Inductive reasoning bro. Simple; you move from grasping some of the conditions which have to be met for someone to be a debunker, to a more understandable and more comprehensive definition of debunking.
I disagree, 2 life-hacks are flat out wrong, and the other two are so much less effective than claimed that most people would feel lied to if a friend had tried to give the same advise (unless that friend was typically that type to oversell things to everyone). Part of the problem with the video is that his end-segment call for how good or bad the like-hack is does not seem to totally match up with his debunking. The mirror things is just plain wrong, so his somewhat favorable casting of it is somewhat odd (after watching this, I would definitely NOT put a mirror up if I worked in customer service - and most cs desks I have ever visited do not have mirrors to begin with).
I love these explanations, shows that things are not so simple as an off on switch, there are nuances, interactions, magnitude of the effect... Brilliant!
According to dictionary.com, debunk means to prove pretentious, false, OR exaggerated. Even though most of these hacks are supported by scientific research, the video did clarify how these tips are exaggerated, so technically, they're debunked.
I think they debunked the 1st, but NOT the second under the strict definition, and then they did the 3rd, and the 4th became moot by changing the framework of the actual intent of the original concept. If aggression is changed to good, then we are still seeing positive behaviours - but the original claim was that in customer service situations, bad behaviour (named aggression in ANY sales situation) would decrease with a mirror. This was click bait at best...I have watched two videos so far, and both are very misleading and oversimplified. If you are a Psychology Grad student (as I am) and feel this has complete merit, I would question what you have learnt or the validity of your degree. I think the only thing debunked is that people behind these videos are desperate for material, and are exaggerating their own understanding. There...Bite Size Psych DEBUNKED!
Hmm, interesting impact, my intent was to state that it existed and that although many have a similarly useless degree...not understanding the holes in click bait title and high school essay style construction of this video would make me wonder, even more so, how useless the holders degree was. Never let schooling interfere with your education, right? Interesting projection though - thanks for sharing :) glad my comment moved you to write, hope next time you can read it without inferring a degree makes one superior versus educated on the subject and adding a little credibility. You know, the stuff people usually care to have before they think their opinion is valid...aka not this video...
maybe the study for the 3rd hack could've been better designed I think if someone were asked to perform a task to help you rather than giving up a personal belonging to help you, the effect might be more obvious.
The thing about Ben Franklin effect (if I recall correctly) is they didn't ask all of them to return the money. They only asked some participants - that's a very important difference. Those of them who were asked for a favor liked the researcher better than those who just did their job, got their money and left. The way you explain the experiment makes it seem so flawed, don't you think some of the researchers would have realized that?
So, to get people to like you, you would need to be confident, self-aware, able to remember peoples names and accept favours. I can make a theory that being a nice person is a easy way to get people to like you. *I feel enlightened!*
There is a flaw in the Benjamin Franklin experiment. The fact that people appreciated the researcher more probably made them give the money back, not the other way around.
The placebo effect is a real effect. I really wish people would educate themselves on this. Because the causes were "only" caused by mind/suggestion/etc. does not mean that the effect isn't real. It simply means we don't understand the placebo effect.
3:13 Really they don't think that's a significant difference? That's pretty huge especially if the sample size was also large. It's almost like the difference between a 2.5 and 3.5 star restaurant on Yelp.
isnt the one with the reasearcher asking money flawed? because people who liked him more before he asked would be more likely to give money. So you cant say that by giving him the money, it made you like him. It may have been the opposite, you liked him so you game him the money
in Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People", I distinctly remember him explaining that remembering a name and using it was key. It wasn't necessarily the repetition that mattered.
I can attest to the power poses. Long before I watched the ted video about it, I found out that standing straight makes you more confident. It's a big confidence boost, at first if you're not used to it you'll feel awkward but overtime you'll get used to it and you'll notice that your actions will start changing.
William Brown It has to be covered in order to address a wide range of readers. However, I could have dealt with a lot less repetition. I am more of an abstractly thinking person, so the amount of examples starteed to bug me at some time.
+Shadow4707 THIS. most self help books could probably be a single chapter remember the person that the writer wants to help more is himself. why is your bookso long if it is only 6 things that would make you more money.
I have an issue with the 3rd one. the study finds a correlation between giving the money back and liking the person. but you are more likely to to make a nice gesture to someone you like more. further, positive people who are friendly and kind-hearted, are more likely to both make a helpful gesture, as well as liking strangers. so it may just be that the people who gave the money back, were also the people who would be more friendly when meeting new people.
