescent, white females. But in reality, those were the only subjects able to or sent to treatment. We now know they can affect anybody, regardless of race, gender, age, culture, or income level. What we don't really know are the exact numbers because it is hard to find a broad enough sample range.
Add that mental illness until recently was very shameful even among relatively rich people. Poor uneducated parents know they cannot support an adult child. The only thing they can do is try to hide the disease because they fear that their children will otherwise be stigmatized from society and "has to live on the streets".
1:00
Who does the study is not the benchmark, the benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST.
A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West.
One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
@@laique8797 If the native Chinese man is conducting his study using a broad sampling range to get inclusive data, or is extrapolating information to apply strictly to his sample's situations, then sure. The problem is taking a narrow sample and applying it broadly to all of humankind, whether it's from an Eastern or Western perspective or what have you.
Back to my example with eating disorders, how many times have you heard people dismiss EDs with, "There are people starving in Africa, you know," as if people in Africa do not also have eating disorders among their population. They make have different symptoms and underlying psychology, but that's exactly the point--eating disorders can affect anyone, regardless of race, gender, culture, age, financial status, religion, or whatever else. Trying to draw conclusions about why and how they develop in people using only a narrow sampling of rich, white, adolescent females and applying it to everyone really bones both researchers down the line and people suffering looking for help that don't 'fit' the results.
And that is the issue. It has nothing to do with the nationality of the scientists and everything to do with how they apply their findings based on their sample.
I don't like how in psychological evaluations, it'll state that, "patient denies any history with drug and/or alcohol abuse."
"Denies" denotes a dishonest connotation. Why don't they use "does/does not report" instead?
Because of the stigma behind it.
you could change the wording to patient indicates no drug and/or alcohol abuse
Not only does most psychological research use undergrads.....they typically directly recruit Psychology...undergrads, which are an even 'weirder' group, right?
I was thinking the same.
That is true, I can confirm this.
0:38 Oh, "weird" is just an acronym for a demographic? Now I feel much better about my recent psychological diagnosis, "Too weird, can't be helped."
:D
I see you at the top of every single scishow /scishow psych video. good job.
Master Therion why are u everywhere
Your Harry Potter Christmas Sweater is very awesome :D
I only noticed it was HP-themed when I saw the glasses, they looked out of place on a holiday sweater. Then I noticed the Hallows and everything else. Subtle. I want one~
+
I am totally biased, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change my mind about that!
New Message A very clever joke!
1:00
Who does the study is not the benchmark, the benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST.
A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West.
One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
We need studies that cover people as a whole (global) as well as studies of various smaller groups. Then we can determine how certain occurrences will most likely affect each type or group of people and how the effects will vary among the groups.
Generation may have an effect as well. People in college today may be more risk-averse because they grew up in a recession, as well as a post-911 America (and the whole "modern parents never let their kids out of their site" thing).
This video sparked my little American brain! ⚡️ I'm glad you're encouraging seeking out different perspectives because it's true how Americans are extremely egocentric. 😅
You believe it's better anywhere else? I've been to places (not the US unfortunately) but I've got the feeling pretty much every culture is egocentric. Especially men.
Wow, sudden sexism
It's not sexist if it's true. What I'm trying to say is, if you would go around the world, pick a sample of men and women from different cultures and compare them against each other, the data will show that men within a culture will have certain personality traits expressed more strongly than their female counter parts, on average. That doesn't mean every man is egocentric, nor that all women are not, but both our biology and cultures naturally lead us to become that way. Men and women are different, it's a fact. It's not a question of bad vs good, it's just assessing reality. Can you honestly say there's nothing to my claim, when you look around you?
Ah, trying to reason with me on the internet aye? Big mistake. RACIST!
#MENLIVESMATTER
Ah I see how it is. A fellow Sargonian most likely?^^ #FREEKEKISTAN
The science isn't bad. But the data samples sure are.
Not only don't I think or feel like today's college undergrad, I don't think or feel the way I did when I was an undergrad.
Soooo...right and left are egocentric, whereas behind and above are allocentric? "On the right side of the shelf" is not relative to me; it's on the shelves right side. "Above the shelf" falls under the same category to me; it's not relative to me, it's relative to the shelf. If someone moved the shelf say to the right of the object, the object is no longer "on the right side of the shelf", but on the left side. Or am I simply not understanding correctly what is being presented here?
