Experiments are among the only few ways left to know anything for sure or atleast get insurmountable evidence and or insane insights. All of these is simply because experiments carry out tests and make findings based on watching and experiencing a case study do what it does. Way more reliable than mere thoughts and untested opinions.
On going around reading non-fiction books where writers are trying to make their points like the book Originals: How Non-conformists Move the World by Adam Grant, Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell, etc; one would come to find that they report and talk about a lot of experiments carried out by psychologists, they use them to show you what has been found through experiments and how these findings prove the point they're trying to make.
Some of the Most Interesting Experiments Carried Out By Psychologists and Scientists would be a series of posts reporting these experiments to you so you can benefit by learning some of the things the expert scientists now know for sure or atleast have evidence for and or insane insight.
So welcome to the
First Edition! 🎊
For this edition, I'll be reporting some experiments from the first part of Malcolm Gladwell's 2009 book What The Dog Saw: and Other Adventures. Enjoy.
1
Humans and Readiness to Risk For Loss or Gain
In page 54 Gladwell reports an experiment from a book by cognitive psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman:
a group of people are told to assume they have $300, two options are presented to them: (a) receive another $100 and your money becomes$400 or (b) toss a coin and if you win the coin toss you get $200 making your money $500 but if you lose you get nothing.
Option a is a sure way to increase your money without any risk but option b is a way to get even more money but there's a risk of losing the coin toss. Most people went for option a.
Then they were told to assume they had $500 and the following options: (a) Give up 100$ from your $500 or (b) toss a coin and give up nothing if you win but $200 if you lost. Most people now preferred to toss the coin, the chances of losing more from the coin toss did not deter them whereas previously the chances of gaining more from the previous coin toss did not attract them at all.
In Gladwell's words, the lesson is people are:
more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to our gains.
2
Discipline, Self Control and Thinking Up Techniques to Put Our Impulses in Check
In page 55 Gladwell reports an experiment carried out by psychologist Walter Mischel:
a young child (six-year-olds) is put in a room, two cookies in front if him, one cookie large and one small. The child is told that if he wants the small cookie all he has to do is ring a bell and it would be brought to him but if he wants the large one he has to wait and it would be brought anytime the experimenter wants which could be in the next 20 minutes.
He carried out this experiment on many kids, the kids are video recorded while they wait by themselves in the room staring at the cookies, one girl starts to sing and whisper the instructions to herself, she closes her eyes and turns her back on the cookies, a kid swings his leg violently, picks up the bell and examines it, trying to do anything but wait.
The lesson: Trying to do other things while waiting is part of the coping mechanism of anyone who wants to be patient.
3
Dogs Understanding of Humans
Pavlov watches an experiment with one of his dogs in 1934 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
From page 97, Gladwell reports an experiment carried out by anthropologist Brian Hare:
He puts a piece of food beneath one of two cups, the dog knows there's food around and under one of the cups but doesn't know which one of the cups the food is in, then Hare points at the right cup and the dog follows the direction virtually every time. But when he carried out this experiment on chimpanzees they don't follow the directions to the right cup. A dog would look at you for help but a chimp won't, even though a chimp shares 98.6% of human genes and are expected to understand humans more.
According to Hare:
“Primates are very good at using the cues of the same species,” Hare explained. “So if we were able to do a similar game, and it was a chimp or another primate giving a social cue, they might do better. But they are not good at using human cues when you are trying to cooperate with them. They don’t get it: ‘Why would you ever tell me where the food is?’ The key specialization of dogs, though, is that dogs pay attention to humans, when humans are doing something very human, which is sharing information about something that someone else might actually want.” Dogs aren’t smarter than chimps; they just have a different attitude toward people. “Dogs are really interested in humans,” Hare went on. “ Interested to the point of obsession. To a dog, you are a giant walking tennis ball.”
The lesson is really clear
More to come in this series!
Roll with @nevies, I run a Humor, deeper thoughts and sex talk blog here on Hive🌚
Donate:
BTC: bc1qlpu8rqftnn9r78dajpzf9p0ueqkvzdvzeayrtd
ETH:0x7168800F3b7499A2dd32B4C8Ae0EFA0F68A93800
LTC: ltc1qx0r3nym5hpq6mxvfkl3dzs2ap455aefh9rjq07
Posted using Proof of Brain