Відео

I do have a general video on the Rorschach test here if you haven't seen it: ua-cam.com/video/xok-Wh1awSc/v-deo.htmlsi=OUWuD70cEjgxhs75 I probably won't be making a more detailed video on the Rorschach test since I'm not a proponent of the test's use and other assessments seem to have greater validity and reliability. I'm not a clinical or forensic psychologist so my opinion may not really matter, but I tend to side with critics of the test and see it as a rather flawed approach to assessing personality. Thanks for commenting!

Glad it helped!

You're welcome!

The problem with this approach (known as a Martingale strategy) is that the upside is constrained and the downside is much larger, even though it is less probable. If we had a game with 50/50 odds (like a coin flip), we could plan to double our bet each round and stop whenever we win. So if we bet $5 and win we stop. But if we lose we have to bet $10 on the second round. If we win, we're still only up by $5 overall, but if we lose we have to bet $20 for the 3rd round to cover previous losses and still be up $5. This continues for each subsequent round. This means that the maximum we could win at any point is only $5 (because that's when we stop), but the total we could lose would be $315 if we were really unlucky and lost all 6. Would you want to risk losing a total of $315 in order to win $5? I wouldn't consider this a "safe" strategy because of how much you might have to risk in order to get a small gain. The coin doesn't remember the previous flips, so each round has 50/50 odds, but in later rounds you're risking very large losses for a tiny overall gain (your wallet does remember the previous losses 😅). You probably wouldn't want to play a single game where you'd have to risk $160 to win $5 with 50/50 odds (which is essentially what you'd be doing in round 6), and you're probably only willing to take that risk because of the previous sunk costs of losing rounds 1-5. In order to nearly guarantee a gain of $5 we'd need a very large bankroll relative to our first bet because we don't know how long we might have to play (it might be more than 6 before we win). In practice this is why casinos have maximum stakes, so you can't carry this on indefinitely until you win (eventually you won't be allowed to double your bet) even if you had an infinite bankroll. And, of course, they also don't offer 50/50 odds, even for something like red/black on roulette since there are 2 green spaces, giving the house a slight edge on every round.

@@PsychExamReview oh, there's a term for my idea I didn't know about yet. Highly appreciate you mentioned it. Just as I appreciate your detailed explanation, of course. Thank you!

@@Jan-ny6sl You're welcome, glad it was helpful!

Thanks!

All practice question videos are available in this playlist, or you can find one question video at the end of each unit playlist: Psychology Practice Questions - ua-cam.com/play/PLkKvotUGCyLdlWlX1XbKssmpd03V5S__Y.html

@@PsychExamReview Thank you so much, I appreciate your effort sir !^^

@@SlOth-gm4qg You're welcome, hope these are helpful for you!

Glad to hear that!

You're welcome, hope it's helpful!

We could say that data is referring to specific and carefully collected measurements, which can then provide evidence for or against a hypothesis that tries to explain some phenomenon. In this case the data would be the skull measurements and observed faculties, and these would provide possible evidence for the existence of a relationship between skull shapes and mental abilities. Hope this helps!

You're welcome!

You're welcome!

This is a deep philosophical question and a monist approach in psychology assumes that these feelings result from physiological patterns of activity from millions of cells communicating. This assumption may not be correct, but within psychological research there's generally a focus on providing physiological explanations for all thoughts, feelings, and emotions, rather than non-material explanations that can't be directly observed. It may be the case that we do have a non-material soul, but this type of explanation would generally be considered a philosophical or theological explanation rather than a formal scientific psychological explanation for thought or behavior. Hope this is clearer!

Glad you liked it!

Glad it was helpful!

You're welcome!

Glad to hear that, thanks for the support!

Glad you liked it! I don't have any related videos on those topics yet, but I may eventually get to creating a video on log and square root transformations in the future.

I'd recommend starting with a general overview so you can become aware of the different areas of psychology and some of the general principles for thinking about psychological topics. It's important to have a sense of the main approaches (biological, behavioral, cognitive, sociocultural) before choosing a specific area so that you know how different perspectives would approach it; what types of questions each would consider and how these might fit together. I have a playlist of all of my intro psych videos in order on my channel, or you could choose from the playlists by unit. These are also organized as a free open course here: psychexamreview.com/open-course/ Hope this helps, feel free to ask in the comments if you have specific questions on any videos!

