Video Analysis: Myth Busters

In today’s society talking on the cell phone is an everyday ritual. But many people question whether or not talking on the phone impairs driving. To conduct an experiment researchers need to determine a controlled condition, assigning subjects to different conditions, and making sure the only difference between conditions is the use of a cell phone.

In the first three minutes of the YouTube video, the Mythbusters conduct an experiment to observe a person’s driving ability while using a cell phone and while driving drunk. To do so, the experimenters come up with the hypothesis, “driving using a cell phone is just as dangerous as drunk driving.” There are two independent variables. One variable is the cell phone, and the other is the alcohol. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the instructor who is giving the driving test. They test this hypothesis using three experimental conditions. First, to get acquainted with the course, each of the two people drive cell phone free and sober. The next experimental condition consists of Jamie, one of the experimenters, distracting each driver with a phone

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did a National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors. The survey took place in late 2010 and surveyed 6,002 drivers aged 18 and older from all 50 U.S. states as well as the District of Columbia. Their goal in conducting this survey was to assess the current attitudes and behaviors about distracted driving, including perceptions of safety, cell phone use, laws, fines and enforcement. This survey contains many charts and different sets of data that would allow me to choose the ones that would best support my argument. A fact in the survey states that more than half of the participants believe that using a cell phone or sending text messages makes no difference on their driving performance, yet 90% of these participants would feel unsafe if they were passengers and their driver was talking or texting on a hand held phone while driving. I could use this for an argument about how we know that using a phone while driving is unsafe, yet as drivers, we would do it anyways as we feel it doesn’t affect our driving ability. I know this is a credible source because

To investigate the dangers of texting while driving, a true experiment is needed to determine if texting is a cause of traffic accidents. A true experiment is thought to be the most accurate type of experimental research, and it is the only type that can establish a cause and effect relationship. Thus, a true experiment can find if texting is a cause that affects traffic accidents. To begin, the experiment will take place on a major road, located in an urban city because a large number of fatal traffic accidents occur in urban settings, when vehicles are traveling less than thirty miles per hour. Random assignment will be used to select participants, and place them into two equal groups, so the sample size is representative of age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level. Random assignment helps eliminate bias between tech savvy teenagers and older adults, or the use of technology between different ethnicities, or income levels. The experiment will include a control and experimental group, and the manipulated variable is texting while driving. The control group will be instructed to drive through the mapped out course, without a cell phone present in the car. However, the experimental group will drive through the same course, with cell phones that are receiving text messages. The experimenters will have a camera in the car that helps them collect data from the both groups. Each driver will be evaluated on, the number of times they send a text message, the number of

The Mythbusters tested the idea that driving while talking on a cell phone is just as dangerous as driving drunk. To test this, they had two people attempt the same driving course three times: once sober with no distractions, once sober while distracted by a phone conversation, and once intoxicated. The independent variables in this experiment are, therefore, the use of a cell phone and the driver’s alcohol level. The dependent variable is the driver’s ability to successfully complete the course, including stopping on time and avoiding the cones outlining the course.

After reviewing weeks 5 and 6 video episodes, we the business consultants have found that CanGo still has some issues that must be corrected in order to operate and function effectively. We have carefully evaluated CanGo’s issues and will be introducing them as well as providing recommendations to make corrections to help improve the company’s problem areas. The first issue was the employee evaluations; very vague. Another that we have noticed is that CanGo is expanding too quickly, another issue that follows CanGo expanding too quickly is that they lack the financial capital to grow so quick. Since they are growing, they are relocating their staff into different positions

For this experiment a closed course is recommended in order to limit the danger of the test to both the test subject and others. During the test there should be less distractions’ such as listening to the radio and talking to the passenger in the car. The primary reason for eliminating other distracting factors is to test the hypothesis that texting while driving interferes with driving skills. Also the main reason why the control test is performed is to compare the conditions of the people texting while driving. From here, the next stage or step would be assigning subjects ( both male and females) people to the test. This test should consist of a diverse group of both male and female and should be chosen from a wide range of ages. During the test the subjects should be given the same conditions to drive in, such as using; the same car (vehicle), and at the same time of day in order to make this test valid and accurate. From there the next step would be to check if the test is fair for those in the control group as compared to those driving while on the cell phone. In this experiment the subjects should drive first in the control conditions, then while on the

I found the signing statements the most interesting in Chapter Seven. A signing statement is an announcement made by the president at the time of signing a bill into law. This is used sometimes to show the presidents’ interpretation of the new law and their predictions of the many benefits of the new law. It also has been used to identify sections of the law that are considered improper or unconstitutional. There have been many signing statements throughout history but many of them were not recorded.

