@ThatGreat Guy youre not getting the point my friend, theyre two totally different types of experiments plus a moral experiment wouldnt do him any harm like the isolation one did
Right? I was like "Did I read that situation wrong?" He was even looking at the crew cleaning the trash while he's texting, quite possibly to make an excuse to "look" like he's busy (been there, done that). People like him makes me constantly be on guard on what these UA-cam personalities are actually doing when their cameras are pointed at them.
@@yasspanda2559 yeah. im not even judging him for skimping out on the work by looking busy. Hard to say no when someone you've just met to work with asks for a favour that's reasonable, even though its not your job, so maybe you just can't be asked. The guy asking you has power over whether your take makes it, or whether you make any contacts, so it's unwise to say no. But to make a show of filming it, making yourself look good by saying you're gonna help out (ugh, even if he did do it, it's cringy af), and then not do it, fuck that
How did they get the footage from him recording himself? Did he just lend it over after he got caught or what. It would seem as though he would try to deny him recording himself and say he didn’t record himself at all
FLIPPITY C it does seem odd unless they have a microphone on him. He obviously uploaded the footage to somewhere because it’s a vlog so they could easily include it here in this video.
Moral of this story: Help out people when you can. you never know when Michael comes out of the corner and tells you that you are his guinea pig for his "social experiments".
Main lesson from the second experiment: if you look confident enough while stealing something, people will assume you have a legitimate reason to take that thing.
confidence goes a long way in all scenario's it seems. i think that's the experment they should be running, how much can you get away with in front of someone if you do it with complete confidence? or something like that
As a teen I walked out of a major store without paying for the bike lock I was gonna get. I spent SO LONG looking at the rack full of bike stuff that I somehow forgot it was a store and you're supposed to pay for stuff. I literally just walked out the same way I came in, lock in hand, right past the security guard and at least 2 other employees, and nobody said anything. I only realized once my mom asked how much I paid for it...
What if this "all episodes are free until the end of the year" is another experiment from Michael and we are all a part of that experiment. I don't know what that experiment could be but maybe it is an experiment. I don't know and as always thanks for reading.
I feel like making the security guards accuse the kid, and have him insist he didn't do it, along with putting the participants in a crowd and making their action anonymous, would make the results more accurate. I feel like a large part of this was due to sheer confusion at this kid's instant and baseless act of taking the blame rather than actual moral reasoning.
Security logically can’t blame the kid with no evidence when there are two people in the room, both being capable of opening the door. Best idea is to give the participants the chance to take the blame for opening the door. If they don’t and and there’s that awkward silence, the kid can step in to take the blame and it would have looked more natural. Plus you can reverse the situations. If the participants don’t open the door, have the kid do it, then not say anything and see if the participants take the blame.
If the kid opened the door and then denied it, I wonder how many adults would keep schtum and how many would take the blame themselves. I should think the proportion would be quite small unless the kid was particularly charming. There are lots of competing moral philosophies that arise in situations like that. Humans like to be truthful when possible, and don't like being blamed for things they didn't do, but there's also a resistance to snitching on other people, particularly if they don't seem like bad people. I'd hate to be in such an experiment (or a real life experience like it). The awkwardness would be almost unbearable.
@@JDG-hq8gy Seriously? It's 2019, it's not hard to hide a camera (you can see they're all shot from a distance) nor find the Instagram of someone who signed their FULL NAME on paperwork you now have. In terms of 'difficult to pull off' your examples have pretty low bars.
You should probably not be so willing to draw such vast conclusions about people in such a small study and accounting for only two actions each of them took.
Stupid concept. Micheal could be doing a video but definitely not on that. Of course people value things higher if they pay for them. Even if that concept wasn’t so easy to answer, making videos free for a year wouldn’t be able to prove how people value them.
Oh man, the vlogger was getting under my skin already just by vlogging about "how good of a person he is" and putting it online, AND THEN HE DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING!!!
Hate to be the one to break it to you..... 99% of people you will meet in your life will be like that guy. You might not realise it but people innately in it to survive.. Piece of advice... never trust anyone 100% not even your mom.. she told you stork dropped you off, im sure you know better by now?
Only difference being that they had an actual psychological principle they were demonstrating and had professionals from the field working on it. This is a properly done study while most social experiments are just people emulating this for views without actually teaching anyone about anything. Personally I learned from this video, never have from watching people ignore a kod holding a sign for 20 minutes.
This idea of moral licensing could explain a phenomenon I've read about and witnessed personally. Parties of churchgoers who go to a restaurant after services, are notoriously bad tippers and can be surprisingly obnoxious. According to the theory, they've been extra good for an hour or so, and feel like they can be jerks afterwards.
Yeah there's a youth charity group in my town that wash cars and what not for charity but go to melbourne for the week using funds they recieve. And they asked me to join in their social clout. Fucking bullshit
@@lemonscourge27 I don't know about Australia, but here in the US that is illegal... We call that embezzlement, claiming to be a non profit organization for charity, but pocketing the money... Not only is that morally wrong, but here in the US it's legally wrong...
@@therayven3147 it's a junior club full of teens to a larger organisation. A week before they tell me they do it for charity and then that group is flying over for a week in melbourne. Charity my arse. And yeah it's illegal.
@@lemonscourge27 yeah... And it really sucks... It makes a person not trust charitable organizations... And when you lose that trust, it's sad... I know as I've experienced it as well... Have you considered exposing their scam?
@@therayven3147 wouldn't matter anyway. They'd have a found a loophole and if not few care. "Charities" of this size keep most of their profits which means they're paying off someone. All politics and shit. For example an average of less than 2% of donations recieved by charities in Australia who donate overseas actually leave the country
I think the fact that it was a kid creates an extra variable here. People will be taking into account that the kid probably won't get into serious trouble, while them as adults probably would.
That's the point. To make it easier for the subject to dodge the blame (responsibility) since they think it's less harmful, despite knowing they should take it anyways. If the actor who takes the blame is an adult, it'll create extra pressure on the subject to take responsibility.
Seems like it would be the opposite to me. Obviously I don't want to do it period, but I feel like I'd much sooner let an adult take the blame than a kid. Letting a kid take the blame just feels even more wrong. Maybe that's not totally logical as you're correct that a 12 year old would probably get in less trouble than you, but I'd argue moral "calculations" and decisions you make in the moment aren't logical either, you just try and rationalize them afterwords.
Bane? I just thought that it makes a difference on how the kid gets blamed. In this experiment he takes it upon himself like he’s Jesus Christ. But what would happen if the guard accused him? Would these people let someone bare a burden they didn’t ask for?
5 років тому+2116
"I didn't have time to help clean" He was browsing on his phone, he was just being a lazy ass, and didn't even feel bad about it.
Michael did come over. He admitted multiple times he’s the one that answered the door and just stopped after being ignored multiple times. The other folks that let the kid take the blame I think the way they looked at it was the kid volunteered on his own and he’ll get in less trouble being a 12 year old than they would and justified it that way.
I know that if this experiment has ever been replicated this has been rectified, but I think one of the main reasons the people who gave up Noah may have done so is due to some sense of confusion as opposed to moral liscencing. Granted, there was evidence of liscencing happening, but it’s clear that confusion was a significant factor in letting Noah take the fall that may skew any data
you also have to factor in that the kid willingly volunteered himself, which you have to think he did for a reason. Maybe he knew he as a 12 year old would not get into any legal trouble for it.
What I really love about Mind Field is how Michael manages the all the cases where people act in a way that will obviously make them feel bad once the experiment is revealed. He always finds the way to make them feel good. That not only helps the interaction but also guarantees that the people will let them use the footage. "By the time all that passed, you didn't need to help", when he clearly had the time.
To be honest no sane person that has a sense of self-preservation would ever speak up in the second experiment You could go to prison for being an accomplice, which i think anybody that's normal would not just take the blame if somebody else already is, that's just how my brain would work. I'd not feel bad at all after the second experiment
@@NoOne-qi4tb Honestly, I feel the opposite way; why would you ever risk letting a child take the blame? 😅 Like, if an adult falsely confessed I might stop and think "Why's he doing this?" and then ask him why once the lady left. Maybe he knows something I don't know, and if he made a mistake I could always just admit it was me when she came back (though I probably wouldn't risk letting him take the fall to begin with). Now if a child did it I'd be very concerned because he probably doesn't have a real reason behind the confession - kids lie all the time, and they change their minds often - I really don't want to look like a scumbag, so I'm not letting a kid take the fall for anything 😅 (Besides, even if you do get away with it you'll still feel like a sack of shit at the end of the day 😬)
The guy that vlogged it, Yeah he seriously pissed me off then says oh they were done when i finished vlogging. He made sure he vlogged untill they were finished then turns camera to another section so the viewer couldn't see the place they were picking up trash from, thats super sad and the guy that donated $5 and took blame instantly meaning it was an unconcious decision yeah Zeus is the man for that.
ODHCH DMN And I am so glad it happened. The funny thing is, more people have seen Michael’s video than that dude’s vlog, so the net “social morality” (for lack of a better term) is in the negative lol
@@Jayberisk3793 But I'm sure he had to sign a form allowing Mind Field to show his face..? He could have peaced out like that other person on the other experiment but he chose not to. So I think he really doesn't care about it at all. 0 remorse for lying on his own footage.
It looked to me like each of the participants were surprised or confused by the kid taking blame. I guess when we're dumbfounded or confused, by default, we tend to protect ourselves by deflecting away the results of an uncertain (or possibly bad) outcome.
Although you're over exaggerating, this mindset is an actual thing with many kings, generals and soldiers. "I am defending my country so it's okay for me to kill surrendering enemy!" "I am a general who saves lives with my complex plans so it's okay for me to torture this spy!" "I am the king and the son of the founder of this nation that fed and looked after so many people so it's okay for me to behead those who oppose me!"
