ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology #2

เลือกโหมดฝึก

แต่ละโหมดจะเปิดห้องฝึกแบบเต็มจอ

150 ประโยค

หากประโยคสั้นหรือยาวเกินไป กดที่ Edit เพื่อปรับแก้

Can we call pizza cause psychedelic hallucinations?

Does coffee make you smarter?

Or does it just make you do dumb stuff faster?

Like much of psychology itself, questions like these can seem pretty intuitive.

I mean, people may not be the easiest organisms to understand, but you're a person, right?

So you must be qualified to draw, like, some conclusions about other people and what makes them tick.

But it's important to realize that your intuition isn't always right.

In fact, sometimes it is exactly wrong, and we tend to grossly underestimate the dangers of false intuition.

If you have some idea about a person and their behavior that turns out to be right, that reinforces your trust in your intuition.

Like if I warned my buddy

Bob against eating that deep dish pizza that's been in the fridge for the past week,

but he eats it anyway and soon starts to wig out, I'm gonna say, dude, I told you so.

But if I'm wrong, and he's totally fine, I probably won't even think about it ever again.

This is known as hindsight bias, or the I knew it all along phenomenon.

This doesn't mean that common sense is wrong,

it just means that our intuitive sense more easily describes what just happened than what will happen in the future.

Another reason you can't blindly trust your intuition is your natural tendency toward overconfidence.

Sometimes you just really, really feel like you're right about people when actually you're really, really wrong.

We've all been there.

We also tend to perceive order in random events, which can lead to false assumptions.

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.

But we see the series of five tails as something unusual,

as a streak, and thus giving that result some kind of meaning that it very definitely does not have.

That is why we have the methods and safeguards of psychological research and experimentation, and the glorious process of scientific inquiry.

They help us to get around these problems and basically save the study of our minds from the stupidity of our minds.

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.

Sorry.

In most ways, psychological research is no different than any other scientific discipline.

Like step one is always figuring out how to ask general questions about your subject and and turn them into measurable, testable propositions.

This is called operationalizing your questions.

So you know how the scientific method works.

It starts with a question and a theory.

And I don't mean theory in the sense of like a hunch

that say a quad shot of espresso makes you think better.

Instead, in science, a theory is what explains and organizes lots of different observations and predicts outcomes.

And when you come up with a testable prediction, that's your hypothesis.

Once your theory and hypothesis are in place, you need a clear and common language to report them with.

So, for example, defining exactly what you mean by thinking better with your espresso hypothesis will allow other researchers to replicate the experiment.

And replication is key.

You can watch a person exhibit a certain behavior once, and it won't prove very much.

But if you keep getting consistent results, even as you change subjects or situations, you're probably on to something.

This is a problem with one popular type of psychological research, case studies, which to take an in -depth look at one individual.

Case studies can sometimes be misleading, because by their nature, they can't be replicated, so they run the risk of overgeneralizing.

Still, they're good at showing us what can happen, and end up framing questions for more extensive and generalizable studies.

They're also often memorable and a great storytelling device psychologists use to observe and describe behavior.

Like, say the smell of coffee makes

Carl suddenly anxious and irritable.

That obviously doesn't mean that it has that same effect on everyone.

In fact, Carl has terrible memories associated with that smell, and so his case is actually quite rare.

Poor Carl.

But you would still have to look at lots of other cases to determine that conclusively.

Another popular method of psychological research is naturalistic observation, where researchers simply watch behavior in a natural environment.

Whether that's chimps poking anthills in the jungle, kids clowning in a classroom, or drunk dudes yelling at soccer games.

The idea is to let the subjects just do their thing without trying to manipulate or control the situation.

So yeah, basically just spying on people.

Like case studies, naturalistic observations are great at describing behavior, but they're very limited in explaining it.

Psychologists can also collect behavioral data using surveys or interviews, asking people to report their opinions and behaviors.

Sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey famously used this technique

when he surveyed thousands of men and women on their sexual history and published his findings in a pair of revolutionary texts,

sexual behavior in the human male and female, respectively.

Surveys are a great way to access people's consciously held attitudes and beliefs, but how to ask the questions can be tricky.

Subtle word choices can influence results.

For example, more forceful words like ban or censor may elicit different reactions than limit or not allow.

Asking do you believe in space aliens is a much different question than do you think

that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

It's the same question, but in the first, the subject might assume that you mean aliens visiting

Earth and making crop circles and abducting people and poking them.

And if how you phrase surveys is important, so is who you ask.

I could ask a room full of students at a pacifist club meeting what they think about arms control,

but the results wouldn't be a representative measure of where students stand, because there's a pretty clear sampling bias at work here.

To fairly represent a population, I'd need to get a random sample where all members of the target group,

in this case students, had an equal chance of being selected to answer the question.

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.

One way to do that is to look at how one trait or behavior is related to another, or how they correlate.

So let's get back to my buddy

Bob, who seems to think that his refrigerator is actually some kind of time machine that can preserve food indefinitely.

Let's say that

Bob is just tucked into a lunch of questionable leftovers, pizza that may very well have had a little bit of fungus on it.

