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
Third Edition! 🎊
For this edition, I'll be reporting some experiments from Malcolm Gladwell's 2009 book What The Dog Saw: and Other Adventures. Enjoy.
1
Risk Homeostasis: Successfully Making Something Safer Actually Makes it Unsafe in Other Ways
Jed Jacobsohn/Reuters
In page 196 Gladwell reports on an experiment laid out by Canadian psychologist Gerald Wilde.
The experiment was carried out in Germany, some taxis were equipped with an improved brake system which worked great on slippery surfaces. It was called Antilock Brake System (ABS). They were watched for 3 years and it turned out that the safer brake system made the drivers:
markedly inferior drivers. They drove faster. They made sharper turns. They showed poorer lane discipline. They braked harder. They were more likely to tailgate. They didn’t merge as well, and they were involved in more near misses. ...the drivers used the additional element of safety to enable them to drive faster and more recklessly without increasing their risk of getting into an accident.
Gladwell went further to say:
Why are more pedestrians killed crossing the street at marked crosswalks than at unmarked crosswalks? Because they compensate for the “safe” environment of a marked crossing by being less vigilant about oncoming traffic. Why did the introduction of childproof lids on medicine bottles lead, according to one study, to a substantial increase in fatal child poisonings? Because adults became less careful in keeping pill bottles out of the reach of children.
Because we are constantly looking for ways to make facilities, equipments, vehicles safer it is important to note that research has found that the success of our efforts can be really quite dangerous. Risk Homeostasis shows us that when something is made safer in one way it usually makes people more reckless when using it rather than as careful as they were when it wasn't so safe, and this new recklessness usually lead to more damage than in the past when it was less safer.
It us worthy of note, however, that Risk Homeostasis does not always work like this, sometimes improved safety actually makes a thing perfect and fine, every case should be treated specially.
2
The Dangers of Thinking your Intelligence is a Natural Ability
In page 247 Gladwell reports on another experiment carried out by Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Columbia University. According to Dweck people either believe their intelligence is a fixed trait or it is malleable (something attained with effort and consistent effort is required to keep it going). In the University of Hong Kong Dweck and her colleagues approached a group of social sciences students who really need English language to do well in their courses, and asked them if they'll like to take a course to improve their English.
Surprisingly it wasn't those who scored poorly who indicated interest, it was only those who believed that their intelligence was malleable. According to Dweck:
Students who hold a fixed view of their intelligence care so much about looking smart that they act dumb, for what could be dumber than giving up a chance to learn something that is essential for your own success?
It turns out people who believe their intelligence is a natural trait they were born with usually feel like they don't need to put a lot of effort, that they'll be fine/do well.
Hear Gladwell on a similar experiment carried out by Dweck:
Dweck gave a class of preadolescent students a test filled with challenging problems. After they were finished, one group was praised for its effort and another group was praised for its intelligence. Those praised for their intelligence were reluctant to tackle difficult tasks, and their performance on subsequent tests soon began to suffer.
Then Dweck asked the children to write a letter to students at another school, describing their experience in the study. She discovered something remarkable: 40 percent of those students who were praised for their intelligence lied about how they had scored on the test, adjusting their grade upward. They weren’t naturally deceptive people, and they weren’t any less intelligent or self-confident than anyone else. They simply did what people do when they are immersed in an environment that celebrates them solely for their innate “talent.” They begin to define themselves by that description, and when times get tough and that selfimage is threatened, they have difficulty with the consequences. They will not take the remedial course. They will not stand up to investors and the public and admit that they were wrong. They’d sooner lie.
This is really mind blowing and can change your life forever if you grew up being celebrated for your intelligence and you've noticed this pattern.
• (Find the first edition here)
• And the second here
--- #####
Posted using Proof of Brain
FWIW: I was about to upvote your post; then I saw the watermark for shutterstock on one of the images.
The watermark indicates that you did not pay the fee that gives you the rights to use the image. There are free sources for stock images.
Aww, I didn't do a lot of research, but this was what I saw about Shutterstock:
Do you know some other stuff about Shutterstock that would show I shouldn't have used that photo like that?
The term "royalty free" is confusing. It essentially means that, after buying the right to use the image, you can use it without have to track the usage.
The rights system was set up for things like newspapers and magazines where the publisher would know in advance how many copies would be make. So, if you sold your photo to a magazine, the magazine would pay a royalty based on the circulation of the magazine.
People don't know how many times a page will be viewed on the internet. So, microstock companies created a licence that did not charge royalties which they called a "royalty-free" license. The term only makes sense to a small segment of the market.
This is from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free
Anyway, a royalty-free license means you have to pay for a microstock image; however, you don't have to pay royalties for each use of the image. The watermark indicates that a user did not pay for the rights to use the photo.
!hivebits
What's HBIT?
Success! You mined .9 HBIT and the user you replied to received .1 HBIT on your behalf. mine | about | wallet | market | tools | discord | community | <><
Oh, wow, thanks for educating me, I had no idea about this all the while. I'd do better from now on 😎👍
I've got a question, though, using it with the watermark, is that still a breach?