Had the same thought. When I say an object is to the left, I do not always mean that the object is on MY left. Example: "The left door of my car." I do not mean the door that is to my left, I mean the door that is on the car's left. Same with above and behind. No more or less relative to me than left or right.
Car's left from the perspective of being in it or looking at it from the front?
"looking at it from the front?" You just answered your own question. Since we know which end of the car is the front we can use that to determine which side is the left side of the car.
Cars have a front...because they are made to move forward. So there are left and right sides relative to the front. Where youre standing makes no difference.
Just like a "left shoe" or "right shoe" isnt based on your line of sight...but is based on their use.
If you were facing someone would you call the shoe on their right foot their "left shoe"?
I think for the sake of brevity, ie not making this a 30 minute video, they may have glanced over quite a lot of details regarding these kind of issues. I'm no expert either, but if we we're talking face to face, left and right would be egocentric, whereas the sky would be above both of us.
This video makes me miss taking psychology tests. I got one online about behavior a long time ago and enjoyed their results.
Love that sweatshirt😍.. took me away from one weirdness to a beauty weirdness of a shirt😌. Thank You👏🏼😌🇸🇪
That and joining such studies is voluntary so people who are lazy/busy/depressed/apathetic/paranoid will never be included either.
Harry Potter themed Chistmas sweater?
I see this is 5y old now, but still, the amateur scientist in me has been waiting nearly 15 years to stumble upon this content!!!!!
Reminds me of this one article I read which claimed that science had disproven the "early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise" quote. The study it claimed to have done this was an experiment in which all the subjects were teens, and completely neglected to mention that peoples' sleeping habits have been found to change depending on age, gravitating towards going to bed later as youth, and sooner as grown-ups. Knowing that, it seems more likely the results of that experiment can be chalked up to the age of the subjects, not Franklin's being wrong about men (note his quote direction mentioned men, not youths; men weren't even studied here).
Girl I need that sweater asap
And this is why you need to ground psychology in some observable and testable neurological effect.
Otherwise we are back all the humbug of the last 100 years and all the awful misunderstandings that's lead to.
That would make it more of a neuroscience explanation.
Or just like not have a positivistic outlook from which you claim to study such a thing as "the pure individual" by filtering away all the "noise", amongst others also known as culture, even though this very much seems to be absolutely fundamental to how we function and not just some modifier (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; and so on).
Yes. Many flavors...now where did I put my 'How To Serve Man,' book...hmmm...
I love her shirt 💜
That's a weird acronym
Even if the students themselves aren't Western, most Phychology schools ARE. This also makes studies more difficult to apply outside of Western Culture.
Brit is hands down my favorite host... Don't tell Hank
Loving your sweater!
How often did you _left_ somethin _behind_ ,
to do the _right_ thing, felt _above_ everyone,
but from there on, everything went _south_ ...
How does using egocentric directions instead of allocentric terms relate to the way men and women tend to view the environment? Men tend to overwhelmingly use allocentric terms, particularly when giving directions, whereas women tend to use egocentric terms.
I've heard this explained using evolutionary psychology as a result of the fact that men tended to be hunters and developed navigational skills that relied on direction and distance, since herds of mammoth tended to wander, whereas women tended to be gatherers and relied more on landmarks, because berry bushes aren't migratory.
I'm just wondering if that has something to do with why WEIRD populations tend to use egocentric terms. Perhaps, since our nations tend to be far more settled and industrialised, we rely more on landmarks for navigation, and that's reflected in our language use.
I recommend you to make some research in the way Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamies, Chinese and practically anyone form east asia perceives the world in a far more collective, allocentric way than here in the west. Honestly is fascinating.
Love the sweater. great video btw
That sweater is amazing
i'm a knitter, and her sweater is seriously distracting me from learning, but on the plus side I have a new pattern to try:P
Ooh, I wonder what flavor I am. Probably cookies n’ cream. (That’s what I’m eating right now). 😊
SciShow Psych is the epitome of WEIRD by what i just learned here...as am I
This host always wears the best shirts❤
Wait, how are left and right egocentric, but behind isn't?
