The Bystander Effect appears to be a specific example of social proof.
Actually, I remember a specific instance of a runner sliding into first when he couldn’t overrun it. In a high school game I saw, the runner took off when the ball was hit, because it looked like it was going over the shortstop’s head, but the shortstop managed to jump and catch it-- it was pretty amazing. Anyway, the runner on his way to second had to turn around and hightail it for first. He slid in just as the first base player caught the ball, and because the player had to step off the bag (the shortstop’s throw was understandably a little off), and couldn’t tag the runner who was on the ground, he was safe. It could have been a double play, but the slide kept the runner safe. IIRC, that runner eventually crossed the plate, but I don’t remember whether his team won.
Wasn’t he the first to demonstrate that lightning was the same as laboratory electricity?
Thanks. I don’t remember “social proof” from my college psych classes, but it’s not on the whole a bad thing. We hear about it only when it produces bad results, not the other 1,000 times it doesn’t.
However, the Kitty Genovese murder is not an example of it. That would have required the majority of the witnesses to be fully aware of what was happening to her, and to be aware that others were as well. Neither was true.
Also, a lot of people who tell the story, I think are not aware that 911 didn’t exist at the time she was murdered. Calling the police could be an ordeal.
I think that is pretty much the extent of his experiments. He demonstrated that lightning consisted of electricity. That may not sound like a big deal to us, but it was.
That, and a lot of other things about it. He’s the reason we consider electrons to be ‘negative’ despite them powering all of our cool stuff.
Sure, and Newton didn’t discover gravity. That doesn’t really diminish from their achievements, though.
And it was even dumber to lie under oath, and ignore the safety warnings of the coffee machine manufacture, which McD had done.
Actually, he got the “positive” and “negative” wrong. 
Plenty of myths get on my nerves, especially if there is absolutely no evidence for them. Now mine are pretty odd, but they scream B.S so here it goes.
-
Turkish people come from Central Asia: Is there is any evidence of that? Turkic and Turkish are two different terms, and Turks I have seen do not look like they came from Central Asia. Mostly Middle Eastern and Balkan, some maybe of Greek origin. Never heard of any evidence that most Turks are descendants of Central Asians.
-
Any blond haired individual, say in UK or Ireland, or any place is the result of Viking invasions: Seriously the Vikings had different hair colors, and being blond(e) is no evidence of having “Viking” blood or such nonsense. Blonde is common in Scandinavia, but having this feature means nothing.
-
I know a lot of Iranian people, and some are among the worst historical revisionists ever. Common ones I have heard, are that women had powerful positions in the ancient Persian history, and some even served as Empress. I have never heard any Empress that ruled Persia or any female monarch in terms of name or evidence.
Not all but some Iranians also believed that Persians were originally blond and blue eyed people, I actually read some articles around the time when the Jake Gyllenhaal movie came out a few years ago where he played an Iranian or something along those lines, even the director said it.
To me this seems far fetched, is there any evidence of this? I had never heard it before prior to this. I doubt blond hair was common in that part of the world at any time in history.
So those are some I thought of, maybe Dopers can touch on it. Maybe I am wrong?
What was McDonald’s supposed to do, serve lukewarm coffee?
Doesn’t every restaurant that serves coffee, serve it hot?
Not a widespread myth, more like some people are ignorant about it. And that is that all pre historic extinct species lived during the same time. This is not true, evolution occurred over millions of years. Some thought that smilodons or saber tooth cats went extinct along with the dinosaurs, when in facts dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. Those wild cats died off about 10,000 years ago. These are the same people who think that the early humans quickly followed soon after, but if I am not mistaken, our earliest humans started out about 3 million years ago. Dinosaurs long died by then. So not all species before us lived during the same time period.
Yes, they serve it at a SAFE hot temp, which is about 155- 175F. Not 180-205F as McD’s ordered it served.
Hell, not even all the Dinosaurs or even the Giant Mammals lived at the same time.
Example is the Paraceratherium aka Baluchitherium (largest land mammal to even live) which lived 34–23 million years ago. The Smilodon lived 2.5MM–10,000 years ago, so there was 20 Million years after the “Baluchitherium*” went extinct before the first “Saber-toothed Tiger*” came into being. The earliest Homo spp never saw a Paraceratherium- and depending on how you define “Man” or Human" no human ever saw one either.
- neither term is currently accurate.
Actually, in a very significant sense, Newton really did discover gravity. It is quite wrong to imagine that, before Newton, everybody knew that there was a force pulling heavy bodies towards the Earth, but just did not know the quantitative laws that governed it (or that the same force also applied to the Sun and planets). That itself is a historical myth.
