The Observer Effect

[Amber Zade]

The observer effect is a principle of social psychology which states that the behavior of an individual or group is changed simply by being observed.

It's my opinion that the individuals being observed don't even need to know they are being observed. But then, I'm sort of out there.

I'm wondering how this theory might apply to and/or impacts online posting, online writing communities (or any online community), online critiques - etc.

So, I'm asking .... whatdayathink?

 

[Emurelda]

The observer effect is a principle of social psychology which states that the behavior of an individual or group is changed simply by being observed.

It's my opinion that the individuals being observed don't even need to know they are being observed. But then, I'm sort of out there.

I'm wondering how this theory might apply to and/or impacts online posting, online writing communities (or any online community), online critiques - etc.

So, I'm asking .... whatdayathink?

Also known as 'Schrodinger's cat'...the outcome is always skewed once you open the box. Works with nature too.

I agree that's why I'm not a big fan of measuring learning outcomes as I don't believe that you can ever truly measure what actual learning has taken place (vs memorising). What I do use is the metrics of the toy and games industry...purchases, clicks, online time engagement.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

It's a depressing thought, for even though most of us go through life aware that we're being monitored constantly, we don't appreciate quite how what we write online can be used against us. Employers, government agencies and fraudsters all trawl social media and forums for information on people they're targetting. People have lost their jobs because they were foolish enough to post photos of them enjoying a few days on the beach when they claimed to be at home with an illness. Many folk don't make it to interview, as their social media postings reveal their attitudes and leisure activities as being at odds with the ethics of the potential employer. Burglars use forums to find out when someone is away on holiday.

A good friend of mine was the victim of a fraud attempt a few years ago, with multiple mortgage applications made in her name. She was dumbfounded by how much they knew about her, realising that they'd found vital details from her FB posts, as well as a couple of forums that she used. Since then she's changed key details of her profile, as well as adopting different user names. She's a very direct and honest person, and dislikes the falsehoods that she has to remember to use simply to communicate with others.

I saw an interview with a man who'd worked for MI5, the British Intelligence Agency, who told of how he'd been tasked with a training exercise to ruin a citizen's life though the information he could find about him online. This wasn't some villain or spy they were investigating as being a threat, just an ordinary worker chosen as random. The trainee agent was appalled, for though innocent passers-by are used for exercises such as trailing them through a crowd or testing facial recognition software, he effectively ruined this stranger's life by tampering with his bank accounts and health records. Such government interference formed the plot of Will Smith's best film Enemy of the State—truth is always stranger and nastier than fiction.

As the tagline for the movie goes: 'It's not paranoia if they're really after you.'

 

[Jennifer Stone]

When I took my childcare course, we, the students, were warned to be careful when performing observations on the children. In this instance, they were done to assess the children's development and understand any additional help the child might need. The need for discretion is more in case the children see what you're doing, then you get plagued with 'what you doing?', 'what you writing?', 'why you writing?' questions. Some children do act differently when they know they're being watched, usually because they know they'll get caught doing something naughty

 

[Nicole Wilson]

It's a depressing thought, for even though most of us go through life aware that we're being monitored constantly, we don't appreciate quite how what we write online can be used against us. Employers, government agencies and fraudsters all trawl social media and forums for information on people they're targetting. People have lost their jobs because they were foolish enough to post photos of them enjoying a few days on the beach when they claimed to be at home with an illness. Many folk don't make it to interview, as their social media postings reveal their attitudes and leisure activities as being at odds with the ethics of the potential employer. Burglars use forums to find out when someone is away on holiday.

A good friend of mine was the victim of a fraud attempt a few years ago, with multiple mortgage applications made in her name. She was dumbfounded by how much they knew about her, realising that they'd found vital details from her FB posts, as well as a couple of forums that she used. Since then she's changed key details of her profile, as well as adopting different user names. She's a very direct and honest person, and dislikes the falsehoods that she has to remember to use simply to communicate with others.

I saw an interview with a man who'd worked for MI5, the British Intelligence Agency, who told of how he'd been tasked with a training exercise to ruin a citizen's life though the information he could find about him online. This wasn't some villain or spy they were investigating as being a threat, just an ordinary worker chosen as random. The trainee agent was appalled, for though innocent passers-by are used for exercises such as trailing them through a crowd or testing facial recognition software, he effectively ruined this stranger's life by tampering with his bank accounts and health records. Such government interference formed the plot of Will Smith's best film Enemy of the State—truth is always stranger and nastier than fiction.

