My data clashes a little bit with the idea that humans are machines. The machine model of the human in the book presents the person as regulated and consistent. Therefore, my reaction time should have consistently gotten better. However, there were points where my reaction time would spike way up even though every trial was set up the same way. Under the machine model, this should not happen. However, I think its a little unfair to compare automated functions of the body with a conscious action like catching a ruler. In terms of automating organs and providing motivation to eat, the body does behave like a machine. This is because those things are so necessary for survival that through evolution they became perfectly consistent functions of the body. Our lives dont depend on catching rulers quickly, and so I think that even when we try to stay focused our brain is dealing with other more important things while performing this task. This may be why the times were inconsistent. In that sense (the prioritizing of tasks) our brain may function like a machine, but its completely inaccurate to say that people can have machine-like focus whenever they want on whatever we want (which would be the case if we were machines).
-- Edited by 102intro on Wednesday 16th of September 2009 08:30:07 AM
I agree with your reaction that as humans the model of machine does not apply to us. In addition to your view that as machines we would be able to concentrate fully whenever we chose to, it seems clear that as machines we would not be subject to factors such as hunger, desire to sleep or boredom; factors which can all reduce our performance. Because we are subject to these factors, and my data shows that we are (outliers and random pattern due to level of tiredness), and because we are not able to function at 100% whenever we choose, the machine model does not apply to us as humans
I also agree with this. My results would also spike way up, etc. I think that humans cannot be compared to machines over such few trials, personally. I think, given many more trials (for example 100 trials instead of 8) we, overall, would have performed better, given different times of the day, etc. There are many more factors that come into play, not the least of which can include how we feel about the experiment - needing to do well, what we think the results will be, worrying that we won't have easily explainable results, tiredness, hunger, external distractions (tv, friends, etc).
I also agree with your opinion that humans is not the model of machine. Through the Ruler Lab we discovered that depending on which part of body we concentrate the time for reaction may vary. This is the part which humans are different from machines. Machines only to repetitive work without thinking but humans do work with thinking and controling.
I agree with you in the sense that humans are only machine-like when performing duties that are essential for living (priorities). My results were somewhat consistent, but still showed variation under the different circumstances. We may be machine-like in our movements, but time always varied in these experiments.
I completely agree with your results and your view on humans as machines. My data as well had many spikes and inconsistencies showing that humans don't operate as machines while performing conscious actions like catching a ruler. However, like you said, there are some aspects of the human body, such as organ function and hunger drive, that behave I a machine-like manner.
-- Edited by 102intro on Wednesday 16th of September 2009 09:07:13 AM
I agree with you in the sense that humans are only machine-like when performing duties that are essential for living (priorities). My results were somewhat consistent, but still showed variation under the different circumstances. We may be machine-like in our movements, but time always varied in these experiments.
--Maribel
I agree that humans can definitely be machine-like, but my results showed some definite spikes in both directions, showing that consciousness overpowers our machine-like systems.
Pen Name: Ninjero
-- Edited by 102intro on Wednesday 16th of September 2009 12:03:38 PM
I also agree that humans can be machine-like, but can't commit to the idea of humans as machines. Spikes in the data show discontinuities in performance that a machine's data would not show. There are too many factors that can affect the performance of a human, especially when compared to the few factors that can get in the way of a machine's performance. Machines are completely "concentrated" on the task when they are running versus a human catching a ruler in a room with many distractions. I also think it is important to point out the personal factors that can reduce our performance as humans such as fatigue, loss of interest, and hunger - all things that a machine cannot experience.
I agree with your posting. My reaction times were not very consistent and kept increasing and decreasing which is different then what the book says for the machine model. Since we are human we are bound to make errors and not be completely consistent. If we could have machine-like focus then everyone who did this lab would have improved their times consistently. Since that is not the case then that is inaccurate.
I would completely agree that humans are not machines. Like your data, I also had spikes in my reaction times. Even though there was a somewhat consistent improvement in reaction time, the spikes in the data are enough to say that humans are not like machines, which operate on a very constant, controlled basis.
I totally agree that humans are not machines. While my data said that we improve with practice and learning. My data also shows that we respond to stimulus faster than the responding to the response. Machines work on a repetitive basis and can not change or vary with outside circumstances. My data does have one variation where it shows that the person can be influenced by an outside source. This clearly shows that we do not work like machines.