@@grimmoire5952 and school shooters and sexual predators; it's the beginning of ego and end of logic I'm not bad and I'm not doing anything wrong and I deserve this, so I'll take it, I have the license Then when they have to explain themselves they have a mental breakdown because they betray the ego they portrayed to the world and reject themselves instead of the reality they were rejecting which led them to that point When "I jlwas just following orders" breakdown into no longer denying ones participation; the true reality kicks in, and they know they themselves are at odds with the truth of the matter
Also I'm not sure about the "knowledge" part. Many of the experiments are not really relevant due to small sample size or not all variables controlled. But yeah, interesting anyway, by TV standards.
Yeah, I'm starting to think he planned to release it after a set period of paying rush and when it started dying down. It's similar to patreon's early release for supporters except on youtube native.
9:16 sociopath who films a vlog about helping, then "doesn't have time" to help....because he was too busy seeing the internet attaboys for "helping." I think this guy is going to be a politician.
Yeah now think of all the people you have seen on the Internet that claimed they have done something good. Pretty sure about 90% of them were like this guy.
Yeah, running as a Democrat with AOC, another self-righteous social justice warrior willing to help the poor and needy with everyone else's hard earned cash.
@@PureAmericanPatriot Idk, religious people are always high up their a** cause when they do something good, they always see them as people of god, so they're basically gods right hand. While non believer usually do something good cause they wanna do something good.
@@PureAmericanPatriot It isn't about being a liberal or a conservative, it's about being a good person. There's always good and bad people in any field in politics. Have you seen that televangelist conservative pastor that was on H3 Podcast who self-justifies owning a private jet instead of taking a commercial one? He's just a presentation of how being religious doesn't make you good or moral.
I just recently; literally within the past 24 hours began watching Michael Stevens, accidentally by stumbling upon his channel while mindlessly browsing youtube and I just want to say that I am a huge fan and have been completley captivated by his works. Keep it on dude, the world needs your knowledge!
@@naomigary7930 That is how it was. I'm on the UA-cam app, before it would not let you comment on these videos, but now it says "Only UA-cam premium members can comment". Just to make sure, I'll log into my sister's phone and see if I can still watch this video.
youtube is only going downhill over time but I'm glad they accepted (or suggested) michael's idea of doing a series. vsauce was already good, mind field is even better
for the last VR one it just feels like the kid was too insistent on taking the blame that it kinda encourages you to go "well if you really really want it"
RIght?! I was really baffled by that. I can't imagine what that dude was thinking. Like if a car pulled up beside yours and said, "nah, officer, it was me, I'm the drunk driver!" There are so many WTFs
When i lived in the suburbs i always gave homeless change. When i moved to the city, i cannot walk 500 ft without being asked so many times.. If i gave them all money id lose an hour plus worth of work. Thats why i stopped. Depends on where you live and how much exposure vs cost.
Yeah that's totally fair. You can't help everyone and you can't give away so much money that you end up homeless yourself. You just gotta do what you can, when you can.
And if you've ever _been_ homeless, then you also learn how 90% of them actually do spend it on drugs and alcohol and refuse to take work when it's offered to them. That could very well influence a decision like this too.
@@thewhiteshadow6098 No, no it couldn't. Not if you're trying to be anything more than an arrogant, judgemental piece of trash. But sure, keep looking down your nose on the downtrodden. Keep finding excuses to ignore their suffering, blame them for their circumstances and treat them like they're not worth your compassion because clearly only the weak and worthless get addicted.
@@juliagoetia worked security on the strip for years. He's actually right. There's alot of reasons why they got to that spot (I became very close with some of them) but a great majority are hooked especially on drugs and don't have a family to help them. I don't give money but I will offer to buy them a meal and have a conversation with them because we as humans need social interaction. And I don't think the other guy was trying to come off as dispassionate but I see why it can look that way
its interesting cuz i actually experience the opposite affect when u do something good u feel motivated to do more when the next opportunity to do so comes
I used to almost always give to homeless when I encountered them, but I rarely encountered them in the past. Then I got a job where I work night shifts in the middle of manhattan. I get asked for money every single work night, sometimes multiple times throughout the night and I would still give to them for a while but eventually I just got sick and tired of it. Maybe it's not like this in other states or countries, but it's like this where I work, whenever I refuse to give them money they actually get angry at me and start behaving like assholes a lot of the time, like they are somehow entitled to my cash. So yeah now I have gotten to the point where I just completely ignore them, I usually don't even give them a reason or excuse, my entire thoughts behind it have made a complete 180, I'm done with it all. Maybe my mind believes I have "done enough good deeds", or maybe I'm sick and tired of their entitled behavior or completely desensitized to them, or maybe I feel like I'm giving away way more cash then I ever planned because I'm asked every work night, I don't know.
I've Just found this channel today, wanna know the interesting part? It was not a youtube suggestion, I searched for self licensing and this came, and yet it was not my first choice hahahaha.
First experiment fails because giving money to panhandlers isn't an objectively moral thing to do. There are good reasons not to, and more effective ways to use that dollar to help others if you're so inclined. It also fails because doing work for a prospective employer isn't an objectively selfless thing to do either.
I completely agree. There are very few situations in which I would give money to a homeless person. Something better would be taking a bunch of smokers who are trying to quit, and after doing the good deed, see if they smoke an offered cigarette.
@@SenhorAlien I have a better one: Its the same psa type thing, but when they are waiting, instead of a homeless person comming by, an icecream truck goes by. People who heleped will feel they deserve an icecream.
I can't help but think there's something really flawed with the second experiment, especially exemplified by the last dude (Michael). It seems like they lumped him into the group of people who let the kid take the fall for their own doing, but to me he was clearly trying to implicate himself but at a certain point he just became confused as to why this kid INSISTS repeatedly on taking the blame. I could really empathize with him and see how utterly weird this scenario would be, like somebody . It's not that the blame just fell on somebody else, it's that the person insists on having done something wrong that they hadn't. It just adds an element of confusion that I think would wreck serious havoc on the results.
the scene was weird and poorly done, it had nothing to do with moral licensing, i would donate $0 as well and i wouldn't feel bad, that homeless guy looks even better than me and i love plastics let them lay around the park
@@trackmaniaIIDX @@trackmaniaIIDX Yes, and there are a lot of issues with determining why someone did or didn't let a kid take the fall for something. Even the tiny sample size with no control showed variation, people who did both and people who did neither. Finding if the percentage of people who let the kid take the fall is higher compared to a control group that did not have a chance to do something kind beforehand at all would be more telling, although still not the most accurate data.
This actually provoked a lot of anxiety in me because I've been through a lot of trauma related betrayal where people have thrown me under the bus like this. Watching this reminded me of how few people do the right thing when there is so much cost to the person you sacrifice, and relatively little to person who actually made a very conscious decision that would let innocent people suffer because you were a coward. It reminds me I'm not safe in the world.
I would assume he really did something wrong but I just didn't see it happening. Why would he even lie? It's not like a child would want to protect this random grown up who he even doesn't know
Good perspective. This could have been another solid and legitimate moral licensing case. "Would i give back the money because all these were just set up", or "Even though this was just an experiment, the subjects gave me money with their full conciousness and without knowing they were in set, so they actually did GIVE me money, therefor those money are legitimately mine now. I'm keeping it". Would be very interesting...
One of the problem with the final experiment is that the kid jumps right away and says he opened the door. 1.The kid and his mom were in the room before the subject arrived. (the subject could have thought that the kid opened the door earlier and he was confessing for that, because the guy that just came in looked like a regular worker) 2.The thief did not look suspicious, as the subject say "I thought he worked here" 22:50. (so it will take a couple of seconds to realize that the guy that just came in is the guy they talk about) The subject did not had time to understand the situation. He did't had time to react because he was still puzzled/surprised by the kids confession. (although, if the subject had time to confess before the kid, the experiment would not work) (so the kid confession thing had to be quick, but it creates confusion and it distorts the experiment) The subject that confessed, it took him about 6 seconds to realize that the kid was taking the blame 22:40.
I agree to what you all are saying, but I believe the experiment was if they would take the blame for something they did which they found out was wrong, and not if what they did (opening the door) was right or wrong, and they were given plenty of time to take the blame
The confusion comes and the participant takes a bit of time to realize that its the same person that they are talking about coz participant prefer to be out of the question asked by the actor who speaks in a serious tone.so he naturally thinks he is not involved with this problem asked by the actor. He is naturally new to the situation and he doesnt wanna get to that kind of serious depth in instance.so he takes time to react. The nature to not to be involved with that problem in instance comes with the moral licensing.so he thinks about the guy that they are talking about is different from the guy he let in :" This cant be the guy that i let in coz... no.. it cant be true.. i didnt just opened a door to a thief...no.... i didnt... or did i?? Is this the same guy that i opened the door for.. no.... it cant be.... " just like that. It takes time for him to understand the problem coz deep inside he is still debating that he hasnt done something wrong. And that is moral license...but its human
They should do an episode about that feeling you get when you’re watching a show and the situation is so awkward for the person in the show that the viewer can’t watch it. I struggle with that a lot on this channel.
The dissonance he experienced with the kid and everyone going on as if the kid did it seems like it would be difficult to overcome in real time. At a certain point, the lack of coherence might lead to anxiety and flight responses.
@@GoodwinOgbuehi Or just literal confusion with your environment. He's saying one thing and the guards hearing another. It's be disorienting. He looks brain locked at the end.
I really felt bad for him. He confessed once, but the guard wasn't there. When he confessed to the guard, he was just spoken over. It's just hard in general to reiterate something when you're spoken over in a tense situation, but I can't imagine it being any easier when you have to take blame for messing up seriously.
That last man's experiment made me realize that Survival is often stronger than Moral. Meaning, when human beings are put in life/death or freedom/prison situations, it becomes more of a matter of "What is Good vs What is Right". Most often we do what feels right to survive, rather than take the risk to feel courageous.
I'll translate it for you, since you seem to be having trouble, the first time he says it, it means "You guys having a good day?" (SO FAR) and the second "You guys have a good day" means have a good remainder of a day. Makes 100% sense.
