Step foot in the living room and die!!!!

[gina2000]

Just another day on the Dis.......

 

[JoNo]

abracadabra: I'm not trying to argue in any way with you, just trying to straighten this stuff out. I'm new to psych so I'm guessing the reason why this kind of thing would be acceptable would be:


(ii) the prospective scientific, educational, or applied value justifies the deception.

I see what she did as a "more personal role" the best way to get true reactions (at least the truest you can) via the internet.

However she hasn't come back to clarify anything so I hardly doubt this was for ANY class, more of a butt-saver

 

[dizneenut]

Originally posted by JoNo


However she hasn't come back to clarify anything so I hardly doubt this was for ANY class, more of a butt-saver

 

[Duchie]

Every square inch of this house is lived in. We don't have a formal dining room - it's a downstairs playroom for the kids. I tend to like things very neat and orderly, so I wouldn't mind having just one room that wasn't cluttered. Not necessairly off limits, but just easily tidied in the evenings.

And because my kids are still young enough to be careless, all food and drinks stay in the kitchen. It's easier to clean chocolate off of the hardwood floor than it is the carpet!

 

[CindysGusGus]

Wow! Hmmm...(scratches head) I am completely speechless (this doesnt happen often) I guess I agree with the unethical factor. There is no controlled environment for an experiment so therefore any data collected is skewed and can be easlily disputed.

 

[Snowysmom]

I haven't read every reply but I will answer anyway. My house is decorated in early teenager. We live in every room and every room looks lived in. My house is mostly clean but cluttered. The kids go in every room, eat in almost every room (except the bedrooms.) They know to clean up after themselves. When older DS is away at college, younger DS can make a mess for two or he brings in reinforcements (his friends) to help. I figure that when they are in their own homes, my house will be more under control but I hope that is a long time away. I do know people who like to have one or two rooms for company. It is just a matter of choice.

 

[DMickey28]

Read the whole thread, didn't respond. Keeping my thoughts to myself...

I am just SOOO happy I finally had a clue about SOMETHING that happened on the DIS....

I am always out of the loop, now I truly feel like part of the family!!!

 

[jennyanydots]

telling DISers that you "played" them as part of an "experiment" isn't going to endear you to them ...

when I was in college, you had to get a subject's consent before they participated in your experiment. no, I didn't major in psychology, but I participated in a few experiments set up by the psychology department, and we all had to sign a very legal-looking form. protects the department against future lawsuits, etc.

 

[TigerBear]

To the OP - I'm curious what department you work in. Sociology? Social Psychology? I think this thread actually brings up some interesting issues...informed consent, the use of deception in research, the very definition of "research" itself. If nothing is done with the responses beyond a verbal discussion, is it really "research" and thus subject to APA ethical guidelines? Not if you are not a psychologist!

Clearly this "experiment" was in no way an actual experiment. If the OP wanted some comments to stimulate a class discussion, was the point to discuss the living structure of a home or to discuss how people react when they are deceived? Hmmm.

 

[Aimeedyan]

I don't believe for one minute she's a professor... I don't even believe she's a psych student!

She's just someone who dug herself a hole and is trying to get out.

Nice try.

 

[Deafmedic]

Let's see..........Wife, daughter 10, daughter 6, and twin daughters. Cat and 2 German Shephards. All I got to say about it is "CHILL".

 

[Tigger&Belle]

Originally posted by TigerBear
Clearly this "experiment" was in no way an actual experiment. If the OP wanted some comments to stimulate a class discussion, was the point to discuss the living structure of a home or to discuss how people react when they are deceived? Hmmm.

I think it's "B", she was playing games and wanted to see our reaction when we were deceived. That would explain why she hasn't posted again on this thread, but I's bet a buck that she's still reading the responses. Strange for sure, and I hate to think what else floats her boat...

T&B

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by JoNo
However she hasn't come back to clarify anything so I hardly doubt this was for ANY class, more of a butt-saver

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Grog
What class was this again? Troll 101?

She may be a lot of things, but you can't call her a troll. Not with 700+ posts.

 

[I_Know_You2!]

Originally posted by gometros
She may be a lot of things, but you can't call her a troll. Not with 700+ posts.

Well said!

 

[Chattyaholic]

Back in the late 1980's I bought some "special" Christmas napkins for the dining room table, they were in a napkin holder and I told the kids not to use them. A few days later we had company for dinner. Someone started to pull a napkin out of the holder and my son piped up and said "oh no, you can't use those napkins, they're "special!" To this day my family still teases me about that. Thinking back I now realize my children should have been able to use them, they are the most "special" people to me. I was wrong in not letting them use them.

My step-mother-in-law's home is very beautiful, nicely decorated, immaculate, etc. We are not allowed to wear our shoes inside. I fear I'll wrinkle the cushion of the chair when I sit down. I don't even like using the bathroom because it's "too clean." I worry I'll leave a drip of water on the counter, and I would rather "air dry" my hands than use the fancy fingertip towel that is precisely folded in place on the counter. I love her dearly, but I'm not at all comfortable in her home. My home is "lived in" and I much prefer it that way, than her way.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by JoNo
abracadabra: I'm not trying to argue in any way with you, just trying to straighten this stuff out. I'm new to psych so I'm guessing the reason why this kind of thing would be acceptable would be:


(ii) the prospective scientific, educational, or applied value justifies the deception.

I see what she did as a "more personal role" the best way to get true reactions (at least the truest you can) via the internet.

However she hasn't come back to clarify anything so I hardly doubt this was for ANY class, more of a butt-saver

however the section on consent still stands,

1.4.2 Consent

No-one should be coerced to take part in a study. Subjects must be told what is going to happen to them, they must understand what they are told and they must give consent on that basis. If the research extends over a period of time then consent must be sought on several occasions. Children’s consent should be obtained from parents or teachers (who act ‘in loco parentis’) as well ideally as from the children themselves. The emphasis here is on informed consent. If a subject agrees to take part in a study that agreement can only be to that which he understands his participation in the study to involve.




deception may be used under certain criteria, but consent must always be obtained..



edited to include paragraph on consent

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
however the section on consent still stands,

deception may be used under certain criteria, but consent must always be obtained..

This is a good point. I participated in some psych experiments in college and it was, to the best of my memory, always with informed consent. There was one case where deception was used and yes, I was rather embarrassed by the results. But there was a debrief session where the person running the experiment discussed the theory she was testing, why she did what she did and we also talked about my reactions.

Somehow I doubt this was a real experiment.

 

[Grog]

She may be a lot of things, but you can't call her a troll. Not with 700+ posts.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter how many posts a person has, if they post to deliberately stir things up, they can be classified a troll. It's a myth that a troll has to have only a handful of posts.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Grog
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how many posts a person has, if they post to deliberately stir things up, they can be classified a troll. It's a myth that a troll has to have only a handful of posts.

I won't debate the definition of a troll here, but that is not correct. From the New Hacker's Dictionary:

troll v.,n.

1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.