As the tagline for the movie goes: 'It's not paranoia if they're really after you.'

*adding that movie to my list of to- watch*
This is exactly why I'm relatively careful about what I say online. My Facebook privacy is set to just my friends and I don't friend anyone I haven't either met in person or have had a lot of interaction with. I never reveal that I'm going on vacation until after I'm back (including on facebook) because I don't want anyone to know my apartment is empty.

All of my twitter, blog, and Litopia posts are carefully considered because once something's on the internet, it can never be truly taken down.

 

[Amber Zade]

Also known as 'Schrodinger's cat'...the outcome is always skewed once you open the box. Works with nature too.

I agree that's why I'm not a big fan of measuring learning outcomes as I don't believe that you can ever truly measure what actual learning has taken place (vs memorising). What I do use is the metrics of the toy and games industry...purchases, clicks, online time engagement.

It's like Schrodinger's Cat but it isn't the same thing as Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's cat is a paradox. Part of Schrodinger's cat is that we don't know the state of the cat until the box is opened.

a cat imagined as being enclosed in a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source (unpredictably) emits radiation, the cat being considered (according to quantum mechanics) to be simultaneously both dead and alive until the box is opened and the cat observed.
​

The observer effect is something which has been researched and proven - as much as anything can be proved. Schrodinger's Cat, while similar, is a thought game, a paradox which can not be proved. Or, would require things we haven't yet thought of to prove.

I guess I don't completely understand what you do. Do you teach people with online games? Measuring engagement does seem like a good way to gauge whether learning has taken place - it doesn't really measure comprehension but I question how we can measure comprehension anyway.

When I went back to school I had to take writing and language placement tests because I didn't have my old college transcript and my SATs were WAY too old. A computer graded my essay and it did it instantly. This really bothered me. I placed well but .... I don't believe computers are as smart as people and writing ... it's an art form. Obviously, there are those - a LOT of those - who believe a binary machine can be programmed to evaluate writing (an art form). To me its an indicator of the value placed on language and writing.

 

[Jason Byrne]

*adding that movie to my list of to- watch*
This is exactly why I'm relatively careful about what I say online. My Facebook privacy is set to just my friends and I don't friend anyone I haven't either met in person or have had a lot of interaction with. I never reveal that I'm going on vacation until after I'm back (including on facebook) because I don't want anyone to know my apartment is empty.

All of my twitter, blog, and Litopia posts are carefully considered because once something's on the internet, it can never be truly taken down.

It's a good one. And did a good job of describing the job now done by Homeland, a few years before the agency was even founded.

The observer effect is a principle of social psychology which states that the behavior of an individual or group is changed simply by being observed.

It's my opinion that the individuals being observed don't even need to know they are being observed. But then, I'm sort of out there.

I'm wondering how this theory might apply to and/or impacts online posting, online writing communities (or any online community), online critiques - etc.

So, I'm asking .... whatdayathink?

People absolutely behave differently when observed, and I would agree even when unaware. There have been very strange things proven with subatomic particles and observation, showing that you can alter an event through observation... even if the observation occurs after the event is already over. Yeah. And then consider the effect human emotions can have on the molecular structure of water, and the fact that we are ourselves primarily water... you can affect someone by observing them without their conscious knowledge, sure.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Not Schrodinger, but a cat in a box. Hurray, I've started a thread hijack involving cats!

I love the reassuring pat which the captor cat gives her prisoner on release—as if she had nothing to do with it....

 

[Jason Byrne]

Hijacking!!!

 

[Sea-shore]

It's like Schrodinger's Cat but it isn't the same thing as Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's cat is a paradox. Part of Schrodinger's cat is that we don't know the state of the cat until the box is opened.

a cat imagined as being enclosed in a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source (unpredictably) emits radiation, the cat being considered (according to quantum mechanics) to be simultaneously both dead and alive until the box is opened and the cat observed.
​

The observer effect is something which has been researched and proven - as much as anything can be proved. Schrodinger's Cat, while similar, is a thought game, a paradox which can not be proved. Or, would require things we haven't yet thought of to prove.