I think the experiment to understand Benjamin Franklin effect isn't the right one to fully understand the effect. Asking to take back something you gave a person, doesn't really feel like helping. I would be kind of irritated. You just gave me this money, why did you give it in the first place if you actually need it?
In the Benjamin Franklin one, did they take an initial poll before the experiment was performed? It sounds like this might be confirmation bias as it ignores the possibility that the people who gave the money did so because they liked the person more.
Benjamin Franklin wrote about a consistent and long term campaign to get someone to like him. He borrowed several books from the man's library over a relatively long period of time. The effect is likely much stronger when reenforced like this.
For #3, I doubt its true. Once I was passing by a homeless man. It was a cold, breezy Fall day so I went to a bakery nearby and bought a hot sausage roll. I didn't want to give him money because I didn't know what he would use it for. I went back and giving him the sausage roll told him "It's a cold day today, have something warm to eat". To my surprise, he grabbed it from my hand and tossed it into his bag. He was ungraceful and probably faking to bring out mercy in passers by, which I just found sad. I tried to do something good, and it's a real shame assholes like him ruin the chance of people helping out those who actually need help.
+DJ Shuffle I think that the experiment used to prove it is very flawed. The test subjects who gave money to the researcher gave him a better rating but in stead of using cognitive dissonance to explain such a behavior could't it be explained like this: people who liked the researcher more in the first place were more likely to give him the money. And would also give him a better rating. Subjects who disliked the researcher were less likely to give him the money and would also give him a lesser rating. I think this is not just possible but a probable explanation of the results.
+DJ Shuffle its been show that beggars actually make a lot of money begging, more than minimum wage. at the same time you cannot get a loan to get a house without a job so he probably was homeless but defiantly not hungry or needy
+uegvdczuVF Well done! That's the RIGHT way to debunk a study.Another related possibility is that those who are "soft touches" when it comes to handing over money tend also to be "soft touches" when doling out points. Compare that with the "debunking" cited in the video: the effect is "consistent but weak" because 7.2 when compared with 5.8 is "only one and a half points higher". In fact it's only 1.4 higher, but if you're marking out of 12 then 1.4 seems to me to be a huge difference which (assuming that there was a reasonable number of participants) ought to be hugely significant. Or at least that might be the case if the study wasn't flawed in the way you describe. Perhaps the researcher would have got a more glowing review from the University of Wisconsin reviewers if the participants in his experiment had been asked to rate him out of 100 instead of out of a measly 12.
10000 subscribers congratulations keep creating unique great content. If you need any help with us in another voice on your videos for variety I'd love to. Otherwise I just wanted to ask if you did you do any social media advertisement to reach this 10k number or was it all organic?
You didn't actually debunk most of them... 1.5 on a 12 point scale is a 12.5% increase. People would pay thousands to look 12.5% younger. Saying this trick "probably works" doesn't sound scientific at all. "Putting mirrors should reduce rude behavior." That's even more unscientific than the original claim. lol What did I just watch and why is there so much like?
In Japanese there is a term "yobisute" (yo-bi-soo-teh) which literally translates as "call throw away" which is the rude behavior of using someone's name, especially their first name, when you have not developed a familiar relationship with them or the person outranks you by position or seniority. It is offensive especially to the older generation. And not really part of customer service. Saying someone's name more is too direct and singles them out of their comfort zone of being a part of the group and goes with the saying, the nail that sticks out gets hammered.
Western psychologists studying Western subjects would replicate Western cultural norms, ie have an inherent cultural bias. So the findings are not applicable outside the original culture of Benjamin Franklin. Gert Hofstede did work on the influence of national cultures on the operations of multinational companies. If I remember correctly, national cultural norms of the subsidiaries always dominated how business was conducted whatever the home nationality of the organisation.
So what you're saying is that all 4 effects only apply to Western cultures because of the experiment locale. And you're applying the 3rd effect "Benjamin Franklin effect" about helping people causing you to like them more, to the 2nd effect "Saying a person's name" more often will make them like you more. What specifically do you mean by the original culture of Benjamin Franklin? The video doesn't state the limitations you mentioned and I certainly can't speak about the other 3 life hack experiments being different for non-Western cultures particularly since these don't involve linguistic aspects present in the 2nd effect.
