Weebly
Human Sciences Knowledge Framework Scope/applications Investigate and understand human behaviourIncludes a diverse range of disciplines: anthropology, economics, psychology, sociologySome disciplines aim broadly to predict human behaviour (economics, applied sociology)Concepts/Language Key concepts such as opportunity cost in economicsUse of mathematical language to suggest intellectual rigourProblems with wording of questionnaires and the difficulty of neutral language Historical DevelopmentEarly views of economics as study of man as a maximizer of utility have been replaced by modern behavioural economics which sees man as essentially irrational and heuristicEarly ideas of anthropology as a study in human progress have been replaced post-Boas with less value-laden perspectivesFreudian psychodynamics have been replaced by a drive towards empirical observation of behaviour in modern functional theories in psychologyMethodologyExperimental methodUse of questionnaires, pollsDirect observation of human behaviourUse of modelsUse of reason to construct plausible theory consistent with other accepted knowledge in the fieldSome assumptions of human rationality (economics), or law-like behaviour (psychology)Use of statistical methods—on what basis to choose things like significance levels of tests?Links to Personal Knowledge Understanding of self as a locus of consciousness, as an economic agent or as an individual defined relative to a social backgroundSignificant contributions made by individuals in all fields: Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, Friedmann in economics, Boas in anthropology, Freud, Watson in psychologyModern economics and psychology are more collaborative, although anthropology seems to be more open to individual contributionsTo what extent is it legitimate for the inquirer to draw upon his/her own experiences as evidence in his/her investigations in the human sciences (the verstehen approach)?To what extent are personal factors such as gender and age important in the human sciences? What are the Human Sciences?Human sciences study human behaviour in a systematic way based on observation, and seek to discover laws and theories. The human sciences include psychology, economics, sociology and anthropology. Despite the obvious differences between these subjects, they are all based on observation and seek to discover laws and theories about human nature. Observation (p. 376)Perhaps the most important characteristic of science is that it is based on observation. One problem in the human sciences is that, although you can observe other people’s behaviour, you cannot observe people’s minds or their actual thinking. One way to find out what people think of is to ask them. However, people tend to overestimate their strengths and underestimate their weaknesses, e.g. in a study of one million US high school students, all ranked themselves above average in their ability to get on with others.Task 1: Complete the following activity – answer as honestly as possible Below Average Average Above Average How much do you worry about what other people think of you?To what extent do you see yourself as a considerate person?Do you have a good sense of humour?How open are you to new ideas?How worried are you about environmental problems?Loaded questions (p. 377)Another problem with asking people what they think is that it is not easy to frame questions in an unbiased way. A loaded question is a question, which is biased because it contains a built-in assumption. These questions have hidden assumptions that encourage a particular answer. If you ask questions with skill you may be able to make people give the answer you want.Example: 1980s US poll in which a similar question was worded in two different waysIn favour Opposed Do you think there should be an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting abortions?29%67%Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution protecting the life of the unborn child?50%34%The Observer Effect The observer effect is the tendency of people to behave differently when they are being observed. The Hawthorne Effect 0209550The?Hawthorne effect?is a term referring to the tendency of some people to work harder and perform better when they are participants in an experiment. Individuals may change their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables.How Was the Hawthorne Effect Discovered?The effect was first described in the 1950s by researcher Henry A.Landsberger during his analysis of experiments conducted during the 1920s and 1930s by Elton Mayo. The phenomenon is named after the location where the experiments took place, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works electric company just outside of Hawthorne, Illinois.The electric company had commissioned research to determine if there was a relationship between productivity and work environment.The focus of the original studies was to determine if increasing or decreasing the amount of light that workers received would have an effect on worker productivity. Employee productivity seemed to increase due to the changes but then decreased at after the experiment was over.0The?Hawthorne effect?is a term referring to the tendency of some people to work harder and perform better when they are participants in an experiment. Individuals may change their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables.How Was the Hawthorne Effect Discovered?The effect was first described in the 1950s by researcher Henry A.Landsberger during his analysis of experiments conducted during the 1920s and 1930s by Elton Mayo. The phenomenon is named after the location where the experiments took place, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works electric company just outside of Hawthorne, Illinois.The electric company had commissioned research to determine if there was a relationship between productivity and work environment.The focus of the original studies was to determine if increasing or decreasing the amount of light that workers received would have an effect on worker productivity. Employee productivity seemed to increase due to the changes but then decreased at after the experiment was over.00Researchers suggested that productivity increased due to attention from the research team and not because of changes in the experimental variables. Lansdberger defined the Hawthorne effect as a short-term improvement in performance caused by observing workers.More Recent Research on the Hawthorne EffectLater research into the Hawthorne effect has suggested that the original results may have been overstated.In 2009, researchers at the University of Chicago reanalyzed the original data and found that other factors also played a role in productivity and that the effect originally described was weak at best.Some additional studies have failed to find strong evidence of the Hawthorne effect and in many cases, other factors may also influence improvements in productivity. In situations involving worker productivity, increased attention from experimenters also results in increased performance on feedback. This increased feedback might actually lead to an improvement in productivity.The novelty of having experimenters observing behavior might also play a role.This might lead to an initial increase in performance and productivity that may eventually level off as the experiment continues.Demand characteristics might also play a role in explaining this phenomenon. In experiments, researchers sometimes display subtle clues that let participants know what they are hoping to find. As a result, subjects will sometimes alter their behavior to help confirm the experimenter’s?hypothesis.Observations:"The original data have since been re-analyzed, and it is not so clear whether the original results hold up. Nevertheless, the concept has been established - the very fact that people are under study, observation or investigation can have an effect on them and the results."(Earl-Slater, 2002)"One way to deal with the Hawthorne effect (and?demand characteristics) is to observe the participants unobtrusively. This can be done using the?naturalistic observation?technique. However, this is not always possible for all behaviors. Another way to deal with the Hawthorne effect is to make the participants' responses in a study anonymous (or confidential). This may eliminate some of the effects of this source bias."