I think an easier experiment would be the same pregnant woman, but she’s wearing more eye catching trousers + shoes
Comment on batman effect
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day agoWhat an interesting potential explanation! Guess you’ll have to go out and test to find out. You could also choose less bombastic moral characters to test if the moral judgement angle is also true (like a priest with his tab removed)
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 day ago
m0stlyharmless@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
Yes. This would be important to differentiate between the associations with the Batman character and an eye catching abnormality.
It would also be interesting to see what the impact of the Joker would be. If the Joker would also elicit greater propensity to offer the seat to the pregnant woman, once could claim that Joker, being the antithesis to Batman, similarly leads one to think of the imperative to offer the pregnant woman the seat.
Finally, another important variation would be another eye catching character specific to this experiment rather than one belonging to a fictional franchise.
This would allow one to more clearly differentiate the impact between the control (just the pregnant woman) with the introduction of eye catching costumes and with the pregnant woman wearing something eye catching herself.
Another important experimental design consideration would be to avoid repeat passengers between the multiple trials.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
What? Why with the tab removed…? And also, wouldn’t that just be someone in a black robe?
drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 1 day ago
Pretty sure that was the hypothosis the experimenters came to. Suddenly seeing batman out of the corner of your eye is way more jarring that it forces you to focus more on your surrondings.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes, but someone baselessly speculating is different than researchers conclusions, yes? And my response leads to deeper thinking about the possible explanations than thought terminating assumptions, no?
Also, no, subjects were more likely to offer their seat even if they didn’t see batman, meaning it was seeing the change in others brought by the shocking individual that made others more cognizant of their surroundings, rather than needing to directly see the shocking stimulus. See? By trying to make their assumption fit the outcome, you missed information that was in the paper that disagreed with you. That’s why curiosity is more valuable than needing to be right.
drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 1 day ago
You seem very needlessly hostile to me. Is there a reason you’re being a dick? Have I offended you in some way?
All I did was confirm that the scientists think batman appearing got people to focus more on their surroundings.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Nah, man. Sorry about that. I was trying to be big and silly to demonstrate my point and the reason for it. Unintentional assholery, sorry again.
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Can you not just correct someone without being passive-aggressive about it?
You just brought huge value to the thread and I’ve learned a lot about the study that I never would have gotten from the caption alone and I’m grateful to your insight about it. It’s something that I otherwise wouldn’t have pursued deeper due to limited interest, so why do you have to be so nasty about it?
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Comrade, I have ASD and while I’m aware I’m perceived that way, it’s either talk like this sometimes or never say anything ever again. I am constantly putting effort into not looking like a condescending ass, so think of how far I have to edit this shit before it comes out of my mouth in order for me to come off as slightly high and mighty.
It’s honestly borderline crippling and I have literally driven myself mad over my inability to be understood before.
I’m a very jovial person and that comes across in my off-screen interpersonal interactions, but I can’t get that to come across in the wild west of internet comments.
But yeah, I’m working on it. Sorry about the assholeishness