While this was a n enjoyable episode of MythBusters I see a lot of issues with this study. First of which is it is absolutely opinionated this goes to more of a philosophical question of what is beauty to these three candidates. Another large issue is that for the so called control where they were given new faces to judge that had the same score as one of the images from the first group their judgement could vary a lot compared to whoever judged the control. The next issue would be that it wasn’t randomly decided who would be tested, so this data can’t be applied to the world as a whole, as well as their was not a lot of representation from a lot of different backgrounds. For example there was only one girl who was tested. Another issue is that for this test it is very difficult for the control. Because the control was supposedly when they were sober rating people, but once they were buzzed isn’t it possible they could have just rated higher if they remembered their original score? It is even possible with the girl’s results because her second test showed different images of the same people, but they were all given lower scores. Also it never specified what alcohol level they needed to reach to be qualified as buzzed or drunk. Some good points from this would be that I enjoyed the idea behind it, it had some legitimacy from the myth since it is a well known belief, and if the method of testing was tweaked or expanded upon I believe that it could be potentially more verifiable. I believe to make it more verifiable the participants should be randomly selected, a constant should be given while they are in each state and if the tests were done over a period of time maybe even a few days to allow for the participates to forgot the images they saw and the scores they gave them.

While this could be a very controversial topic in many peoples opinions, the mythbusters decided to test the mini myth and hypothesis, “Do men prefer blondes over brunettes?”

There were 3 trials, and in each of them the 9 men were given 3 minutes to talk to each of the 9 women. To help, prevent biases occuring with personality, each of the women would switch off between 2 other wig colors. (Brunette, and red)

The major strengths of this mini myth were the natural hair wigs, the professional makeup artists to disguise the girls each time, bringing in random men for the experiment,  multiple trials, and rating each of the women on attractiveness and how much they found the woman likable. Professional makeup and hair stylists made it their best effect to make sure the wigs and disguises were believable so the men would not become suspicious of the experiment. The participants were aware of being recorded, but were unaware of the purpose of why they were being recorded, therefore the outcome of this experiment should not  produce bias results. The weaknesses of the study were that there were not that many women to begin the experiment with, and the ladies attractiveness as whole could’ve induced the results of more men preferring blonde women. For future, include many more women to get broader results. If this test was based off of how If men find blondes more ‘attractive’ then other hair colors then instead of conducting a speed date, it should’ve been a survey of different women just walking by. So, no date at all, just observation so the experiment could be more focused on the physical aspect of the women and not their personalities.

The result of the experiment was  a tie all across the boards.
Men do not prefer blondes over Brunettes.

The mini myth of Ghostbusters they experiment which is a worst distraction; whether it is talking while driving or diving drunk. Many people have always had this question and wanted to see the outcome.

In this experiment the host Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage have two others test this experiment. The track/course is all controlled and stays the same through out the whole time. They had to stop at a stop sign and also avoid a road condition. They first do one trial with being completely sober and with their results they both passed the test. They then did a second trial while talking on the phone. With this trial they both failed the test, why is because they were both distracted by the phone and having to memorize what the person on the other line was saying had an impact on their driving. Then in the last experiment they were given alcohol to see if it had the same impact or even worse when driving. They again failed this test as well. With what the host of Mythbusters, they say that it is equally the same with drinking while having alcohol in your system and talking while driving are both dangerous with having an impact on your driving.

I honestly believed that this was a great experiment but it did have some weaknesses to it as in: they should of had a different age limit because now a days high school and college drink while under the age. Many accidents of drunk driving are caused by minors and especially while on the phone. Whether it be texting, calling, or even being on other applications cause distractions while driving. With that being said I would try and use other ages to do this experiment. One last thing is that there should have been more people experimenting this theory.The good things in this experiment was that it was a controlled course everything was the exact same.

With that being said they are both equally dangerous and no one should have to be in this situation. Drive smart and everything will be okay.