(McBride, 2013)Source: suggested that productivity increased due to attention from the research team and not because of changes in the experimental variables. Lansdberger defined the Hawthorne effect as a short-term improvement in performance caused by observing workers.More Recent Research on the Hawthorne EffectLater research into the Hawthorne effect has suggested that the original results may have been overstated.In 2009, researchers at the University of Chicago reanalyzed the original data and found that other factors also played a role in productivity and that the effect originally described was weak at best.Some additional studies have failed to find strong evidence of the Hawthorne effect and in many cases, other factors may also influence improvements in productivity. In situations involving worker productivity, increased attention from experimenters also results in increased performance on feedback. This increased feedback might actually lead to an improvement in productivity.The novelty of having experimenters observing behavior might also play a role.This might lead to an initial increase in performance and productivity that may eventually level off as the experiment continues.Demand characteristics might also play a role in explaining this phenomenon. In experiments, researchers sometimes display subtle clues that let participants know what they are hoping to find. As a result, subjects will sometimes alter their behavior to help confirm the experimenter’s?hypothesis.Observations:"The original data have since been re-analyzed, and it is not so clear whether the original results hold up. Nevertheless, the concept has been established - the very fact that people are under study, observation or investigation can have an effect on them and the results."(Earl-Slater, 2002)"One way to deal with the Hawthorne effect (and?demand characteristics) is to observe the participants unobtrusively. This can be done using the?naturalistic observation?technique. However, this is not always possible for all behaviors. Another way to deal with the Hawthorne effect is to make the participants' responses in a study anonymous (or confidential). This may eliminate some of the effects of this source bias."(McBride, 2013)Source: to overcome the Observer Effect Habituation is used to overcome the observer effect: e.g. anthropologists may ‘go native’ so the observed eventually behave normally.Hidden cameras – if you don’t know you are being observed then it won’t affect your behaviour. But this raises ethical questions about whether or not it is acceptable to film people without their knowledgeA variant of the observer effect concerns the way in which a prediction can affect the outcome of what is predicted. The effects of predictions on human behaviour can have serious consequences. Expectations may influence behaviour:Psychology An experiment divided children randomly into two groups: bright and less bright. The ‘bright’ group made more progress in the following year (due to higher teacher expectations?).Task 2: See: ’s expectations affect the stock market. In a bull market, when most people expect prices to rise, a rational investor will buy stocks now, hoping to sell them later at a higher price thereby making a profit. If everyone behaves like that, the demand for stocks will increase and cause prices to rise. Conversely, in a bear market when most people expect prices to fall, a rational investor will sell stocks now, hoping to buy them back later at a lower price. But if everyone does that, the increased supply of stocks will push prices down. Task 3a: See: 3b: See: , Not Rational Logic, Determines the Stock MarketIf you believe the advise of the thousands of financial advisors and gurus and media shows, giving analysis and advice, you would think that stock market activity is rational, logical and analytical. Not so according to recent research in the field of?behavioral economics?and?psychotherapy, which points to the predominant influence of emotions.In recent years,?scientists have begun to suspect that emotion plays an important role in evaluating risk and making decisions. We are told that stock traders are trained to evaluate risk and information quickly and reliably, and they often have large financial incentives riding on their decisions--which should cut down on bouts of non-rational behavior. Even so, earlier studies have suggested that many successful traders base their trades on?intuition?and feelings.These studies use what is termed Human Emotion theory (HUEMO) as it applies stock market. The theory flies in the face of traditional stock analysis techniques, which rely on technical and fundamental valuations to determine the optimal price levels for specific stocks. Traditional stock market theories rely on the assumption that stock traders make decisions in a completely rational and objective manner, while taking time to synthesize all available information. The core of HUEMO theory is the realization that this assumption is unreliable in the real world.Stock traders make decisions based on psychological factors, including emotions, and may place undue weight on specific information at the expense of other relevant data. Different emotional states can have unpredictable effects on?decision-making?at different times. Mood can have an impact on?cognitive?performance and expectations, while factors such as a series of gains or losses can have an effect on traders.Researchers, Andrew Lo, a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dmitry Repin, a neuroscientist at Boston University, now at MIT?monitored physiological indicators of emotional state in financial securities traders at work in real-time market trading. Their results, published in the?Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience?suggests that emotion may influence many if not all of Wall Street traders’ decisions.To determine whether emotion plays a role in traders' intuition, they monitored the heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance of 10 professional traders during the course of a normal day. They also collected real-time financial information, recording the prices and trends of the 13 foreign currencies and two stock futures that the traders were eyeing and manipulating. The researchers evaluated the physiological responses to three general types of events: trends, in which stock prices march steadily in one direction; trend reversals; and volatility events, in which prices fluctuate all over the map.The results? Even veteran traders with a reputation for logical cold decisions had heart palpitations during volatile events, and less experienced traders reacted emotionally to a broader swath of market behavior, Lo and Repin reported.0Emotion, Not Rational Logic, Determines the Stock MarketIf you believe the advise of the thousands of financial advisors and gurus and media shows, giving analysis and advice, you would think that stock market activity is rational, logical and analytical. Not so according to recent research in the field of?behavioral economics?and?psychotherapy, which points to the predominant influence of emotions.In recent years,?scientists have begun to suspect that emotion plays an important role in evaluating risk and making decisions. We are told that stock traders are trained to evaluate risk and information quickly and reliably, and they often have large financial incentives riding on their decisions--which should cut down on bouts of non-rational behavior. Even so, earlier studies have suggested that many successful traders base their trades on?intuition?and feelings.These studies use what is termed Human Emotion theory (HUEMO) as it applies stock market. The theory flies in the face of traditional stock analysis techniques, which rely on technical and fundamental valuations to determine the optimal price levels for specific stocks. Traditional stock market theories rely on the assumption that stock traders make decisions in a completely rational and objective manner, while taking time to synthesize all available information. The core of HUEMO theory is the realization that this assumption is unreliable in the real world.Stock traders make decisions based on psychological factors, including emotions, and may place undue weight on specific information at the expense of other relevant data. Different emotional states can have unpredictable effects on?decision-making?at different times. Mood can have an impact on?cognitive?performance and expectations, while factors such as a series of gains or losses can have an effect on traders.Researchers, Andrew Lo, a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dmitry Repin, a neuroscientist at Boston University, now at MIT?monitored physiological indicators of emotional state in financial securities traders at work in real-time market trading. Their results, published in the?Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience?suggests that emotion may influence many if not all of Wall Street traders’ decisions.To determine whether emotion plays a role in traders' intuition, they monitored the heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance of 10 professional traders during the course of a normal day. They also collected real-time financial information, recording the prices and trends of the 13 foreign currencies and two stock futures that the traders were eyeing and manipulating. The researchers evaluated the physiological responses to three general types of events: trends, in which stock prices march steadily in one direction; trend reversals; and volatility events, in which prices fluctuate all over the map.The results? Even veteran traders with a reputation for logical cold decisions had heart palpitations during volatile events, and less experienced traders reacted emotionally to a broader swath of market behavior, Lo and Repin reported.00Investors get carried away with excitement and wishful ‘phantasies’ as the stock market soars, suppressing negative emotions which would otherwise warn them of the high risk of what they are doing, according to a study led by the University College, London, U.K. published in the? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" International Journal of Psychoanalysis(link is external)?Economic models fail to factor in the emotions and?unconscious?mental life that drive human behavior in conditions where the future is uncertain says the study, which argues that banks and financial institutions should be as wary of ‘emotional inflation’ as they are fiscal inflation.According to these studies, the market is dominated by rational and?intelligent professionals but the most attractive investments involve guesses about an uncertain future and uncertainty creates feelings. When there are exciting new investments whose outcome is unsure, the most professional investors can get caught up in the ‘everybody else is doing it, so should I’ wave which leads first to underestimating, and then after?panic and the burst of a bubble, to overestimating the risks of an investment.Regret and pride guide stock investors more than economic facts—often to their financial detriment—according to a study published in the?Journal of?Marketing?Research?by Brad Barber, a professor in the Graduate School of?Management?at the? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" University of California, Davis(link is external). Barber analyzed trading records for 66,465 U.S. households with accounts at a large discount broker between January 1991 and November 1996 and another 596,314 U.S. investors with accounts at a large retail broker between January 1997 and June 1999.“Having sold a stock, investors are disappointed if it continues to rise, and regret having sold it in the first place,” ?Barber says. “They anticipate that their disappointment and regret will be more intense if they repurchase such a stock rather than not repurchasing it; thus investors are most likely to repurchase a stock previously sold for a gain that is trading below the price at which they sold it.”The analysis suggests investors often make decisions based on emotions such as regret, disappointment, pride and contentment. All behaviors were consistent with what the researchers term “counterfactual thinking”—looking back at what could have been—and suggest that investors are motivated by a desire to avoid regret and instead feel pride.So it seems the swings in the stock market may be more a result of emotional reactions, not rational, logical thinking on the part of traders and investors. So much for the science of stock trading and investment.Source: get carried away with excitement and wishful ‘phantasies’ as the stock market soars, suppressing negative emotions which would otherwise warn them of the high risk of what they are doing, according to a study led by the University College, London, U.K. published in the? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" International Journal of Psychoanalysis(link is external)?Economic models fail to factor in the emotions and?unconscious?mental life that drive human behavior in conditions where the future is uncertain says the study, which argues that banks and financial institutions should be as wary of ‘emotional inflation’ as they are fiscal inflation.According to these studies, the market is dominated by rational and?intelligent professionals but the most attractive investments involve guesses about an uncertain future and uncertainty creates feelings. When there are exciting new investments whose outcome is unsure, the most professional investors can get caught up in the ‘everybody else is doing it, so should I’ wave which leads first to underestimating, and then after?panic and the burst of a bubble, to overestimating the risks of an investment.Regret and pride guide stock investors more than economic facts—often to their financial detriment—according to a study published in the?Journal of?Marketing?Research?by Brad Barber, a professor in the Graduate School of?Management?at the? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" University of California, Davis(link is external). Barber analyzed trading records for 66,465 U.S. households with accounts at a large discount broker between January 1991 and November 1996 and another 596,314 U.S. investors with accounts at a large retail broker between January 1997 and June 1999.“Having sold a stock, investors are disappointed if it continues to rise, and regret having sold it in the first place,” ?Barber says. “They anticipate that their disappointment and regret will be more intense if they repurchase such a stock rather than not repurchasing it; thus investors are most likely to repurchase a stock previously sold for a gain that is trading below the price at which they sold it.”The analysis suggests investors often make decisions based on emotions such as regret, disappointment, pride and contentment. All behaviors were consistent with what the researchers term “counterfactual thinking”—looking back at what could have been—and suggest that investors are motivated by a desire to avoid regret and instead feel pride.So it seems the swings in the stock market may be more a result of emotional reactions, not rational, logical thinking on the part of traders and investors. So much for the science of stock trading and investment.Source: to the anthropologist, Wade Davie, when a sorcerer in an aborigine tribe points at an individual and casts a death spell over him ‘the individual invariably sickens and almost always dies’ (voodoo death). One explanation for this is that people in certain cultures are conditioned from birth to expect voodoo to work. So in effect when the sorcerer curses him, he in effect loses the will to live. A final point to note about predictions is that they can be self-negating as well as self-fulfilling. According to a phenomenon known as psychological reactance, if a person is inclined to do X, and you then tell him to do X, he becomes more likely not to do X. This may explain why some teenage anti-smoking campaigns have the perverse effect of encouraging teenagers to smoke. Task 4: See - (pp. 382)While measurement plays an important role in the sciences by adding precision to our knowledge, it is generally more difficult to measure things in the human sciences than in the natural sciences. The problems of measuring consciousness (continuous flow of thoughts) gave rise to a school of psychology known as behaviourism, which redefined the subject as the scientific study, not of consciousness, but of behaviour. Despite the difficulties involved in trying to study consciousness, there are many variables in the human sciences that can be measured with relative ease: for example, population, income and the rate of inflation. Furthermore, as the American scientist Jared Diamond has argued in an article entitled ‘Soft Sciences are often Harder than Hard Sciences’, human scientists have developed a variety of sophisticated techniques for translating what look like qualitative concepts into measurable ones. Task 5: See - really won the Centennial Olympics?Task 6: See - point that one takes from the above discussion is that we run into problems when we try to measure different things on a common scale. People are often accused of ‘comparing apples and oranges’ when they try to do this. Experiments (pp. 386-389)Difficulties of conducting experiments in social scienceHuman scientists operate in a situation where it is very difficult to run controlled experiments because: There may be too many variables i.e. human scientists are often trying to make sense of complex real-world situationsThe artificiality of experiments may distort the behaviour of the participantsEthics may prevent experiments that have a negative effect on people.Human scientists may have to wait for nature to provide the appropriate experimental conditions, e.g. economic history can provide experimental data; we can learn something about normal brain functions by looking at people who have suffered brain damage. The Milgram experiment Task 7a: See - experiment took