I guess I don't completely understand what you do. Do you teach people with online games? Measuring engagement does seem like a good way to gauge whether learning has taken place - it doesn't really measure comprehension but I question how we can measure comprehension anyway.

When I went back to school I had to take writing and language placement tests because I didn't have my old college transcript and my SATs were WAY too old. A computer graded my essay and it did it instantly. This really bothered me. I placed well but .... I don't believe computers are as smart as people and writing ... it's an art form. Obviously, there are those - a LOT of those - who believe a binary machine can be programmed to evaluate writing (an art form). To me its an indicator of the value placed on language and writing.

Schrödinger's cat is often misconstrued. The cat in the box is not either dead or alive, but in a bizarre state of being every possible state it can be simultaneously, in this case both dead and alive, and only when we look in the box does the system collapses to a single state. It's the act of looking that makes it happen.

I think an analogy could be that each of us as a person has many different states e.g roles/moods etc. which change from one moment to the next. When we put a comment up on the internet or a photo on FB, it only shows one aspect of ourselves at that time and not the full picture. Observation does not tell us as much as we think it does.

Now for something serious: cute bunnies.



I baggsie the second one.

 

[Sea-shore]

People absolutely behave differently when observed, and I would agree even when unaware. There have been very strange things proven with subatomic particles and observation, showing that you can alter an event through observation... even if the observation occurs after the event is already over.

Agreed.

Observing a friend's tipsy FB photo of the night before, immediately turns it from Great-Night-Out into Drunken-Disaster.

(Not my actual experience )

 

[Amber Zade]

Schrödinger's cat is often misconstrued. The cat in the box is not either dead or alive, but in a bizarre state of being every possible state it can be simultaneously, in this case both dead and alive, and only when we look in the box does the system collapses to a single state. It's the act of looking that makes it happen.

I think an analogy could be that each of us as a person has many different states e.g roles/moods etc. which change from one moment to the next. When we put a comment up on the internet or a photo on FB, it only shows one aspect of ourselves at that time and not the full picture. Observation does not tell us as much as we think it does.

Why would opening the box cause the system to collapse into a single state?

 

[Amber Zade]

It's a depressing thought, for even though most of us go through life aware that we're being monitored constantly, we don't appreciate quite how what we write online can be used against us. Employers, government agencies and fraudsters all trawl social media and forums for information on people they're targetting. People have lost their jobs because they were foolish enough to post photos of them enjoying a few days on the beach when they claimed to be at home with an illness. Many folk don't make it to interview, as their social media postings reveal their attitudes and leisure activities as being at odds with the ethics of the potential employer. Burglars use forums to find out when someone is away on holiday.

A good friend of mine was the victim of a fraud attempt a few years ago, with multiple mortgage applications made in her name. She was dumbfounded by how much they knew about her, realising that they'd found vital details from her FB posts, as well as a couple of forums that she used. Since then she's changed key details of her profile, as well as adopting different user names. She's a very direct and honest person, and dislikes the falsehoods that she has to remember to use simply to communicate with others.

I saw an interview with a man who'd worked for MI5, the British Intelligence Agency, who told of how he'd been tasked with a training exercise to ruin a citizen's life though the information he could find about him online. This wasn't some villain or spy they were investigating as being a threat, just an ordinary worker chosen as random. The trainee agent was appalled, for though innocent passers-by are used for exercises such as trailing them through a crowd or testing facial recognition software, he effectively ruined this stranger's life by tampering with his bank accounts and health records. Such government interference formed the plot of Will Smith's best film Enemy of the State—truth is always stranger and nastier than fiction.

As the tagline for the movie goes: 'It's not paranoia if they're really after you.'

While this is interesting, it isn't quite what I meant. But I can go with this. Below is the best response I could think of to the observation that we are always being observed.

On Freedom
Kahlil Gibran

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment.

You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes.

And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.
And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.
For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.

Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.​

 

[Sea-shore]

Why would opening the box cause the system to collapse into a single state?

Simple answer: it's weird like that.

One thing I've learnt from studying quantum physics is if it sounds logical, it's probably not right.

 

[Amber Zade]

Hijacking!!!

lolololool The BEST!!!

 

[Amber Zade]

Not Schrodinger, but a cat in a box. Hurray, I've started a thread hijack involving cats!

I love the reassuring pat which the captor cat gives her prisoner on release—as if she had nothing to do with it....