Cultural norms are often determinative of outcomes in experiments that are investigating human interactions. Benjamin Franklin's hypothesis was a social psychological observation. He came to it based on his experiences within his milieu. He did travel in Revolutionary America and Western Europe, but nowhere beyond that. So your observation about Japanese cultural norms confounding Franklin's hypothesis is unsurprising, especially as interpersonal norms in Japan are still very different to those in the West. So a social psychologist testing Franklin's ideas in Japan, would find that it's social norms about the use of names would be likely to disprove them, whereas in Europe or the US, they would be more likely to be true because of western social norms which are less formal about the use of first names. There is a saying: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". This is to remind someone that they should observe the social norms of where they are, and not upset citizens of their host country by behaving as if they were back in their home country. Franklin's hypothesis is not confounded totally, as yes one may gain favour in another's eyes by helping them but, one may have to be careful how one does it. This is so the recipient is shamed in the process. In some cultures, there is a loss of face in being helped, which could cause them distress. It is a minefield for foreign visitors, who may unintentionally offend while trying to be friendly.
+Bellesativa Calling someone by their given name in Japan is not considered polite, or a social norm, so I don't feel that it is analogous to saying someone's given name in a western culture. I think if we want to do a fair comparison for Japan, we should be looking at referring to someone by their family name, with the appropriate honorific. Your point might very well still stand, and it may not have the same psychological purchase that it does in the west, but at least we're dealing with something more equivalent.
So variable when it comes to someone's name repetition though. I find it extremely off-putting during the cold calls or even when socialising. With all of us growing aware of most popular psychological tricks thanks to the internet, it's also getting easier to spot a manipulator. It's just way too obvious sometimes. Once you overdo it, you may lose a person's trust once and for all. I believe that discovering your true self needs to guide each of us, and no special tricks will be needed.
Well, placebo effect is real. So even if it's just placebo it's still good to go and that's why sometimes people with faith fares better because it gives placebo and placebo is real.
It's interesting how Aggression gets such a bad rap, a technical definition of the term is almost exactly the same as the term assertive. People tend to describe an action as assertive when they agree with the outcome or it works in their favour, and they call it aggressive when they disagree with the outcome or it goes against some agenda of theirs. Therefore our interpretation of an action as aggressive seems entirely dependent on our selfish perspective rather than an independent examination of our actions
I felt dissapointed that these werent complettely disproved, but honestly,, its refreshing to see a video that questions these things. Like the powerpose thing, I remember doing that, and feeling like it worked. But I really do think it worked because I thought "I did the thing, ergo i am more confident, its ok for me to act confident now" and just acted more confident as a result. And the names thing was no surprise, god, people have done that to me, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. It just feels like people are trying to sell you something, like they're not being genuine, and as if they're trying way hard to get you to manipulate you into liking them. I'd say personally it has the opposite of the intended effect
TBH, those "myths" weren't really "debunked", but I'll try to be charitable here. I understand it's hard to make a short title/headline that's both reflective of the content, and at the same time, emotionally captivating enough to get people's attention. You're trying to tread the fine balance between accuracy and popularity. Based on these constraints, I guess the titles are borderline accurate enough :P. (Though, I'm sure others will disagree, and for good reason.)
About the third one.. Did they like the researcher because they helped him or helped him because they liked him more in the first place? What if the act of asking for help actually makes people dislike you?
I dont understand the first one. If it is a placebo effect, it still works. of course they arent actually more powerful; they just feel more powerful...
Pop Psychology: Pop or popular psychology refers to books, programs, or seminars that allow one to rebuild or refashion one's personality through following simple rules, and to do so as easily as following the instructions to install a ceiling fan. Pop psychology techniques are usually organized in easy to follow manuals. Thus, if one learns the ten life laws, acquires the twelve habits, and follows the ten commandments, one will live happier, be more effective, and get to heaven to boot. Unfortunately, like installing a ceiling fan, the instructions are hard to follow, a few bolts are missing, and the thing invariably crashes on your head. But of course, that's your fault anyways, but is remedied by buying more books, attending more seminars, and perhaps spending a stint in purgatory. (see Dr. Phil) from Dr. Mezmer’s Dictionary of Bad Psychology, at doctormezmer.com
First of all everyone complaining about clickbait titles... you do now that almost all newspapers do it? It's a basic technique to increase viewership and therefore increase the value of an otherwise product, as it influenced more people positively. So yeah, as these videos are actually really high quality and interesting I'd say it's okay for him to use these "clickbait titles" (there are worse). And secondly I have a question to Nr. 3, the way you described the experiment, maybe I got it wrong, the people were asked for their oppinion on the researchers once, after they had given back the money. How does it prove, that people like you better when you do them a favor? Couldn't it be possible that the only cause for this difference was that people who were generally more positive to new people and liked the researcher more (because of his looks for example) would be more likely to actually return the money? For me that would make it obvious why the difference wasn't too big as well, because their oppinions just didn't differ that much because of their limited contact to that researcher and less time to build an oppinion.
