--Original published at Rachel's Blog

The Mythbuster video that I decided to watch was “Does Weaving Through Traffic Actually Get You To Your Destination Faster?”  My initial thought was that this could be possibly true, depending on the situation.  When on a highway it can work to pass a slow driver, but sometimes in very heavy traffic it will not work because chances are, everyone is trying to get to the same place (straight until they find their exit), and everyone will be sitting in the same traffic for the same amount of time.  On a regular street, I do not think it works because everyone is already in a rush as it is, and when I drive, I feel like people naturally drive faster than slower.

In this video, the myth that is being tested is is it better to stay in one lane while in heavy traffic, or does lane weaving work?  To test this, Tory will be in a car and he is going to pick one lane to stay in the whole time.  Kari and Grant will be driving in another car, but they will be weaving throughout traffic.  The goal was to see who would get to the destination first.

One strength from this video was that both cars were travelling from San Francisco to San Jose which is 46 miles.  This is a good distance to test because it is not too close but not too far away.  With this distance, their experiment will run properly and they will get proper results because this is probably an average amount of time that people spend on the highway.  Also, it is a fair distance for both people in the experiment to travel.  Another strength was the time they chose and the highway they chose.  They chose to perform the experiment at 7:30 a.m. which is a great time to use because there will be lots of traffic due to everyone going to work.  The use of the same highway was a strength because it can be seen as a control in this experiment because using the same road will help to have more accurate results since both cars will be driving and sitting through the same amount of traffic.

One weakness from the video was that they only performed one test.  This is a problem because it could have been lighter traffic than expected or a different factor could have swayed the outcome.  They should have replicated the experiment to ensure what they were thinking was correct.  Also, they could have tested this in the evening to see if these results differed in night time rush hour; there could be more or less traffic than at 7:30 a.m.  A second weakness that I observed was that both drivers knew each other, they knew what they were testing, so they viewed it as a race against one another.  This could be a problem because maybe they were not driving how they normally do, so they were speeding or changing the way they were driving in order to win the race.  This could be fixed by having two random people drive to the same place, making sure it is equal in distance and traffic, and see who gets there first.  This will fix the problem because the people will not know that they are racing against one another and therefore, will drive how they normally do on a given day.  For the two people asked to do this, one will stay in one lane of traffic and the other will weave through traffic.  If they do not have someone to drive with them, they could set a timer and see how long it takes them to get to their destination.

--Original published at Nadia's Blog

For this weeks First Impression Post, I chose to watch the Mythbuster’s short clip that tested if talking on the phone while driving was as dangerous as driving drunk. I predicted that driving while on the phone would be dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as driving drunk. The scientists created a three part experiment in order to solve the myth. The experiment consisted of a brake test, parallel parking and a time trial. Each of the three tests were performed by a man and a women in three different states, once when they were sober, once on the phone and once while they were drunk. After experimentation the two test subjects had both passed all three trials while sober, yet failed them both when they were either on the phone or drunk. Although the tests were failed while talking on the phone and drunk, talking on the phone was found most dangerous.

Although the results seem accurate, there are a few weaknesses to this experiment. In any given experiment there should be a number of individuals to use as subjects so that there is an accurate data collection. In this experiment there were only two test subjects. In order to have a wider and more accurate set of data, there should be more test subjects.  Another weakness was the fact that the experiment was only tested once. In order for the results to be more precise the scientists should’ve repeated the three tests multiple times. Lastly one of the greatest weaknesses of this experiment was that there could be a great variation in the two subjects when they were “drunk”. They did not say how much each individual had to drink, nor did they state if they were intoxicated equally. It could possibly be that the man was more sober than the women. In order for this to be more accurate they would need to measure the level of intoxication that each individual was under. On the other hand the positive aspect of this experiment was that the scientists created three different trials in order to test the driver’s ability. Another strength to this experiment was that the test subjects had to complete each task while in three different states, once sober, once on the phone and once while drunk. This made the results more accurate since each individual had the same set of instructions.

--Original published at Sierra's College Blog

For this week’s first impression post, I chose to look at option two because I have seen the popular TV show Mythbusters several times. I chose “Do Men Really Find Blonds More Attractive?” as the short clip to critique. In this clip, the two men used the scientific method to test their question. They used speed dating as the environment for their experiment. They conducted three different tests with nine different men in each. There were the same nine women in each of the three tests; however, the women changed their hair color for each test. This allowed a conclusion to be drawn on whether or not men preferred blonds, or were men attracted to someone’s personality instead. Watching this short clip, I was able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the experiment.