I can't play this video in my country?

 

[Amber Zade]

People absolutely behave differently when observed, and I would agree even when unaware. There have been very strange things proven with subatomic particles and observation, showing that you can alter an event through observation... even if the observation occurs after the event is already over. Yeah. And then consider the effect human emotions can have on the molecular structure of water, and the fact that we are ourselves primarily water... you can affect someone by observing them without their conscious knowledge, sure.

Right, that's what I meant. It's not a matter of choosing which face you show to the world, we make small adjustments unconsciously.

In terms of writing, sometimes a speaker at a conference will ask us to write something right then and there. I won't/can't do it. I can't think of anything.

When I write in my journal I don't think 'no one will ever see this' - but it's totally different than what I would write here and even when I've had personal online blogs, just the knowledge that I was posting it would make it different. I never consciously changed what I wrote and posted. What I wrote was just different - and considering that at times I have been what others might call injudiciously open online, it wasn't always removal of content that was different. Nor is the different a result of editing. There was no, 'Well I can't say that in public!' type of writing.

In school, the change in how I wrote was more conscious - maybe this is because I'm a bad person... although I am pretty sure I'm a good person. But if you listen carefully to instructors, they'll tell you what they want to hear in your essays - what topics they are fond of - this information can even be gleaned from a syllabus.

So .... I was just wondering if other people had noticed anything similar. Not a conscious and deliberate editing ... more ... the words just come out differently all on their own.

 

[Amber Zade]

Simple answer: it's weird like that.

One thing I've learnt from studying quantum physics is if it sounds logical, it's probably not right.

I've never heard the last part before.

The variables are the natural lifespan of the cat, the poison which will be released .... whenever ... if ever .... and the box. Is there something about the box which creates stasis until it's opened? Considering how long the box could be closed, and how long it might be before the deadly stuff is released in the box .... hard to say what might kill the kitty first ... radioactive stuff..... starvation.... old age.... is the cat already healthy? lol

 

[Amber Zade]

When I took my childcare course, we, the students, were warned to be careful when performing observations on the children. In this instance, they were done to assess the children's development and understand any additional help the child might need. The need for discretion is more in case the children see what you're doing, then you get plagued with 'what you doing?', 'what you writing?', 'why you writing?' questions. Some children do act differently when they know they're being watched, usually because they know they'll get caught doing something naughty

Yes ... the research showed that many people behaved better than usual.

 

[Sea-shore]

I've never heard the last part before.

The variables are the natural lifespan of the cat, the poison which will be released .... whenever ... if ever .... and the box. Is there something about the box which creates stasis until it's opened? Considering how long the box could be closed, and how long it might be before the deadly stuff is released in the box .... hard to say what might kill the kitty first ... radioactive stuff..... starvation.... old age.... is the cat already healthy? lol

LOL. Ok. You can try to reason it out any way you like, but throw in the quantum aspect and it all goes to pot. Even Einstein could not accept quantum weirdness.

Your thoughts that "individuals being observed don't even need to know they are being observed for the observer effect to work" is not as far "out there" as what is out there.

Try Google: quantum weirdness

 

[Amber Zade]

lol .... I enjoy thinking/talking about schrodinger's cat ... but the original post wasn't actually about schrodinger's cat or the heisenberg uncertainty principle ... all of which only bear a slight resemblance to one another ... they are not equivalent .... I'll google quantum weirdness

 

[Amber Zade]

Am I spelling it wrong?

Your search for "schrodinger's cat" returned 0 results:

 

[Sea-shore]

Am I spelling it wrong?

Your search for "schrodinger's cat" returned 0 results:

Schrödinger's cat works ok on my search. Yes, let's move on.

 

[Bernard Stacey]

I baggsie the second one.

The dead one?

 

[Sea-shore]

The dead one?

Not dead. Sleeping!

 

[Bernard Stacey]

Not dead. Sleeping!

Asphyxiating, you mean!

 

[KG Christopher]

Quanta / Packets / Waves
Cats / Boxes / Meo-ing

 

[KG Christopher]

Even a dead cat bounces.

 

[Amber Zade]

Even a dead cat bounces.

lol very funny......

 

[Alistair Roberts]

I can't play this video in my country?

Really? Oh, Texas must be a country then cause it works in Oregon, although Jason is over the other way, somewhere. Weird I'd say