Print
Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?
by New York Times
Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/health/research/01mind.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1215271327-scpjA94S1vI1rMKxsd1M2Q&oref=slogin
Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?
Some of psychology's most famous experiments are those that expose the skull beneath the skin, the apparent cowardice or depravity pooling in almost every heart.
The findings force a question. Would I really do that? Could I betray my own eyes, my judgment, even my humanity, just to complete some experiment?
The answer, if it's an honest one, often gives rise to observations about the cruelties of the day, whether suicide bombing, torture or gang atrocities. And so a psych experiment — a mock exercise, testing individual behavior — can become something else, a changing prism through which people view the larger culture, for better and for worse.
Consider the psychologist Stanley Milgram's obedience studies of the early 1960s that together form one of the darkest mirrors the field has held up to the human face. In a series of about 20 experiments, hundreds of decent, well-intentioned people agreed to deliver what appeared to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, as part of what they thought was a learning experiment. The "learner" was in fact an actor, usually seated out of sight in an adjacent room, pretending to be zapped.
Researchers, social commentators and armchair psychologists have pored through Milgram's data ever since, claiming psychological and cultural insights. Now, decades after the original work (Milgram died in 1984, at 51), two new papers illustrate the continuing power of the shock experiments — and the diverse interpretations they still inspire.
In one, a statistical analysis to appear in the July issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, a postdoctoral student at Ohio State University verifies a crucial turning point in Milgram's experiments, the voltage level at which participants were most likely to disobey the experimenter and quit delivering shocks.
The participants usually began with what they thought were 15-volt shocks, and worked upward in 15-volt increments, as the experimenter instructed. At 75 volts, the "learner" in the next room began grunting in apparent pain. At 150 volts he cried out: "Stop, let me out! I don't want to do this anymore."
At that point about a third of the participants refused to continue, found Dominic Packer, author of the new paper. "The previous expressions of pain were insufficient," Dr. Packer said. But at 150 volts, he continued, those who disobeyed decided that the learner's right to stop trumped the experimenter's right to continue. Before the end of the experiments, at 450 volts, an additional 10 to 15 percent had dropped out.
This appreciation of another's right is crucial in interrogation, Dr. Packer suggests. When prisoners' rights are ambiguous, inhumane treatment can follow. Milgram's work, in short, makes a statement about the importance of human rights, as well as obedience.
In the other paper, due out in the journal American Psychologist, a professor at Santa Clara University replicates part of the Milgram studies — stopping at 150 volts, the critical juncture at which the subject cries out to stop — to see whether people today would still obey. Ethics committees bar researchers from pushing subjects through to an imaginary 450 volts, as Milgram did.
The answer was yes. Once again, more than half the participants agreed to proceed with the experiment past the 150-volt mark. Jerry M. Burger, the author, interviewed the participants afterward and found that those who stopped generally believed themselves to be responsible for the shocks, whereas those who kept going tended to hold the experimenter accountable. That is, the Milgram work also demonstrated individual differences in perceptions of accountability — of who's on the hook for what.
Thomas Blass, a psychologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the author of a biography of Milgram, "The Man Who Shocked the World" (Basic Books, 2004), said establishing the demand by the subject to stop as the turning point was itself a significant achievement. "It's a simple but important discovery," Dr. Blass said. "I had been mining this data for years and somehow missed it."
He added that extrapolating Milgram's findings to larger events like the Holocaust, as Milgram himself did, or Abu Ghraib was a big leap. "The power of the Milgram work was it showed how people can act destructively without coercion," he said. "In things like interrogations, we don't know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results."
The Milgram data have unappreciated complexities of their own. In his new report, Dr. Burger argues that at least two other factors were at work when participants walked into the psychologist's lab at Yale decades ago. Uncertainty, as it was an unfamiliar situation. And time pressure, as they had to make decisions quickly. Rushed and disoriented, they were likely more compliant than they would otherwise have been, Dr. Burger said.
In short, the Milgram experiments may have shown physical, biological differences in moral decision making and obedience, as well as psychological ones. Some people can be as quick on the draw as Doc Holliday when they feel something's not right. Others need a little time to do the right thing, thank you, and would rather not be considered sadistic prison guards just yet.
"The most remarkable thing," Dr. Burger said, "is that we're still talking about the work, almost 50 years after it was done. You can't say that about many experiments."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/health/research/01mind.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1215271327-scpjA94S1vI1rMKxsd1M2Q&oref=slogin
Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?
Some of psychology's most famous experiments are those that expose the skull beneath the skin, the apparent cowardice or depravity pooling in almost every heart.
The findings force a question. Would I really do that? Could I betray my own eyes, my judgment, even my humanity, just to complete some experiment?
The answer, if it's an honest one, often gives rise to observations about the cruelties of the day, whether suicide bombing, torture or gang atrocities. And so a psych experiment — a mock exercise, testing individual behavior — can become something else, a changing prism through which people view the larger culture, for better and for worse.