In reading article “Are Integrated Devices Safer than Using Handheld Devices While Driving?” the author, Mitch Bainwol reasons why integrated devices are safer for drivers to use than handheld devices are. Mitch Bainwol stands by the idea that the integrated systems placed in cars are much safer for automobile drivers while on the road because it could help eliminate a lot of the car accidents on the road. Mr. Bainwol’s backs up his point of view by providing statistics from research data and comparing the integrated systems against the use of cell phones when driving to convince readers that using technology that is already built in the cars makes the driver safer. The author’s finding from his research verifies that 80 percent of automobile

It is argued that history can be very interesting in the normal state of mind but being under the influence makes the topic much more intriguing. We are presented with drunken history video capturing three distinct history incidents. The first video presents “Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks”, second is “John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson”, and final is “Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening.” Two of the videos are presented in a unique under the influence presentation explaining historical events. Each video will be analyzed and broken-down of how each person used three categories of rhetoric which include a logical appeal defined as logos (OWLPurdue: Logo), an emotional convey known as pathos (OWLPurdue: Pathos),

Mythbusters presented a hypothesis that a person driving while on the phone is just as dangerous as one drunk. They ran several test to try and solve their belief of which would affect the driver the most. They had two subjects for their testings, a male and a female. They both were asked to preform a series of tasks while driving like normal. They were made to complete it three different times. Once like normal, and the others either on the phone or intoxicated. The constant of this experiment was that they were trying to complete tasks, but the dependent factor was that they had inhibitors two of the times.

This was a very interesting Ted talk. If you are not really paying attention to the video you would think tomato sauce, mustard what is this guy talking about? But if you are closely listening you begin to hear the deeper meaning of his presentation. In my opinion Gladwell central argument in the Ted talk video, is humans are a diverse race who happiness cannot be measured, because deep down humans are unsure of what they want. Therefore when given options, their opinions will change. Gladwell uses Howard Moskkowitz food studies as an example to argue his case.

Cell phones are amazing pieces of technology, but like everything else, there is a time and place for their use. One of the times they should not be used is while driving, and there has been much speculation that cell phone use while driving can impair the driver. In order to make this experiment valid it must have a controlled conditions, the subjects used must be chosen at random and free of bias, and the only difference between both the controlled and tested conditions is the use of a cell phone.

There are many times when I have a hard time recognizing I am wrong about an issue, but it seems the older I get, the more I try to become informed about an issue before making a stance. If I am wrong, I do not have a problem admitting it. I try to use failure or being wrong as a learning experience. It won’t be any easier to admit that I am wrong after watching this video, I don’t have any problem admitting when I am wrong, as it is. As the video stated, “life happens”, and I have had my share of failures and being wrong. Through experience, I have learned to look at both sides of an issue, and many times I have changed my viewpoint after getting all of the facts. As the video relates to critical thinking, I think that we, as classmates,

Although many of these new technologies are possible and useful because of the cell phone, there are some downsides that come with this device. One downside is the danger of cell phones usage while operating mechanical vehicles such as cars. Because cell phones let us be so mobile, they also let us talk in situations where we are doing something else. While a person is in the middle of a discussion, he can be distracted from anything else he is doing. According to study published in "the New England Journal of Medicine," the chances of getting into an accident while on a cell phone are increased by "four hundred percent (qtd. in Hua)." Another study that was done by scientists in the "transport research laboratory" suggested that driving while using a cell phone is more hazardous then driving under the influence of alcohol at the permitted blood alcohol content level. The study says that a person on the cell phone reacts half a second slower than an alert driver (qtd. in Wrolstad). Considering the results of the research, more legislation is needed for cell phone usage, possibly banning or limiting the usage of cell phones during situations calling for a person's full attention.