There is something screaming at me about ben frank effect. The far better conclusion to reach from this experiment, in my estimation, is that the people who did not give the money back liked the researcher lesS, not that the ones who gave it back liked them morE. Hopefully there was a control group where they didn't ask for money back to see what the researcher's baseline likeability happened to be.
If when you do your power pose, others might perceive you as having more power and treat you as so. You might feel more powerful and appreciated, which could increase testosterone and decrease cortisol. (Just speculations, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's just a placebo effect)
I actually HATE my name and would love if people just didn't use it in sentences. If they have something to tell me, they should walk to me and look me in the face, so I know they're talking to me. As simple as that.
+Rss Feed maybe they are too scared to look you in the face. Some people yell BS out loud to everyone but when you ask them the fact - they don't remember them.
Change it then! I had a friend who told everyone to call her Jerry. That was not her name & to this day even her boss calls her Jerry. She never even had it legally changed & it's in no way similar to her real name.
+Christine Piette I think debunked may be too strong a word. I think it just showed that there are limitations to each of these studies. These studies are currently still taught today (I just graduated).
I wonder how "Saying a person's name more often" works for example in japanese. In japanese language there is a word corresponding with english "you" but when speaking to somebody it is usually considered rude to use "you"and one should use a persons name instead.
+kalbaman We have something similar in English. Calling someone "you" is a bit rude, so we usually say "yourself", which is halfway to saying "your self", which is in effect referring to a third person entity. They have the same thing in polite Spanish, where they use the third person verb form with "Usted". Using a person's name too often can become rude since it is MY name, and bandying it about in my presence is too much like insolence.
I usually like your stuff but the title does not reflect the contents of this video. On point 1, it is meant to be a placebo effect that hopefully gets you started with growing your confidence. Sure people have sensationalised the study but if one has tried power posing a few times they know that it's just a slight boost to get you ready for whatever important event they have ahead.
Better dont go around asking for favors in order to make friend...if they say no, then they will reduce their cognitive dissonance by thinking "he's an idiot, that's why I didnt do him a favor"
So for the "Benjamin Franklin effect", maybe the persons who liked the researcher were more likely to give the money back, which would explain the difference?
Using money to disprove Benjamin Franklin's cognitive dissonance doesn't really apply. He asked for a book which is something of information and value, as well as other non-money related tasks that we align more with doing good for our friends than a job/research/assignment. Because it's not related to money and more of the vested cognitive interests of the individual, they are more likely to like you because they see that similarity with the ACTION of doing something for the person. When a simple money return/not returned situation is faced, it doesn't have the same cognitive involvement.
number 1: placebo effect? Isn't holding a pose in order to feel into the pose placebo by definition? Psychological change caused by a pose that is only perceived as power pose due to imprinted cultural correlation sounds like the very definition of placebo, so you debunked nothing.
Couldn't the effect from the favor study simply be because nicer people are more friendly? Like, the stingy bastards might have rated the psychologist low because they were less "generous" and were generally less friendly people who disliked people in general more, while the people who gave the money back might have simply been kinder and more friendly people who like people in general more.
Hmm, i doesn't seem like you debunked #2. As for the mirror, a person with morals could feel righteous indignation which means they'll see themselves in the mirror being aggressive as doing the right thing. Raining down righteous judgement on the evil company through their representative.
Man I knew this guy that would say everyones name constantly. I found it condescending to say the least and hated him slightly more whenever he did it.
Can you somehow make the sound in a way, one still can listen to your video at speedup? I find it way to slow talking, but if I change speed your voice is difficult to understand.
Do a video on the law of attraction and how it's pretty much bs also compare it to your argument in the 'Why you shouldn't trust successful people's advice' video
Great video, but sorry I had to downvote it for having such a click-bait title. You didn't debunk anything. You provided information on both sides of the arguments, arguably more valuable than trying to debunk. Stop with the clickbait.