In this Mythbusters mini-myth, the hosts, Adam and Jamie, challenge themselves and their driving abilities by walking in heels, wedges, and snow-boots. They want to see if it actually is more difficult to drive in heels, and also if it takes up more time. They used the experimental research method, and set up a track where they had to do numerous amount of turns and they took turns trying on the shoes and taking turns driving while the other waits at the finish line of the track with a stopwatch. Their time results were the same every time they tried on a different pair of shoes. They concluded with saying there is no difference when driving with heels or regular shoes.

Some of the strengths this experiment had was they had different types of “high-heeled” shoes, and not just the same pair. They also used the same track each time they ran the test.

Unfortunately, their are some weaknesses that I did notice throughout the video. For one, a reason they all got the same times could be because of speed limit they were driving at. Their speed limits during every trial probably were different every time, so I believe they should have put a cap as to how fast they were driving. Another weakness was they should have not only tested this in an automatic car, but a manual car as well. Perhaps there could have been a difference of times or a difference in how it felt to drive with the heels on. Lastly, they should have ran this experiment with a controlled variable. The controlled variable should have been the time of each of them driving with regular tennis shoes on. That way they can actually see if there is a timed difference between driving with heels and driving with tennis shoes.

Mythbusters is an interesting show that does a great job “busting” myths that have been questioned around for long time. With a few corrections on how they conduct their experiments, I feel that their results will be a lot more precise and accurate then before.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/super-adhesive-high-speed/

The Mythbuster’s mini-myth called “Bedroom Eyes” tried to answer the question of whether women were better than men at reading emotions. In this study, they used the same set of pictures for every participant with only the eyes showing. The study began by keeping score of how many pictures were accurately paired with the right emotion by each gender. As the study progressed, however, the scores were spread out among both genders, making it difficult to find a correlation between accuracy of reading emotions and gender.

There were multiple strengths to this study which enabled the participants to have an unbiased experience during the study. There were multiple participants, with equal numbers of males and females, allowing for the study to have enough data to actually form a correlation. Moreover, the same set of pictures were used for all the participants to keep variables constant throughout the study.

There were also many weaknesses to the study, which made it invalid, and without a true answer. To begin with, the study started out by measuring how well a person read emotions by the number of pictures and emotions the individual was able to pair up accurately. As the study went on, the accurate guesses were spread out, and not consistent in both genders. The people in charge of the study did however start to notice that women were quicker to judge and give an answer than men. The operational definition of reading emotions was changed from the number of accurate guesses of emotions in the pictures to the time it took to make a guess in the duration of the study, and thus invalidates the results. An additional study with the second operational definition will have to be carried out in order to determine the results of the question. In addition, the study does not specify how the participants in the sample were selected, and whether it was random or not, which could also be a factor in the absence of a correlation between gender and reading emotions.

All in all, with the limited time and money that was available, I believe the Mythbusters did a decent job in answering the question. With a little more precision in selecting variables and operational definitions, they will be able to carry out a more accurate study.

This mini-myth featured on Myth Busters has been in question for awhile, making its debut mainly during Marilyn Monroe’s era. Is cliche blonde really more appealing to men than other hair colors? The Myth Busters created an experiment to test this by setting up a speed-dating process. In each of 3 trials, 9 men were given 3 minutes to talk to each of 9 women. To prevent bias because of personality, the women switched off between a blonde wig, brunette wig, and a red wig to wear during each trial.

The strengths of the experiment were the different colored wigs, using professional hair stylists to make the wigs look realistic, doing more than one trial, having random men meet the women, not allowing the men to know the purpose of the speed-dating, and the process of rating the women based on attractiveness and likableness. The different colored wigs served to prevent the women’s personality from being a potential bias to the ratings the men gave the women. Professionals ensured the wigs looked realistic, so the men would not suspect the purpose of the experiment. Multiple trials using different men each time tested men with different interests and personalities. The participants knew they were being recorded, but they were not informed about the purpose, allowing for non-biased results.