Wow, never realized I was so... WEIRD.
Vry.Innovative Lecture.Thanks.
I heard many people wipe while standing up.
Very interesting, but not at all surprising. However, I was anticipating something a bit weirder :p
How are behind any different from left or right? All 3 are in relation to yourself or yourself relative to another object. Only above can be used in non-human relative ways...
Stop whitesplaining. Listen and believe. These are grand, and superior cultures!
I suppose behind does depend on whats the relative 'back' of an object but in most cases its typically used when there's no direct way to get to it without first passing by the thing it's 'behind'. Otherwise we'd say "right next to"
Example: it'd be behind something if the object was against a wall, sandwiched between the wall and another object. If it's two objects back to back with equal access to each other then they're 'right next to each other'
Everythings always technically behind something. It's not like we use the term willy nilly. Its like saying North is 'Egocentric' because although something may be North of me its South of something else.
Yeah that made no sense whatsoever. All of those terms can be based on the persons perspective, or relative to something other than the person.
SangoProductions213 learning and recognizing other cultures says nothing about what culture is "best". Stop throwing strawmen.
kabbinj2 Dude you misunderstood it. When you describe things like "left of me or right of me" the other person has to try to take into consideration that it's your perception, but when you say things like "above of me" or just "near me" he doesn't have to do that, because it works for both your perception and his.
I hope that clarified something.
0:09 Soylent Green is people!! (old Charleton Heston movie)
After watching the video I have only one question: is WEIPD a word?
Enter a name here yup, that’s me. 🙋🏽♀️
I need your sweater!
it does seem they study the same types of people over and over again. not gonna get an accurate picture of normal humans by choosing from a select group. i think they need to just go door to door or something, or stand outside shopping centers or whatever, or something, idk.
Research subjects should have to give permission, before research begins. Non disclosure agreements should be illegal in university research.
That sweater tho 😍😍🔥🔥
lovely sweater you've got there
It's all relative.... Or not.... But then again maybe....
Her sweatshirt is awesome
QUESTION: Ive just saw Sophia robot gaining citizenship in Saudi Arabia, and it remind me a doubt I about something Ive noticed about robotic design and many other things: ¿WHY DO HUMANS HAVE THE(PRIMITIVE) BEHAVIOR OF TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING(Gods, animals, nature, robots) IN THEIR OWN IMAGE, APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR, TO RELATE AND CONNECT TO THEM? Why are robotic guys trying to make creepy copies of humans, when they could make could make Chappie, Optimus Prime, Voltron, Jaegers? That would be so freaking awesome!
Anyway, that "primitve" behavior of trying to make things like us to relate to them, has really damaged our understanding of the universe and reality. Like thinking nature has a mind like ours, stars, animals and other phenomena, when in reality, they DON'T, but instead have AMAZING mechanisms that work them and make them what they are. Science, biology, astronomy, chemistry, physicist, psychology, etc.
Give us robots THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE, like badass awesome looking robots!
Eduardo Gutierrez Humans are selfish. We make stuff in our own image because if it's not like us then we don't care about it. That's why the uncanny valley is really important.
Selfish? I mean, yeah I agree we humans are kind of selfish for the most part. But making robots look like humans is more about egocentrism and less about selfish
Ale Zuvic That's true. That's a much better word for it.
As a westerner living in India I have been befuddled by how many Indian people have a poor grasp of 'left' and 'right'. Every day people around me get this basic function confused, no matter their social or economic standing.
It never occurred to me that it may have come from a sense of self.
Getting directions from an Indian is often an exercise in frustration and confusion.
This, combined with the whole p-hacking replicability crisis seems to be undermining the credibility of social sciences as a whole. Is it necessary to start from scratch, barring some fundamental axioms?
So what about EUAPA: eastern, uneducated, agrarian, poor, authoritarian?
Where is all the smart comments? Its too early i guess
Trevor Phillips are*
Steven Sosa well sorry bad english
Not yours.
Does the guy from the Infographics Show do you all’s graphics?? The people at 2:00 look like his graphics.