But he was hungry, and lazy, and so he doused it in sriracha.

Suddenly, he starts seeing things.

Green armadillos with laser beam eyes.

From here, we could deduce that eating unknown fungus predicts hallucination.

That's a correlation.

But correlation is not causation.

Yes, it makes sense that eating questionable fungus would cause hallucinations, but it's possible that

Bob was already on the verge of a psychotic episode, and those fuzzy leftovers were actually benign.

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,

and one of those factors caused his hallucinations.

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.

They cannot prove them.

So we've talked about how to describe behavior without manipulating it, and how to make connections and predictions from those findings.

But that can only take you so far.

To really get to the bottom of cause and effect behaviors, you're gonna have to start experimenting.

Experiments allow investigators to isolate different effects by manipulating an independent variable and keeping all other variables constant, or as constant as you can.

This means that they need at least two groups.

The experimental group, which is going to get messed with, and the control group, which is not going to get messed with.

Just as surveys use random samples, experimental researchers need to randomly assign participants to each group to minimize potential confounding variables,

or outside factors, that may skew the results.

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.

ดาวน์โหลดแอป

ทุกอย่างที่ต้องใช้เพื่อพูดได้คล่อง

AI ให้คะแนนการออกเสียงให้คะแนนทุกประโยค

ฝึก IPAเชี่ยวชาญทุกเสียง

คำศัพท์สร้างคลังคำของคุณ

เกมคำศัพท์เล่นไปเรียนไป

สแกน QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

ช่องเดียวกัน

Remembering and Forgetting: Crash Course Psychology #14

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

Crash Course US History Preview

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

FOR YOU

วิดีโอแนะนำ

38 ประโยค

RE2 Unit 11A

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

189 ประโยค

Psychology of People With Extremely High IQ

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

150 ประโยค

What it's like to have schizophrenia

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

289 ประโยค

Psychology of EGO: Why We Get Offended So Easily?

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

534 ประโยค

Personality, Creativity, and Well-being || The Human Potential Lab | The Psychology Podcast

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

66 ประโยค

The famous tree-falling thought experiment has a new answer | Lisa Feldman Barrett

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

111 ประโยค

[Lecture Ready3] Ch10 Lecture2

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

81 ประโยค

The psychology of persuasion, as told by an Ivy League professor | Jonah Berger for Big Think+

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

63 ประโยค

TED@NYC: The Power of Negative Thinking

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

435 ประโยค

Neuroscience Shows Your Identity Is Your Destiny In This Life

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

คำศัพท์และข้อสังเกตด้านการพูดสำหรับบทเรียนนี้

บทเรียนฝึกพูดนี้ใช้วิดีโอ “Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology” เป็นสื่อ วิดีโอนี้มี 99 ประโยค และ 2143 คำ สำหรับฝึกพูดตาม ช่วงที่มีเสียงพูดยาว 10:40 ผู้พูดพูดเร็ว ประมาณ 201 คำต่อนาที จึงมีการเชื่อมเสียงและลดเสียงค่อนข้างมาก มีเพียง 80% ของคำที่อยู่ใน 3,000 คำที่ใช้บ่อยที่สุดในภาษาอังกฤษ คำศัพท์จึงค่อนข้างยาก

คำศัพท์สำคัญในวิดีโอนี้

คำที่ควรเรียนรู้ 15 คำจากวิดีโอ พร้อมคำอ่านและความหมาย:

คำศัพท์	คำอ่าน	ความหมาย
experiment คำนาม	/ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/	การทดลอง
researcher คำนาม	/ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/	นักวิจัย
caffeine คำนาม	/ˈkæfiːn/	กาเฟอีน, คาเฟอีน
observation คำนาม	/ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/	การสังเกต
hypothesis คำนาม	/haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/	สมมุติฐาน
pizza คำนาม	/ˈpi.tsə/	พิซซ่า
bias คำนาม	/ˈbaɪ.əs/	อคติ, ความลำเอียง
predict คำกริยา	/pɹɪˈdɪkt/	ทำนาย
correlation คำนาม	/ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/	สหสัมพันธ์
maze คำนาม	/ˈmeɪz/	วงกต
intuition คำนาม	/ˌɪn.tjuːˈɪʃ.ən/	อัชฌัตติกญาณ
tail คำนาม	/ˈteɪ̯l/	หาง
dose คำนาม	/ˈdəʊ̯s/	ขนาดยา
fungus คำนาม	/ˈfʌŋ.ɡəs/	เห็ดรา
compare คำกริยา	/kəmˈpɛɚ/	เปรียบเทียบ

ไวยากรณ์ในวิดีโอนี้

โครงสร้างที่ผู้พูดใช้บ่อยที่สุด พร้อมคำพูดจริงจากวิดีโอ:

