Pratique du Shadowing: Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo
Création de la leçon...
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!
📺 Même chaîne
✨ Vidéo recommandée
B21
205 phrases
Truly EVIL Human Experiments That Actually Happened
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
407 phrases
Guess My Phobia | Lineup | Cut
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
31 phrases
Psychology of People Who Don't Talk Much
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
193 phrases
Most DISTURBING Photos With Backstories Explained In 20 minutes
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B22
145 phrases
Every Disturbing Trait That Serial Killers Have Explained in 12 Minutes
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
401 phrases
3 Scary TRUE Hide & Seek Horror Stories
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B2268 phrases
Disturbing Robot Thinks It's Human..
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
685 phrases
Do YOU Believe These Body Language Tropes?
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B24
91 phrases
Cringe Memories that Keep Coming Back: How to Let Them Go for Good
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
76 phrases
Stopped An 80 Year-Old London Man: This Is What He Told Me...
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
330 phrases
pranks are just rebranded bullying
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
266 phrases
They kept seeing a dead woman
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
Vocabulaire et conseils d’expression pour cette leçon
Cette leçon d’expression orale de niveau B2 s’appuie sur la vidéo « Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened ». Les mots qui reviennent le plus souvent : participant, experiment, student. Cette vidéo contient 185 phrases et 1951 mots à répéter en shadowing. La partie parlée dure 12:10. Le locuteur parle à un rythme naturel d’environ 160 mots par minute, proche d’une conversation courante. Seuls 80 % des mots font partie des 3 000 mots les plus courants en anglais, le vocabulaire est donc exigeant.
Vocabulaire clé de cette vidéo
Les 15 mots les plus avancés de la vidéo, avec leur prononciation et leur sens :
| Mot | Prononciation | Sens |
|---|---|---|
| participant nom | /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/ | participant, participante |
| stutter nom | /ˈstʌtɚ/ | bégaiement |
| emotion nom | /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/ | émotion |
| bystander nom | /ˈbaɪˌstænd.ə(ɹ)/ | passant, badaud |
| stutterer nom | bègue, balbutieur | |
| researcher nom | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | chercheur, chercheuse |
| behead verbe | /bɪˈhɛd/ | décapiter |
| devise verbe | /dɪˈvaɪz/ | concevoir, élaborer |
| hypothesize verbe | /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/ | émettre l'hypothèse, faire l'hypothèse |
| phobia nom | /ˈfoʊ.bi.ə/ | phobie |
| ruthlessly adverbe | /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/ | impitoyablement, sans foi ni loi |
| volt nom | /vəʊlt/ | volt |
| stimulus nom | /ˈstɪm.jə.ləs/ | stimulus |
| distress nom | /dɪˈstɹɛs/ | détresse |
| expose verbe | /ɪkˈspoʊz/ | exposer, dénoncer |
Les verbes à particule que vous entendrez
| Mot | Sens |
|---|---|
| find out verbe | découvrir, savoir |
| come back verbe | revenir |
| cover up verbe | cacher, dissimuler |
| end up verbe | se terminer, se finir |
| turn out verbe | se finir, se terminer |
Des phrases à répéter
Des phrases courtes et complètes de la vidéo, à réutiliser dans la conversation de tous les jours :
- 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?
La grammaire de cette vidéo
Les structures que le locuteur utilise le plus, avec les mots exacts de la vidéo :
| Structure | Dans la vidéo |
|---|---|
| Voix passive be + participe passé — l’accent est mis sur ce qui arrive, pas sur qui le fait | was filled · were frozen · being ordered |
| Present perfect have/has + participe passé — une action passée qui compte encore maintenant | You've been selected · has been proven |
| Propositions relatives who / which + proposition — une précision sur une personne ou une chose | effect, which has · student who was |
Prononciation à surveiller
Le locuteur utilise 13 contractions et formes réduites, comme you're, weren't, couldn't. Prononcez-les sous leur forme courte, telles que vous les entendez.
- Les sons « th »: hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, ruthlessly /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/, unethical /ʌnˈɛθɪkəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, withdraw /wɪðˈdɹɔ/
- Les sons « sh » et « zh »: emotion /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/, facial /ˈfeɪ.ʃəl/, consensual /kənˈsɛnʃuəl/, misinformation /ˌmɪs.ɪn.fɚˈmeɪ.ʃən/, reassure /ˌɹi.əˈʃʊɹ/
- Mots longs — placez bien l’accent: participant /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, intensity /ɪnˈtɛnsɪti/, atrocity /əˈtɹɑsɪti/, depravity /dəˈpɹævɪti/
Les sons difficiles pour les francophones :
- /h/ — il se souffle, il n’est pas muet: behead /bɪˈhɛd/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, horrendous /həˈɹɛndəs/, hateful /ˈheɪtfəl/, harmless /ˈhɑɹmləs/
- /tʃ/ et /dʒ/ — à ne pas adoucir en « ch » et « j »: researcher /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/, voltage /ˈvəʊltɪd͡ʒ/, generalize /ˈd͡ʒɛn.(ə.)ɹə.laɪz/, rummage /ˈɹʌm.ɪd͡ʒ/, verge /vɜːd͡ʒ/
- /r/ anglais — langue recourbée, sans frotter la gorge: participant /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/, bystander /ˈbaɪˌstænd.ə(ɹ)/, researcher /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/, ruthlessly /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/, distress /dɪˈstɹɛs/
Comment s’entraîner avec cette vidéo
- Écoutez la vidéo en entier une fois sans parler et notez les mots que vous ne connaissez pas.
- Commencez à la vitesse 0,75×, répétez phrase par phrase, puis revenez à la vitesse normale quand cela devient facile.
- Enregistrez-vous et comparez avec l’original, en faisant attention à des mots comme participant, stutter, emotion.
Qu'est-ce que la technique du Shadowing ?
Le Shadowing est une technique d'apprentissage des langues fondée sur la science, développée à l'origine pour la formation des interprètes professionnels. Le principe est simple mais puissant : vous écoutez de l'anglais natif et le répétez immédiatement à voix haute — comme une ombre suivant le locuteur avec un décalage de 1 à 2 secondes. Les recherches montrent une amélioration significative de la précision de la prononciation, de l'intonation, du rythme, des liaisons, de la compréhension orale et de la fluidité.