쉐도잉 연습: Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기
레슨 만드는 중...
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!
📺 같은 채널
✨ 추천 영상
B11
205 문장
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 문장
Tanya's Speech: Humans prefer emotions over logic.[Youjo Senki]
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
B212
41 문장
Psychology Learn English via Listening Level 3 Unit 2
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
380 문장
A man hiked in the woods. Every brain cell got cooked.
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
193 문장
Most DISTURBING Photos With Backstories Explained In 20 minutes
University StudentsWorking Adults
B213
41 문장
RE2 Unit 11B
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepBusiness English
B223
250 문장
The God of Horror
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
57 문장
Why We’re Scared of Things That Look Too Human (Uncanny Valley)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
145 문장
Every Disturbing Trait That Serial Killers Have Explained in 12 Minutes
University StudentsWorking Adults
B21
350 문장
3 Disturbing TRUE Unexplainable Horror Stories
University StudentsWorking Adults
C13
241 문장
The strange reason nobody views their own retaliation as evil | Paul Bloom
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
233 문장
Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
영상의 맥락과 배경
이 영상은 1924년에 수행된 Connie Landis의 심리 실험에 대해 이야기합니다. 실험은 감정이 동일한 얼굴 표정을 유발하는지 확인하기 위해 진행되었으나, 참가자들에게 극단적인 자극을 가하는 등 도덕적으로 문제가 되는 방법이 사용되었습니다. 결론적으로는 감정에 따른 전형적인 얼굴 표정이 없다는 결과가 나왔지만, 실험 과정은 많은 논란을 일으켰습니다. 이러한 내용은 유튜브 영어 공부 시에 다양한 주제의 표현을 학습하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
일상 대화에 유용한 상위 5개 구문
- "subjected them to various stimuli" - 다양한 자극을 가하다. 일상에서 어떤 상황에 처하게 하거나, 테스트에 참여시키는 경우 사용됩니다.
- "raised the stakes" - 위험을 높이다. 상황을 더 심각하거나 중요하게 만들 때 사용되는 표현입니다.
- "took a dark turn" - 어두운 방향으로 돌아가다. 상황이 좋지 않은 방향으로 변할 때 사용됩니다.
- "coaxed them into" - 설득하여 ~하게 하다. 타인을 부드럽게 설득하여 행동하게 할 때 사용됩니다.
- "on the verge of a mental breakdown" - 정신적 붕괴 직전에. 매우 스트레스 받아 정신이 나갈 것 같을 때 사용됩니다.
단계별 Shadowing 가이드
이 영상은 복잡한 내용과 다양한 어휘가 포함되어 있어 shadow speak 연습에 적합합니다. 다음 단계로 연습해 보세요.
1단계: 영상을 2-3번 듣고 내용 이해하기 - 실험의 과정과 결과를 파악하며, 어려운 단어의 뜻을 미리 확인합니다. 이는 영어 회화 연습에서 내용 전달 능력을 키우는 기초입니다.
2단계: 짧은 구절로 분할하여 반복하기 - "He raised the stakes"와 같은 구문을 분리하여, 발음과 억양을 따라합니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비 시에도 이 방법을 사용하면 유창성이 향상됩니다.
3단계: 속도를 맞추며 동시에 말하기 - 영상의 속도에 맞춰 shadow speech를 진행합니다. 어려운 부분은 반복해서 연습하며, 자연스러운 발화를 목표로 합니다.
이 과정을 통해 영어 듣기와 말하기 실력을 동시에 향상시킬 수 있습니다.
이 영상의 문법
화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.
| 문형 | 영상 속 표현 |
|---|---|
| 수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점 | was filled · were frozen · being ordered |
| 현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때 | You've been selected · has been proven |
| 관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보 | effect, which has · student who was |
쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법
쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.