Hi there

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Sarah, I am what would be referred to in England, where I am originally from, as an ex-pat. Currently I live

where many believe to be the greatest city in the world New York City.  I on the other hand am not so fast to agree with that, I am more partial to London, Mostly because it is my home town where I spent my formative years.

Proposed Hypotheses - Cognitive functioning is effected more by sleep deprivation than by food deprivation.

Formulate a hypothesis , propose the best way to test it and explain why you would carry out your experiment that particular way. come up with a hypothesis and a proposal as cool and unique as each of you are!

 

Is cognitive functioning effected more by sleep deprivation than by food deprivation?

It is well known that both sleep and food deprivation effects our cognitive performance, there are many studies out there that prove that. The question that I would like to further investigate is if sleep is more important than food to produce optimal performance in cognitive function.

 

 

The best way I propose to testing this theory is the following process.

First I would do some Archival Research. This form of research that entails looking at existing data to discover what is already known regarding my hypotheses. 

The additional experimentation detailed below would each be done repeatedly with different control groups under the following three conditions over set length of time;

1. Subjects will be neither sleep nor food deprived,

2. Subjects will be food deprived,

3. Subjects will be sleep deprived.

The testing under settings described in condition 1 would be to provide me with a baseline to see which one of the deprivations,  sleep deprivation or food deprivation would make the results deviate the most from their unaffected full cognitive functioning. 

Following the initial discovery from the archival research I propose to implement Naturalistic Observation over time to watch and study change in general behavior due to the deprivations. This would best be carried out remotely and hidden so as not to produce Observer Effect  - a change in natural behavior in the test subjects. 

I would then like to follow up with standard cognitive testing over set time and intervals also under the 3 conditions described above.  

 

This method is best for the experimental phase since  it provides me with the opportunities to submit each test group to both sleep deprivation and food deprivation separately and then submitting them to standardized cognitive testing in all 3 conditions, thus allowing me to ascertain how the individuals are effected and by which deprivation they are effected more and by how far they have deviated from the baseline supplied by the testing under the circumstances put forth above in condition 1.

To perhaps take this hypotheses and experiment one step further I would employ a Correlational Study to carry out further comparison on groups segregated by age and gender to ascertain the relation between age or gender and the effect of deprivation.  I would then be able to conclude based on my research, at what stage in life sleep and/or food would play the most important role in our optimal cognitive function, and if men and women are effected in the same way at the same ages.

Intuition and Common Sense V. Scientific Approach

Do you think Intuition and common sense are sufficient for understanding why people act the way they do? In what ways is scientific approach appropriate for studying human behavior?

To assist in understanding why intuition and common sense may not be enough to understand why people act the way they do, let me first clarify what they are.  Both can be classified as gut instinct and are biased personal opinions with no research of any sort to back them up.  Intuition and common sense are based solely on personal feelings and or opinions not fact or findings.

 

 

To answer the question "in what ways is scientific approach appropriate for studying human behavior?" I would clarify that a scientific approach is the opposite of what intuition and common sense are.  Scientific approach is based on research and results of repeated testing that are then experimented repeatedly over set length of time to ensure that the said results stand true even after vigorous scrutinization.

Scientific methods used for finding answers are far more valid and legitimate than those resulting from intuition and common sense.  The latter are often inaccurate.  Scientific approach provides us with more objective and dispassionate reasoning based on repeated scientific testing.  Further experiments using larger and often wider variety of test subjects are then carried out to ascertain and support that the original reasoning and results hold up to further investigation.

Both perspectives are important. For example, knowing cases in greater depth ensures that quantitative research is grounded in real-world situations and is less likely to be misleading. Intuition can also help scientists figure out what variables to consider and how to build an appropriate model.

However, intuition and common sense are by no means sufficient for understanding why people act the way they do.  At most they may serve as an initial idea for a scientific experiment that if carried out efficiently will either support or nullify the original intuition or idea bought about by common sense thought. Scientific approach has the advantage of being detail-oriented, logical, and quantitative and can be highly evidence-based, given a statistically accurate weight to each factor considered. The Scientific approach is specifically designed to eliminate bias and faulty thinking, making it a lot more appropriate for studying human behavior as it yields more accurate and reliable results.

 

 

 

An example supporting the Scientific approach would be:  patients with serious illnesses that are discussing treatment options with the doctor, do not want to hear their doctor,“I’ve only given out this pill twice. Both patients died, but I knew each of them really well.”  It would be a lot more encouraging for them to hear,“this pill has been given out 10,000 times and only two people have ever died.  I never met those two people, but there’s a 99.98% chance the pill will cure you.”