At the Top Of The Comments Section Says: “Only UA-cam Premium Can Comment” Sorry Peasants We Are Now At The “Premium Age” 🙆🏻♂️ it only get worse from here, I only hope the ultra premium content be far far away.
I feel like something like giving money to someone who is asking for it is way different than helping with trash. This could have been done better by having the test subjects help with the trash, then have them go do something else and ask them to help with something else. Giving money to someone isn't necessarily looked at as being good. Some people, as a matter of fact, look at it as something you shouldn't do. This experiment should really be redone.
@@tylerw.1414 Yeah I noticed that. They concluded that the Moral Licensing phenomenon is actually true even though they had conflicting evidence. Kinda disappointed with how this was run compared to the other seasons. It seems like they tried making an episode and didn't want to have wasted all that money to show a phenomenon that isn't even true
I feel like they didn't really say that it proved it. This was a smalls scale experiment just for interest. Like they said, people may have set ideas about donating to the homeless or something.
1st guy: You asked him directly, "Can you help me?" 2nd guy: You had 1 person ask another person if there was anyone around to help. There are 2 different things in play there. Guilt vs. Cognitive dissonance.
@@quinton8614 It can mean that; it does not ONLY mean that. "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."
I don't feel bad for not giving money to homeless people but I do feel bad for that person letting his life go that far off course. I feel like giving them money will just allow them to continue to not improve their situation. I feel bad for people who do give money to homeless people because they fail to see the bigger picture.
I agree. I don't think giving money to a homeless person was the best test. I would never give money to a homeless person for fear they would use it on drugs/alcohol. If they asked for food, water...then I would totally buy that for them. Plus we don't know how much financial issues could play into someone's decision not to give money. Maybe that's rent money. I doubt these actors would be filming a small PSA for chump change if they didn't need the money.
@@kraziecatclady A homeless person is not born a bum, a little story here, there is an example of an ex- football player being attacked by some scallies while their cohort films it and uploads it to youtube for fun, the ex-football player being so big just embarrassed them by pushing them of. His only crime? From taking years of abuse to the head and the effects being hidden from the public and players themselves for decades, he developed similar issues to what boxers get called 'punch drunk' he was wealthy through his sport and although his wife for years complained to anyone who would listen, she was shut down by the medical profession, and in the end divorced him because his behavior and being such a big man she didn't know how to control him anymore. Now there are those who are wasters, there always is by the nature of the numbers, but we dont judge the many by the few, however, like the example given above there are a million and one stories to be told repeatedly. Your neighbor across the road who you grew up with gets adicicted to drugs because they was in an accident and through pain medication becomes hooked on herion, your wife dies in a car accident and you never recover as a result or your child dies, you come back from war and never recover the consequences of it. People do not set out to be wasters, just by the sheer biological make up of an individual determines that, people by their nature like to have repeated certainty and belonging just for comfort and saftey, they are not the 'other' or a hostile being who wants to farm and eat you, just a person who needs help maybe but they shut down all the psychiatric hospitals to save money, but in the end never do. You have to be careful of how you demonise others, because that other may eventually be you, and you really don't want to be the 'other' believe me, because anyone class race or creed can become that and then you have permission to behave anyway you want to them, it's just a numbers game. Do you think that you really see the bigger picture? Or from what or whom are you informed by? To give a hungry man a dollar or two is helping them stay in that situation? How many hard working families after the 2008 crash and being made homeless, were helped out by others of their situation by turning their backs? It is helped by others just even giving a little, your society does not benefit in anyway by having thousands of homeless on your streets, what's the point of being rich in a society where you are stepping over homeless people? Give a little critical thinking of your own to any matter, not just regurgitated spiel.
The kid being a little forceful would have confused me... the last dude said the words "I let him in" .. and then the kid just said "I let him in" again, so I would be trying to figure out what this kids rub is.... like WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT!? -- fine you want it that way.... enjoy not playing fortnight for awhile
Yeah that’s what I thought! If someone kept contradicting me when I was trying to tell them what happened I would be confused too. He said he’d let the guy in more than once but nobody would listen to him.
@@eadlynjune I was thinking the same thing. I think the last guy was totally going to own it until the Security Guard and the child kept ignoring that he was telling them that he opened the door. At that point, I would be confused as well.
It would have been better if the kid was blamed by accident instead of offering to take the blame. In this version, the participant would have to refuse the kid's willingness to take the blame for them.
Not to mention what he may or may not have thought about what the justice system would have done to him vs. a child when the "authorities" cam in. There were a few factors that were conspicuously left out on this one, even for social science standards. Also, I love this experiment/vid/channel/MindField/Vsauce.
One thing that wasn't really brought up with the fact that this was a kid. a kid is less likely to get into major trouble with something like that, he would get a slap on the wrist at best. Where as an adult letting someone in, that could be jail time for all you know.
This is my premium trial. I'm binging the show throughout this free month. I've already cancelled my membership, but it's still valid for a month. *Here's a little lesson in trickery*
A problem with the Trash in Park Experiment: The 1st subject was asked DIRECTLY if he wouldn't mind helping to pick up trash, while the 2nd subject (Alex) was NOT asked directly. The experimenters could have done a much better job at "controlling for variability", by being more consistent.
I'm guessing his super quick answer was really confusing which caused people to lock up. I'd be really confused why he was being so assertive before it was even clear there was a big problem.
I feel like there are a few issues with wording: In the homeless aspect, there is a difference between asking for a dollar for the vending machine or just “some money”. In the kid aspect “did you open the door” does not designate the amount of “you” (single/multiple). Maybe this is my personal rationalization, but I feel it needs to have been said.
Language is very important for social experiments and they should've kept a rigid hold on the wording they used for sure. That was the most influential swayer from the objective situations :///
Both experiments might indicate moral licensing but both have their flaws, the first one is that you don't know whether the person usually donates (and their actual moral code) and the second one is confusion (especially for Michael in the second experiment after he admitted twice and was ignored by everyone, the kid also taking the blame just feels unnatural making there be even more confusion). I personally never give money to homeless people but rather offer them something to drink instead (not in the USA, we have many good systems to get people back on track here). These things can affect an experiment majorly. Interesting video nonetheless but you can't use it to draw an actually backed up conclusion.sorry for typos am writing this on my phone.
Definitely. It kinda shows in the first one how much that lady spent with him. I'd say maybe like 5 minutes tops. But how much interaction was there between the subject and Noah?
I think you all might be getting confused between the cause and effect (for more info watch the latest episode) The cause is that the subject is an extrovert and altruistic and the effect is that they talk with Noah and also take the blame
@@papiokok fair enough; I understand that the interaction is not what the study is centered around, but I think depending on how long the subject and Noah interact probably definitely affect whether or not they will defend the kid
There is footage of a guy forcefully opening an ATM , even using a circular saw on the lock, taking the money inside. It was broad daylight, there were customers around, he didn't hide what he was doing. He casually walked in stole the money and walked back out. How was he able to do it? He wore cloth, that looked a bit like an engineer or mechanic and he opened the ATM casually, as if that was just doing his job. If you manage to have a presence, that signals "I'm just here doing my thing", people won't question what you're doing and why you're doing it. The robber just acted as if he belonged there in this moment, breaking into an ATM and nobody cared. Same here with the equipment. Nobody dared to question the intruder, because he just did his this. Truly impressive.
i would never give money to a homeless person. i dont consider it a good thing to give money to the homeless. you cant buy someone off the streets. they have to do that themselves.
I think there are differences in morally good, morally obligatory and the right thing. It definitely has a lot of grey areas and I appreciate Michael tackling a small chunk of the puzzle.
For example, the one with the kid standing up and taking blame. It was so abrupt and out of left field that it left the subjects stunned and confused. That situation doesn't really arise naturally (seriously what kid bolts up out of the blue and says I did it unprompted?). When you get really confused you become slower to act as your brain is still trying to process what's happening. In that time it becomes harder to to correct him as your mind is scrambling. I feel relating the amount they donated to their reaction to that event is a huge stretch.
@@4DChess Yeah I tried to delete my comment after I realized why thought that. They shouldn't have let the kid take the blame on his own, he should've been suspected to have done it and been confronted about it and taken the blame out of pressure.
I'm not too convinced of anything in this video because the sample sizes are too small and the results are too varied. Unfortunately, this seems like an experiment that would be too hard to carry out on a large scale, and on the scale here, any data could easily be explained by a number of other deciding factors or happy coincidences.
James Loftus yeah I’m in no way an expert but I thought the situation in which the kid confessed to opening the door made it too comfortable for the test subject to go with the narrative. If e.g. the security guard had directly confronted both of them, instead of immediately blaming the kid, the outcome might’ve been different.
Yeah it is a small sample size and there are problems with the experiments, but this is true of most if not all experiments. It’s a start though and begins conversation and maybe follow up experiments that address the concerns with this one.
Mind Field isn’t about completely changing your point of view of something. Michael’s goal is to not publish a revolutionary study to be referenced back to and to be relied on for information. It’s bite-sized science. An episode of Mind Field provides a hypothesis, introduces one or two credible people, gives a couple demonstrations, and concludes with an interesting moral. You’re not supposed to be completely convinced that moral licensing affects everything you do, you’re supposed to start wondering if moral licensing affects some of your actions.
24:44 Michael says "I opened door for him he takes something", Michael tried to say was him but the guard basically ignores it and is fully engaged with kid and saying to kid so Noah you opened the door while Michael said more than once was him but guard actor just takes kids it was me over Michael saying it and explaining that he opened the door first and at that point he already admitted it a few times before that as well so I say that one wasn't fair on poor guy like no one wanted to listen to him even though he confessing
I don't know of any critically thinking person who can possibly think it's okay, logical, or rational, to think that doing a good thing cancels out a bad thing.
the point they were making in the video is that it’s not a logical/rational thing that we do on purpose, it’s subconscious. that’s explained near the beginning
@@HejLala it seems staged because they only put the interesting subjects in the video. It would be different if they were doing a research paper, rather than entertainment.