its genesis from the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was one of the major organizers of the Holocaust. He sorted out the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps. After the war, he fled to Argentina where he lived under a false identity, working for Mercedes-Benz until 1960 when he was found out in and taken to Israel to face trial in an Israeli court on 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was found guilty and executed by hanging in 1962, but the interesting thing is not so much his punishment as the trial as such. During his trial he mentioned that he was just following orders, even if these orders clashed with his personal conscience.Eichmann appeared at his trial to have an ordinary and common personality, displaying neither guilt nor hatred and Israeli psychiatrists concluded that he was ‘normal’. Hannah Arendt, a political theorist, suggested that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and different from ordinary people. Eichmann himself said he joined the SS not because he agreed with its ethos, but to build a career. According to Hannah Arendt, Eichmann was the embodiment of the ‘banality of evil’. This does not mean that evil is banal, but that evil is something which could be present in ordinary people. The experiment measured to which extent people are willing to obey a figure of authority that asks them to do something which conflicts with their personal conscience. Actors played the role of unseen (but heard) learners, strapped to a chair with electrodes on their wrists.Volunteers acted as teachers. They saw the learners strapped in and were then taken to another room. The volunteers, who got the role of the teachers, were in fact the real subjects of the Milgram experiment. The Milgram experiment wanted to find out to which extent ordinary people were willing to do something they would find morally wrong (In this case it was ‘distributing electric shocks’) just because an authority figure told them to do so. The shocks were fake, but the ‘teacher’ did not know this. The teacher could not see the student, but they could hear the sounds and screams through the wall, and they really believed that they were delivering these electric shocks.The teachers asked the learners memory test questions. They were told to punish false answers with increasing levels of electric shocks, labelled slight shock, strong shock, intense shock and danger.120 volts → learner complained* 150 volts → learner demanded that experiment be stopped*270 volts → learner screamed*330 volts → ominous silence(* It was just an actor pretending!)If a teacher hesitated, they were:Told by a scientist that it was important to continue the experiment, and b) reassured that they would not be held responsible.A Poll before the experiment asked senior psychology students at Yale to estimate the outcome of the experiment: About 1.2 % of participants would be prepared to inflict the maximum (deadly) voltageActual outcome: About 65% of participants were willing to inflict the maximum DEADLY voltage (even though many did not enjoy doing this). Many expressed concern about what they were doing, but still didn’t refuse to continue. The results of the Milgram experiment truly shocked the world (no pun intended). After WW2 many people wanted to believe that the evils of the holocaust were the work of psychopaths, or people who were very different from you or me. Some people also wanted to believe that German nationals were particularly suited to the evils of the holocaust, a belief which is still present in current stereotypes today. The Milgram experiment, however, showed that, as Stanley Milgram described in ‘The Perils of Obedience’..................................... It is safe to say that blind obedience can be quite dangerous.0227965‘Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.’ Milgram. The Perils of Obedience, 1974.0‘Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.’ Milgram. The Perils of Obedience, 1974.Modern applicationsYou may think that all this happened so long ago and that the experiment may not be relevant to your own life. That the world has changed, that we are better educated etc. But the recent BBC remake comes up with the same results (by the way, young people seem to be much more willing to obey authority). Some people may feel that the experiment was flawed for some reason, but many similar other social experiments on authority led to the same outcome as the Milgram experiment. Finally, it’s worth remembering that since the holocaust there have been many other instances of genocides, which would not have been able to happen without the obedience of ordinary citizens.Task 7b: See - 7c: See - However, if paired with two other actor-teachers who rebelled, only 10% of volunteers continued to 450 volts. This still poses serious questions about human nature and our willingness to follow orders.Questions about the ethics of the experiment were also raised – the volunteers were misled about what they were doing, and may have suffered from a permanent loss of self-esteem. The Stanford Prison experiment 03792220Procedure: To study the roles people play in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. More than 70 applicants answered the ad and were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The study comprised 24 male college students (chosen from 75 volunteers) who were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were 2 reserves and one dropped out, finally leaving 10 prisoners and 11 guards. The guards worked in sets of 3 (being replaced after an 8 hour shift), and the prisoners were housed 3 to a room. There was also a solitary confinement cell for prisoners who 'misbehaved'. The prison simulation was kept as “real life” as possible.Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’. Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology Department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the de-individuation process began.0Procedure: To study the roles people play in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. More than 70 applicants answered the ad and were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The study comprised 24 male college students (chosen from 75 volunteers) who were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were 2 reserves and one dropped out, finally leaving 10 prisoners and 11 guards. The guards worked in sets of 3 (being replaced after an 8 hour shift), and the prisoners were housed 3 to a room. There was also a solitary confinement cell for prisoners who 'misbehaved'. The prison simulation was kept as “real life” as possible.Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’. Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology Department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the de-individuation process began.0248920Aim:?To investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.Zimbardo (1973) was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e. dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e. situational). For example, prisoner and guards may have personalities which make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive. Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.If the prisoners and guards behaved in a non-aggressive manner this would support the dispositional hypothesis, or if they behave the same way as people do in real prisons this would support the situational explanation.0Aim:?To investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.Zimbardo (1973) was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e. dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e. situational). For example, prisoner and guards may have personalities which make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive. Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.If the prisoners and guards behaved in a non-aggressive manner this would support the dispositional hypothesis, or if they behave the same way as people do in real prisons this would support the situational explanation.04914900Findings:?Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented.The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized. Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards.The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards. They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.0Findings:?Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented.The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized. Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards.The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards. They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.00When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number. Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible. Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.Task 8a: See - the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number. Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible. Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.Task 8a: See - the next few days the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever-greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.During the second day of the experiment the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door. The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher, which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out. The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.Prisoner#8612 had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. His thinking became disorganized and he appeared to be entering the early stages of a deep depression. Within the next few days three others also had to leave after showing signs of emotional disorder that could have had lasting consequences. (These were people who had been pronounced stable and normal a short while before).Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for a fortnight, but on the sixth day it was terminated. Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards. Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!" Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point -- that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist“.Task 8b: See - the next few days the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever-greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.During the second day of the experiment the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door. The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher, which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out. The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.Prisoner#8612 had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. His thinking became disorganized and he appeared to be entering the early stages of a deep depression. Within the next few days three others also had to leave after showing signs of emotional disorder that could have had lasting consequences. (These were people who had been pronounced stable and normal a short while before).Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for a fortnight, but on the sixth day it was terminated. Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards. Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!" Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point -- that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist“.Task 8b: See - will readily conform to the?social roles?they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study). Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner's 'final submission'. Deindividuation may also help to explain the behaviour of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility. The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm. The also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore. Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoners submission to the guards. The prisoners learnt that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.After the prison experiment was terminated Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here’s an excerpt:‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt "real" to them. One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something." Another guard said "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure." And another: "... during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry."’Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutalizing ways that they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things. The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally. When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.Task 8c: See - will readily conform to the?social roles?they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study). Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner's 'final submission'. Deindividuation may also help to explain the behaviour of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility. The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm. The also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore. Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoners submission to the guards. The prisoners learnt that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.After the prison experiment was terminated Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here’s an excerpt:‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt "real" to them. One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something." Another guard said "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure." And another: "... during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry."’Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutalizing ways that they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things. The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally. When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.Task 8c: See - Evaluation:?Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role their behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors, which affect behavior in real life. This means the study's findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e the study has low ecological validity.However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example 90% of the prisoners’ private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison. The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks - they either talked about ‘problem prisoners’, other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay. When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study's findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (were people are generally less conforming) and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participant led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines?by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. A review of research plans by a panel is required by most institutions such as universities, hospitals and government agencies. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in the light of possible risk of physical or psychological harm. These boards may request researchers make changes to the study's design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny approval of the study altogether.0Critical Evaluation:?Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role their behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors, which affect behavior in real life. This means the study's findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e the study has low ecological validity.However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example 90% of the prisoners’ private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison. The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks - they either talked about ‘problem prisoners’, other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay. When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study's findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (were people are generally less conforming) and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participant led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines?by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. A review of research plans by a panel is required by most institutions such as universities, hospitals and government agencies. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in the light of possible risk of physical or psychological harm. These boards may request researchers make changes to the study's design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny approval of the study altogether.00Ethical Issues:?The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn’t given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise. However this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed.Also, participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger.However, in Zimbardo's defence the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset. Approval for the study was given from the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department and the University Committee of Human Experimentation. This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners’ extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at which would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained about our understanding of human behaviour and how we can improve society should out balance the distress caused by the study. However it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were in fact more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.0Ethical Issues:?The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn’t given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise. However this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed.Also, participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger.However, in Zimbardo's defence the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset. Approval for the study was given from the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department and the University Committee of Human Experimentation. This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners’ extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at which would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained about our understanding of human behaviour and how we can improve society should out balance the distress caused by the study. However it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were in fact more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.Source: resourcesThe Stanford Prison Experiment - documentary Psychology of evil - (p. 389)Human predictabilityThe idea of human free will seems to conflict with the idea of human behaviour conforming to predictable laws.The law of large numbers In a large population random variations tend to cancel out anomalies.This enables us to predict group behaviour.However, the behaviour of an individual cannot be predicted with any certainty.Trends and laws (p. 391)Human sciences do not have a good record of prediction, e.g. demographers do not agree about the size of world population in 50 years’ time. In 1973 Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be 65 million starving Americans by 1990 (which ironically turned out to be the number of Americans who were overweight in 1990)!Economic forecasters also often get it wrong. The Phillips curve seemed to work in theory but when applied to reality it broke down. The fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (see Chapter 5): just because two things correlate, the first is not necessarily the cause of the second.0415290Deaths by Swimming Pool Drowning vs. Nicholas Cage Films and Other Spurious CorrelationsIt is by now an age-old adage that "correlation doesn't equal causation," but the Internet just loves stories that make spurious correlations. Just yesterday there was an article floating around from?Time?magazine about a study that showed bullies have a lower risk of chronic diseases, with the headline " HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Bullying Is Good For Your Health." Wouldn't it be nice if there was a website that put lie to this idea of correlation/causation by taking it to ridiculous extremes? Enter? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Spurious Correlations.The brainchild of Harvard Law School student Tyler Vigen, Spurious Connections simply takes events that have similar statistical variances over time and charts them on a graph. It's an object lesson in how easily two completely unrelated events can be shown to have some kind of relationship. Here are just a few examples:0Deaths by Swimming Pool Drowning vs. Nicholas Cage Films and Other Spurious CorrelationsIt is by now an age-old adage that "correlation doesn't equal causation," but the Internet just loves stories that make spurious correlations. Just yesterday there was an article floating around from?Time?magazine about a study that showed bullies have a lower risk of chronic diseases, with the headline " HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Bullying Is Good For Your Health." Wouldn't it be nice if there was a website that put lie to this idea of correlation/causation by taking it to ridiculous extremes? Enter? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Spurious Correlations.The brainchild of Harvard Law School student Tyler Vigen, Spurious Connections simply takes events that have similar statistical variances over time and charts them on a graph. It's an object lesson in how easily two completely unrelated events can be shown to have some kind of relationship. Here are just a few examples:Correlation vs Causation00000Tyler himself doesn't see the project in the same light as I do. According to his website, he's just interested in the way people read statistics:I created this website as a fun way to look at correlations and to think about data. Empirical research is interesting, and I love to wonder about how variables work together. The charts on this site aren't meant to imply causation nor are they meant to create a distrust for research or even correlative data. Rather, I hope this projects fosters interest in statistics and numerical research.Regardless of his intent, the Spurious Correlations website works because it forces is us to think about our relationship to statistics and the way they are presented, both visually and in relation to one another.Source: himself doesn't see the project in the same light as I do. According to his website, he's just interested in the way people read statistics:I created this website as a fun way to look at correlations and to think about data. Empirical research is interesting, and I love to wonder about how variables work together. The charts on this site aren't meant to imply causation nor are they meant to create a distrust for research or even correlative data. Rather, I hope this projects fosters interest in statistics and numerical research.Regardless of his intent, the Spurious Correlations website works because it forces is us to think about our relationship to statistics and the way they are presented, both visually and in relation to one another.Source: 9: Statistics – reason through the following statistical information1.? The following statistics suggest that 16-year-olds are safer drivers than people in their twenties, and that octogenarians are very safe.? Is this true?2.? On November 13, 2000, Newsweek published the following poll results:Since 9% said that Nader was the only candidate worth voting for, one would have expected him to get at least 9% of the vote in the 2000 election.??He only got about 3%.??What happened?3: Consider these complaints about airlines published in US News and World Report on February 5, 2001:Can we conclude that United, American, and Delta are the worst airlines and Alaska, Southwest, and Continental are the best?4.? The following statistics about motorcycle helmet use seem to suggest that helmets cause more injuries and fatalities.? Is it really safer to go without helmets?Source:?? Motorcycle Statistical Annual, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1994, as reported on .? This clipping from US News and World Report on 1/29/01 suggests that Alaskans are terrible parents.? Is this true?6.? Columnist George Will wrote in the Washington Post in 1993 that? "... the 10 states with the lowest per pupil spending included four — North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah — among the 10 states with the top SAT scores ... New Jersey has the highest per pupil expenditures, an astonishing $10,561… [Its] rank regarding SAT scores? Thirty-ninth."?This negative correlation between spending per pupil and SAT performance seems to be borne out by this graph:And by this one:Does this mean that spending more on education makes students worse off?7.?? Researchers (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091), found that gun owners are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than non-owners.? Does this mean it's safer to not have guns in the house?8.? "The best public schools offer a more challenging curriculum than most private schools."? Are public schools therefore better than private schools?9.? "Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.?? ….? [P]eople in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas."? Should fluoridation be prohibited?10.? Can we conclude from the following diagram that it's safer to drive while under the influence???Abusive Techniques used in Statistics Bad Data CollectionLack of a control group.Nonrandom sampling methods:?Placing a survey form in a magazine that is read mostly by liberals will tend to elicit a liberal viewpoint, not an average viewpoint.Using experimental conditions that change the nature of the system being tested:?Mega-dosing lab rats may cause metabolic changes that are not present with smaller doses over longer periods.Creating false data to replace data that were lost: in one suspected-carcinogen case, fumigators spraying for bugs accidentally killed most of the lab rats. Not wanting to lose a semester on his thesis, the research student obtained new rats to replace the dead ones (for display only), and faked data for the new rats based on data collected from the remaining original rats. He did not revise his error estimate to reflect the smaller number of rats. Unfortunately, the pesticide had induced tumors in them, and a perfectly safe product was removed from the market as a result.Discarding samples that don't fit the desired theory:?Other laboratories were unable to duplicate the results of a study that concluded that 60 Hz power line radiation causes cell changes. The "researcher" had discarded all of the data that didn't fit his theory, leaving only about a tenth of the data he had collected.Reporting more precision than is available:?Proponents of the "global warming" theory state that average temperatures have risen by half a degree since temperature readings were first recorded. The problem with this is that early thermometers had an accuracy of plus or minus one degree or worse.Changing the collection method in the middle of the experiment:?Changes made in the methods used to obtain data may affect a time study.Bad application of statistical functionsUsing the population standard deviation instead of the sample one:?This is probably the most oft repeated mistake, because the sample standard deviation is much harder to calculate. This changes the margin of error.Using the wrong error calculating function:?The error function must be carefully chosen to match the parameter or statistic paring samples with different characteristics as though they were not different:?Assuming that accident rates before a particular hazard is publicized are the same as those after publication can cause wrong results when comparing different kinds of accidents to each other.Assuming that an effect is linear:?Many economists assume that the effect on the economy of increasing the tax rate is linear. But the effect is really more like subtracting the tax rate from 1 and squaring the result.Forming the wrong conclusionConfusing correlation with causality:?Because the incidence of the disease rickets was strongly correlated to being in certain families, early scientists concluded that the disease was hereditary. Later it was shown that rickets was the result of malnutrition, and that poverty, not rickets, was inherited.Affirming the Consequent:?Those saying Global Warming is real are using the expected effects that Global Warming is expected to produce to "prove" the presence of Global Warming. But they ignore the fact that those effects might have other causes besides Global Warming.Confusing a curative effect with removing the cause:?Because removing salt from the diet has a curative effect on some cases of high blood pressure, some people (including some government regulators) jumped to the conclusion that salt causes high blood pressure. Actually, removing salt abnormally thins the blood, allowing it to flow through constricted spaces easier.Sneaky tricks to mislead the unwaryUsing strong scientific-sounding phrases:?When the perpetrators of false science know they do not have a leg to stand on logically, they resort to using scientific-sounding language to confound those untutored in the sciences.?Using scare tactics:?This is similar to appealing to emotions. They present a huge, terrifying scenario of what?might?happen if they don't get their way. But they have no proof of any of it, so they want to scare you into believing it.Using language designed to mislead:?In this case, language is misused to "prove" the case. A sentence is designed to read two different ways, one that represents the truth, and the other misleading people to think what the deceiver wants them to think. Newspaper headlines often contain such deceptionsPrinting misleading charts:?This is the sneakiest trick. "News" magazines do it all the time, to slant the news to their own political view.?Source: , accessed Saturday 7th May, 2016The complexity of real-world situations (p. 392)In real life there is a complex web of causes, effects and combinations of both.Because of free-will people do not always do what you expect them to do.Summary: the role of laws in human sciences (p. 393 )The law of large numbers means we can sometimes make accurate predictions about the behaviour of a large population.However, predictions based on past trends can be unreliable forecasters of the future.The complexity of the real world makes it difficult to unearth reliable simple laws.The relationship between natural and human sciences (p. 393)Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937): ‘The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don’t.’Reductionism (p. 394)This is the belief that some subjects can be explained in terms of other more fundamental ones. Basis: Social science may one day be supported by advances in natural sciences, such as physics. For example: Economics → explained by psychology → explained by neuroscience → explained by physicsCriticisms: The reductive fallacy is the fallacy of saying that just because A is composed of B, it follows that A is nothing but B, e.g. a human being is nothing but a bunch of chemicals. There are good reasons for doubting this approach – when simple things are combined the results cannot always be predicted.It therefore seems unlikely that we will ever be able to explain the human sciences in terms of physics. Holism (p. 395)This is the belief that the best way to understand some things is by looking at them as a whole rather than analysing them into separate parts. Basis: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts – that is, the whole contains elements that cannot be analysed by examination of the parts, e.g.:Parts of a cat do not work unless in a live catGroups react differently from individuals.The Verstehen position (p. 397) This is the belief that the main aim of the human sciences is to understand the meaning of various social practices as they are understood by the agents themselves. Verstehen = German for ‘understanding’Social practices (e.g. traffic rules, sports) cannot be determined from the study of atoms and molecules. They can only be understood from inside the group. Since human sciences are explained in terms of meaning (rather than mechanism):Meaning may depend on contextUnintended consequences of actions need to be taken into accountIt is therefore difficult to generalise into universal laws.Criticism: Some human traits do seem to be universal and independent of culture, e.g. gossiping, joking.Alleged weaknesses (p. 398)The problem of ‘confirmation bias’ (p. 398)Researchers may just look for evidence to support pre-existing ideas. Poor predictive record (p. 400)There are too many variables in social science to be able to make accurate predictions.Some predictions made by social scientists are valuable in that they may stimulate us to try to prevent possible negative situations in the future.Verstehen: the purpose of human sciences is to understand, not to explain/predict.Predictive power?Task 10a: Watch - Noreen Hertz How to use experts and when not to 10b: Watch - Can Marxist Theory predict the end of Game of Throne? 10c: Watch - Can we predict the next financial crisis? 10d: Watch - When you’re making a deal, what’s going on in your brain? Tetlock Study 0214630Do Political Experts Know What They’re Talking About?Philip Tetlock?is one of my favorite social scientists. I often joke that every cable news show should be forced to display a disclaimer, streaming in a loop at the bottom of the screen. The disclaimer would read: “These talking heads have been scientifically proven to not know what they are talking about. Their blather is for entertainment purposes only.” The viewer would then be referred to Tetlock’s most famous research project, which began in 1984. At the time, the cold war was flaring up again?Reagan was talking tough to the “Evil Empire”?and political pundits were sharply divided on the wisdom of American foreign policy. The “doves” thought Reagan was needlessly antagonizing the Soviets, while the “hawks” were convinced that the USSR needed to be aggressively contained. Tetlock was curious which group of pundits would turn out to be right, and so he began monitoring their predictions.0Do Political Experts Know What They’re Talking About?Philip Tetlock?is one of my favorite social scientists. I often joke that every cable news show should be forced to display a disclaimer, streaming in a loop at the bottom of the screen. The disclaimer would read: “These talking heads have been scientifically proven to not know what they are talking about. Their blather is for entertainment purposes only.” The viewer would then be referred to Tetlock’s most famous research project, which began in 1984. At the time, the cold war was flaring up again?Reagan was talking tough to the “Evil Empire”?and political pundits were sharply divided on the wisdom of American foreign policy. The “doves” thought Reagan was needlessly antagonizing the Soviets, while the “hawks” were convinced that the USSR needed to be