Shadowing-Übung: Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video
Lektion wird erstellt...
1
Do you think we all experience emotions in the same way?
2
In 1924, Connie Landis designed a sick little experiment to find out just that.
3
He wanted to see if emotions triggered the same facial expressions in people.
4
So he sat the participants in front of a camera and subjected them to various stimuli, looking for similarities in their reactions.
5
He started off mellow, playing some jazz music and making them smell ammonia.
6
But the results weren't exciting enough for Landis.
7
So he raised the stakes.
8
He began showing them gruesome photos of horrendous skin conditions, and even unexpectedly lit a firecracker under their chair.
9
But still, Landis was looking for something more.
10
They weren't extreme enough.
11
And that's when things took a dark turn.
12
He ordered the participants to close their eyes and dip their hand into a mysterious bucket.
13
Only for them to realize it was filled with live, slimy, frogs.
14
He coaxed them into rummaging all the way to the bottom until he had rigged it to deliver a painful electric shock.
15
But the worst was yet to come.
16
He handed the participant a live mouse in one hand
17
and a razor -sharp knife in the other and calmly asked them to behead the mouse.
18
If they them.
19
The participants had mixed reactions.
20
Some burst into tears, others were frozen in fear, and a few even started laughing.
21
One was a 13 year old boy who was ruthlessly photographed distressed and on the verge of a mental breakdown.
22
Embarrassingly, after all this depravity, he found that there was no typical facial expressions for any of the emotions aroused during this experiment.
23
Everyone reacted differently.
24
However, he was not a bad person.
25
He was not a bad person.
26
He was not a bad person.
27
He was a bad person.
28
He was a bad person.
29
He was a bad person.
30
He was a bad person.
31
He was a bad person.
32
He was a bad person.
33
He was a bad person.
34
He was a bad person.
35
He was a bad person.
36
He was a bad person.
37
He was a bad person.
38
He was a bad person.
39
He was a bad person.
40
He was a bad person.
41
He was a bad person.
42
He was a bad person.
43
He was a bad person.
44
He was a bad person.
45
He was a bad person.
46
He was a bad person.
47
He was a bad person.
48
He was a bad person.
49
He was a bad person.
50
He was a bad person.
51
He was a bad person.
52
He was a bad person.
53
He was a bad person.
54
He was a bad person.
55
He was a bad person.
56
He was a bad person.
57
He was a bad person.
58
He was a bad person.
59
He was a bad person.
60
He was a bad person.
61
He was a bad person.
62
He was a bad person.
63
He was a bad person.
64
He was However, one of the most common reactions to these unpleasant experiences was smiling.
65
Although this experiment was a total failure at face value, future researchers did find something unsettling.
66
Despite their protests, after being ordered to behead the mouse, two -thirds of the participants actually went through with it.
67
How could a person be so easily convinced to commit such a horrible action against their moral and ethical judgments?
68
That's actually a grim theme we'll see more of later on in this video.
69
But first, you are probably in a creepy psychology experiment right now.
70
Just like Facebook's emotion manipulation experiment in 2014,
71
where they secretly manipulated the moods of almost 700 ,000 people without their consent.
72
They did this by tampering with people's feeds, showing mainly, uh, negative content to one group, and mainly positive content to the other.
73
in users' posts were analyzed, and the results were pretty obvious.
74
The negative content group posted more negative thoughts, and the positive content group more positive thoughts.
75
Basically, Facebook purposely made people depressed, without them knowing, for science.
76
Imagine if someone was already dealing with mental health problems, and then this non -consensual experiment pushed them over the edge.
77
Technically, this study was also completely legal as well.
78
Facebook's data policy But I didn't realize I signed up for that.
79
Well, they could probably write "Your life now belongs to Zuck" and we would still tick the box anyway.
80
To this day Facebook still has major issues with hateful content and fear -inducing misinformation.
81
And from this unethical experiment, the Zuck scientists are clearly aware of the harmful effects these posts have on their users.
82
And yet they still allow negativity to spread without strict regulations.
83
Negative posts garnering more engagement.
84
And more engagement means more money.
85
What, you think the green in his eyes is cause he's a lizard?
86
Maybe even this video you're watching right now is part of YouTube's experiment.
87
You've been selected for the positive content group.
88
Now, since you're such a positive person, would you help someone if they collapsed next to you?
89
How about if you were in a group of five people? of 30.
90
In 1964 New York, Kitty Genovese was murdered in broad daylight, a couple steps away from her house.
91
Newspapers reported that 37 people witnessed the attack, and yet no one bothered to help her.
92
Why?
93
This event coined the term "The Bystander Effect", where it was hypothesized that people were less likely to provide assistance if they were one among a crowd.
94
To test this theory, the "Smokey Room Experiment" was devised.
95
A participant was sat in a room alone and given a fake survey to fill, during which the room would then be pumped with harmless smoke.
96
The results?
97
When alone, 75 % of the participants reported the smoke.
98
When three participants were together, 38 % reported it.
99
And when there was one participant and two actors, only a shocking 10 % of participants reported it.
100
Circling back to the Kitty Genovese case, could this explain why none of the witnesses did anything to help?