@@PsychExamReview thank you very much I will go to the playlist I don't know what I should study first but I think I love to know how people think and how can I control my mind and why people do some things they don't like it and where our ideas came from and How can I manipulate people? Not to do bad things to people just to have knowledge abbreviation Why we think ? I think that question is nothing

@@AHMEDTANJAWI-ms5qv What you'll discover is that this is actually an infinitely complex question (though that shouldn't be discouraging!). Trying to fully understand why someone has a particular thought or engages in a certain behavior means that we would need to consider their biology (genes, hormones, neurotransmitters, brain function) both at that moment and potentially extending over millions of years of the evolutionary past, their previous experience with the world (rewards, punishments, & other environmental factors, which also influence gene expression) leading up to that moment, their patterns of thinking, language use, and stored knowledge and perceptions of the world (called schema) as well as potential distortions & biases that may influence which of these they are drawing from, as well as their culture, past social experiences and relationships, and their unique interpretation of this particular social interaction. Identifying a definitive answer that incorporates all of these is essentially impossible, but that doesn't mean that we can't draw any conclusions or consider the most important factors for some types of thoughts or behaviors. So psychologists using different approaches may focus on the importance of different aspects for certain situations, but this doesn't mean that one explanation will always be correct or will be the "best" explanation for other thoughts or behaviors or for other individuals (though some psychologists occasionally seem to forget to keep this in mind). Hopefully this glimpse of the complexity of human thought and behavior inspires you to want to learn more; don't accept simple answers and remember there are almost always more possibilities to consider.

You're right, this is technically possible with small sample sizes where the mean can be a poor measure of central tendency and median or mode would be better (both would be 99 in this case). This is also a good reminder to students not to focus on the "class average" on an exam in a small class, because 1 or 2 low scores can make most students believe they scored "above average". But this is much less likely to occur with large sample sizes and when estimating the population mean for a trait that is normally distributed.

Great question, this formula is just a broad-sense estimate, so there are some limitations that can inflate the heritability and in some cases this can lead to heritability greater than 1.0, which is obviously impossible. This calculation doesn't consider that MZ twins may have more shared environment than DZ twins and gene-environment interactions may make their environments more similar (the formula assumes these are the same for MZ and DZ twins). As a result this can misattribute some environmental factors to genetics. Hope this helps!

If I had a categorical variable like choosing a preferred color; red, blue, yellow, or green, and all 20 participants chose red, and 0 chose any other colors, then "red" would be the mode, with zero variation. This would not be a uniform distribution, in which all responses are equally frequent, which would occur if there were 5 responses for each color, in which case there would not be a mode. Hope this helps!

You're welcome!

Great question, I probably should have worded this more clearly; in sufferers normal pleasures aren't present, but they are present in healthy people. The name "anhedonia" means "without pleasure" so healthy people do have pleasure responses to things like food, hobbies, etc. but this pleasure is absent in sufferers, so saying they show anhedonia means the normal pleasure responses are not present, making it a negative symptom.

Glad I can help!

I'm glad to hear that. I've not heard of any replications or similar studies with girls. I should add that Sherif's role in orchestrating the environment and the boys' behavior was probably larger than initially presented, which means even replications with boys might not yield similar results (though modern ethics boards wouldn't approve these anyway). This is detailed in Gina Perry's 2018 book The Lost Boys, which was published after I made this video.

Thanks, glad you like them!

You're welcome!

Without context it's a bit hard to judge (maybe it's presenting a false argument you're supposed to argue against and you're getting me to do it? 😂 But I would disagree with these statements. Unique receptors exist for umami, which means it's not just a conditioned preference, and people certainly have cravings for fat and protein, and even cravings for sweet are often for foods that combine sugar + fat (ice cream, pastries, etc.) rather than just pure sugar. These specific examples are cultural preferences, but they're driven by evolved adaptation to seek out nutrient-rich foods that's universal.

Thank you, I really appreciate it!

Best of luck on your exam!

The equation shows that the sample variance (which is probably an underestimate) + the bias (the average amount of underestimate) is equal to the population variance. I probably should have started with this form of the equation instead of starting with sample variance = population variance - the bias. This is the same equation but perhaps not as clear of a starting point. So it's showing that the biased sample variance * (n/n-1) = the population variance, which simplifies to the sum of squared deviations / n-1. This means that dividing the sample deviations from x-bar by n-1 will tend to equal the population variance, though we have to remember that this is based on estimating the average bias as sigma squared / n, which it may not actually be for a given sample, so it's only true on average, not in every case. Hopefully this makes things clearer.

Since IQ scores approximate a normal distribution we can estimate the percentage of scores in a given range using what's known as the empirical rule. The empirical rule is that in a normal curve 68% of scores will fall within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% within 3 standard deviations. IQ has a estimated mean of 100 and a standard deviation of about 15. This means 50% of people will score below 100 and about 34% will fall between 100 and 115, leaving approximately 16% of scores above 115. So at a score of 115 a person has scored higher than about 84% of the general population (higher than the 50% below 100 and the 34% between 100-115) and lower than about 16% of the population. Note that the image is simplified and doesn't extend to the full range of possible scores (and IQ scores are less reliable at the extremes), so it doesn't show 100% of scores, but we can expect about 13.5% from 115-130, then somewhere around 2% from 130-145, and 0.1% from 130-145, giving a total of 15.6%, which can be rounded to about 16% (as there are also still some scores above 145). Hope this helps!

@@PsychExamReview thank you so much! these have been wonderful to prepare for the EPPP!

@@Dr.BrittanyLeibowitz No problem, glad to hear that!