Shadowing Practice: Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology #2 - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
150 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
Can we call pizza cause psychedelic hallucinations?
2
Does coffee make you smarter?
3
Or does it just make you do dumb stuff faster?
4
Like much of psychology itself, questions like these can seem pretty intuitive.
5
I mean, people may not be the easiest organisms to understand, but you're a person, right?
6
So you must be qualified to draw, like, some conclusions about other people and what makes them tick.
7
But it's important to realize that your intuition isn't always right.
8
In fact, sometimes it is exactly wrong, and we tend to grossly underestimate the dangers of false intuition.
9
If you have some idea about a person and their behavior that turns out to be right, that reinforces your trust in your intuition.
10
Like if I warned my buddy
11
Bob against eating that deep dish pizza that's been in the fridge for the past week,
12
but he eats it anyway and soon starts to wig out, I'm gonna say, dude, I told you so.
13
But if I'm wrong, and he's totally fine, I probably won't even think about it ever again.
14
This is known as hindsight bias, or the I knew it all along phenomenon.
15
This doesn't mean that common sense is wrong,
16
it just means that our intuitive sense more easily describes what just happened than what will happen in the future.
17
Another reason you can't blindly trust your intuition is your natural tendency toward overconfidence.
18
Sometimes you just really, really feel like you're right about people when actually you're really, really wrong.
19
We've all been there.
20
We also tend to perceive order in random events, which can lead to false assumptions.
21
For example, if you flip a coin five times, you have equal chances of getting all tails as you do getting alternating heads and tails.
22
But we see the series of five tails as something unusual,
23
as a streak, and thus giving that result some kind of meaning that it very definitely does not have.
24
That is why we have the methods and safeguards of psychological research and experimentation, and the glorious process of scientific inquiry.
25
They help us to get around these problems and basically save the study of our minds from the stupidity of our minds.
26
So I hope that it won't be a spoiler if I tell you now that pizza won't make you trip, and coffee doesn't make you smart.
27
Sorry.
28
In most ways, psychological research is no different than any other scientific discipline.
29
Like step one is always figuring out how to ask general questions about your subject and and turn them into measurable, testable propositions.
30
This is called operationalizing your questions.
31
So you know how the scientific method works.
32
It starts with a question and a theory.
33
And I don't mean theory in the sense of like a hunch
34
that say a quad shot of espresso makes you think better.
35
Instead, in science, a theory is what explains and organizes lots of different observations and predicts outcomes.
36
And when you come up with a testable prediction, that's your hypothesis.
37
Once your theory and hypothesis are in place, you need a clear and common language to report them with.
38
So, for example, defining exactly what you mean by thinking better with your espresso hypothesis will allow other researchers to replicate the experiment.
39
And replication is key.
40
You can watch a person exhibit a certain behavior once, and it won't prove very much.
41
But if you keep getting consistent results, even as you change subjects or situations, you're probably on to something.
42
This is a problem with one popular type of psychological research, case studies, which to take an in -depth look at one individual.
43
Case studies can sometimes be misleading, because by their nature, they can't be replicated, so they run the risk of overgeneralizing.
44
Still, they're good at showing us what can happen, and end up framing questions for more extensive and generalizable studies.
45
They're also often memorable and a great storytelling device psychologists use to observe and describe behavior.
46
Like, say the smell of coffee makes
47
Carl suddenly anxious and irritable.
48
That obviously doesn't mean that it has that same effect on everyone.
49
In fact, Carl has terrible memories associated with that smell, and so his case is actually quite rare.
50
Poor Carl.
51
But you would still have to look at lots of other cases to determine that conclusively.
52
Another popular method of psychological research is naturalistic observation, where researchers simply watch behavior in a natural environment.
53
Whether that's chimps poking anthills in the jungle, kids clowning in a classroom, or drunk dudes yelling at soccer games.
54
The idea is to let the subjects just do their thing without trying to manipulate or control the situation.
55
So yeah, basically just spying on people.
56
Like case studies, naturalistic observations are great at describing behavior, but they're very limited in explaining it.
57
Psychologists can also collect behavioral data using surveys or interviews, asking people to report their opinions and behaviors.
58
Sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey famously used this technique
59
when he surveyed thousands of men and women on their sexual history and published his findings in a pair of revolutionary texts,
60
sexual behavior in the human male and female, respectively.
61
Surveys are a great way to access people's consciously held attitudes and beliefs, but how to ask the questions can be tricky.
62
Subtle word choices can influence results.
63
For example, more forceful words like ban or censor may elicit different reactions than limit or not allow.
64
Asking do you believe in space aliens is a much different question than do you think
65
that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.
66
It's the same question, but in the first, the subject might assume that you mean aliens visiting
67
Earth and making crop circles and abducting people and poking them.
68
And if how you phrase surveys is important, so is who you ask.
69
I could ask a room full of students at a pacifist club meeting what they think about arms control,
70
but the results wouldn't be a representative measure of where students stand, because there's a pretty clear sampling bias at work here.
71
To fairly represent a population, I'd need to get a random sample where all members of the target group,
72
in this case students, had an equal chance of being selected to answer the question.
