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 support the view of humans as machines
I had a lot of random scattered data for specifically trials with the non-dominant hand and the average time from experiment 2 ended up being a little more than my baseline value, which could be interpreted as me somehow getting worse at the task using my right hand, or just staying the same after 8 more trials. If this data were to support the idea that I am built like a machine, I would have at least showed some improvement.
There are also many variables in this lab that I was curious about, like how the person I did the lab with could affect my data. If I had known the person better, would I have faster reaction times because we would be more in sync? If I had hardly known the person at all would my data be even more various? Another variable is if I were looking at the numbers on the ruler or not. The numbers could put me in a more logical mindset and cause me to behave more like a machine, or they could just be distracting.
After consideration of these variables I realized that as humans we unconsciously adapt to situations and that I would have to do many different variations of this lab in order to say with confidence whether my data does or does not support the view of humans as machines.
