So here's our cunning experimenter.

The experimenter says, Don't worry, I will be responsible.

And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter.

Mr. Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X dollars.

Mr Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X tokens.

And the experimenter said, If you've finished everything, go home.

And you the experimenter have to decide which is right.

In the second condition, the experimenter didn't look at it.

Uh, so the independent variable is something that as an experimenter.

But if they wait until the experimenter comes back, they can have two.

And unbeknownst to you, the experimenter has been trained to harass you during it.

If you the, the experimenter made the decision to retain the null when in fact.

We asked people to write their name on each sheet and when they gave it to the experimenter, the experimenter looked at it from top to bottom, said aha and put it on the side.

He told the experimenter to do this, to try putting it out onto the other location.

And you have to figure out as the experimenter which one of this is an event.

In the third condition, the experimenter simply took the sheet and directly put it through a shredder.

There's this waiting hand from a human experimenter, and Mayday quickly figures out, apparently the human wants this.

In the third condition, the experimenter got the sheet of paper, and put it directly into a shredder.

So, as the experimenter you have to decide to reject the null hypothesis or retain the null hypothesis.

So, as the experimenter, you'll make a decision to reject the null hypothesis or retain the null hypothesis.

There was no name, the experimenter just took it from the participant and put it on the desk.

So we know now that this animal uses path integration to find its way around, and the callous experimenter

Because you, as the experimenter, you have to make a decision to either retain the null or reject the null.

The remote collaborator was an experimenter from our group who used one of three different technologies to interact with the participants.

In the first condition, people wrote their name on the sheet, found all the pairs of letters, gave it to the experimenter, the experimenter would look at it, scan it from top to bottom, say Uh huh, and put it on the pile next to them.

The benefit of double blind is there's no bias from the experimenter or from the children themselves or from the subjects in the study.

So, the experimenter or the person who's actually administering the vaccine, actually didn't know if they were giving the live vaccine or if they were giving the placebo.

The experimenter looked at it, took the sheet of paper, did not look at it, did not scan it, and simply put it on the pile of pages.

Now, this is important, because remember, when the moment the student stood up, it made it clear to everybody that they could get away with cheating, because the experimenter said,

If she has a bad run, and her score isn't good, she'll come and reach up and tap on the glass because she can't see the experimenter which is asking to have another go.

A game in which you give people money, and then, on each round of the game, they can put money into a common pot, and then the experimenter doubles what's in there, and then it's all divided among the players.