73
So, once you've described behavior with surveys, case studies, or naturalistic observation, you can start making sense out of it, and even predict future behavior.
74
One way to do that is to look at how one trait or behavior is related to another, or how they correlate.
75
So let's get back to my buddy
76
Bob, who seems to think that his refrigerator is actually some kind of time machine that can preserve food indefinitely.
77
Let's say that
78
Bob is just tucked into a lunch of questionable leftovers, pizza that may very well have had a little bit of fungus on it.
79
But he was hungry, and lazy, and so he doused it in sriracha.
80
Suddenly, he starts seeing things.
81
Green armadillos with laser beam eyes.
82
From here, we could deduce that eating unknown fungus predicts hallucination.
83
That's a correlation.
84
But correlation is not causation.
85
Yes, it makes sense that eating questionable fungus would cause hallucinations, but it's possible that
86
Bob was already on the verge of a psychotic episode, and those fuzzy leftovers were actually benign.
87
Or, there could be an entirely different factor involved, like maybe he hadn't slept in 72 hours, or had an intense migraine coming on,
88
and one of those factors caused his hallucinations.
89
It's tempting to draw conclusions from correlations, but it's super important to remember that correlations predict the possibility of cause and effect relationships.
90
They cannot prove them.
91
So we've talked about how to describe behavior without manipulating it, and how to make connections and predictions from those findings.
92
But that can only take you so far.
93
To really get to the bottom of cause and effect behaviors, you're gonna have to start experimenting.
94
Experiments allow investigators to isolate different effects by manipulating an independent variable and keeping all other variables constant, or as constant as you can.
95
This means that they need at least two groups.
96
The experimental group, which is going to get messed with, and the control group, which is not going to get messed with.
97
Just as surveys use random samples, experimental researchers need to randomly assign participants to each group to minimize potential confounding variables,
98
or outside factors, that may skew the results.
99
You don't want all grumpy teenagers in one group and all wealthy Japanese servers in the other.
100
They gotta mingle.
101
Now, sometimes one or both groups are not informed about what's actually being tested.
102
For example, researchers can test how substances affect people by comparing their effects to placebos or inert substances.
103
And often, the researchers themselves don't know which group is experimental and which is control, so they don't unintentionally influence the results through their own behavior.
104
In which case, it's called, you guessed it, a double -blind procedure.
105
So let's put these ideas into practice in our own little experiment.
106
Like all good work, it starts with a question.
107
So the other day, my friend Bernice and I were debating.
108
We're debating caffeine's effect on the brain.
109
Personally, she's convinced that coffee helps her focus and think better, but I get all jittery like a caged meerkat and can't focus on anything.
110
And because we know that overconfidence can lead you to believe things that are not true, we decided to do some critical thinking.
111
So let's figure out our question, do humans solve problems faster when given caffeine?
112
Now we gotta boil that down into a testable prediction.
113
Remember, keep it clear, simple and eloquent so that it can be replicated.
114
Caffeine makes me smarter is not a great hypothesis.
115
A better one would be, say, adult humans given caffeine will navigate a maze faster than humans not given caffeine.
116
The caffeine dosage is your independent variable, the thing that you can change.
117
So you'll need some coffee.
118
Your result or dependent variable, the thing that depends on the thing that you can change,
119
is going to be the speed at which the subject navigates this giant corn maze.
120
Go out on the street, wrangle up a bunch of different kinds of people, and randomly assign them into three different groups.
121
Also at this point, the American Psychological Association suggests that you acquire everyone's informed consent to participate.
122
You don't want to force anyone to be in your experiment, no matter how cool you think it is.
123
So the control group gets a placebo, in this case decaf.
124
Experimental group one gets a low dose of caffeine, which we'll define at 100 milligrams, just an eye -opener and like a cup of coffee's worth.
125
Experimental group two gets 500 milligrams, more than a quad shot of espresso dunked in a Red Bull.
126
Once you dose everyone, turn them loose in the maze and wait at the other end with a stopwatch.
127
All that's left is to measure your results from the three different groups
128
and compare them to see if there were any conclusive results.
129
If the highly dosed folks got through it twice as fast as the low dose or placebo groups,
130
then Bernice's hypothesis was correct and she could rub my face in it saying she was right all along. But really,
131
that would just be the warm flush of hindsight bias telling her something she didn't really know until we tested it.
132
Then, because we've used clear language and defined our parameters, other curious minds can easily replicate this experiment
133
and we can eventually pool all the data together
134
and have something solid to say about what that macchiato was doing to your cognition.
135
Or at least the speed at which you can run through a maze.
136
Science.
137
Probably the best tool that you have for understanding other people.
138
Thanks for watching this episode of Crash Course Psychology.
139
If you paid attention, you learned how to apply the scientific method of psychological research through.. case studies, naturalistic observations, surveys, and interviews, and experimentation.
140
You also learned about different kinds of bias in experimentation, and how research practices help us avoid them.
141
Thanks especially to our Subbable subscribers who make this and all of Crash Course possible.
