Love this... It’s such an important topic. The trouble with a digital world is that incorrect information doesn’t go away. People want to feel better about themselves and about their world but that doesn’t mean they want to become researchers or journalists themselves. When the top 5 hits on a google search tell them something, why would they look further?
Even if the 10,000 rule had been valid for violinists, I am baffled why any scientific-thinking person would just assume that this would magically transfer to all other activities.
I also heard you about the Stanford prison experiment but what I heard was that the participants were volunteers. What kind of person jumps at the chance to be a prison guard? Well, exactly who you'd think I think it would be worth testing further the idea that power attracts the corrupt as opposed to corrupting those in power
Very interesting - I’ve heard the same thing said about patents - a patent is published and in many cases the discovery cannot be replicated. We need to be cautious and thoughtful.
Crazy. Dunning-Kruger is something I have used to explain why some people are so confident of their opinion but completely lack the knowledge to be able to understand how incorrect they are. It seems to be a common issue at the moment, is there another theory that explains this better?
I'd heard of the correction of the marshmallow test before. Turns out, children are more likely to wait for a greater reward if their experiences have led them to believe they're likely to actually get that reward. Whoda thunk
As usual, this is well-researched, eloquently presented and beautifully chosen for its relevance and topicality. Thank you very much for putting this together. As a psychologist-in-training, I do wish you had reiterated at the end how many important, correct and interesting studies there are regardless of the very real and troubling replicability crisis.
Yes! The challenge with a video like this is in balancing the primary topic/entertainment portion ("hey, there's a lot of stuff out there that just gets blindly regurgitated that probably isn't accurate") with some of the important caveats ("research is extremely important, and part of what gets us to the stuff that's true is doing a lot of stuff that turns out to be false"). Watching it back I could have definitely reinforced that for a few minutes at the end - it's a long video and I think I got kinda concerned about length by the end.
Late to the party, but I would say this: taking into account socio-economic status does not necessarily include the marshmallow experiment. It could simply mean that these traits persist through generations, i.e. socio-economic status is lower because their parents, grandparents, etc. also had time preference issues.
Absolutely, but some might not be about what you'd expect. For example, research has consistently show our memory to be fallible. This includes the generation of false memories based on priming. Priming in general has also been shown to have a major impact on our behavior (check out the research on motor priming for example). Then there's research on things like the "false consensus effect" which has been very sturdy. To simplify we tend to think our views are the consensus view more often than they actually are: psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-03391-001 Then there are foundational works like Tversky and Kahneman on prospect theory that have also been well validated. So yeah, it's definitely out there.
I have seen the Dunning Krueger effect on theologists explaining why science is wrong about god so I know is anecdotal but it really does happen, maybe not as often as we with our short perception may think
Research is based on reality but sometimes not enough reality and more information is needed, even if you test 100 children another million may have acted differently, only way to really know is to test 7 billion children
Love this... It’s such an important topic. The trouble with a digital world is that incorrect information doesn’t go away. People want to feel better about themselves and about their world but that doesn’t mean they want to become researchers or journalists themselves. When the top 5 hits on a google search tell them something, why would they look further?
Even if the 10,000 rule had been valid for violinists, I am baffled why any scientific-thinking person would just assume that this would magically transfer to all other activities.
I'm also baffled as to what people were supposed to do with the information.
It's crazy to see you rather than just hear you on the podcast!!! :))
Yes! But really easy just to listen if you wish.
I also heard you about the Stanford prison experiment but what I heard was that the participants were volunteers. What kind of person jumps at the chance to be a prison guard? Well, exactly who you'd think
I think it would be worth testing further the idea that power attracts the corrupt as opposed to corrupting those in power
Very interesting - I’ve heard the same thing said about patents - a patent is published and in many cases the discovery cannot be replicated. We need to be cautious and thoughtful.
Crazy. Dunning-Kruger is something I have used to explain why some people are so confident of their opinion but completely lack the knowledge to be able to understand how incorrect they are. It seems to be a common issue at the moment, is there another theory that explains this better?
@@hasslfootA better example are theologists explaining why science is wrong
I'd heard of the correction of the marshmallow test before. Turns out, children are more likely to wait for a greater reward if their experiences have led them to believe they're likely to actually get that reward. Whoda thunk
As usual, this is well-researched, eloquently presented and beautifully chosen for its relevance and topicality. Thank you very much for putting this together. As a psychologist-in-training, I do wish you had reiterated at the end how many important, correct and interesting studies there are regardless of the very real and troubling replicability crisis.
Yes! The challenge with a video like this is in balancing the primary topic/entertainment portion ("hey, there's a lot of stuff out there that just gets blindly regurgitated that probably isn't accurate") with some of the important caveats ("research is extremely important, and part of what gets us to the stuff that's true is doing a lot of stuff that turns out to be false").
Watching it back I could have definitely reinforced that for a few minutes at the end - it's a long video and I think I got kinda concerned about length by the end.
I loved this! Such a needed topic, please share more! 😍
Thank you, Forrest, for that important discussion.
The ego depletion thing... Anything that takes energy becomes harder to do when you have less energy to draw from. Not surprising
Fascinating and thought-provoking information. Thank you for sharing!
Late to the party, but I would say this: taking into account socio-economic status does not necessarily include the marshmallow experiment. It could simply mean that these traits persist through generations, i.e. socio-economic status is lower because their parents, grandparents, etc. also had time preference issues.
I have learned a great deal from this, thank-you
Glad it was helpful!
Interesting
Will power depletion could be glutamate up regulation which does effect decision making
are there any famous psychological studies that are known to be highly replicable? or do they not exist?
Absolutely, but some might not be about what you'd expect.
For example, research has consistently show our memory to be fallible. This includes the generation of false memories based on priming. Priming in general has also been shown to have a major impact on our behavior (check out the research on motor priming for example).
Then there's research on things like the "false consensus effect" which has been very sturdy. To simplify we tend to think our views are the consensus view more often than they actually are: psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-03391-001
Then there are foundational works like Tversky and Kahneman on prospect theory that have also been well validated. So yeah, it's definitely out there.
Well said and done
I have seen the Dunning Krueger effect on theologists explaining why science is wrong about god so I know is anecdotal but it really does happen, maybe not as often as we with our short perception may think
The Social Science and psychology fail to include the entire nature of humans.
I think Human Nature is as complicated as the Climate and like the Climate it is not possible to boil it down into a simple jell.
I never trust research I trust reality
Research is based on reality but sometimes not enough reality and more information is needed, even if you test 100 children another million may have acted differently, only way to really know is to test 7 billion children
"I dont trust research, i trust my narrow limited subjective view and then call it 'reality' like its anything objective"