CMU Psychology Department

ReppinNY · ReppinNY

My results do not support chapter 2 of Gleitman because the theory stated there is of humans being machines. Machines are programmed to perform specific tasks and they perform these tasks in a consistent manner. My results, although they had a pattern, were not perfectly consistent...

EaglesFan15 · EaglesFan15

After reading several of the responses on this forum, it seems that I have a somewhat differentiated opinion on this matter. I think of a machine as a methodical apparatus that offers consistent results for the most part, but is still highly capable of producing an unexpected result. For instance...

a sophomore · a sophomore

This experiment does not support the view that the human mind is similar to a machine. In theory, a machine's results would have been consistent from the baseline test to the last trial of the experiment. In other words, a machine would have been able to perform this experiment with little to no vari...

102intro · 102intro

pen name: blueberries1984 There is some evidence from my lab that could support the idea that humans are machines, like the fact that my times from experiment 3b are exactly the same, and that my times from 3a are almost exactly the same, but still I would have to stay that overall my results do not suppo...

102intro · 102intro

Megaman I've read that people use the example that because the results of different hands exhibit different results we are not like machines. In what way though do machines have to be symmetrical. Machines have asymmetrical parts that perform different tasks at different speeds. As far as I am conc...

102intro · 102intro

Pen Name: 700nm I am not like a machine because I demonstrated the very human-like quality of inconsistency. My times varied wildly. Had I been a machine, whether I had been focusing on the stimulus or my response, my times would have stayed (much closer to) exactly the same.

mazzima · mazzima

Humans are not like machines, for there is always human error. While machines can perform without error, humans cannot. This is clearly shown through the results of the lab. Humans, however, have a learning curve which allows them to improve over time, it is still not equal to the machines' accuracy...

102intro · 102intro

Pen name: Cloud My results do not support the view of humans being analogous to machines. My results were pretty inconsistent with each trial; there was no established pattern, as would be in the case of machines. Moreover, humans are more susceptible to error and inaccuracy, whereas machines are u...

102intro · 102intro

My results do not support the view of humans being analogous to machines. My results were pretty inconsistent with each trial; there was no established pattern, as would be in the case of machines. Moreover, humans are more susceptible to error and inaccuracy, whereas machines are usually either c...

102intro · 102intro

Pen Name: LILA17 The data on this lab and my own experience as a participant do not support the view of humans as machines. Inconsistencies in the data are evident, a fact which supports the many complexities that constitute the brain and human activity. Machines are always functioning in the same ex...

Lebron James · Lebron James

I think the results of this lab both support and do not support the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman. I feel that we can become better at activities as seen with the multiple trials, but its not anywhere close to the extent of being consistent like a machine. The general r...

golden_cacts7 · golden_cacts7

Question 4: How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman?The differing results between our dominant and non-dominant hands prove that we humans are not like machines. Unlike machines that are able to perform consisten...

102intro · 102intro

The lab results show that the human brain is not a machine. Unlike a machine, it is incapable of duplicate with accuracy and precision, a set task. My results proved this since there was no uniformity in my results. pen name: Walawala

102intro · 102intro

I do not agree with Gleitman that humans are similar to machinery. My results were very random and unpredictable whereas the machinery should show consistent and very stable results. Even if my results showed some improvments, my results cannot conclude that humans are similar to machinery beca...

aj122 · aj122

I would say that based on the results, humans are not like machines. Because of the wide variability in the results, humans are not like machines, which produce the same results over and over again.

102intro · 102intro

pen name: apple Even though humans may share some common traits with machines. I believe humans to be more different than similar to machines. Once programmed, a machine is set about to do a particular task over and aver again with little inconsistency. Even though a human has the ability to perform t...

102intro · 102intro

(1 pen name: SallyThe results of this lab do not support the view of humans as machines mainly because of the variety of the results.In contrast to humans, machines are very regular and perform much more consistently.Although the reaction mechanisms of the nervous system work as machines do, in a s...

102intro · 102intro

Pen name : Blackhawk Similarities:Like a machine, the brain does not get better with practice. My times were inconsistent and did not improve with practice. Differences:The brain is not at all consistent like a machine while repeating the same task. While a machine would have the same response tim...

phantomm · phantomm

I believe the results demonstrated that the reaction times of humans were always fluctuating. An observation drawn was that the times increased as more trials were performed, the reaction times tend to be quicker, while there were still bits of fluctuations in between. But these observations alr...

102intro · 102intro

pn: el tigre My inconsistent lab results showed that the human brain is very dissimilar to a machine. While a machine is capable of repeating a programmed task ad infinitum, my results were shoddy at best. My results varied on several variables such as external distractions and concentration level...

blueberry · blueberry

i disagree because i dont think that human beings behave like machines. If a machine were to preform this task, then it would preform it at the same timing every time, it wouldnt vary times like we do. A machine would also preform the task much quicker than a human being because, they do not have to wait...

