For my first impression post I chose option #2, critique on a Mythbusters video. I chose to do the video about talking on a phone while driving vs. driving drunk.
Off the bat the first thing that catches my attention is the driving course. This to me is a strength because it is a controlled environment which makes it better for the results to determine the surroundings to not be a cause of influence and there is no chance of innocent people being hurt. The driving course also is weakness because it doesn’t properly reflect a real life situation with the surroundings. To fix this they should have used a set like they do to film t.v. shows so it can accurately give the person the feel of where they would drive while giving safety to civilians not part of the experiment.
The four parts to the test can also be viewed as a strength and weakness. What stands out most as a weakness is the time test because it isn’t an accurate portrayal of a real life situation. I feel as thought that part could have been left out leaving only the three other parts to be tested. The last part of the test which is an accident avoidance challenge is a strength because it is the most accurate part of it all. There are many cases where people, even when sober, can run into a problem where they have to swerve and do the best they can to avoid an accident. The parallel parking can be viewed as a weakness because people rarely use parallel parking or know how to, instead a parking lot should have been used because it is a more common situation.
Lastly, using an older flip phone is a strength. Even though the time this was filmed flip phones were more common than they were today, the concept of having one hand on the wheal rather than a hands free device. A hands free device can be distracting but its not as distracting as trying to talk while driving with one hand at all times even when it should be with two.
Kirsten's Kreations 
For my Refinement post I looked at your response on the talking on a phone while driving vs. driving drunk. I saw that you identified the strengths and controls of the experiment which was done very well. The driving course was an excellent example of a controlled environment as you pointed out despite the notice of having an inaccurate “real life setting” but, I also found it similar to a driver’s ed course.
In my opinion I don’t find the reality of the course to be the largest factor to focus on and found it similar to a driving test other than the speed and direction, especially since it was a measurable constant used. They tested how they drove with no influence, drove with a phone call and drove under the influence to test the myth to compare using a cell phone and driving vs drunk driving.
In the future, pointing out the constants would also be better at understanding that you could understand the experiment. Looking at the constants. Another part I noticed on the video is that it was a man and a woman both drinking. What she drinks and what he drinks is going to impact them both differently, they didn’t state the amount of alcohol they consumed, and the overall process of this aspect was completely ignored. I think that the entirety of this experiment was inaccurate and poorly designed. At the end it concluded that they failed 2/3 times and did worse on the talking on cell phone despite it not being a conversation but rather orders.
Lastly, I agree that the last part of the test is a strength as they gave realistic problems that drivers run into often (swerving, getting cut off, etc.) which wasn’t something I noticed at first (good job). Also, that the non-hands free phone detail was pointed out which I wouldn’t have noticed as a good tool to use in this experiment.
LikeLike
Good job with you post Loretta. I’m glad you pointed out the issue of how the alcohol might have affected the drivers differently. You could improve your post by using some additional terminology from our lessons here. For example, the video didn’t share a good operational definition of driving under the influence (meaning they did not clearly identify how they determined someone was inebriated). A good way they could have operationalized that part of the study was having each person drink until their BAC was .10. You could also have pointed out that the level of intoxication could have been different for each driver, which is a potential confounding variable. A confounding variable is something that might explain the results of the study, but was not accounted for in the research design.
LikeLike