aggressively contained. Tetlock was curious which group of pundits would turn out to be right, and so he began monitoring their predictions.0114300A few years later, after Reagan left office, Tetlock revisited the opinions of the pundits. His conclusion was sobering: everyone was wrong. The doves assumed that Reagan’s bellicose stance would exacerbate Cold War tensions. They predicted a breakdown in diplomacy, as the USSR hardened its geopolitical stance. The reality, of course, was that the exact opposite happened. By 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was in power. The Soviet Union began implementing a stunning series of internal reforms. The “evil empire” was undergoing glasnost.But the hawks didn’t do much better. Even after Gorbachev began the liberalizing process, hawks tended to disparage changes to the Soviet system. They said the evil empire was still evil; Gorbachev was just a tool of the Politburo. Hawks couldn’t imagine that a sincere reformer might actually emerge from a totalitarian state.The dismal performance of these pundits inspired Tetlock to turn his small case study into an epic experimental project. He picked a few hundred political experts – people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends” – and began asking them to make predictions about future events. He had a long list of pertinent questions. Would George Bush be re-elected? Would there be a peaceful end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Quebec secede from Canada? Would the dot-com bubble burst? In each case, the pundits were asked to rate the probability of several possible outcomes. Tetlock then interrogated the pundits about their thought process, so that he could better understand how they made up their minds.After Tetlock tallied up the data, the predictive failures of the pundits became obvious. Although they were paid for their keen insights into world affairs, they often performed worse than random chance. Most of Tetlock’s questions had three possible answers; the pundits, on average, selected the right answer less than 33 percent of the time. In other words, a dart-throwing chimp would have beaten the vast majority of professionals. These results are summarized in his excellent?Expert Political Judgment.Tetlock is currently embarking on an even more ambitious project. He was kind enough to answer a few questions about experts, hedgehogs and his future research.Source: few years later, after Reagan left office, Tetlock revisited the opinions of the pundits. His conclusion was sobering: everyone was wrong. The doves assumed that Reagan’s bellicose stance would exacerbate Cold War tensions. They predicted a breakdown in diplomacy, as the USSR hardened its geopolitical stance. The reality, of course, was that the exact opposite happened. By 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was in power. The Soviet Union began implementing a stunning series of internal reforms. The “evil empire” was undergoing glasnost.But the hawks didn’t do much better. Even after Gorbachev began the liberalizing process, hawks tended to disparage changes to the Soviet system. They said the evil empire was still evil; Gorbachev was just a tool of the Politburo. Hawks couldn’t imagine that a sincere reformer might actually emerge from a totalitarian state.The dismal performance of these pundits inspired Tetlock to turn his small case study into an epic experimental project. He picked a few hundred political experts – people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends” – and began asking them to make predictions about future events. He had a long list of pertinent questions. Would George Bush be re-elected? Would there be a peaceful end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Quebec secede from Canada? Would the dot-com bubble burst? In each case, the pundits were asked to rate the probability of several possible outcomes. Tetlock then interrogated the pundits about their thought process, so that he could better understand how they made up their minds.After Tetlock tallied up the data, the predictive failures of the pundits became obvious. Although they were paid for their keen insights into world affairs, they often performed worse than random chance. Most of Tetlock’s questions had three possible answers; the pundits, on average, selected the right answer less than 33 percent of the time. In other words, a dart-throwing chimp would have beaten the vast majority of professionals. These results are summarized in his excellent?Expert Political Judgment.Tetlock is currently embarking on an even more ambitious project. He was kind enough to answer a few questions about experts, hedgehogs and his future research.Source: generalisationsA final alleged weakness of the human sciences is that they are prone to the fallacy of hasty generalisations – jumping to conclusions on the basis of a small, representative sample. 0329565Ultimatum gameA very simple and pure economic game, which thus shows the problem very clearly, is the ultimatum game (Güth et al., 1982).?In the ultimatum game, two players must divide a sum of money. The first player has to propose a certain division. The second player (responder) can accept this division or reject it; in the latter case both players do not receive any money.?In its purest form, the experiment is played only once and anonymously with players that do not know each other.?Economic and game theory predict that the responder will accept any non-zero amount, because for a rational person obtaining something is better than nothing. Knowing this, the proposer is expected to give the responder only the smallest amount possible.?The experiment, however, shows that fair split are common and that low offers are regularly rejected(Güth et al., 1982). This result is found across many different cultural groups (Henrich et al., 2005) and although the fraction offered varies, giving the responder a fair share seems to be universal. Source: gameA very simple and pure economic game, which thus shows the problem very clearly, is the ultimatum game (Güth et al., 1982).?In the ultimatum game, two players must divide a sum of money. The first player has to propose a certain division. The second player (responder) can accept this division or reject it; in the latter case both players do not receive any money.?In its purest form, the experiment is played only once and anonymously with players that do not know each other.?Economic and game theory predict that the responder will accept any non-zero amount, because for a rational person obtaining something is better than nothing. Knowing this, the proposer is expected to give the responder only the smallest amount possible.?The experiment, however, shows that fair split are common and that low offers are regularly rejected(Güth et al., 1982). This result is found across many different cultural groups (Henrich et al., 2005) and although the fraction offered varies, giving the responder a fair share seems to be universal. Source: ‘Yet, subsequent studies do show that individuals from different cultures do behave quite differently in the Ultimatum Game. For example when the Mschiguenga people from the Amazon Basin play the game, responders almost always accept an offer, no matter how low, on the grounds that it is crazy to reject free money. By contrast, in cultures with a strong gift-giving tradition, such as the Gnau of highland Papua New Guinea, responders sometimes reject generous offers of over 60%. This is because they do not like the idea of being under an obligation to the deal maker. As this example shows, we should be cautious before concluding that a particular form of behaviour is universal’. Source: de Lagemaat, p.401 (2015)Human Sciences: Summary of Problems (de Lagemaat, p.402 (2015))ObservationWe cannot directly observe other people’s mindsQuestionnaires may be misleading or biasedObserving people may affect the way they behave Measurement Social phenomena are difficult to measure Hypothesis The act of prediction may affect the behaviour predictedExperiments Human sciences study complex social situations in which it is difficult to run controlled experiments Various moral considerations limit our willingness to experiment LawsThere is a tendency to generalise from unrespresentative samplesHuman sciences are not very good at predicting things Human sciences usually uncover trends rather than lawsHuman sciences are probabilistic in nature ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- united states naval institute
- catalogues and guides of art and exhibitions
- red army handbook ww2 red army reenactment unit
- veterans resources a community for military veterans
- patton s general orders and instructions to his
- wounded warrior project wwp www
- department of defense under secretary of defense for