101
Well, actually, not really.
102
Multiple people did in fact call for help.
103
But in a twist, the New York Police Department tried to cover up their slow
104
response time to the scene by giving the media a fake news story, blaming the bystanders for the incident instead.
105
But there is still some element of truth for the bystander effect, which has been proven over multiple other studies as well.
106
People seem to be more concerned with fitting in instead of their own safety or the safety of others.
107
So, the next time you're in trouble in a public place...
108
Help me.
109
Please.
110
Good luck.
111
Speaking of murder, if I asked you to kill someone, would you do it?
112
How about now?
113
Well, that's kind of like an experiment that was conducted at Yale University by Stanley Milgram in 1961.
114
He'd always wondered how people could commit such atrocities during the Holocaust.
115
Did they have no conscience?
116
Or were they just following the orders of an authority figure?
117
as the teacher and the other as a student, who was strapped to an electric chair.
118
They were split into separate rooms so they couldn't see each other.
119
The teacher would then begin to quiz the student, and if the student made a mistake, the teacher was told to activate the electric chair.
120
Sounds pretty extreme already, doesn't it?
121
What's 1 +1?
122
3?
123
Every time the student answered wrong, the teacher would increase the shock intensity, and the researchers would reassure that the shocks 4,
124
3, Eventually, the shock intensity would get so high
125
that the student would start banging on the wall and crying out in pain.
126
Even if the teacher wanted to stop, the researcher would insist that they continue.
127
The teacher would eventually reach the highest setting, which had a clear warning sign.
128
But after delivering the maximum shock, there was no response from the student.
129
The participant had delivered a voltage high enough to kill.
130
Can you imagine signing up to what you thought would be a fun, interesting study, and walking out thinking that you just murdered someone?
131
But that's the catch.
132
The student who was being shocked was actually a paid actor, faking their sounds of distress using a recording.
133
in harming someone under the influence of an authority figure.
134
And disturbingly, 65 % of the participants delivered the maximum voltage of 450 volts,
135
with the others delivering at least 300 volts.
136
More than enough to kill in this case.
137
The results proved something quite dark about humans.
138
Despite hearing the cries of pain, the participants continued to torture the students, following orders.
139
So who's the real monster in this scenario?
140
The authority figure or the participant?
141
Well, it's actually this next guy.
142
Dr. Wendell Johnson was a speech pathologist who wanted to find out why some children develop stutters.
143
He himself had developed a stutter at an early age, with no cure found.
144
He hypothesized that stuttering was a learned behavior.
145
That is, if a child was told that they were stuttering, they would continue to do so.
146
He devised an experiment to prove this: the Monster Study.
147
He took 22 children and split them into two groups, randomly labeling them as normal speakers and stutterers.
148
The normal speakers would receive praise for their ability to speak well.
149
But those in the stutterers group were gaslit into thinking they were stuttering, even if they could speak well normally.
150
This continued for six months.
151
So what happened?
152
At the end of the experiment, there was no significant change seen in the normal speakers group.
153
But what happened to the stutterer group was much darker.
154
A majority of the children became withdrawn and self -conscious, with many even ending close friendships out of fear of speaking.
155
In his pursuit to find the cure to stuttering, Johnson ended up creating more speech problems for the children,
156
and many retained these issues for the rest of their lives.
157
because the kids were orphans and were as young as five years old at the time.
158
Johnson had ruthlessly used them as lab rats and destroyed their ability to speak.
159
It was only a whole 60 years later
160
that the victims were made aware that their speech trauma was the result of this study.
161
None of them had provided consent.
162
Imagine having your whole life ruined before it had really even started.
163
Well, little Albert has some experience with that.
164
How far would you go in the pursuit of scientific knowledge?
165
Would you.. traumatize a baby?
166
I know you would.
167
In 1920, popular behavioral scientist John Watson conducted research into the development of phobias.
168
And wanted to prove that emotional reactions could be conditioned in people.
169
So he decided to start with a blank slate.
170
Boom, and into the guinea pig cage.
171
Meet little Albert.
172
So here's how the study was conducted.
173
Albie was first exposed to a bunch of stimuli, ranging from a monkey, to a burning newspaper, to a white rat.
174
And he initially showed no fear to any of these.
175
However, the next time Albie was exposed to the white rat, Watson took a hammer out and smacked it against a metal pipe.
176
Right into the baby's ears.
177
After sadistically repeating this multiple times, Albert eventually began to cry just by seeing the rat.
178
In Watson's own words, he began to crawl away so rapidly
179
that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table.
180
Albie was ready to end it all after seeing that rat.
181
Watson was probably happy about the result though, seeing as it provided evidence for his hypothesis.
182
But as it turns out, Albie wasn't just scared of white rats now.
183
He began to generalize his phobia, so that he developed a fear of anything white and fluffy.
184
I'm just a dumb doggo.
185
Come back.
186
See you next time!