Of course, Newton was not the first to notice that heavy things fall downwards, but he was the first to conceive of this as being the result of a force acting between these things and the Earth, pulling them down. Before Newton, the word “gravity” was just a synonym for “heaviness”, and theories about why things fall down did not involve the notion of a force that pulled on them. According to Aristotle, for instance, earthy (solid) things fall downwards because the center of the universe is the natural place for earthy material to be (the Earth itself being a large mass of earthy material at and around this center). The source of the motion, in this theory, is not in the Earth but in the falling object itself, which, in a sense, wants and strives to be as close as possible to the center of the universe, where it will be most comfortable. According to Descartes, in the generation just before Newton (and whose theories Newton devoted about a third of the Principia to refuting), things fall towards the Earth because of differential pressure in the aether above and below then, so they are pushed down by aether pressure. (The pressure differential itself was supposedly produced by the vortex-like motion of the aether swirling around the rotating Earth.)
Descartes also preceded Newton in ascribing both the falling of objects to Earth and the orbiting of the planets around the Sun to, broadly speaking, the same sorts of of causes: aether vortices and the pressures produced by them, according to Descartes, and the attractive force of gravity according to Newton. (In both cases, the notion that motion has a natural tendency to continue in a straight line unless forced out of the straight in some way, also plays an important role in their explanations. What we now know as Newton’s first law, was actually taken, by him, directly from Descartes’ work.)
As for Franklin, no, he did not discover electricity, which was known to (and named by) the pre-classical Greeks, and was extensively experimented upon by numerous 18th century scientists before Franklin. However, his contribution to our understanding of electricity went far beyond his famous experiment with the kite (which he was very lucky not be killed by). He introduced the notion that electricity was a single “fluid” (he and most others at the time thought of it as a fluid, or several fluids) existing normally in all objects, with negative and positive charges being produced either by a lack or an excess of the fluid, relative to the “normal” amount, and that like charges would attract and unlike ones would repel as a consequence of things tending to revert to their equilibrium, uncharged condition. This was a major theoretical advance, and made the phenomena of electricity much more understandable. Before Franklin, electrical theorists had often postulated that two or more quite different kinds of fluid had to be involved to produce both the attractive and repulsive effects that they observed, and the whole theory of electricity, and explanations as to why charges sometimes attracted and sometimes repelled one another, and sometimes attracted uncharged things, was quite a mess.
Unfortunately, Franklin (having no real evidence to go on) guessed wrong as to which charges were positive and which negative, which is why, now, we are stuck with electrons (or modern version of “electrical fluid”) being negatively charged. However, it turns out that this does not cause any very serious confusion.
Have you looked?
From Wikipedia:
Even if we just restrict it to dinosaurs, most people have a wrong picture in their mind. There wasn’t a single “age of dinosaurs” where all of them lived together.
This, for example, never happened. Stegosauruses had gone extinct eighty million years before the first Tyrannosauruses appeared. But even people who should know better put them together.
True, Turks have Caucasian features and Turkic people can look Asian. But maybe think about how humans are are not descended from monkeys but share a common ancestor so do Turks and Turkic people share a distant relation and related languages.
Similar to saying Irish and dark features (“black Irish”) = Spanish blood. Or: red hair = Irish. They are actually the second largest percentage of red hair, after the Scottish. It even is not uncommon in the Middle East.
Some Persian-don’t-you-dare-call-me-Iranian-and-especially-not-Arab people who may have preferred the Shah days and have weird ethnic beliefs. A minority of Lebanese people also believe in Phoenicianismand that they’re not Arabs. I don’t think it’s terribly widespread, although as I understand it Levantine people (which might include e.g. Syrians) have a different ethnic history than say Saudis.
I don’t know of any female rulers but wouldn’t be surprised. Keep in mind that “Persian” can mean one of several empires over centuries. Also a queen can de facto be in power.
Quoting myself, here:
at your second link.
That was my poi…never mind.
Well, it’s not *absolutely *wrong - queen Atossa for example, second wife of Darius I, had a lot of influence over him (and later on her son Xerxes, whom she managed to have inherit the whole shebang despite not being Darius’ first son) and took care of the Empire while both were away getting bitchslapped up and down Greece.
That being said, it’s not like queens consort were lightweights elsewhere in the world ; and it’s not like queen consort is a “powerful position” per se. On paper she had zero power, she was just a skilful orator/manipulator.