โครงสร้าง	ในวิดีโอ
Passive voice be + กริยาช่อง 3 — เน้นสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น ไม่ใช่ผู้กระทำ	is known · is called · can't be replicated
Present perfect have/has + กริยาช่อง 3 — เหตุการณ์ในอดีตที่ยังเกี่ยวข้องกับปัจจุบัน	that's been · you've described · have had
Relative clauses who / which + อนุประโยค — ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับคนหรือสิ่งของ	events, which can · group, which is

การออกเสียงที่ควรระวัง

ผู้พูดใช้รูปย่อและรูปลดเสียง 42 ครั้ง เช่น don't, you're, won't ให้พูดแบบสั้นตามที่ได้ยิน

เสียง “th”: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, wealthy /ˈwɛl.θi/
เสียง “sh” และ “zh”: observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, intuition /ˌɪn.tjuːˈɪʃ.ən/, prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/
คำยาว — ลงเสียงหนักให้ถูกพยางค์: experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/, psychological /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/, experimental /ɪkspɛɹəˈmɛntəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/

เสียงที่คนไทยมักออกเสียงยาก:

เสียงท้ายคำ — ออกเสียงให้ครบ ไม่เปลี่ยนเป็นตัวสะกดแบบไทย: experimental /ɪkspɛɹəˈmɛntəl/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, bias /ˈbaɪ.əs/, maze /ˈmeɪz/, tail /ˈteɪ̯l/
/v/ — ไม่ใช่ /w/ ให้ฟันบนแตะริมฝีปากล่าง: observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, variable [ˈvæɹ.i.ə.bl̩], intuitive /ɪnˈtjuːɪtɪv/, respectively /ɹɪˈspɛktɪvli/, solve /sɒlv/
/z/ — เสียงก้อง ไม่ใช่ /s/: observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, maze /ˈmeɪz/, designer /dɪˈzaɪnɚ/, phrase /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/, lazy /ˈleɪ̯zi(ː)/

วิธีฝึกกับวิดีโอนี้

ฟังวิดีโอให้จบหนึ่งรอบโดยยังไม่ต้องพูด แล้วจดคำที่ยังไม่รู้จัก
เริ่มที่ความเร็ว 0.75× พูดตามทีละประโยค แล้วกลับไปใช้ความเร็วปกติเมื่อเริ่มคล่อง
อัดเสียงตัวเองแล้วเทียบกับต้นฉบับ โดยสังเกตคำอย่าง experiment, researcher, caffeine เป็นพิเศษ

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?

Shadowing เป็นเทคนิคการเรียนรู้ภาษาที่ได้รับการรับรองทางวิทยาศาสตร์ พัฒนาขึ้นสำหรับการฝึกนักแปลมืออาชีพ วิธีการนี้เรียบง่ายแต่ทรงพลัง: คุณฟังเสียงภาษาอังกฤษจากเจ้าของภาษาและพูดตามทันที — เหมือนเงาที่ตามผู้พูดด้วยช่วงเวลาห่าง 1-2 วินาที การวิจัยแสดงว่าเทคนิคนี้ปรับปรุงความแม่นยำในการออกเสียง ทำนองเสียง จังหวะ การเชื่อมเสียง การฟังเข้าใจ และความคล่องแคล่วในการพูดได้อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ

เทคนิค shadowing: อ่านคู่มือฉบับเต็มทีละขั้นตอน →

ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology #2

เลือกโหมดฝึก

ดาวน์โหลดแอป

Remembering and Forgetting: Crash Course Psychology #14

Crash Course US History Preview

What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10

How Geologists Can Tell if the World is Warming : Crash Course Geology #23

Crash Course Sex Ed Preview

Meet Your Master - Getting to Know Your Brain: Crash Course Psychology #4

Derivatives: Crash Course Physics #2

Introduction to Astronomy: Crash Course Astronomy #1

Indus Valley Civilization: Crash Course World History #2

Ancient Egypt: Crash Course World History #4

What is Engineering?: Crash Course Engineering #1

The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5

The Secret to Business Writing: Crash Course Business - Soft Skills #3

Supervised Learning: Crash Course AI #2

Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1

Where Do Diamonds Come From?: Crash Course Geology #8

Tissues, Part 1: Crash Course Anatomy & Physiology #2

Writing Systems: Crash Course Linguistics #16

Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?

The Nucleus: Crash Course Chemistry #1

RE2 Unit 11A

Psychology of People With Extremely High IQ

What it's like to have schizophrenia

Psychology of EGO: Why We Get Offended So Easily?

Personality, Creativity, and Well-being || The Human Potential Lab | The Psychology Podcast

The famous tree-falling thought experiment has a new answer | Lisa Feldman Barrett

[Lecture Ready3] Ch10 Lecture2

The psychology of persuasion, as told by an Ivy League professor | Jonah Berger for Big Think+

TED@NYC: The Power of Negative Thinking

Neuroscience Shows Your Identity Is Your Destiny In This Life

คำศัพท์และข้อสังเกตด้านการพูดสำหรับบทเรียนนี้

คำศัพท์สำคัญในวิดีโอนี้

ไวยากรณ์ในวิดีโอนี้

การออกเสียงที่ควรระวัง

วิธีฝึกกับวิดีโอนี้

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?