Although this study was well-thought and planned for, it did have it’s weaknesses. There were only 9 women, and hair paired with attractive faces can have an impact. I think there should have been more women. Also, the men were allowed 3 minutes with each girl. If the experiment was meant to test physical attraction, I do not think their should have been any time allotted during the speed-date. Just a look at the women so the men could rate them on their appearance, and then an option to get to know them further based on their looks. If the men were meant to get to know the women, more than 3 minutes should be given.

And the final result was men generally do not prefer blondes over other hair colors.

Research Question: Does having a Netflix account have an influence on a person’s sexual activity?

Hypothesis: I believe it does. A popular euphemism for asking another person if he/she/they want to have sex is Netflix and chill, as the phrase takes away some of the pressure of straight up asking someone if they want to have sex. The whole atmosphere makes the situation more comfortable than just one asking if waltzing over to someone’s house for a little bit of afternoon delight would be acceptable. It also, for the time being, doesn’t sound as cheesy as other sayings, yet it has been featured as a certain joke format, especially on social media websites such as Twitter and Instagram. This offers the recipient of the phrase flexibility on how to respond to the asker, and the asker can back out of the seriousness of the offer if need be to save pride. The entire pliability of Netflix and chill makes it a fascinating cultural aspect of our time, but when the phrase becomes applicable to a person–meaning one finally creates a Netflix account basically–is the opportunity to use this euphemism capitalized? Is it something still a bit untouchable, or has it just been tossed aside as a joke now?

Operationalized Definitions: Sexual activity will be defined as according to this webpage.  Netflix and chill will be defined as watching a TV show/movie on Netflix and engaging in sexual activity afterwards with a partner or engaging in sexual activity while a TV show/movie is streaming in the background with a partner.

Methodology: I think a survey is probably the most appropriate method because many of the other methods would either be really awkward or really illegal. Surveys also offer the best opportunity for someone to remain anonymous for the study.

Procedure: Participants will be selected at random at Austin College, provided the person is at least 18 years old. The participants will be asked the following questions:

1. Do you have a Netflix subscription?
2. How long have you had your Netflix subscription?
3. Are you/have you been sexually active?
4. Have you ever been asked by a potential sexual partner if you would like to Netflix and chill?
5. Would you be comfortable if someone you sought as a potential partner asked you to Netflix and chill?
6. Would you be comfortable if said potential partner used different terminology as a euphemism for having sex?
7. Have you ever asked a potential partner if he/she/they would like to Netflix and chill?
8. Would you ever be comfortable asking someone to Netflix and chill?
9. Would you be comfortable using different terminology?
10. Do you believe the phrase Netflix and chill has taken away some of the pressure of asking a potential partner to engage in sexual activity?
11. Do you believe your Netflix subscription/lack of Netflix subscription has influenced your sexual activity?

Given the limited access to other college campuses and people and lack of time/resources, it should be noted that the participants are only a subset of the total collegiate population. It should also be noted lying and bias can corrupt a survey’s data as well.

This mini-myth is over an idea that is prominent in many movies, TV shows, and human lives. Do beer goggles really exist? To answer this much speculated question, the Mythbusters created an experiment where they ranked people based on their looks when they were sober, buzzed and drunk in order to see if the more they drank, the more attractive the opposite sex became.
While the experiment posed a very interesting question, there were a few weaknesses I noticed. The first one was the lack of people. Only three subjects were used during the experiment, two male and one female. I believe they should use a larger amount of people for the test so their results can be more generalized. The three that were used in the experiment also knew exactly what the study was looking for, which means that the test could have been subject to their own personal biases. To fix this, I think the experiment should have been done with people who didn’t know exactly what question the Mythbusters were trying to answer. In the buzzed and drunk rounds, the people that were being ranked were exchanged with people that others decided were of equal attractiveness. What if the participants in the experiment didn’t think that the new set of people were as attractive as the first? They should have used the same people throughout the entire test so that there could be no variation in the rankings other than what was caused by the alcohol. In addition, Jamie pointed out himself that with the limited amount of time the participants had to rate the pictures, it was a gut reaction and could be somewhat inconsistent. He also said that they solved that issue with the averaging system, which I believe was a strength of the experiment.
While the experiment was okay, the results were a little to varying in my opinion. With more tests, I believe the Mythbusters could come up with a much more solid answer.