R it was not staged, you will see how many people will do this for $50. Even I will do this for $50.00. Oh and most of their acting was horrible, you can find many actors online.
@@andriod8014 I'm not implying it was staged, I'm rather suggesting that the reasoning behind this experiment may be flawed like if that was me I would 1) not pick up the trash cause I'm supposed to be acting and only getting paid $50 and they asking me to pick up trash on set and then would 2) give the homeless man money because I always give homeless people money if I have some no matter what. Idk if that's moral licencing or just not wanting to pick up trash at your low paying acting gig lol
What I heard when you described the job of that professor at the beginning of the video: He was a professor of logic, down at the university of science. R.I.P Norm Macdonald. Lots of love from Iran ❤️
Conclusion: always be SUPER kind because you never know when you could be in a mind field study.
That just means you're being "kind" for all the wrong reasons. Not for kindness sake, but afraid for being busted, lol.
@@Baalaaxa But, isn't that by itself a good enough reason to do good things?
@@Baalaaxa What if you're religious and you're doing it for God? Because he'll reward you if you do. Is that a wrong reason too?
@@jamilhneini1002 The idea is that the reward comes from you doing the right thing for the right reasons
@@JustCallMeEmily I don't think so
You have to be a good person, not for being in a show or a mind field study, but to do the right thing
I'd love to see Michael put in these situations unknowingly, given everything he's learned, and see how he responds.
Daniel Crowe well if he knows that trumps the point of an experiment you dont know about
GPAngel ye that’s why they said unknowingly meaning he wouldn’t know
Go straight to the head of the class...bravo.
ThatGreat Guy that’s not a moral experiment tho that’s an isolation experiment
@ThatGreat Guy youre not getting the point my friend, theyre two totally different types of experiments plus a moral experiment wouldnt do him any harm like the isolation one did
lol that dude "i didnt have time to" after spending the whole thing texting. Micheal was so kind in the way he pointed it out as well lol
Right? I was like "Did I read that situation wrong?" He was even looking at the crew cleaning the trash while he's texting, quite possibly to make an excuse to "look" like he's busy (been there, done that). People like him makes me constantly be on guard on what these UA-cam personalities are actually doing when their cameras are pointed at them.
@@yasspanda2559 yeah. im not even judging him for skimping out on the work by looking busy. Hard to say no when someone you've just met to work with asks for a favour that's reasonable, even though its not your job, so maybe you just can't be asked. The guy asking you has power over whether your take makes it, or whether you make any contacts, so it's unwise to say no. But to make a show of filming it, making yourself look good by saying you're gonna help out (ugh, even if he did do it, it's cringy af), and then not do it, fuck that
How did they get the footage from him recording himself? Did he just lend it over after he got caught or what. It would seem as though he would try to deny him recording himself and say he didn’t record himself at all
@@guaju good question. i have no idea
FLIPPITY C it does seem odd unless they have a microphone on him. He obviously uploaded the footage to somewhere because it’s a vlog so they could easily include it here in this video.
Moral of this story: Help out people when you can. you never know when Michael comes out of the corner and tells you that you are his guinea pig for his "social experiments".
i know what my reaction would be if he did "ah crap, now i get to look like an idiot on Vsauce (or mindfield if we're being specific)" lol
Or John Quiñones with What Would You Do
@@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075 mindfield*
@@grayemn1409 noted, edited
But you can't help people if you have *lumbago*
Main lesson from the second experiment: if you look confident enough while stealing something, people will assume you have a legitimate reason to take that thing.
confidence goes a long way in all scenario's it seems. i think that's the experment they should be running, how much can you get away with in front of someone if you do it with complete confidence? or something like that
That's how Trump got away with all the crap he pulled - he did it openly, even proudly.
As a teen I walked out of a major store without paying for the bike lock I was gonna get. I spent SO LONG looking at the rack full of bike stuff that I somehow forgot it was a store and you're supposed to pay for stuff.
I literally just walked out the same way I came in, lock in hand, right past the security guard and at least 2 other employees, and nobody said anything. I only realized once my mom asked how much I paid for it...
@@roytee3127 of course Americans have to bring politics into this
@@botelladeaguamediollena4885 exactly this, it's too annoying.
Chaotic evil: throw trash in the lake and rob the homeless man
BURN IT ALL DOWN!
steal the trash and throw the homeless man into the lake.
Steal the lake, throw the homeless man in the trash.
Dig through the ditches and burn through the witches
I slam in the back of my Dragula
@@AnonymousDuckLover Steal the homeless man and pour water on the trash
What if this "all episodes are free until the end of the year" is another experiment from Michael and we are all a part of that experiment. I don't know what that experiment could be but maybe it is an experiment. I don't know and as always thanks for reading.
The experiment would be to see if there is a surge in people paying for youtube premium for the upcoming 4th season.
Lol nice
Everything is an experiment. The Matrix is an experiment.
Is it really only available till the end of the year? If you reply, please like this so I can come back to this
@@rpb4865 Hello here is the last video where Michael is telling it:
ua-cam.com/video/_WHRWLnVm_M/v-deo.html
I feel like making the security guards accuse the kid, and have him insist he didn't do it, along with putting the participants in a crowd and making their action anonymous, would make the results more accurate. I feel like a large part of this was due to sheer confusion at this kid's instant and baseless act of taking the blame rather than actual moral reasoning.
they'd easily say "somebody else (from the crowd) must've done it but the kid was sitting here for the entire time"
Yes, thank you. That looked like it was just too ackward
Security logically can’t blame the kid with no evidence when there are two people in the room, both being capable of opening the door.
Best idea is to give the participants the chance to take the blame for opening the door. If they don’t and and there’s that awkward silence, the kid can step in to take the blame and it would have looked more natural. Plus you can reverse the situations. If the participants don’t open the door, have the kid do it, then not say anything and see if the participants take the blame.
If the kid opened the door and then denied it, I wonder how many adults would keep schtum and how many would take the blame themselves. I should think the proportion would be quite small unless the kid was particularly charming. There are lots of competing moral philosophies that arise in situations like that. Humans like to be truthful when possible, and don't like being blamed for things they didn't do, but there's also a resistance to snitching on other people, particularly if they don't seem like bad people. I'd hate to be in such an experiment (or a real life experience like it). The awkwardness would be almost unbearable.
Yeah i was thinking the same thing
It pays off to be patient.
Yeaah
my fuckin man hell ya from me brother hehe
But don't you want to support Michael?
@@SethVivianBarker it doesn't support Michael it supports UA-cam :P
it doesn't pay a lot though, about 10$ every ten months!
I feel like this show made me a better person by making me fear that I get recorded doing something bad and people ask me why I did it later
Lmao
Or just paranoid
This was probably staged, how did they get all those cameras on the test subjects faces without them knowing, or found Jakes Instagram
@@JDG-hq8gy Seriously? It's 2019, it's not hard to hide a camera (you can see they're all shot from a distance) nor find the Instagram of someone who signed their FULL NAME on paperwork you now have. In terms of 'difficult to pull off' your examples have pretty low bars.
Nice name
This channel is the only one worth buying UA-cam Red for
Rjsgrawsome Yes, channel wise you are absolutely right. Also really like no ads and 10 second ff/rw that makes it worth it too though
...or using a free trial.
Haha seems that way testaccount
Agreed
I got youtube red for ad free youtube and google play music, not for these series'. Thats just a bonus
I cannot convey my admiration for those who helped twice they're great people
what if they watch this episode and figure out they were the only ones helping and start moral licensing at an even greater scale?
You should probably not be so willing to draw such vast conclusions about people in such a small study and accounting for only two actions each of them took.
They could have had a moral deficit.
@@sirairili1570 Nicely done.
Maybe they killed someone in the morning - this would explain why they helped twice. 🤪
Mind Field S4 E1: Do people value things higher if they pay for them? Let's explore like to views ratio before and after previous seasons were free.
Max Jacobi that’s hilarious and not that unlikely!
bro, that would be fascinating
Stupid concept. Micheal could be doing a video but definitely not on that. Of course people value things higher if they pay for them. Even if that concept wasn’t so easy to answer, making videos free for a year wouldn’t be able to prove how people value them.
@@rotmg4ios I kind of agree, but it wasn't free for a year. It is just free for a few months.
It could go under power of suggestion
Oh man, the vlogger was getting under my skin already just by vlogging about "how good of a person he is" and putting it online, AND THEN HE DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING!!!
That one turned into a case-study in virtue signaling.
And his excuse “I just didn’t have time!” Nah, he made sure he didn’t have “time” to help clean. Ugh.
@@keermat Just _imagine_ the type of virtue-signaling he gets away with when nobody's watching!
I'm surprised they caught that
Hate to be the one to break it to you..... 99% of people you will meet in your life will be like that guy. You might not realise it but people innately in it to survive..
Piece of advice... never trust anyone 100% not even your mom.. she told you stork dropped you off, im sure you know better by now?
This is a “social experiment” without the clickbait.
A social experiment that lives up to its promises. Namely, actually being a god damn social experiment.
Or is it?
*Vsauce music plays*
Aaaannd at 1k likes(nobody will care anyways smh)
Only difference being that they had an actual psychological principle they were demonstrating and had professionals from the field working on it. This is a properly done study while most social experiments are just people emulating this for views without actually teaching anyone about anything. Personally I learned from this video, never have from watching people ignore a kod holding a sign for 20 minutes.
This idea of moral licensing could explain a phenomenon I've read about and witnessed personally. Parties of churchgoers who go to a restaurant after services, are notoriously bad tippers and can be surprisingly obnoxious. According to the theory, they've been extra good for an hour or so, and feel like they can be jerks afterwards.
Yeah there's a youth charity group in my town that wash cars and what not for charity but go to melbourne for the week using funds they recieve. And they asked me to join in their social clout. Fucking bullshit
@@lemonscourge27 I don't know about Australia, but here in the US that is illegal... We call that embezzlement, claiming to be a non profit organization for charity, but pocketing the money... Not only is that morally wrong, but here in the US it's legally wrong...
