My results from the ruler lab do not support the view of humans as machines. My reaction times were very inconsistent and had no pattern. A machine would produce the same results time after time, and even if the machine were to somehow malfunction, there would probably still be a pattern to the results, like a steady increase or decrease in reaction time. In the last few trials, my reaction times did begin to improve; a machine would simply remain consistent and never show improvement without being reprogrammed. In the stimulus and response trials, my results were fairly consistent, which can make them seem machine-like. However, there were only three trials for each of these, which is hardly enough to adequately display a trend. Additionally, my reaction times changed depending on different factors like which hand I used and what I focused on. A machine would be consistent regardless of such changes in variables.
I definitely agree with everything that you said, and especially like your point about three trials not being enough to show a trend. Well to begin with, my results were similar to yours. I did not see a clear increasing decreasing pattern in reaction time. In fact, my graphs for the left and right hand looked like sine functions, with much fluctuation in reaction time. Like you said, this clearly shows that humans are not machines because machines would show consistency. I really like what you said about three trials not being enough because it's very true; my graph for "stimulus" shows a slight improvement in reaction time but it's important to realize that those three points do not really reveal much. So great point.
-- Edited by 102intro on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 11:54:54 PM
I agree greatly that 3 or 8 trials is statistically is not enough to draw strong conclusions about improvement or randomness. But statisics aside, it is clear humans are not machines. Machines can be "random" but they can never learn. That is why even though we may be "biological machines" we are still more than machines. I saw overall improvement in my reaction times. Ultimately combining the classes data would yeild the most statisically significant data.
I agree that there is not enough data to make a accurate conclusion. I also agree that humans are not like machines because machines are more consistent. Humans also have room for variability, whereas machines are programmed to give the same output and will be consistent (unless there is a fault with the programming).
What I think is important here is not that we perform as precisely as machines (we are organic and therefore unable to obtain such consistency) but that we can be wired like machines; we can be taught both algorithms and motions. If we do things enough, they become second nature because they have been wired into our brain; they become muscle memory. I like the idea said that we are biological machines. We can respond like a machine but we always have the ability to adapt, grow and refine as well as a flexibility in motion that while it may make us less accurate makes us more able to survive.