 In one of the Mythbusters’ mini-myths labeled “Dream Weaver,” the group examines the myth that it is better to stay in one lane while driving in heavy traffic than to lane change because the driver will still get to his or her destination in the same amount of time. This experiment had two different drivers race 50 miles from the Mythbusters’ lab in San Fransisco down to San Jose Tech Museum using the freeway during rush hour traffic to test this myth. One driver, a male driver with no passenger, picked the middle lane to drive in and made no lane changes at all. The other driver, a female who had a passenger with her, constantly weaved through lanes trying to stay ahead by picking the “right lane” at the best times. 

This experiment had a great question and it was definitely a very testable experiment, using only a few vehicles, two drivers, and the freeway. The experimenters did a good job of getting the same or similar cars to drive, both were small SUVs. The cars left at the exact same time and we’re both on the same freeway at the same time, facing the same traffic; all needed for proper outcomes in this experiment. There were, however, multiple weaknesses found throughout this test that should be noted. The setting and environment, for example, was traffic at 7:30 in the morning on a freeway in San Fransisco. What if 5:00 traffic in the same location produced a different outcome than the 7:30 test? What if the experiment was done at that same time but in New York City instead, where there are many more people who walk instead of vehicle transportation? Would it have showed different outcomes there? The environment they chose was too specific to make such a broad and general conclusion. Another observation that could be made was the drivers chosen and the different possible ways they drive. They had two cars, one with a male and the other female. One car included a passenger, the other did not. How do we know that if both cars were to only pick one lane to stick to, that they would’ve arrived at the same time? It is very likely that these two drivers were different in how they drive and how the presence or absence of a passenger influenced them to drive. A way that could have improved this problem is perhaps using the same driver and conduction multiple tests.

 Mythbusters is an interesting show that does a great job of finding the questions or “myths” that people often wonder about in life. With some more careful consideration on their variables and how the go about these experiments, the show could be even more helpful and popular than it already is.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/dream-weaver/

The Mythbusters Mini-Myth about whether or not lane changing in traffic is faster than staying in one lane has its good sides and bad sides. For good, their experiment was carried out in real traffic, so there is no room for a bias fault or any miss calculations in a simulation. Also, the two cars ran at the same time so there was no environmental difference between the two variables. That being said, the experiment still needs some work, for example, they only have one data set, the experiment needs to be run more than once to eliminate luck ‘s influence. Another weakness is that the test only covered one environment, which was a San Diego highway in rush hour. There is also the problem of the driver used in the lane changing portion of the experiment. A more timid driver would be likely to make less lane changes than a more aggressive driver would, which would alter the results and effectiveness of that trial.

To be more inclusive, the test should be carried out on multiple roads and at multiple times, in different locations (drivers in Chicago are very different from drivers in Dallas, from my own experience), maybe use a four-lane highway, a six-lane highway and an eight-lane highway to get a more better feeling of where lane changing may or may not be faster. Testing different traffic variables could help get broader data as well, such as testing rush hour, traffic behind a car crash, and bottlenecking traffic. There is also the matter of the vehicle, a small car would theoretically have an easier time changing lanes than a longer car as it could more easily fit into the smaller gaps in the traffic of its neighboring lanes. To maintain reliable data, these trials would have to be repeated multiple times to help remove luck’s influence on the experiment. This is possible to carry out, even though it would be more difficult (an experiment of this scale would require extensive preparation), it would be much more expensive, in travel fees (to the varying locations), gas for the multiple trials, the cars themselves, and compensation for the participants.

Keeping all this in mind, the Mythbusters’ experiment will probably have to do for now as it would be difficult to carry out a full scale experiment and this topic isn’t exactly important enough for anyone to commit the time and money to work it all out.