102intro · 102intro

sarah tonin How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman? My results for this lab do not support the view of humans as machines. My times were very inconsistent and unpredictable, whereas if a machine had done the experime...

102intro · 102intro

PN: jkwong The result of the lab does not support Glietmans view of humans as machines. The results displayed inconsistent and varied reaction times of both dominant and non dominant hands. Unlike humans, machines are very consistent with their performance since they are meant to perform certain...

J1109 · J1109

Based on the varying results, a human does not have the same results as a machine would. There was little improvement throughout the duration of the test, yet the reaction time went up and down for no apparent reason.

102intro · 102intro

Pen Name: Fields The data that was collected today proves that humans are not like machines and that we cannot act like machines. We as humans cannot reproduce our results like a machine. A human will catch the ruler at several different heights, usually getting better, but still very unpredictab...

102intro · 102intro

pn: darkstorm This lab result disagrees with the view that humans are like machines. While a machine can be programmed to reproduce out consistent results given an output with little or no margin of error, a human is subjected to inconsistency, as shown in the differing reaction times. Human factor...

102intro · 102intro

pen name: oarsman If the results of this lab support the idea of humans as machines it supports them only as extremely complex machines. Machines can get better at something they do only if they are reprogrammed. Since I got faster at reacting, if I were a machine I would have to be one that is capable of r...

102intro · 102intro

When comparing humans to machiens, did Descates address machines as something accurate, perfunctory? I believe he wanted to emphasize a different characterist of machines: the body with a governing system that commands subordinate branches to follow its orders - just like our brain gove...

102intro · 102intro

Based on my results from this lab, I do not agree with Gleitman's theories about humans being like machines. My reaction times were all very random and a machine should be consistent in its performance. One could say that my lack of improvement mimics a machine because machines cannot learn, but this...

102intro · 102intro

Pen name: 151515 My results do not support the idea of humans as machines. My data were too inconsistent to fit into the machine ideals. If humans were really like machines, than the results would have been consistent with the idea that the times would have gotten faster and faster with the more attemp...