Though I totally understand how WEIRD biases are a problem, the fact of the matter is, the data is useless no matter which way you look at it. For example, if just where you live affects the level of self-esteem you have, how is that helpful information regarding psychology? If something like age and educational background affects your generosity, imagine how many other factors could have an impact too. So, why even write an article about your research it if the data isn't even accurate among your own social circle?
Even if you account for the world's population, the data is so variable that it's pretty much meaningless; these studies wouldn't retain much value even if it only accounted for the largest demographics in the world.
When it comes to science, accuracy matters. If your research doesn't have reproducible or at least globally consistent results, it may as well go ignored.
You're dismissing a lot off-hand here. You say the data is too variable to be useful... but maybe it's not. We'd have to measure a representative sample, and its sub-groups, and then decide whether the variability makes the results non-significant. Maybe we shouldn't be studying just one "all humans" group, but maybe if we research a few sub-groups instead we can find more useful information.
But how many hundreds or possibly thousands of sub-groups will you have to account for? Who is going to collect all that data? Seeing as age affects people's perspectives over time, what's to say time itself won't transition people's thoughts?
It doesn't matter how many data points and how centralized you make them. Studies like this are too variable to be of any use.
I need that harry potter sweater so bad
It should be noted that the psychological studies weren't only done on native people. At least here in Scotland we have students from a bit of everywhere, China, India, various parts of Africa, Brazil, etc. Also not to mention offspring from people of parents from different regions of the earth. So it may be that the values are skewed but I find that in the video it was portrayed a bit too much of "the west vs the world."
It's not too much. Those people you mentioned from China, India, etc. are from a culture that is far more mature in terms of development due to the fact that it's older. I mean culture because culture has nothing to do with technology. And that's why those kind of people are much more aware of the fact that the way to make peaceful interaction with westerners is to unquestioningly conform to their social norms. That's why they literally gave you the illusion that they're not so different from westerners in psychological research that you're talking about.
Brit is a very nice flavor of human.
How is "behind" or "above" different from "left" or "right"?
You can say the refrigerator is to the left of the stove...
(Which is relative to the wall and the direction the appliances are facing)
Or you could say the ceiling fan is above me...the couch is behind me....
(Which is relative to the speaker)
Using those words themselves really has no bearing on the perspective.
And Western, or American, people dont tend to use cardinal directions too much (aside from driving directions) because we simply dont know which way our house and other places are even oriented. Our modern culture basically makes that pointless knowledge.
We use GPS for one...and also...very little about our society (besides roads) is based on cardinal directions.
In more primitive societies the houses, villages, etc. are likely to be laid out with cardinal directions in mind...since they dont have electric lighting and air conditioning.
Not using cardinal directions in our society isnt the result of ego...its the result of practicality.
When it is practical for us...we use them.
Before Americans had electric lighting, air conditioning, GPS, etc. they too referred to cardinal directions far more often.
Not because they were less egocentric...but because it was a useful way of communicating at that time...and now it isnt.
Why would i tell someone my bathroom is on the south side of my house...when they dont know which direction they are oriented?
I would tell them its straight ahead, or to the left, etc...based on where we are standing and facing.
I like this host
so roughly 46% of the subject of all studies from the last 20 years are undergraduate American? Wow!
How did you manage to leave out the spectrum of racial and ethnic diversity in the US, and the long history of scientic racism that still isn't being addressed in psychology?
love that shirt 😁
I was paying too much attention on her Harry Potter sweater and wasn't really listening ....
Fix, step 1: fund these properly so they don't have to settle for students in the same college the study is in
This is why I dislike Zimbardo's Prison Experiment so much. People are soooo quick to make universal claims about it, when they're all white, middle-class college boys from the US. Pretty small and specific group if you ask me, who have a specific relationship with the justice system that might influence how they identify with absolute power...
Not to mention the study is a hot mess; if the researcher gets sucked into the scenario, they're not objective anymore, and worse yet, they're directly influencing the study as a major factor. The boys wouldn't have gone so far if he was observing compared to the reality of him ENGAGING too and essentially silently approving it.
3:52 * _number_ of names for colours
Damn right!!!
Funny how you managed to not mention sociology, since it ties in so closely with this area of psychology.
Questionable 42 they mentioned sociology as one of the social sciences
is it already ugly sweater season?