@@therayven3147 it's a junior club full of teens to a larger organisation. A week before they tell me they do it for charity and then that group is flying over for a week in melbourne. Charity my arse. And yeah it's illegal.
@@lemonscourge27 yeah... And it really sucks... It makes a person not trust charitable organizations... And when you lose that trust, it's sad... I know as I've experienced it as well... Have you considered exposing their scam?
@@therayven3147 wouldn't matter anyway. They'd have a found a loophole and if not few care. "Charities" of this size keep most of their profits which means they're paying off someone. All politics and shit. For example an average of less than 2% of donations recieved by charities in Australia who donate overseas actually leave the country
I think the fact that it was a kid creates an extra variable here. People will be taking into account that the kid probably won't get into serious trouble, while them as adults probably would.
maya yaser they should have had it be an old guy who comes across as nice. Any normal folk respect the elderly who haven’t done anything wrong.
That's the point. To make it easier for the subject to dodge the blame (responsibility) since they think it's less harmful, despite knowing they should take it anyways.
If the actor who takes the blame is an adult, it'll create extra pressure on the subject to take responsibility.
hitman55001 I get that actually. Maybe you’re right. It’s just a matter of principles.
Seems like it would be the opposite to me. Obviously I don't want to do it period, but I feel like I'd much sooner let an adult take the blame than a kid. Letting a kid take the blame just feels even more wrong. Maybe that's not totally logical as you're correct that a 12 year old would probably get in less trouble than you, but I'd argue moral "calculations" and decisions you make in the moment aren't logical either, you just try and rationalize them afterwords.
Bane? I just thought that it makes a difference on how the kid gets blamed. In this experiment he takes it upon himself like he’s Jesus Christ. But what would happen if the guard accused him? Would these people let someone bare a burden they didn’t ask for?
"I didn't have time to help clean"
He was browsing on his phone, he was just being a lazy ass, and didn't even feel bad about it.
He has narcissistic tendencies
Me in a nutshell
He was proabbaly editing/uploading the vlog he was just recording
That Guy Is The TRASH
Didn’t wanna look like the ass he really is.
Good deed vlogger is exactly what I suspect every time I see someone boasting of their moral high ground.
Jackson Matthews his last name must be paul
Overwhelming Euphoria an island is to nice for them
@@AutismAndy nah, living on an island isn't so luxurious, most of those brainlets won't even know how to get clean water or build a proper shelter
It was so cringeworthy to watch 😬🤦🏾♀️
I love how he claimed he didn't have time to help clean up lol
Michael did come over. He admitted multiple times he’s the one that answered the door and just stopped after being ignored multiple times.
The other folks that let the kid take the blame I think the way they looked at it was the kid volunteered on his own and he’ll get in less trouble being a 12 year old than they would and justified it that way.
I think he was not emphasising that on purpose so he would have both options open if one failed. I think that's what i would have done to see
"I would've definitely picked up trash"
then why didnt you lmao
he should have picked himself
Wait, he totally, hypothetically, would have picked up the trash? Wow, he must be so proud. We can all learn from his moral virtue.
Kewl ADEL ìuim. Chopintois71u1a3ui8iiial88 ip
An accident occured to someone he know?
he was vlogginggggggg duh
The only good UA-cam premium series
true
That and Scare PewDiePie
father of the mountain VEVO 69 the ABSOLUTE ZERO best
I mean I thought Kobra Kai was pretty good too
I recommend LeFloid vs The World!
Noah be like : "I am responsible for the world hunger and the Great Depression"
my brain when I'm upset
no, I am
Im spartacus
@@N4p0100 no, I’m Spartacus
@@ionabab7274 NO I'M DIRTY DAN
I know that if this experiment has ever been replicated this has been rectified, but I think one of the main reasons the people who gave up Noah may have done so is due to some sense of confusion as opposed to moral liscencing.
Granted, there was evidence of liscencing happening, but it’s clear that confusion was a significant factor in letting Noah take the fall that may skew any data
Going
Yeah I agree. The last guy stopped saying he opened the door because they all ignored him. Of course he was very confused
you also have to factor in that the kid willingly volunteered himself, which you have to think he did for a reason. Maybe he knew he as a 12 year old would not get into any legal trouble for it.
What I really love about Mind Field is how Michael manages the all the cases where people act in a way that will obviously make them feel bad once the experiment is revealed. He always finds the way to make them feel good. That not only helps the interaction but also guarantees that the people will let them use the footage. "By the time all that passed, you didn't need to help", when he clearly had the time.
To be honest no sane person that has a sense of self-preservation would ever speak up in the second experiment
You could go to prison for being an accomplice, which i think anybody that's normal would not just take the blame if somebody else already is, that's just how my brain would work.
I'd not feel bad at all after the second experiment
@@NoOne-qi4tb Honestly, I feel the opposite way; why would you ever risk letting a child take the blame? 😅
Like, if an adult falsely confessed I might stop and think "Why's he doing this?" and then ask him why once the lady left. Maybe he knows something I don't know, and if he made a mistake I could always just admit it was me when she came back (though I probably wouldn't risk letting him take the fall to begin with).
Now if a child did it I'd be very concerned because he probably doesn't have a real reason behind the confession - kids lie all the time, and they change their minds often - I really don't want to look like a scumbag, so I'm not letting a kid take the fall for anything 😅
(Besides, even if you do get away with it you'll still feel like a sack of shit at the end of the day 😬)
The guy that vlogged it, Yeah he seriously pissed me off then says oh they were done when i finished vlogging. He made sure he vlogged untill they were finished then turns camera to another section so the viewer couldn't see the place they were picking up trash from, thats super sad and the guy that donated $5 and took blame instantly meaning it was an unconcious decision yeah Zeus is the man for that.
Jonathan Johnson the vlogger is a pos who inflates his own ego from other's deeds.
Alex Colegate Very tru and quite unexcceptable its a shame people go to the lengths of manipulating themselves to believe they're moral & righteous.
He seemed like he was acting lol
@@LyteGamingLG tbh mate i think that's why we've never seen that guy on trending lmao - lil fake fucks
@@Bluesachwill Yeah your definitely right brother lol.
Michael looks so pissed off at the vlog guy
Michael did the situation justice by causing the exact opposite that the guy wanted, and showing every one here what kind of a person he really is
i am too tbh
ODHCH DMN And I am so glad it happened. The funny thing is, more people have seen Michael’s video than that dude’s vlog, so the net “social morality” (for lack of a better term) is in the negative lol
@@Jayberisk3793 But I'm sure he had to sign a form allowing Mind Field to show his face..? He could have peaced out like that other person on the other experiment but he chose not to. So I think he really doesn't care about it at all. 0 remorse for lying on his own footage.
@@showman891 always read the fine print on the contract
It looked to me like each of the participants were surprised or confused by the kid taking blame. I guess when we're dumbfounded or confused, by default, we tend to protect ourselves by deflecting away the results of an uncertain (or possibly bad) outcome.
I’ve done so many good deeds that I can now commit murder without feeling like I did anything wrong.
Ah yes, Barack Spiegel
did mr beast said that ?
Thats not quite the concept of the episode
Although you're over exaggerating, this mindset is an actual thing with many kings, generals and soldiers.
"I am defending my country so it's okay for me to kill surrendering enemy!"
"I am a general who saves lives with my complex plans so it's okay for me to torture this spy!"
"I am the king and the son of the founder of this nation that fed and looked after so many people so it's okay for me to behead those who oppose me!"
@@grimmoire5952 and school shooters and sexual predators; it's the beginning of ego and end of logic
I'm not bad and I'm not doing anything wrong and I deserve this, so I'll take it, I have the license
Then when they have to explain themselves they have a mental breakdown because they betray the ego they portrayed to the world and reject themselves instead of the reality they were rejecting which led them to that point
When "I jlwas just following orders" breakdown into no longer denying ones participation; the true reality kicks in, and they know they themselves are at odds with the truth of the matter
This guy is so dedicated to providing free knowledge that now these episodes are free
Really respect him for that 🙏🏾👌🏾
Not sure but I don't think he decides that
@@CKr14 he owns the content
Also I'm not sure about the "knowledge" part. Many of the experiments are not really relevant due to small sample size or not all variables controlled. But yeah, interesting anyway, by TV standards.
Yeah, I'm starting to think he planned to release it after a set period of paying rush and when it started dying down. It's similar to patreon's early release for supporters except on youtube native.
I DidNT hAvE TiMe tO CLEaN tHe pARk.
This guy hahaha virtue signaling at its best
i wAs tOo bUsy fiLmiNG a 10 sEcoNd vIdEO
@@ORIONVIIXI 🤣🤣
That was very interesting because people that credit themselves for doing a good thing usually is a hypocrite
SEND ME HATE ON MY VIDEOS>>
The cycle of judgement to humility while watching this is CRAZY. We are all like this.
21:54
literally knocking at the door:
"my hands are full":))
lmaooooo
Could be knocking with whatever is in this hands
@@lucasnadamas9317 true
He is knocking with his head, duh!
he could have been kicking the door.
9:16 sociopath who films a vlog about helping, then "doesn't have time" to help....because he was too busy seeing the internet attaboys for "helping."
I think this guy is going to be a politician.
Yeah now think of all the people you have seen on the Internet that claimed they have done something good.
Pretty sure about 90% of them were like this guy.
Yeah, running as a Democrat with AOC, another self-righteous social justice warrior willing to help the poor and needy with everyone else's hard earned cash.
@@Mitch-gu3dz , so true. Ironically, religious conservatives do give more to help the poor. They just don't post it on social media every two seconds.
@@PureAmericanPatriot Idk, religious people are always high up their a** cause when they do something good, they always see them as people of god, so they're basically gods right hand.
While non believer usually do something good cause they wanna do something good.