This experiment had multiple strengths because the team was able to use the scientific method as a guideline to tell whether or not men actually prefer blonds. They were able to start with a question that would lead their experiment. Then, they found some research about why men may prefer blond haired women. They saw that there was a cliche from a Monroe movie, where men preferred blonds. Also, they saw during an ice age, there was a mutation and blond hair became a recessive gene. With this research, they stayed with the main hypothesis from the past that men prefer blonds. Research allows a respectable hypothesis to form. Now, the team was able to conduct an experiment. Their experiment was very well constructed because they included variables, had a time limit, and conducted multiple tests. The independent variable was the women’s hair color (wig): blond, brown, and red. Each man only had a specific amount of time allotted to meet and make connections with the women. This is important because all the men need to have the same time with each women for accurate results. They allowed three different sets of nine guys to speed date with nine women. For each set of guys, the women had a different color wig on. This was a crucial aspect for the experiment because it determined if the men preferred a specific hair color of a woman, or if their personality was more important. Conducting three tests was extremely important because multiple tests lead to multiple answers, creating a more accurate result. This allowed the experiment to have a reliable conclusion. The team took the data from the three tests and created tables. Collecting the data in tables, allowed the team to conclude the hypothesis was incorrect: men do not prefer blonds. This conclusion allows people to see hair color is not what men prefer, but a personality does. Many strong techniques were used for their experiment.

Even though there were many strengths in this experiment, there were a few weaknesses that could be improved upon. During the end of the experiment, the team did not include a discussion about ways to improve the test or talk about variables or factors that could have led to different results. This was a problem because in the scientific method discussing the results and explaining them is critical. The team could have saved a few more minutes at the end of the clip to complete this. Another weakness I saw was they chose twenty-seven different men; however, they did not say the ages of these men. This could be a problem because if all the men were younger, than the older population is not depicted. To fix this, the team could conduct an experiment testing older versus younger generations of men. Then, they could combine the results from each age group and make an overall conclusion. Lastly, the independent variable, the hair color, is a problem in the experiment. Only three colors of hair were chosen for the experiment, which left out many other types of women in the world. Even though it is a TV show and there is limited time, more hair colors and different lengths of hair should be included in the tests to find more accurate results.

Overall, Mythbusters created a well-constructed experiment, included many details, and created an interesting test for their audience.

--Original published at Melissa's Blog

The Mythbusters short clip I watched was “Do Hands-Free Devices Improve Driving Safety?” Before watching the video I was confident that hands free-devices are much safer than holding a phone while driving. However, the clip stated otherwise.

To test this question, the two men made a short driving course and took turns completing it, while they were on the phone with the other man. One positive to this method was that the course included sharp turns to ensure the men had to really focus on driving. Also, both men completed the course twice, once while using a hands-free device and once while holding a phone. Another strength to this method was that while one man was driving, the other was asking him questions. Asking questions instead of having a simple conversation made it more challenging for the drivers because they had to think about their answers. The only weakness I noticed was that this driving course wasn’t totally realistic because it was lined with orange cones. From personal experience, I know that orange cones are stressful to drive through, and thus, could have made the men anxious. The results from this method showed that using both the hands-free device and phone were dangerous and distracting.

The Mythbusters were thorough because they used a second method, in which 30 volunteers participated in a virtual driving course. This virtual course was realistic because it included other drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and required the driver to follow a GPS. In addition, the Mythbusters were continuously asking the drivers questions, to add to the distraction. This method had the same results as the previous one; both the hands-free and phone were unsafe. However, I observed some weaknesses. First, the 30 volunteers were split into two groups, one used the hands-free device and the other the phone. It would be more precise to have all 30 volunteers do both versions of the test. This would improve the test because the phone-volunteers may have failed because they are bad at driving with one hand, and could have passed if they were able to place both hands on the wheel. Also, listening to a GPS and someone on the phone made the test much harder. To make it more practical, I think the volunteers should do a third version in which the only distractions were the other drivers and questions.

--Original published at Miguel's College Blog

For this week’s First Impression Post, I watched the Mythbusters experiment on whether talking on a cell phone will driving was as dangerous as driving drunk. At first glance, I would assume that driving distracted is as dangerous as driving inebriated because with both, a driver’s focus is not one-hundred percent completely on the task at hand. In order to test this myth, the scientists developed a series of tests that would simulate driving conditions drivers could encounter. There was a brake test to simulate reaction time at a certain speed, a parallel parking test, and an accident avoidance test to simulate different driving courses. The scientists would make the participants take the tests sober and without a cellular device as a control, then again following directions on a cellular deice, then lastly after a few alcoholic beverages. As for the participants, the scientists used their own employees as subjects, one woman, one man. The tests showed that both the man and woman were capable of passing the course while sober, but both failed driving the course using a cellular device and after drinking.

