Shadowing Practice: Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened - Learn English Speaking with Video
Creando lección...
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!
📺 Mismo canal
✨ Recomendar Video
B11
205 oraciones
Truly EVIL Human Experiments That Actually Happened
University StudentsWorking Adults
![Tanya's Speech: Humans prefer emotions over logic.[Youjo Senki]](https://img.youtube.com/vi/QN5yBjPqSwY/mqdefault.jpg)
B24
41 oraciones
Tanya's Speech: Humans prefer emotions over logic.[Youjo Senki]
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
B212
41 oraciones
Psychology Learn English via Listening Level 3 Unit 2
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
380 oraciones
A man hiked in the woods. Every brain cell got cooked.
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
193 oraciones
Most DISTURBING Photos With Backstories Explained In 20 minutes
University StudentsWorking Adults
B213
41 oraciones
RE2 Unit 11B
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepBusiness English
B223
250 oraciones
The God of Horror
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
57 oraciones
Why We’re Scared of Things That Look Too Human (Uncanny Valley)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
145 oraciones
Every Disturbing Trait That Serial Killers Have Explained in 12 Minutes
University StudentsWorking Adults
B21
350 oraciones
3 Disturbing TRUE Unexplainable Horror Stories
University StudentsWorking Adults
C13
241 oraciones
The strange reason nobody views their own retaliation as evil | Paul Bloom
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
233 oraciones
Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
Vocabulario y notas de pronunciación para esta lección
Esta lección de conversación de nivel B2 se basa en el vídeo “Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened”. Las palabras que más se repiten: participant, experiment, student. Este vídeo tiene 185 frases y 1951 palabras para practicar shadowing. La parte hablada dura 12:10. El hablante habla a un ritmo natural de unas 160 palabras por minuto, cercano a una conversación cotidiana. Solo el 80 % de las palabras está entre las 3.000 más comunes del inglés, por lo que el vocabulario es exigente.
Vocabulario clave de este vídeo
Las 15 palabras más avanzadas del vídeo, con su pronunciación y significado:
| Palabra | Pronunciación | Significado |
|---|---|---|
| participant sustantivo | /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/ | participante, partícipe |
| stutter sustantivo | /ˈstʌtɚ/ | tartamudeo |
| emotion sustantivo | /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/ | afecto, emoción |
| bystander sustantivo | /ˈbaɪˌstænd.ə(ɹ)/ | curioso |
| stutterer sustantivo | tartamudo, tartamuda | |
| researcher sustantivo | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | investigador, investigadora |
| behead verbo | /bɪˈhɛd/ | descabezar |
| devise verbo | /dɪˈvaɪz/ | concebir, inventar |
| hypothesize verbo | /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/ | hipotetizar |
| phobia sustantivo | /ˈfoʊ.bi.ə/ | fobia |
| ruthlessly adverbio | /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/ | despiadamente, cruelmente |
| volt sustantivo | /vəʊlt/ | voltio |
| stimulus sustantivo | /ˈstɪm.jə.ləs/ | estímulo, apetite |
| distress sustantivo | /dɪˈstɹɛs/ | distrés, distress |
| expose verbo | /ɪkˈspoʊz/ | exponer, develar |
Phrasal verbs que vas a escuchar
| Palabra | Significado |
|---|---|
| find out verbo | averiguar, anoticiarse |
| cover up verbo | encubrir, cohonestar |
| end up verbo | terminar, ir a parar |
| turn out verbo | resultar |
Frases que vale la pena repetir
Frases cortas y completas del vídeo que puedes reutilizar en la conversación diaria:
- Do you think we all experience emotions in the same way?
- You've been selected for the positive content group.
- How about if you were in a group of five people?
- Sounds pretty extreme already, doesn't it?
- How far would you go in the pursuit of scientific knowledge?
Gramática en este vídeo
Las estructuras que más usa el hablante, con las palabras exactas del vídeo:
| Estructura | En el vídeo |
|---|---|
| Voz pasiva be + participio pasado — importa lo que ocurre, no quién lo hace | was filled · were frozen · being ordered |
| Present perfect have/has + participio pasado — una acción pasada que sigue importando ahora | You've been selected · has been proven |
| Oraciones de relativo who / which + oración — información extra sobre una persona o cosa | effect, which has · student who was |
Pronunciación a tener en cuenta
El hablante usa 13 contracciones y formas reducidas, como you're, weren't, couldn't. Dilas en su forma corta, tal como las oyes.
- Los sonidos de “th”: hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, ruthlessly /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/, unethical /ʌnˈɛθɪkəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, withdraw /wɪðˈdɹɔ/
- Los sonidos de “sh” y “zh”: emotion /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/, facial /ˈfeɪ.ʃəl/, consensual /kənˈsɛnʃuəl/, misinformation /ˌmɪs.ɪn.fɚˈmeɪ.ʃən/, reassure /ˌɹi.əˈʃʊɹ/
- Palabras largas — cuida el acento: participant /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, intensity /ɪnˈtɛnsɪti/, atrocity /əˈtɹɑsɪti/, depravity /dəˈpɹævɪti/
Sonidos difíciles para hispanohablantes:
- s + consonante al inicio — sin añadir una “e” delante: stutter /ˈstʌtɚ/, stimulus /ˈstɪm.jə.ləs/, smack /smæk/, strap /stɹæp/, stake /steɪk/
- /v/ — no es /b/: los dientes tocan el labio inferior: devise /dɪˈvaɪz/, volt /vəʊlt/, voltage /ˈvəʊltɪd͡ʒ/, depravity /dəˈpɹævɪti/, negativity /ˌnɛɡ.əˈtɪ.vɪ.ti/
- /z/ — sonora, no /s/: devise /dɪˈvaɪz/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, expose /ɪkˈspoʊz/, arouse /əˈɹaʊz/, generalize /ˈd͡ʒɛn.(ə.)ɹə.laɪz/
Cómo practicar con este vídeo
- Escucha el vídeo entero una vez sin hablar y anota las palabras que no conoces.
- Empieza a velocidad 0,75×, haz shadowing frase por frase y vuelve a la velocidad normal cuando te resulte fácil.
- Grábate y compara con el original, prestando atención a palabras como participant, stutter, emotion.
¿Qué es la Técnica de Shadowing?
Shadowing es una técnica de aprendizaje de idiomas respaldada por la ciencia, desarrollada originalmente para la formación de intérpretes profesionales y popularizada por el políglota Dr. Alexander Arguelles. El método es simple pero poderoso: escuchas audio en inglés nativo y lo repites en voz alta de inmediato, como una sombra que sigue al hablante con solo 1-2 segundos de retraso. A diferencia de la escucha pasiva o los ejercicios de gramática, el shadowing obliga a tu cerebro y músculos de la boca a procesar y reproducir simultáneamente patrones de habla reales. Las investigaciones muestran que mejora significativamente la precisión de la pronunciación, la entonación, el ritmo, el habla conectada, la comprensión auditiva y la fluidez al hablar, convirtiéndola en una de las metodologías más efectivas para la preparación del IELTS Speaking y la comunicación en inglés en el mundo real.