142
If you'd like to contribute to help us keep
143
Crash Course going, and also get awesome perks like an autographed science poster, or even be animated into an upcoming episode,
144
go to subbable .com slash crash course to find out how.
145
Our script was written by Kathleen Yale and edited by Blake T.
146
Pastino and myself.
147
Our consultant is Dr. Ranji Bhagwat.
148
Our director and editor is Nicholas Jenkins.
149
Our script supervisor is Michael Ronda, who is also our sound designer.
150
And our graphics team is Thought Cafe.
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
C11
Meet Your Master - Getting to Know Your Brain: Crash Course Psychology #4
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B21
The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics #2
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
Crash Course US History Preview
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C1What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
How Water Shapes the Land: Crash Course Geology #9
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B210
Crash Course Sex Ed Preview
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Derivatives: Crash Course Physics #2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
Introduction to Astronomy: Crash Course Astronomy #1
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
Indus Valley Civilization: Crash Course World History #2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B22
Ancient Egypt: Crash Course World History #4
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
C12
What is Engineering?: Crash Course Engineering #1
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5
Cambridge Exam PrepHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
C13
The Secret to Business Writing: Crash Course Business - Soft Skills #3
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Supervised Learning: Crash Course AI #2
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B22
Where Do Diamonds Come From?: Crash Course Geology #8
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C11
Tissues, Part 1: Crash Course Anatomy & Physiology #2
Cambridge Exam PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
The Nucleus: Crash Course Chemistry #1
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
Defense Against the Dark Arts of Influence: Crash Course Business Soft Skills #2
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
C11
251 zinnen
Things That Are Not What They Seem and the Truth About Life | Advanced Podcast for Conversations
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
166 zinnen
The Scariest IQ Statistics | Jordan Peterson
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
150 zinnen
What it's like to have schizophrenia
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
654 zinnen
Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle | Do Agnostics Just Want To Have Control? | Give Me an Answer
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
![[Lecture Ready3] Ch10 Lecture2](https://img.youtube.com/vi/8FVVfebHarQ/mqdefault.jpg)
C11
111 zinnen
[Lecture Ready3] Ch10 Lecture2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C113
52 zinnen
Supernatural thinking: Your brain’s anti-anxiety mode | Clay Routledge
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
582 zinnen
You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
41 zinnen
What is Psychology? (Intro Psych Tutorial #1)
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
167 zinnen
Mental Debugging: How to Build Resilience After Failure
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
66 zinnen
The famous tree-falling thought experiment has a new answer | Lisa Feldman Barrett
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles is gebaseerd op de video “Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology”. Deze video bevat 99 zinnen en 2143 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 10:40. De spreker praat snel, ongeveer 201 woorden per minuut, dus reken op verbonden en ingeslikte klanken. Slechts 80% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden, dus de woordenschat is pittig.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| experiment zelfstandig naamwoord | /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/ | experiment, proef |
| psychological bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/ | psychologisch |
| researcher zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | onderzoeker |
| caffeine zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈkæfiːn/ | cafeïne |
| observation zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/ | waarneming |
| variable bijvoeglijk naamwoord | [ˈvæɹ.i.ə.bl̩] | veranderlijk, variabel |
| hypothesis zelfstandig naamwoord | /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ | hypothese, stelling |
| pizza zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈpi.tsə/ | pizza |
| bias zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈbaɪ.əs/ | neiging, vooroordeel |
| predict werkwoord | /pɹɪˈdɪkt/ | voorspellen |
| correlation zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/ | correlatie |
| maze zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmeɪz/ | doolhof, labyrint |
| intuition zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌɪn.tjuːˈɪʃ.ən/ | intuïtie |
| tail zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈteɪ̯l/ | staart |
| dose zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈdəʊ̯s/ | dosis |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Betekenis |
|---|---|
| figure out werkwoord | uitvogelen, er achter komen |
| come up with werkwoord | bedenken, verzinnen |
| end up werkwoord | belanden, terechtkomen |
| find out werkwoord | ontdekken, onderzoeken |
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 | is known · is called · can't be replicated |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | that's been · you've described · have had |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | events, which can · group, which is |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 42 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals don't, you're, won't. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, wealthy /ˈwɛl.θi/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, intuition /ˌɪn.tjuːˈɪʃ.ən/, prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/, psychological /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/, experimental /ɪkspɛɹəˈmɛntəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: maze /ˈmeɪz/, quad /kwɑd/, intuitive /ɪnˈtjuːɪtɪv/, solve /sɒlv/, phrase /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: caffeine /ˈkæfiːn/, variable [ˈvæɹ.i.ə.bl̩], randomly /ˈɹændm̩li/, graphics /ˈɡɹæfɪks/, anxious /ˈæŋkʃəs/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: fungus /ˈfʌŋ.ɡəs/, hungry /ˈhʌŋ.ɡɹi/, graphics /ˈɡɹæfɪks/, exhibit /ɪɡˈzɪbɪt/, jungle /ˈd͡ʒʌŋ.ɡ(ə)l/
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 experiment, psychological, researcher.
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.