The experiment conducted had strong and weak qualities. I appreciate that for the course, the scientists used more than one test to try and employ normal driving situations as much as they could. I also appreciated that when the participants were driving with a cellular device, they were given the same instructions to keep variations to a minimum. Unfortunately, under the drunk driving test, the scientists were not as descriptive as the other tests. While the viewers are under the impression that the participants are driving inebriated, there is no information on how many drinks or what BAC (blood alcohol content) the participants had at the time of the experiment. Less variation during this part of the experiment would have helped with reducing error in their results. With this experiment, I think having more participants would also aid in supporting their hypothesis because there is more data to develop a conclusion from. Though the participants both failed driving with a cellular device and driving drunk, the scientists concluded that the participants failed the test with a cellular device by a larger margin than driving drunk, supporting their hypothesis.

--Original published at marybraun99

I chose to watch the Myth busters’ video “Do Gentleman Prefer Blondes?” I particularly did not think this was correct, because even though there is a connection to the physical appearance of women, personality plays a larger role in men, but not necessarily in young boys. I think that the experiment conducted was fair, and kept a constant, which was the personality and hair color, and the women that were being used along with keeping the men constant. The independent variable was the  different hair colors. I think that it was a fair way to achieve a consensus, although they might have wanted to use a bigger sample size, and test the hypothesis with more than one round. At the end of the first round, blondes were favored, by almost 10% but after two more rounds it was a tie, and there was no difference in hair colors. I think that it was a hypothesis that could be retested to compare results, maybe in different areas of the US, or with different types of men. The results could ultimately vary, depending on the different places throughout the world, especially where blonde hair is a more natural color, such as in Sweden, where a lot of women have blonde hair, with blue eyes. I personally believe that to get more potentially accurate results, there also could have been three different rounds, with three different sets of men, and then three different sets of women, to increase the accuracy, while always keeping one thing constant during the experiment. Overall, I believe that there could have been more research, or more samples, but the samples were tested more than once, and ultimately achieved a tie, which could lead to a fairly accurate outcome.

--Original published at Max'sPHY105blog

For this weeks first impression post, I choose to comment on the Mythbusters experiment to answer the question, “Does weaving through traffic actually get you to your destination faster?” To test this myth, the scientists split up into two cars and raced on a set highway route during a rush hour. One car would constantly change lanes to get around slow moving traffic while the other car would stay in one lane the whole drive. At first, the car that changed lanes was in the lead, but by the half way point, the car that stayed in the same lane was in the lead. The video did not explain what happened beyond this. I was disappointed that it did not show which car won.

Many aspects of this experiment was well thought out. The fact that the cars were both traveling on the same highway during the same rush hour kept things constant. Having the cars travel during the same rush hour made conditions for both cars the same besides the fact that one of them would change lanes and the other would not. Having the cars travel on the same highway made them travel the same distance, so one car does not have any other advantage over the other.

I did feel that there were a couple of weaknesses in this experiment. One weakness was that the drivers knew they were racing one another and they raced competitively. This might create several uneven factors that could affect the outcome of the experiment. If the drivers knew they were racing against one another, one car might move faster than the speed limit to gain advantage. Also, this experiment did not appear to account for slower moving traffic such as trucks, buses, or trailers. If the car that was not allowed to change lanes got stuck behind a slower moving vehicle, car that was allowed to change lanes would have the advantage, as it could pass these slower moving vehicles. They should also consider using more cars to have certain cars stay in different lanes as some lanes contain faster moving traffic than others.

--Original published at Manda's College Blog

The Mythbuster video I chose to watch was “Are Women Better Than Men at Reading Emotions?“. The answer is a dead giveaway because for generations women were looked at as the sensitive creatures and emotional baggage (or support. I have been both). Whereas, if men were to show any type of emotion other than anger or boisterous laughter you were called a girl. So yes, the outside looking at just the outside; women are emotional thus can read emotion more than men. Lets prove this with science!

Actually, I felt the experiment conducted by these supposed scientists was slightly uninspired. By forcing their face to contort almost obnoxiously to that one emotion and asking another is that happy or sad, its almost a given. And “sexy” isn’t a emotion, so why don’t they give the participants some clear definitions! Though it was interesting seeing both a male and a female suggest “sexy”; for me it tells me how fast one is to look at the opposite sex as an object quicker than what they could’ve been feeling. The video was not as informative as it should be and reaffirming a popular opinion, there could be more done or added.

Why can’t they work with both sexes by looking at a group of females growing up in unstable homes comparing them to males who grew up in stable homes? Typically the females brain’s neuron system is larger making our emotional response quicker than mens. In a way, I would call this “motherly instinct.” But what if the female only was raised by their father where no “motherly instinct” was taught? Will they be able to even consider those around them of how they feel or would they be able to identify emotion even quicker? Will the men who were raised by both loving parents create that motherly instinct and even have that part of the brain larger than the women’s? I believe reading emotion as well as expressing them contributes how you grow up, though there is science to back up the facts of whats inside your brain, your upbringing is what feeds it.