📺 Gleicher Kanal
✨ Empfohlenes Video
B21
205 Sätze
Truly EVIL Human Experiments That Actually Happened
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
31 Sätze
Psychology of People Who Don't Talk Much
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
193 Sätze
Most DISTURBING Photos With Backstories Explained In 20 minutes
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
57 Sätze
Why We’re Scared of Things That Look Too Human (Uncanny Valley)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B11
117 Sätze
The piano man Chapter 2
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
284 Sätze
3 True Snapchat Horror Stories Animated
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
50 Sätze
6'9" Brilliant Psychopath Who Hunted College Students (America's Most Evil Serial Killers)
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B237 Sätze
Octopus Intelligence: Can They Feel Pain?
American AccentBritish AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
12 Sätze
that sound youtubers use to seem smart
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
685 Sätze
Do YOU Believe These Body Language Tropes?
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B12
29 Sätze
“I’m Addicted to being a Furry”
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
193 Sätze
3 True Motel Horror Stories Animated
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
Erste Eindrücke: Warum dieses Video tolles Sprechmaterial ist
Dieses Video über creepy Psychologie-Experimente eignet sich hervorragend fürs Englisch-Lernen, weil es eine Mischung aus klarer Erzählstruktur und emotionalen Szenen bietet. Die Sprache ist relativ einfach, aber die verschiedenen Situationen fordern das Verständnis von Nuancen wie Stimmung und Intonation. Zudem enthält es natürliche Redewendungen, die in Alltagsgesprächen oft vorkommen – ideal fürs Englisch Shadowing. Ein guter Shadowing-Site oder Tools wie ShadowSpeaks helfen, die Rhythmen und Akzente genau nachzuahmen.
Analyse: Warum die Sätze natürlich klingen
Lassen Sie uns einige Sätze genauer betrachten:
- "He started off mellow, playing some jazz music and making them smell ammonia." Die Kombination aus "started off mellow" und der gerundiven Form ("playing", "making") macht die Aussage flüssig. Es klingt nicht konstruiert, weil es wie ein natürlicher Fluss der Handlungen klingt – so erzählen Menschen in der Realität von Abläufen.
- "The participants had mixed reactions. Some burst into tears, others were frozen in fear, and a few even started laughing." Die Wiederholung von "others" und "a few" erzeugt eine klare Struktur, ohne zu formal zu sein. Phrasen wie "burst into tears" oder "frozen in fear" sind idiomatisch und zeigen, wie Emotionen auf Englisch vivid beschrieben werden.
- "Embarrassingly, after all this depravity, he found that there was no typical facial expression." Das Wort "embarrassingly" setzt eine persönliche Note, was die Erzählung lebendiger macht. Die Konstruktion "after all this depravity" ist kompakt und drückt eine komplexe Idee auf einfache Weise aus – ein Beispiel für natürliche Sprachverwendung.
Übungsroutine: So verbessern Sie Ihr Sprechen mit Shadowing
Verwenden Sie die "repeat-and-record"-Methode, um Ihre Sprachfertigkeiten zu stärken. Nutzen Sie dazu eine Shadowing-Site oder Tools wie ShadowSpeak:
- Wählen Sie einen 30-sekündigen Abschnitt des Videos aus.
- Spielen Sie die Stelle einmal ab und hören Sie sich die Intonation, den Rhythmus und die Betonung an.
- Wiederholen Sie die Sätze sofort nach, so genau wie möglich – achten Sie auf Pausen und Akzente. Nutzen Sie dazu ShadowSpeak, um Ihre Version aufzuzeichnen.
- Vergleichen Sie Ihre Aufnahme mit dem Original. Achten Sie darauf, ob Sie Phrasen wie "raised the stakes" oder "took a dark turn" richtig wiedergegeben haben.
- Wiederholen Sie den Vorgang bis die Sätze flüssig und natürlich klingen.
Grammatik in diesem Video
Die Strukturen, die der Sprecher am häufigsten verwendet, mit den genauen Worten aus dem Video:
| Struktur | Im Video |
|---|---|
| Passiv be + Partizip Perfekt – wichtig ist, was geschieht, nicht wer es tut | was filled · were frozen · being ordered |
| Present Perfect have/has + Partizip Perfekt – eine vergangene Handlung, die jetzt noch wichtig ist | You've been selected · has been proven |
| Relativsätze who / which + Satz – eine Zusatzinformation über eine Person oder Sache | effect, which has · student who was |
Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?
Shadowing ist eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Sprachlerntechnik, die ursprünglich für die professionelle Dolmetscherausbildung entwickelt und durch den Polyglotten Dr. Alexander Arguelles populär gemacht wurde. Die Methode ist einfach aber wirkungsvoll: Du hörst englisches Audio von Muttersprachlern und wiederholst es sofort laut — wie ein Schatten, der dem Sprecher mit nur 1–2 Sekunden Verzögerung folgt. Anders als passives Hören oder Grammatikübungen zwingt Shadowing dein Gehirn und deine Mundmuskulatur, gleichzeitig echte Sprachmuster zu verarbeiten und zu reproduzieren. Studien zeigen, dass es Aussprachegenauigkeit, Intonation, Rhythmus, verbundene Sprache, Hörverständnis und Sprechflüssigkeit signifikant verbessert — was es zu einer der effektivsten Methoden für die IELTS Speaking-Vorbereitung und reale englische Kommunikation macht.