@@PureAmericanPatriot It isn't about being a liberal or a conservative, it's about being a good person. There's always good and bad people in any field in politics. Have you seen that televangelist conservative pastor that was on H3 Podcast who self-justifies owning a private jet instead of taking a commercial one? He's just a presentation of how being religious doesn't make you good or moral.
Do this again but make Michael the homeless man.
Hey! Vsauce, Michael here. Do you have a dollar?
@@stove7921 but what is a dollar?
and how much does it weigh?
What philosophically constitutes, a dollar¿
See my idea is that a dollar... isn't money
I just recently; literally within the past 24 hours began watching Michael Stevens, accidentally by stumbling upon his channel while mindlessly browsing youtube and I just want to say that I am a huge fan and have been completley captivated by his works. Keep it on dude, the world needs your knowledge!
Same
Just became a big fan of him because of this show,
i literally only got youtube premium to watch this series and impulse, but i'd say it's worth it.
have you tried cobra kai?
Hope you know you no longer need UA-cam red to watch it, just to comment on the videos.
@@TheBoxingNinja no it's a premium show. you need to have youtube premium to watch it....
@@naomigary7930 That is how it was. I'm on the UA-cam app, before it would not let you comment on these videos, but now it says "Only UA-cam premium members can comment".
Just to make sure, I'll log into my sister's phone and see if I can still watch this video.
@@naomigary7930
Okay, I checked and they haven't done it yet, but it will be free for everyone to watch soon.
I have always hated people who film themselves helping. It seems everytime that they won‘t do it if there won‘t be a camera filming them.
There are so many youtubers like this
And then don't even help...
Totally, they're just attention whores.
Yeah true, the true meaning to helping and being kind is to make others happy and not expect reward.
When you arent doing work because youre watching youtube videos but its ok because its Vsauce and its educational:
Moral licensing!
Currently ignoring an over due essay :)
@@dennis_duran me too!
So true.
Ah, you got me fucker!
Currently in class
Thank you so so much youtube for providing us with such a quality content
youtube is only going downhill over time but I'm glad they accepted (or suggested) michael's idea of doing a series. vsauce was already good, mind field is even better
Mind Field depends on the mood, it's more structured while vsauce is fun
@@maccaswam yeah
for the last VR one it just feels like the kid was too insistent on taking the blame that it kinda encourages you to go "well if you really really want it"
RIght?! I was really baffled by that. I can't imagine what that dude was thinking. Like if a car pulled up beside yours and said, "nah, officer, it was me, I'm the drunk driver!" There are so many WTFs
Yea I would’ve just said that it’s his fault as an excuse. Who cares if it’s the right thing, it’s the kids fault.
I mean I’m sure there are some kids who would act like that in this situation
this video should be renamed “michael guilt trips actors for 15 minutes”
Q
6
Q
6
6
When i lived in the suburbs i always gave homeless change. When i moved to the city, i cannot walk 500 ft without being asked so many times.. If i gave them all money id lose an hour plus worth of work. Thats why i stopped. Depends on where you live and how much exposure vs cost.
Yeah that's totally fair. You can't help everyone and you can't give away so much money that you end up homeless yourself. You just gotta do what you can, when you can.
And if you've ever _been_ homeless, then you also learn how 90% of them actually do spend it on drugs and alcohol and refuse to take work when it's offered to them. That could very well influence a decision like this too.
@@thewhiteshadow6098 No, no it couldn't. Not if you're trying to be anything more than an arrogant, judgemental piece of trash.
But sure, keep looking down your nose on the downtrodden. Keep finding excuses to ignore their suffering, blame them for their circumstances and treat them like they're not worth your compassion because clearly only the weak and worthless get addicted.
@@juliagoetia You are right.
@@juliagoetia worked security on the strip for years. He's actually right. There's alot of reasons why they got to that spot (I became very close with some of them) but a great majority are hooked especially on drugs and don't have a family to help them. I don't give money but I will offer to buy them a meal and have a conversation with them because we as humans need social interaction. And I don't think the other guy was trying to come off as dispassionate but I see why it can look that way
its interesting cuz i actually experience the opposite affect when u do something good u feel motivated to do more when the next opportunity to do so comes
Same for me I feel like I’m doing good deeds Gives me a different level of happiness
Interesting, whenever I do something good, I try to continue “my streak”
and now we know.
@nathaniel gray I know how u feel, mate?
legend
I used to almost always give to homeless when I encountered them, but I rarely encountered them in the past. Then I got a job where I work night shifts in the middle of manhattan. I get asked for money every single work night, sometimes multiple times throughout the night and I would still give to them for a while but eventually I just got sick and tired of it.
Maybe it's not like this in other states or countries, but it's like this where I work, whenever I refuse to give them money they actually get angry at me and start behaving like assholes a lot of the time, like they are somehow entitled to my cash. So yeah now I have gotten to the point where I just completely ignore them, I usually don't even give them a reason or excuse, my entire thoughts behind it have made a complete 180, I'm done with it all.
Maybe my mind believes I have "done enough good deeds", or maybe I'm sick and tired of their entitled behavior or completely desensitized to them, or maybe I feel like I'm giving away way more cash then I ever planned because I'm asked every work night, I don't know.
Yea me too. And when I do something bad I continue doing 'bad' things because 'well, I guess I'm just a bad person anyways'.
I always wonder HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW WHO MICHAEL IS?
Wtf he's one of the most recognizable faces of the internet
They might ask if they’ve watched Vsauce or Mind Field before.
Not everyone is on UA-cam all the time
I've Just found this channel today, wanna know the interesting part? It was not a youtube suggestion, I searched for self licensing and this came, and yet it was not my first choice hahahaha.
@@Executor009 I found it three weeks ago after watching Idubbz, and I've been around since before youtube was born lol
So interesting, right? I first started watching his stuff when his LÜT and IMG videos were regular and it's fun to see people only discover him now
the two people who did both good things seem nice, I hope they're having a good day
I like the vlog guy
@@ոakedsquirtle this just made my morning haha
@@ոakedsquirtle Hahah, what an asshole, lol :D
They are both Asian. Coincidence? I think not!
a hope they have a terrible day
First experiment fails because giving money to panhandlers isn't an objectively moral thing to do. There are good reasons not to, and more effective ways to use that dollar to help others if you're so inclined. It also fails because doing work for a prospective employer isn't an objectively selfless thing to do either.
Yup, exactly.
I completely agree. There are very few situations in which I would give money to a homeless person. Something better would be taking a bunch of smokers who are trying to quit, and after doing the good deed, see if they smoke an offered cigarette.
@@andrasviczian9262 the given example is slightly immoral, though.
@@SenhorAlien I have a better one: Its the same psa type thing, but when they are waiting, instead of a homeless person comming by, an icecream truck goes by. People who heleped will feel they deserve an icecream.
@@andrasviczian9262 even if I hadn't helped, I'd think I deserve an ice cream. I always deserve ice cream :D
"The amount of technology, the protocols" haha this is gold
So much gibberish lol
Protocols got me
protocols are stored in the balls
XMarxtheSpot wtf why am I laughing so hard 😂
hE sToLe AlL oUr ScIeNcE
I can't help but think there's something really flawed with the second experiment, especially exemplified by the last dude (Michael). It seems like they lumped him into the group of people who let the kid take the fall for their own doing, but to me he was clearly trying to implicate himself but at a certain point he just became confused as to why this kid INSISTS repeatedly on taking the blame. I could really empathize with him and see how utterly weird this scenario would be, like somebody . It's not that the blame just fell on somebody else, it's that the person insists on having done something wrong that they hadn't. It just adds an element of confusion that I think would wreck serious havoc on the results.
the scene was weird and poorly done, it had nothing to do with moral licensing, i would donate $0 as well and i wouldn't feel bad, that homeless guy looks even better than me and i love plastics let them lay around the park
You NEED a control example. You should’ve had a group of people who never got the option in the first place to donate in the last experiment.
@@KB_MUFC do you know what a control is?
@@trackmaniaIIDX @@trackmaniaIIDX Yes, and there are a lot of issues with determining why someone did or didn't let a kid take the fall for something. Even the tiny sample size with no control showed variation, people who did both and people who did neither. Finding if the percentage of people who let the kid take the fall is higher compared to a control group that did not have a chance to do something kind beforehand at all would be more telling, although still not the most accurate data.
@@KeysAndMouse i was replying to guy who just saying stupid statements so i asked that i think he deleted the comments
@@trackmaniaIIDX I WOULD FEEL LIKE I'M IN SOME WEIRD STRANGE DREAM IF SOME KID INSTANTLY TOOK THE BLAME IT'S JUST NOT NORMAL
@@stevethea5250 I would probably be like Kimberly if I opened the door, just be like what just happened
This actually provoked a lot of anxiety in me because I've been through a lot of trauma related betrayal where people have thrown me under the bus like this. Watching this reminded me of how few people do the right thing when there is so much cost to the person you sacrifice, and relatively little to person who actually made a very conscious decision that would let innocent people suffer because you were a coward.
It reminds me I'm not safe in the world.
Making the situation about you damn
if I ever get into a weird moral situation I'll just be expecting michael from vsauce popping in "you have been bamboozled"
@Manuel Hubmann wait so that means there's no Micheal here,
My car??? You refuse to return it?? But... That's.....
I think Kimberly wasn’t nervous, I’d more say that she was really confused that the kid seemed to take the blame for no reason...
The kid should have said something like
Hey did he just steal something I'll take the blame for it
@theunicornatihascome look at Daniel Day-Lewis over here
@theunicornatihascome i mean the kid literally said "okey-dokey"
I would assume he really did something wrong but I just didn't see it happening. Why would he even lie? It's not like a child would want to protect this random grown up who he even doesn't know
The acting was terrible, I would have just shut up cause I thought I was watching performance art lol
The real question is did the homeless actor give back the money after the experiment was done?
He needed it to buy drugs
Good perspective. This could have been another solid and legitimate moral licensing case.
"Would i give back the money because all these were just set up", or "Even though this was just an experiment, the subjects gave me money with their full conciousness and without knowing they were in set, so they actually did GIVE me money, therefor those money are legitimately mine now. I'm keeping it".
