Numerous past studies have found that individuals have a limited ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Moreover, a negative impact on memory has been found when subjects engaged in divided attention tasks at time of encoding. This study examined the effect of device-delivered notifications on the accuracy of memory through the use of a word recognition paradigm. Two groups of students were presented with the same word list and following this were tested with a two-alternative forced-choice recognition test consisting of previously presented and novel words. One group of students received numeric notifications during presentation which they were instructed to note down while the other group received no notifications. The results showed that false alarm rates were significantly greater and hit rates were significantly lower for the group which received notifications, demonstrating a mirror effect, and showing that notification-derived divided attention had a negative impact on memory.
This study examined whether a false memory effect could be demonstrated for categorized word lists. It drew inspiration from previous studies in the field of false memory, most notably in replicating and extending the Roediger-McDermott study and utilizing the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. In this study, students were presented with word lists of 2 sizes: containing 4 or 8 studied exemplars per category and were then tested on recognition with 2 types of words: words previously presented and novel words. It was predicted that the false alarm rate would be higher for new words from the studied categories and that the false alarm rate would be greater for the categories containing more exemplars. The results showed that false alarm rates were greater for new words from the studied categories as compared to new words from unstudied categories and also showed that the false alarm rate was greater for the larger categories.
This essay explores the topics of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. These topics are the subject of some scientific debate and the two theories can be viewed as being in competition. Linguistic relativism is an idea related to how language is structured and is used by people; the theory can be viewed as a weak form of linguistic determinism. The central idea of linguistic relativism is that the language spoken by a given person impacts the way that that person views the world. On the other hand, linguistic determinism is a stronger form of the same position that agrees that language affects the way that a person thinks and perceives their surroundings but goes beyond that and states that language is determinant in forming how a person thinks. Therefore, both theories attempt to demonstrate that the way that individuals think is influenced by the language that the given individual uses.
The view “that anything that we can successfully interact with by treating as if it were rational, and as if it had beliefs, desires, etc., has the very same claim to be regarded as having beliefs and desires” as humans do is one that is put forth by Daniel Dennett. This view is implausible for a multitude of reasons. It is important to note the contrast between faux beliefs and desires, and genuine beliefs and desires of rational beings. There is also the issue of conflation between metaphor and reality, the unique nature of being human, and finally the fundamental difference between non-rational things and rational beings that are able to control their impulsive and immediate pseudo-desires and pseudo-beliefs in favor of real desires and beliefs such as a human’s life purpose in the existential sense.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s declaration that “existence precedes essence” is a multifaceted statement that is invoked in order to defend existentialism against critics of it. In order to understand and analyze the phrase, all three words within it must be analyzed and then assembled together to comprehend the full meaning of the sentence. The declaration reverses the status quo thinking at the time, but allows mankind freedom. The statement is accurate, and is universally applicable to man, the author himself included.
In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche, following Schopenhauer, characterizes our experience of individuality (principium individuationis) as an illusion. He makes use of the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus to personify both sides of our humanity. Nietzsche’s ideal in this work was a human being in which the Apollonian and Dionysian elements were brought into some kind of harmony with each other. Is our individuality an illusion? What could it mean to reconcile the Apollonian and Dionysian sides of our existence?