Shadowing Practice: Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
186 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
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!
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
📺 Zelfde Kanaal
✨ Aanbevolen Video
B21
205 zinnen
Truly EVIL Human Experiments That Actually Happened
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
407 zinnen
Guess My Phobia | Lineup | Cut
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
31 zinnen
Psychology of People Who Don't Talk Much
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
193 zinnen
Most DISTURBING Photos With Backstories Explained In 20 minutes
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B22
145 zinnen
Every Disturbing Trait That Serial Killers Have Explained in 12 Minutes
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
401 zinnen
3 Scary TRUE Hide & Seek Horror Stories
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B2268 zinnen
Disturbing Robot Thinks It's Human..
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
685 zinnen
Do YOU Believe These Body Language Tropes?
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
76 zinnen
Stopped An 80 Year-Old London Man: This Is What He Told Me...
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B24
91 zinnen
Cringe Memories that Keep Coming Back: How to Let Them Go for Good
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
330 zinnen
pranks are just rebranded bullying
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
266 zinnen
They kept seeing a dead woman
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles op niveau B2 is gebaseerd op de video “Creepy Psychology Experiments That Actually Happened”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: participant, experiment, student. Deze video bevat 185 zinnen en 1951 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 12:10. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 160 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. Slechts 80% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden, dus de woordenschat is pittig.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
De 15 moeilijkste woorden uit de video, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| participant zelfstandig naamwoord | /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/ | deelnemer, participant |
| stutter zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈstʌtɚ/ | stotteren |
| emotion zelfstandig naamwoord | /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/ | emotie |
| bystander zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈbaɪˌstænd.ə(ɹ)/ | omstander |
| stutterer zelfstandig naamwoord | stotteraar, stotteraarster | |
| researcher zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | onderzoeker |
| behead werkwoord | /bɪˈhɛd/ | onthoofden |
| devise werkwoord | /dɪˈvaɪz/ | bedenken, ontwerpen |
| phobia zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈfoʊ.bi.ə/ | fobie |
| volt zelfstandig naamwoord | /vəʊlt/ | volt |
| stimulus zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈstɪm.jə.ləs/ | prikkel, stimulus |
| distress zelfstandig naamwoord | /dɪˈstɹɛs/ | druk, stress |
| expose werkwoord | /ɪkˈspoʊz/ | zichtbaar maken, blootleggen |
| voltage zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈvəʊltɪd͡ʒ/ | spanning |
| pursuit zelfstandig naamwoord | /pɝˈsut/ | achtervolging |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Betekenis |
|---|---|
| find out werkwoord | ontdekken, onderzoeken |
| come back werkwoord | terugkomen |
| end up werkwoord | belanden, terechtkomen |
| turn out werkwoord | uitvallen, resulteren |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- 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?
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | was filled · were frozen · being ordered |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | You've been selected · has been proven |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | effect, which has · student who was |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 13 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals you're, weren't, couldn't. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, ruthlessly /ˈɹuːθ.ləs.li/, unethical /ʌnˈɛθɪkəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, withdraw /wɪðˈdɹɔ/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: emotion /ɪˈməʊ.ʃən/, facial /ˈfeɪ.ʃəl/, consensual /kənˈsɛnʃuəl/, misinformation /ˌmɪs.ɪn.fɚˈmeɪ.ʃən/, reassure /ˌɹi.əˈʃʊɹ/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: participant /pɑːɹˈtɪsəpənt/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, intensity /ɪnˈtɛnsɪti/, atrocity /əˈtɹɑsɪti/, depravity /dəˈpɹævɪti/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: behead /bɪˈhɛd/, devise /dɪˈvaɪz/, hypothesize /haɪˈpɑ.θəˌsaɪz/, expose /ɪkˈspoʊz/, voltage /ˈvəʊltɪd͡ʒ/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: bystander /ˈbaɪˌstænd.ə(ɹ)/, rat /ɹæt/, depravity /dəˈpɹævɪti/, firecracker /ˈfaɪəɹˌkɹækəɹ/, tamper /ˈtæm.pə(ɹ)/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: gruesome /ˈɡɹusəm/, negativity /ˌnɛɡ.əˈtɪ.vɪ.ti/, garner /ˈɡɑːɹ.nɚ/, grim /ɡɹɪm/, rig /ɹɪɡ/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als participant, stutter, emotion.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.