Would be very interesting...
But they gave him the money assuming he was homeless and he would probably give it back anyways
@@linhhoang1363 That isn't moral licensing...
I think the people who were in the video got paid to be on the show after this was done.
Imagine hyping yourself up all day about getting to try new, revolutionary VR tech, only to be told that it was an experiment and there’s no
VR stuff.
One of the problem with the final experiment is that the kid jumps right away and says he opened the door.
1.The kid and his mom were in the room before the subject arrived.
(the subject could have thought that the kid opened the door earlier and he was confessing for that, because the guy that just came in looked like a regular worker)
2.The thief did not look suspicious, as the subject say "I thought he worked here" 22:50.
(so it will take a couple of seconds to realize that the guy that just came in is the guy they talk about)
The subject did not had time to understand the situation.
He did't had time to react because he was still puzzled/surprised by the kids confession.
(although, if the subject had time to confess before the kid, the experiment would not work) (so the kid confession thing had to be quick, but it creates confusion and it distorts the experiment)
The subject that confessed, it took him about 6 seconds to realize that the kid was taking the blame 22:40.
Yeah, the kid doesn't give the subject any time to even realize what is happening at all before speaking up. It's not a natural seeming conversation.
Exactly my thoughts, was looking for a comment like this
I agree to what you all are saying, but I believe the experiment was if they would take the blame for something they did which they found out was wrong, and not if what they did (opening the door) was right or wrong, and they were given plenty of time to take the blame
Exactly. I can see myself there confused and as things gets bigger it becomes harder to confess even if I think it’s the right thing to do.
The confusion comes and the participant takes a bit of time to realize that its the same person that they are talking about coz participant prefer to be out of the question asked by the actor who speaks in a serious tone.so he naturally thinks he is not involved with this problem asked by the actor. He is naturally new to the situation and he doesnt wanna get to that kind of serious depth in instance.so he takes time to react. The nature to not to be involved with that problem in instance comes with the moral licensing.so he thinks about the guy that they are talking about is different from the guy he let in :" This cant be the guy that i let in coz... no.. it cant be true.. i didnt just opened a door to a thief...no.... i didnt... or did i?? Is this the same guy that i opened the door for.. no.... it cant be.... " just like that. It takes time for him to understand the problem coz deep inside he is still debating that he hasnt done something wrong. And that is moral license...but its human
They should do an episode about that feeling you get when you’re watching a show and the situation is so awkward for the person in the show that the viewer can’t watch it. I struggle with that a lot on this channel.
I'm always having second hand mortification
Its kinda like cringe but actually the awkward kind.
Second hand cringe.
Second hand embarrassment
somehow my back literally started to hurt because of this. that's how uncomfortable it was
24:30 Michael "I let him in..." guard turns to Noah "..so Noah you opened the door?" lol
yeah lmao. they really forced that on him. didn't let him confess.
He confessed like 6 times lmao this is stupid
The dissonance he experienced with the kid and everyone going on as if the kid did it seems like it would be difficult to overcome in real time. At a certain point, the lack of coherence might lead to anxiety and flight responses.
@@GoodwinOgbuehi Or just literal confusion with your environment. He's saying one thing and the guards hearing another. It's be disorienting. He looks brain locked at the end.
I really felt bad for him. He confessed once, but the guard wasn't there. When he confessed to the guard, he was just spoken over. It's just hard in general to reiterate something when you're spoken over in a tense situation, but I can't imagine it being any easier when you have to take blame for messing up seriously.
That last man's experiment made me realize that Survival is often stronger than Moral.
Meaning, when human beings are put in life/death or freedom/prison situations, it becomes more of a matter of "What is Good vs What is Right". Most often we do what feels right to survive, rather than take the risk to feel courageous.
Michael and friends make civilians feel like assholes: season 2
it can certainly come across that way sometimes
Worth it, probably.
17:21
Thief: "You guys having a good day?"
Kimberlee: "Yeah"
Thief: "You guys have a good day"
I'll translate it for you, since you seem to be having trouble, the first time he says it, it means "You guys having a good day?" (SO FAR) and the second "You guys have a good day" means have a good remainder of a day. Makes 100% sense.
@@Keyecomposer poo
KeyeGamer nobody needs a translation of what he said it was really stupid lol nobody would say that in the span of 5 seconds
Noticed that
@@peewee130946 I would. It would be funny. xD
This is why i have premium
2003mi hahahahhahehehehoho me two
And no ads too
Same.
We nobel men...
At the Top Of The Comments Section Says: “Only UA-cam Premium Can Comment” Sorry Peasants We Are Now At The “Premium Age” 🙆🏻♂️ it only get worse from here, I only hope the ultra premium content be far far away.
This was interesting, but I doubt how much actual moral licensing knowledge can be gleamed from these experiments
I feel like something like giving money to someone who is asking for it is way different than helping with trash. This could have been done better by having the test subjects help with the trash, then have them go do something else and ask them to help with something else. Giving money to someone isn't necessarily looked at as being good. Some people, as a matter of fact, look at it as something you shouldn't do. This experiment should really be redone.
Ameer Abdallah yeah, and they cherry pick results to get what they were looking for. it's not actual science.
@@tylerw.1414 Yeah I noticed that. They concluded that the Moral Licensing phenomenon is actually true even though they had conflicting evidence. Kinda disappointed with how this was run compared to the other seasons. It seems like they tried making an episode and didn't want to have wasted all that money to show a phenomenon that isn't even true
Ameer Abdallah I agree, the last season was more scientific. I really liked the trolley problem setup.
I feel like they didn't really say that it proved it. This was a smalls scale experiment just for interest. Like they said, people may have set ideas about donating to the homeless or something.
It’s a “Demonstration”. With the purpose to illustrate an idea rather than prove the idea
who let him in?
Noah: I am Spartacus.
Underrated
Zeus: No, I am Spartacus.
1st guy: You asked him directly, "Can you help me?"
2nd guy: You had 1 person ask another person if there was anyone around to help.
There are 2 different things in play there. Guilt vs. Cognitive dissonance.
Noticed that variance immediately. No one else was directly asked.
Also the whole experiment was not well designed for the hypothesis. To many other possible factors.
No cognitive dissonance means that they think the thing they are hearing is absolutely terrible and they can’t fathom it
@@somedudeok1451 Too many variables* I think you meant.
@@quinton8614 It can mean that; it does not ONLY mean that.
"the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."
The guy at the end, Michael, definitely told the people he opened the door multiple times
I feel like the homeless scenerio wasn't the best example because people might not have felt bad but felt scared
I don't feel bad for not giving money to homeless people but I do feel bad for that person letting his life go that far off course. I feel like giving them money will just allow them to continue to not improve their situation. I feel bad for people who do give money to homeless people because they fail to see the bigger picture.
@@kraziecatclady Yeh and they could just get the money to buy beer or something (though I really doubt it)
I agree. I don't think giving money to a homeless person was the best test. I would never give money to a homeless person for fear they would use it on drugs/alcohol. If they asked for food, water...then I would totally buy that for them. Plus we don't know how much financial issues could play into someone's decision not to give money. Maybe that's rent money. I doubt these actors would be filming a small PSA for chump change if they didn't need the money.
If a homeless person asking for money makes an individual feel 'scared' i really don't have much hope for their life skills.
@@kraziecatclady A homeless person is not born a bum, a little story here, there is an example of an ex- football player being attacked by some scallies while their cohort films it and uploads it to youtube for fun, the ex-football player being so big just embarrassed them by pushing them of. His only crime? From taking years of abuse to the head and the effects being hidden from the public and players themselves for decades, he developed similar issues to what boxers get called 'punch drunk' he was wealthy through his sport and although his wife for years complained to anyone who would listen, she was shut down by the medical profession, and in the end divorced him because his behavior and being such a big man she didn't know how to control him anymore.
Now there are those who are wasters, there always is by the nature of the numbers, but we dont judge the many by the few, however, like the example given above there are a million and one stories to be told repeatedly. Your neighbor across the road who you grew up with gets adicicted to drugs because they was in an accident and through pain medication becomes hooked on herion, your wife dies in a car accident and you never recover as a result or your child dies, you come back from war and never recover the consequences of it.
People do not set out to be wasters, just by the sheer biological make up of an individual determines that, people by their nature like to have repeated certainty and belonging just for comfort and saftey, they are not the 'other' or a hostile being who wants to farm and eat you, just a person who needs help maybe but they shut down all the psychiatric hospitals to save money, but in the end never do.
You have to be careful of how you demonise others, because that other may eventually be you, and you really don't want to be the 'other' believe me, because anyone class race or creed can become that and then you have permission to behave anyway you want to them, it's just a numbers game.
Do you think that you really see the bigger picture? Or from what or whom are you informed by? To give a hungry man a dollar or two is helping them stay in that situation? How many hard working families after the 2008 crash and being made homeless, were helped out by others of their situation by turning their backs? It is helped by others just even giving a little, your society does not benefit in anyway by having thousands of homeless on your streets, what's the point of being rich in a society where you are stepping over homeless people? Give a little critical thinking of your own to any matter, not just regurgitated spiel.
The kid being a little forceful would have confused me... the last dude said the words "I let him in" .. and then the kid just said "I let him in" again, so I would be trying to figure out what this kids rub is.... like WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT!? -- fine you want it that way.... enjoy not playing fortnight for awhile
Yeah that’s what I thought! If someone kept contradicting me when I was trying to tell them what happened I would be confused too. He said he’d let the guy in more than once but nobody would listen to him.
@@eadlynjune I was thinking the same thing. I think the last guy was totally going to own it until the Security Guard and the child kept ignoring that he was telling them that he opened the door. At that point, I would be confused as well.
It would have been better if the kid was blamed by accident instead of offering to take the blame. In this version, the participant would have to refuse the kid's willingness to take the blame for them.
