that is really interesting and useful

makes sense. Knowing anyone can see what you say may make you more likely or less likely to say something

these are all seemingly medical effects. How can this idea directly apply to social psychology?

people get nervous for it

That wouldn't really worth either I feel like because the people would know they were being watched and act different, sometimes maybe without realizing it.

Makes sense why the original method would not be very effective - it isn't real life at all.

Do the smartphones and technological devices effect anything or just ease of access/communication for the experiment?

I guess these become difficult to define because day to day life is different for everyone... What constitutes as "normal" or "typical"?

so they know it does/can effect but not to what degree. Isn't there a way to test that in daily life?

hard to allow for inferences but still have them apply to real life settings.

exactly. And then what would be the point in even doing it? Maybe just to predict what real life setting would be like?

So the real world setting type experiment may not be able to identify clearly the exact causes of the effects.

without the experimenter, they may have stopped at earlier signs of trouble.

I think it is interesting they would agree to do it at all.....

all of these authorities help us to grow, to learn, to be safe, to be good people..... but of course there are cases where adults are wrong, are cruel, etc.

all of these examples are small though, they don't really have a big impact. And they all seem to be going for the idea of being more considerate and less wasteful, so their purpose seems to be serving something greater and more honorable.

Oh this statement is really interesting. I wonder if people were reminded that they agreed to do something, and therefore have a responsibility to do it truthfully and honestly would change the way things went. Like with the unit on altruism, people didn't feel a sense of responsibility to do the right thing. Here, maybe the same thing is happening. I think people even forget that in a way we owe it to ourselves to live our OWN lives and be our own selves... This idea could really impact people, I think.

I never thought about "society" as being a higher authority, but it kind of is.

goes back to that part within us telling us to do what we can to up our survival rates and hereditary line... we want to improve our own groups so we can live the best lives possible.

belief that they deserve it

Stereotype threat!!

just as consequential in effects on people.

= less open to hearing others opinions - see's them as "wrong" instead of just "different"from their own.

It's like if you don't fit in with the already dominant group you're less.... because you're different. It seems to have nothing to do with who they actually are just the fact that they're not to "certain group" that holds highest power.

that's interesting. I wonder what other stereotype/prejudice factors play into political statistics.

I think it's pretty natural to want to favor your own group. Everybody wants to believe they're good, and that they're the best. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that social standings, etc. really do effect our lives and some people might even have the mentality that if they put others down, they will raise up (plays into stereotype threat). (even if done unconsciously. It's almost like a mentality for survival/optimal living).

I think that it isn't that hard to someone who will openly put down a group of people, but they won't openly see it as "wrong" in their mind.

people follow social norms on the outside, but on the inside people really aren't always who them seem to be (going back to the first unit with inner and outer selves).

Oh, so good people expect that others will be good too, and therefore they expect other to step in and help, too (?)

what are the others? do they too play a role in altruism?

right sort of like what I was thinking.

I feel like on one hand that seems odd, but the other it makes sense - women have been associated with traits of more "feeling," so maybe they're, in a social situation, more willing to emotionally help someone. Men and "manliness" are associated maybe with more physical traits - so these men were more willing to run and - probably physically if not violently - stop the man from taking the purse.

It's still sad though, we should WANT to help someone even if it might not be as beneficial to us. As a Christian I really see this in my faith, and how we should freely help

I get this. I think sometimes even when we're reluctant to do something, we'll do it just because we know we should, not because we necessarily want to. Or we know others will think it's wrong for us not to, etc. How other people will see us matter to us, and how we see ourselves matters.

I get this and agree. Putting yourself at risk can make it harder. Sometimes - like with the guy who jumped on the tracks to help the man out - people react quickly without thought, but in the moment it can be a harder decision.

I think sometimes people probably think it isn't there place to help -- for example the title of the episodes on that show make me think some people wouldn't find it there place to help... if that makes sense. Or maybe even that they'd do more harm than help.

I am pretty certain those who didn't intervene would have if they'd realized they were being watched. Character is what you are when no one else is around...

Do they have to be in need for it to be altruism? What if it is a kind act but not necessary?

that's really interesting - our emotions, thoughts, etc. subconsciously effect us / are at the forefront of our minds

seems most likely to get REAL, uneffected results

this is so common I feel like. Not many people are completely open about what they feel or think or want, especially in relation to other people.

more available to memory --> we think more likely. But not true, just that we don't think about the other scenario as often.

Even simple decisions can be hard and stressful. We like guidance.

in Intro to Psychology we learned about this -- we try to explain new things based on what we already know.

Key words: remember it (not how it REALLY is?), HOPE (not what it necessarily will be)

But what if you are maybe stubborn to admitting this, especially with more negative traits we might possess?

So school gives us life lessons after all, even if I'll never use that math equation ever again...

if we are always working on ourselves can we ever be "done" working on ourselves or have a definite view of ourselves as we are in the now?

So if this is all about "I" and "Me" do what others see in us/think of us not formulate who we are? Or is it just what we - ourselves - think about what they think about us, that shape us?