Topic		Started By	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Ruler Lab (Preview) My results do not support chapter 2 of Gleitman because the theory stated there is of humans being machines. Machines are programmed to perform specific tasks and they perform these tasks in a consistent manner. My results, although they had a pattern, were not perfectly consistent...	ReppinNY	0	162	Sep 15, 2009 by ReppinNY
	Ruler Lab #4 (Preview) After reading several of the responses on this forum, it seems that I have a somewhat differentiated opinion on this matter. I think of a machine as a methodical apparatus that offers consistent results for the most part, but is still highly capable of producing an unexpected result. For instance...	EaglesFan15	1	210	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	RULER LAB (Preview) This experiment does not support the view that the human mind is similar to a machine. In theory, a machine's results would have been consistent from the baseline test to the last trial of the experiment. In other words, a machine would have been able to perform this experiment with little to no vari...	a sophomore	2	227	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab: Many Variables (Preview) pen name: blueberries1984 There is some evidence from my lab that could support the idea that humans are machines, like the fact that my times from experiment 3b are exactly the same, and that my times from 3a are almost exactly the same, but still I would have to stay that overall my results do not suppo...	102intro	0	200	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Megaman I've read that people use the example that because the results of different hands exhibit different results we are not like machines. In what way though do machines have to be symmetrical. Machines have asymmetrical parts that perform different tasks at different speeds. As far as I am conc...	102intro	0	161	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Pen Name: 700nm I am not like a machine because I demonstrated the very human-like quality of inconsistency. My times varied wildly. Had I been a machine, whether I had been focusing on the stimulus or my response, my times would have stayed (much closer to) exactly the same.	102intro	2	242	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Humans != Machines (Preview) Humans are not like machines, for there is always human error. While machines can perform without error, humans cannot. This is clearly shown through the results of the lab. Humans, however, have a learning curve which allows them to improve over time, it is still not equal to the machines' accuracy...	mazzima	4	232	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler lab (Preview) Pen name: Cloud My results do not support the view of humans being analogous to machines. My results were pretty inconsistent with each trial; there was no established pattern, as would be in the case of machines. Moreover, humans are more susceptible to error and inaccuracy, whereas machines are u...	102intro	0	186	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) My results do not support the view of humans being analogous to machines. My results were pretty inconsistent with each trial; there was no established pattern, as would be in the case of machines. Moreover, humans are more susceptible to error and inaccuracy, whereas machines are usually either c...	102intro	0	178	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Pen Name: LILA17 The data on this lab and my own experience as a participant do not support the view of humans as machines. Inconsistencies in the data are evident, a fact which supports the many complexities that constitute the brain and human activity. Machines are always functioning in the same ex...	102intro	3	247	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab Question (Preview) I think the results of this lab both support and do not support the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman. I feel that we can become better at activities as seen with the multiple trials, but its not anywhere close to the extent of being consistent like a machine. The general r...	Lebron James	2	220	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Question 4: How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman?The differing results between our dominant and non-dominant hands prove that we humans are not like machines. Unlike machines that are able to perform consisten...	golden_cacts7	2	210	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler lab (Preview) The lab results show that the human brain is not a machine. Unlike a machine, it is incapable of duplicate with accuracy and precision, a set task. My results proved this since there was no uniformity in my results. pen name: Walawala	102intro	1	217	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler lab (Preview) I do not agree with Gleitman that humans are similar to machinery. My results were very random and unpredictable whereas the machinery should show consistent and very stable results. Even if my results showed some improvments, my results cannot conclude that humans are similar to machinery beca...	102intro	8	249	Sep 15, 2009 by terravm
	Ruler Lab Response (Preview) I would say that based on the results, humans are not like machines. Because of the wide variability in the results, humans are not like machines, which produce the same results over and over again.	aj122	2	244	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler lab (Preview) pen name: apple Even though humans may share some common traits with machines. I believe humans to be more different than similar to machines. Once programmed, a machine is set about to do a particular task over and aver again with little inconsistency. Even though a human has the ability to perform t...	102intro	0	170	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler lab (Preview) (1 pen name: SallyThe results of this lab do not support the view of humans as machines mainly because of the variety of the results.In contrast to humans, machines are very regular and perform much more consistently.Although the reaction mechanisms of the nervous system work as machines do, in a s...	102intro	0	188	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Pen name : Blackhawk Similarities:Like a machine, the brain does not get better with practice. My times were inconsistent and did not improve with practice. Differences:The brain is not at all consistent like a machine while repeating the same task. While a machine would have the same response tim...	102intro	0	180	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab Q4 Posting (Preview) I believe the results demonstrated that the reaction times of humans were always fluctuating. An observation drawn was that the times increased as more trials were performed, the reaction times tend to be quicker, while there were still bits of fluctuations in between. But these observations alr...	phantomm	0	190	Sep 15, 2009 by phantomm
	RULER LAB YO (Preview) pn: el tigre My inconsistent lab results showed that the human brain is very dissimilar to a machine. While a machine is capable of repeating a programmed task ad infinitum, my results were shoddy at best. My results varied on several variables such as external distractions and concentration level...	102intro	1	221	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler lab-siva (Preview) i disagree because i dont think that human beings behave like machines. If a machine were to preform this task, then it would preform it at the same timing every time, it wouldnt vary times like we do. A machine would also preform the task much quicker than a human being because, they do not have to wait...	blueberry	1	191	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab. (Preview) sarah tonin How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman? My results for this lab do not support the view of humans as machines. My times were very inconsistent and unpredictable, whereas if a machine had done the experime...	102intro	2	203	Sep 15, 2009 by kelly
	Ruler lab (Preview) PN: jkwong The result of the lab does not support Glietmans view of humans as machines. The results displayed inconsistent and varied reaction times of both dominant and non dominant hands. Unlike humans, machines are very consistent with their performance since they are meant to perform certain...	102intro	2	216	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	psych lab--ruler response (Preview) Based on the varying results, a human does not have the same results as a machine would. There was little improvement throughout the duration of the test, yet the reaction time went up and down for no apparent reason.	J1109	1	338	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler Lab (Preview) Pen Name: Fields The data that was collected today proves that humans are not like machines and that we cannot act like machines. We as humans cannot reproduce our results like a machine. A human will catch the ruler at several different heights, usually getting better, but still very unpredictab...	102intro	2	216	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler LAB (Preview) pn: darkstorm This lab result disagrees with the view that humans are like machines. While a machine can be programmed to reproduce out consistent results given an output with little or no margin of error, a human is subjected to inconsistency, as shown in the differing reaction times. Human factor...	102intro	1	244	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	ruler lab (Preview) pen name: oarsman If the results of this lab support the idea of humans as machines it supports them only as extremely complex machines. Machines can get better at something they do only if they are reprogrammed. Since I got faster at reacting, if I were a machine I would have to be one that is capable of r...	102intro	0	175	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Machines? Humans? (Preview) When comparing humans to machiens, did Descates address machines as something accurate, perfunctory? I believe he wanted to emphasize a different characterist of machines: the body with a governing system that commands subordinate branches to follow its orders - just like our brain gove...	102intro	2	280	Sep 15, 2009 by Marla Singer
	ruler lab (Preview) Based on my results from this lab, I do not agree with Gleitman's theories about humans being like machines. My reaction times were all very random and a machine should be consistent in its performance. One could say that my lack of improvement mimics a machine because machines cannot learn, but this...	102intro	0	179	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
	Ruler lab (Preview) Pen name: 151515 My results do not support the idea of humans as machines. My data were too inconsistent to fit into the machine ideals. If humans were really like machines, than the results would have been consistent with the idea that the times would have gotten faster and faster with the more attemp...	102intro	0	199	Sep 15, 2009 by 102intro
«First < 1 … 31 32 33 34 35 … 44 > Last» \| Page of 44 sorted by