Decline Effect Experiment Results

Even though the Mandela Effect is simply a theory, there is some neuroscience behind it.

For example, when presented with the data collected by a double-blind study he has the following reasons it may have turned up such negative results: a "test" is a confrontational situation and the patients may have been uncomfortable "proving themselves." He said it is possible that patients and/or facilitators may have frozen when asked to perform for researches. He also claimed that many patients experience severe "word forming" problems. By this he meant that, although the patient may recognize the object, he may be unable to retrieve its name from memory. Each of these could be true. However, to a person looking objectively, Dr. Biklen is clearly attempting to justify a persistent belief.

Sherman et al. (2009) wanted to build off of previous studies, as their experiment was designed using the illusory correlation paradigm that Hamilton and Gifford (1976) had first proposed. Though the experiment was designed using this paradigm, Sherman et al. (2009) changed the number of participants in each group while maintaining the 2:1 ratio of group A (common) to group B (uncommon) members. They hypothesized that rare traits would be more apparent in the uncommon group, and common traits would be apparent in the common

To test just exactly how E.S.P. worked, he created an experiment with Zener cards, which had one of a total 5 pictures on each of them. Rhine would draw a card form the deck and ask the subject to guess what picture was on the card. Out of the many subjects tested, most guessed only about 20% of the cards correct, but one young man averaged about 50% correct. This young man, Adam Linzmayer, would even guess up to 9 cards in a row, which was almost a one in a million chance—he did it three times. Rhine became overly excited of his findings on his belief in E.S.P. and wanted to publish the results. But upon his replication of the experiment, Linzmayer’s success rate of guessing the drawn cards greatly decreased (Lehrer, para. 12-13). This decline effect could possible be due to regressive fallacy, which is the inability to account natural and unavoidable fluctuations in experiments. For example, things like stock market prices and chronic back pain unavoidably fluctuate between prosperous and well-feeling times to poor and pain-filled times. By setting aside the idea of natural and unavoidable fluctuations, one can ultimately fall into self-deception and into post hoc

I’d always been a firm believer in myth 6 (Playing Mozart’s Music to Infants Boosts Their Intelligence), so learning that it held no truth came as a shock to me, although it does make more sense now that I’ve read it. Myth 9 (Old Age is Typically Associated with Increased Dissatisfaction and Senility) came as another shock; however, it did give me a sense of relief, as my grandparents are reaching their elderly years, and I’d like to have them be completely here for as long as possible. Another one that surprised me was myth 13 (Individuals Commonly Repress the Memories of Traumatic Experiences), as I’d always believed this to be 100% true. Most, if not all, of the incorrect beliefs I had regarding psychology came from media portrayal, so learning they’re wrong makes me question what else I may be believing that has no sound

C. An unknown, rectangular substance measures 3.6 cm high, 4.21 cm long, and 1.17 cm wide.

“The Truth Wears Off” is an article written by Jonah Lehrer. This article discusses the issues raised by a phenomenon called the decline effect and how it impacts scientific research. On September 23rd, 2014, we had a group discussion in class about this article and our group felt a strong credibility issue with the author because he had no citations used in his article. Also, according to NYU journalism professor Charles Seife, Jonah Lehrer recycled some of his own material for the New Yorker posts and had fabricated quotes in one of his books (Moos). This credibility issue from the author is a problem for me as a reader because I am not sure if the issues raised in this article are factual. The members in my group discussion include Lisa Wallner, Lisa Spreitz, Dusty Gill, Allan Robinson and myself. An author's credibility is crucial because the level of credibility in an author could change how a reader interprets an article.

The effectiveness of this example is that it is shockingly realistic. Although, using this as an argument isn’t as credible as it should be, it forces the audience to use sound judgement to agree with him.

I agree with your perspective on the Ted Talk. I also stated in my response something similar to the sel-concept. I felt that individuals that participated in the experiment when they were asked their favorite music group over a ten year time frame might of been trying to people please and being their ought self "a person's sense of what he or she is obligated to be, or should be" (p. 121). I'm wondering were the individuals that were chose to participate in the experiment aware of the results Gilbert was looking for. People are people pleasers and just like you said people sometimes overlook their true self to please others I felt the same and this theory doesn't take that into consideration.

The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is a book that takes you through facts and statistics that seem reasonable and logical at the beginning but soon they dissect it and show you the true side of the statistic. The whole premise of the book is to show you the “hidden side of everything. (Cover page)” Like how dropping crime rate throughout the 90’s drastically dropped seemingly overnight. This drop was associated with better policing strategies, this idea is great for reassuring the public, but is it really true? Turns out it was probably closer linked to the legalizing of abortion. The authors of Freakonomics throughout the book think outside the box in order to show you

One of many warnings of pseudoscience is the overreliance on anecdotes.  As defined in class (Mackenzie 2016), anecdotes are unreliable sources of evidence as they are testimonials from others that generally support data gathered from a study. The research description mentioned how celebrity actress Blake Lively listened to Mozart and other classical music during her pregnancy. According to Blake Lively, this action has made her child remarkably intelligent. This is a problematic anecdote as we do not know if she “properly” followed the study. We are unsure of whether she listened to music for 30 minutes, one hour, or two hours as there is no control over the possible factors. Thus, this anecdotal evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

Exercise 11: Blood Analysis: Activity 1: Hematocrit Determination Lab Report Pre-lab Quiz Results You scored 75% by answering 3 out of 4 questions correctly. 1. Hematocrit Your answer : a. refers to the percentage of white blood cells (WBCs) in a sample of whole blood. Correct answer: b. of 40 means that 40% of the volume of blood consists of RBCs. 2. A buffy coat layer You correctly answered: d. is all of the above. 3. The diagnosis of anemia indicates You correctly answered: a. a lower-than-normal hematocrit. 4. Polycythemia refers to You correctly answered: c. a significant increase in RBCs.

Daniel Goleman, a psychologist and science journalist, studies the rumor in modern world of people who have anxiety and fear about the rumors they hear and/or see about death and disease. In "Anatomy of Rumor; It Flies on Fear", Goleman says "People are much more likely to pass on a rumor that is about something they are already anxious about, studies have found" (487). Just like the rumor about McCartney being dead and replaced by a look-a-like to replace him. "The power of the rumor was such that, four decades later, plenty of Baby Boomers still vividly recall the tingling sensation they felt when they first heard an eerie backwards voice emanating from their turntables, and begin to consider that Paul might actually be dead" (Glenn 500). Even though people later on found out that the rumor was a hoaxed and Paul was actually alive, people still can remember the impact of that rumor it had on

That’s not true. The truth is, ten times out of ten, science wins, it saves the day” Once again her staging makes the statistic more effective because she has the audience believe at first that sometimes there

Reveille was hit by a biker. The purpose of the experiment is to determine who hit Reveille and caused her to get injured. A series of experiment were conducted in order to determine the person who hit Reveille. The experiments consisted of gel electrophoresis, fingerprint evidence, blood evidence, and hair evidence. The gel electrophoresis results are shown below.