I'm not WEIRD I am weird
Is WEIRD the new WASP?
Raddest jumper on RUclips ... #youcallthemSweaters
What an ironic title. They call these studies WEIRD, but it's all about adjusting for norms. I was expecting studies on abnormal psychology...
I just saw QI point this out the other day
People has flavurs.
brian554xx flavours*
Frisk has a flavour becuz Frisk is a people with silly spellys.
YAHAA!!!
Interesting sweater.......but that's probably all it is........an interesting sweater.......isn't it? :P
HAH! Undergrads? Rich? HAH I tell you!
So we need to do studies in other non-western clutures.
No. Just acknowledge that predicates do exist. For example generally speaking Aussies love Marmite, but Finns don't. (wouldn't count on it though, for we take pride in eating sh**) Combining these two wouldn't answer the question whether Marmite is a delicacy or not.
@@koohoo4500 No no no, we definetely need to do research in non-western cultures.
Harry Potter tee!!!!
People clearly see colours differently than me. I'm constantly being told about all these white and black people, but I have yet to see a single person who is one of these colours.
All I ever see are really ugly shades of brown from light tan to dark chocolate.
I always thought that "weird" meant something like this:
W- wonderful
E- entertaining
I- interesting
R- real
D- different
This Acronym fits me and my family perfectly! But of course what yall were talking about is way awesomeness too!!!
#fanofScishow
The sweater’s nice, but too distracting!
all psychologies are indigenous psychologies
1:00
Who does ghe study is not benchmark, what benchmark should be the data they used also included from outside the WEST.
A native man in China can produce an academic paper in a Chinese University on the psychology of the West from the data collected on the West.
One can't question or argue against it as fake or insufficient or inadequate because it is presented in the China by a Chinese man on the subject related to the West from the data on the West.
you guys need a citation for the comment that ppl preceve colour equally... i say that cuz when you try to find such is when you realize your folly. perception is what your brain sees, and is NOT what your eyes transmit (which is the part that is closest to ppl being equal, if you ignore the disparity in cone counts...)..
Booourns!
empmachine remember that “what color is this dress” meme that had everybody confused as to whether or not the dress was blue and black or white and gold
empmachine blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/amp/ is one very good text about colors.
Jens Schmidt LMAO the page was funny, good link.. it somehow reminded me of another video I should have linked initially.. you see this one? it's pretty cool. ruclips.net/video/VIg5HkyauoY/видео.html
so what we need are more agrarian societies to spend money on psychological research to help round out the demographics. come on Africa, Asia, and S. America get your stuff together and contribute.
My first thought was that I saw more students from abroad while at uni for my second set of degrees compared to my first set 20 years ago, and that means more demographics will be included by default. But, then I realized that the first two letters in the WEIRD acronym, rather than being separate "Western" and "Educated", it's becoming one "Western-Educated". Not sure that will help to remove the bias, but at least it helped me understand the bias a little more.
Mmmmmm.... we got our psychology wrong, let's use more psychology on loosely related studies of the Same people to solve it!
GREAT
Perhaps "flavors" wasn't the best word to describe the diversity of people.
Only you and your close ones can know eho you are, not the west, I live in india and i have seen so many varieties of people, they arent narsistuc or whatever, they are just themself and different flavours, if i dont like em, doesnt means someone else wont, so it is all subjective. Therapy is bulsht cycle only
I didn't realize i was being egocentric when describing the relation to objects from my prospective my mind was kinda blown by that i am going to try and change the descriptive language i use from here on another word i am trying not to use any more is "luck" its a western term the rest of the world uses less or more fortunate "luck" leaves an impression on the brain that you don't have control of your decisions
You say uneducated, I say un brainwashed.
I would think that humans would _usually_ be psychological outliers in _some_ area, just because of how complex we are. Each person is just too large a sample size.
Maybe some of the most visible outliers get hammered out by social conformism.
What's the difference between psychology and psychiatry? I can't be bothered to look on Google.
psychology is the general study of the mind and human behavior, while psychiatry is applying psychology to diagnose and treat people with mental health problems. think research psychologist vs therapist
Is not valuable
White girl: *_like sooooooooo weeirrrrddddd_* 🤭😂
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