Not to mention what he may or may not have thought about what the justice system would have done to him vs. a child when the "authorities" cam in. There were a few factors that were conspicuously left out on this one, even for social science standards. Also, I love this experiment/vid/channel/MindField/Vsauce.
One thing that wasn't really brought up with the fact that this was a kid. a kid is less likely to get into major trouble with something like that, he would get a slap on the wrist at best. Where as an adult letting someone in, that could be jail time for all you know.
This is my premium trial. I'm binging the show throughout this free month. I've already cancelled my membership, but it's still valid for a month.
*Here's a little lesson in trickery*
@@dennyg3315 oof. I've been bamboozled.
@@dennyg3315 there's a third one out right now. The Origin of Disgust.
@@dennyg3315 I just realized💀
Same
same, but i didn't cancel my subscription
A problem with the Trash in Park Experiment: The 1st subject was asked DIRECTLY if he wouldn't mind helping to pick up trash, while the 2nd subject (Alex) was NOT asked directly. The experimenters could have done a much better job at "controlling for variability", by being more consistent.
Supervisor: did you let anyone in?
Person: yeah it wa-
Nova: *I DID IT*
Nova? His name is Noah
Yeah, pretty much
I'm guessing his super quick answer was really confusing which caused people to lock up. I'd be really confused why he was being so assertive before it was even clear there was a big problem.
Who's here after today's video saying its free now
@@areyouokay9411 i had free red for season one and while two was coming out.. its tight
I got premium for just this. I guess I don’t need it anymore
SamHydeDisciple ye record on vcr while you can lol
I heard about it somewhere else, but I can't recall where.
why is it free?
I feel like there are a few issues with wording:
In the homeless aspect, there is a difference between asking for a dollar for the vending machine or just “some money”.
In the kid aspect “did you open the door” does not designate the amount of “you” (single/multiple).
Maybe this is my personal rationalization, but I feel it needs to have been said.
Language is very important for social experiments and they should've kept a rigid hold on the wording they used for sure. That was the most influential swayer from the objective situations :///
Just what I was thinking
Both experiments might indicate moral licensing but both have their flaws, the first one is that you don't know whether the person usually donates (and their actual moral code) and the second one is confusion (especially for Michael in the second experiment after he admitted twice and was ignored by everyone, the kid also taking the blame just feels unnatural making there be even more confusion). I personally never give money to homeless people but rather offer them something to drink instead (not in the USA, we have many good systems to get people back on track here). These things can affect an experiment majorly. Interesting video nonetheless but you can't use it to draw an actually backed up conclusion.sorry for typos am writing this on my phone.
But they didn't make a conclusion about moral licensing. The conclusion was just that we are capable of doing things we might not expect we would.
You've clearly never been homeless in the US
i was legit considering getting youtube red for the mindfield series but didnt. epic gamer moment
Yeah
love your profile pic dude!
@@pkeric2626 Thanks
*pro gamer move
Be silent. YT hears it all...
People acting salty because they actually payed for season 3.
It was worth the wait
Lol ikr
Hell yeah brother
They watched it way before us tho
And seasons 1 and 2
I'd like to know if theres a correlation between how much the people chatted with Noah before they let him take the blame or owned up to it
Definitely. It kinda shows in the first one how much that lady spent with him. I'd say maybe like 5 minutes tops. But how much interaction was there between the subject and Noah?
I think you all might be getting confused between the cause and effect (for more info watch the latest episode) The cause is that the subject is an extrovert and altruistic and the effect is that they talk with Noah and also take the blame
@@papiokok fair enough; I understand that the interaction is not what the study is centered around, but I think depending on how long the subject and Noah interact probably definitely affect whether or not they will defend the kid
@@TheJma945 yeah but to keep other factors from affecting the results of the activity, they only gave them a few minutes to settle in (to all of them)
There are also a lot of other factors... Some people will be just « better » and do both, some will do neither,...
There is footage of a guy forcefully opening an ATM , even using a circular saw on the lock, taking the money inside. It was broad daylight, there were customers around, he didn't hide what he was doing. He casually walked in stole the money and walked back out. How was he able to do it? He wore cloth, that looked a bit like an engineer or mechanic and he opened the ATM casually, as if that was just doing his job. If you manage to have a presence, that signals "I'm just here doing my thing", people won't question what you're doing and why you're doing it. The robber just acted as if he belonged there in this moment, breaking into an ATM and nobody cared. Same here with the equipment. Nobody dared to question the intruder, because he just did his this. Truly impressive.
Now the war between the people who paid and the people who waited has begun.
People who bought UA-cam Premium will later refuse to give money to a homeless person.
Lol😂😂
i would never give money to a homeless person. i dont consider it a good thing to give money to the homeless. you cant buy someone off the streets. they have to do that themselves.
@@25siesta how tho?
@@derekleiro if you are fortunate enough you can help the homeless by giving them a job so they can earn money.
reinout koenen found the premium subscriber
I wish they were still filming the intros and outros on the rooftop "apartment."
I think there are differences in morally good, morally obligatory and the right thing. It definitely has a lot of grey areas and I appreciate Michael tackling a small chunk of the puzzle.
Jonathan and Diana, I don't know you personally, but you two have given me reasons to still have hope for humanity
Jake the vlogger really out here being EXPOSEDDDDD
18:29 - *looks at nails....thinks to self: "not my problem."
Amazing
that guy around 8:00 is your typical "pretending to do good deeds for internet points" guy
Micheal: Thanks for watching.
Me: No, thank you for making.
The comment is underrated af
*Michael
exaclyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
His finally back! Took a while.
Arman Maleknasri Quality content requires quality time!!
Don't think the experiments were designed well in this episode...
Why not?
I agree.. And really bad actors..
For example, the one with the kid standing up and taking blame. It was so abrupt and out of left field that it left the subjects stunned and confused. That situation doesn't really arise naturally (seriously what kid bolts up out of the blue and says I did it unprompted?). When you get really confused you become slower to act as your brain is still trying to process what's happening. In that time it becomes harder to to correct him as your mind is scrambling. I feel relating the amount they donated to their reaction to that event is a huge stretch.
I couldn't agree more.. 4D Chess, You've earned my respect!
@@4DChess Yeah I tried to delete my comment after I realized why thought that. They shouldn't have let the kid take the blame on his own, he should've been suspected to have done it and been confronted about it and taken the blame out of pressure.
When it comes to the homeless situation, I rather give food or water over cash, I don’t want to fuel someone’s drug or alcohol addiction.
Yeah exactly, I immediately thought the same thing. I was personally taught to only give food and water over cash, so like…
I'm not too convinced of anything in this video because the sample sizes are too small and the results are too varied. Unfortunately, this seems like an experiment that would be too hard to carry out on a large scale, and on the scale here, any data could easily be explained by a number of other deciding factors or happy coincidences.
James Loftus yeah I’m in no way an expert but I thought the situation in which the kid confessed to opening the door made it too comfortable for the test subject to go with the narrative. If e.g. the security guard had directly confronted both of them, instead of immediately blaming the kid, the outcome might’ve been different.
Yeah it is a small sample size and there are problems with the experiments, but this is true of most if not all experiments. It’s a start though and begins conversation and maybe follow up experiments that address the concerns with this one.
Mind Field isn’t about completely changing your point of view of something. Michael’s goal is to not publish a revolutionary study to be referenced back to and to be relied on for information. It’s bite-sized science. An episode of Mind Field provides a hypothesis, introduces one or two credible people, gives a couple demonstrations, and concludes with an interesting moral.
You’re not supposed to be completely convinced that moral licensing affects everything you do, you’re supposed to start wondering if moral licensing affects some of your actions.
It isn’t supposed to be a study. It’s labeled a “Demonstration” which means it’s purpose is to illustrate an idea, not prove one
Thank you SO much for letting stream this for free. 👍
wow each episode has so much value.
That is really sweet of you.
24:44 Michael says "I opened door for him he takes something", Michael tried to say was him but the guard basically ignores it and is fully engaged with kid and saying to kid so Noah you opened the door while Michael said more than once was him but guard actor just takes kids it was me over Michael saying it and explaining that he opened the door first and at that point he already admitted it a few times before that as well so I say that one wasn't fair on poor guy like no one wanted to listen to him even though he confessing
Please use at least one punctuation the next time you comment.
@@deathbearer yep this is very hard to read
I wanted to read this but it was impossible
i didn't know eminem watched vsauce
@@deathbearer I could read it just fine lol. Everyone's gotten used to little bite sized stuff requiring no attention span
I don't know of any critically thinking person who can possibly think it's okay, logical, or rational, to think that doing a good thing cancels out a bad thing.
the point they were making in the video is that it’s not a logical/rational thing that we do on purpose, it’s subconscious. that’s explained near the beginning
Actor : I only have 20 dollar bills.
Michael : Or does he?
*Vsauce music starts playing*
When mindfield becomes free and vsause releases a video widepeepoHappy
Its like a solar eclipse
Best day of my life
*A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.*
imagine thinking that "widepeepoHappy" is not a normie emote forsenHead
Dante HUN At this point twitch is normie
when ur a struggling actor and u get a gig but it only pays $50 and they ask you to pick up trash on the set
Yeah felt kinda staged
tbh the "PSA" is like 5 seconds long
@@HejLala it seems staged because they only put the interesting subjects in the video. It would be different if they were doing a research paper, rather than entertainment.
R it was not staged, you will see how many people will do this for $50. Even I will do this for $50.00.
Oh and most of their acting was horrible, you can find many actors online.
@@andriod8014 I'm not implying it was staged, I'm rather suggesting that the reasoning behind this experiment may be flawed like if that was me I would 1) not pick up the trash cause I'm supposed to be acting and only getting paid $50 and they asking me to pick up trash on set and then would 2) give the homeless man money because I always give homeless people money if I have some no matter what. Idk if that's moral licencing or just not wanting to pick up trash at your low paying acting gig lol
What I heard when you described the job of that professor at the beginning of the video:
He was a professor of logic, down at the university of science.
R.I.P Norm Macdonald.
Lots of love from Iran ❤️