Consider the psychologist Stanley Milgram's obedience studies of the early 1960s that together form one of the darkest mirrors the field has held up to the human face. In a series of about 20 experiments, hundreds of decent, well-intentioned people agreed to deliver what appeared to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, as part of what they thought was a learning experiment. The "learner" was in fact an actor, usually seated out of sight in an adjacent room, pretending to be zapped.
Researchers, social commentators and armchair psychologists have pored through Milgram's data ever since, claiming psychological and cultural insights. Now, decades after the original work (Milgram died in 1984, at 51), two new papers illustrate the continuing power of the shock experiments — and the diverse interpretations they still inspire.
In one, a statistical analysis to appear in the July issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, a postdoctoral student at Ohio State University verifies a crucial turning point in Milgram's experiments, the voltage level at which participants were most likely to disobey the experimenter and quit delivering shocks.
The participants usually began with what they thought were 15-volt shocks, and worked upward in 15-volt increments, as the experimenter instructed. At 75 volts, the "learner" in the next room began grunting in apparent pain. At 150 volts he cried out: "Stop, let me out! I don't want to do this anymore."
At that point about a third of the participants refused to continue, found Dominic Packer, author of the new paper. "The previous expressions of pain were insufficient," Dr. Packer said. But at 150 volts, he continued, those who disobeyed decided that the learner's right to stop trumped the experimenter's right to continue. Before the end of the experiments, at 450 volts, an additional 10 to 15 percent had dropped out.
This appreciation of another's right is crucial in interrogation, Dr. Packer suggests. When prisoners' rights are ambiguous, inhumane treatment can follow. Milgram's work, in short, makes a statement about the importance of human rights, as well as obedience.
In the other paper, due out in the journal American Psychologist, a professor at Santa Clara University replicates part of the Milgram studies — stopping at 150 volts, the critical juncture at which the subject cries out to stop — to see whether people today would still obey. Ethics committees bar researchers from pushing subjects through to an imaginary 450 volts, as Milgram did.
The answer was yes. Once again, more than half the participants agreed to proceed with the experiment past the 150-volt mark. Jerry M. Burger, the author, interviewed the participants afterward and found that those who stopped generally believed themselves to be responsible for the shocks, whereas those who kept going tended to hold the experimenter accountable. That is, the Milgram work also demonstrated individual differences in perceptions of accountability — of who's on the hook for what.
Thomas Blass, a psychologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the author of a biography of Milgram, "The Man Who Shocked the World" (Basic Books, 2004), said establishing the demand by the subject to stop as the turning point was itself a significant achievement. "It's a simple but important discovery," Dr. Blass said. "I had been mining this data for years and somehow missed it."
He added that extrapolating Milgram's findings to larger events like the Holocaust, as Milgram himself did, or Abu Ghraib was a big leap. "The power of the Milgram work was it showed how people can act destructively without coercion," he said. "In things like interrogations, we don't know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results."
The Milgram data have unappreciated complexities of their own. In his new report, Dr. Burger argues that at least two other factors were at work when participants walked into the psychologist's lab at Yale decades ago. Uncertainty, as it was an unfamiliar situation. And time pressure, as they had to make decisions quickly. Rushed and disoriented, they were likely more compliant than they would otherwise have been, Dr. Burger said.
In short, the Milgram experiments may have shown physical, biological differences in moral decision making and obedience, as well as psychological ones. Some people can be as quick on the draw as Doc Holliday when they feel something's not right. Others need a little time to do the right thing, thank you, and would rather not be considered sadistic prison guards just yet.
"The most remarkable thing," Dr. Burger said, "is that we're still talking about the work, almost 50 years after it was done. You can't say that about many experiments."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, July 5, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 39 of 39 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #204613 by Sargeist on July 5, 2008 at 11:20 am
Just a sec. WHY is it unethical to get people to apply imaginary shocks of over 150 volts to people who know they are in no danger? Why, only this morning I didn't electrocute anyone. Clearly the Law must be informed. Other Comments by Sargeist
3. Comment #204626 by AmericanGodless on July 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
I recall reading Milgram's paper when I was an undergraduate in the 60's (I just happened to run across it in the library). I recall one of Milgram's points being that people appeared to be willing to continue to administer the (fake) shocks largely because of a simple even-toned request, made by another actor, a person who appeared to be in charge, that they continue. In the article here, no description is given of the authority figure in the more recent replications of the experiment, which I believe may well be a critical variable.I have long wondered what difference it might make to have different "authority figures" make the request. In Milgram's experiments, it was, as I recall, a person purporting to be a psychologist, wearing a lab coat and carrying a clipboard. This was at a time, shortly after WW-II, when science and scientists were generally held in high esteem. Would there be any difference in response if the authority figure were given a different cover-story and costume: perhaps set up in a business school with an actor in a business suit; or in a police academy with a police uniform; or in military dress uniform, or fatigues; or perhaps wearing a face mask, like the ex-military people who recently gave Christopher Hitchins his waterboard treatment?
The perceptions of the subject, of both the apparent experience and purpose of the authority figure, and the distress of the "learner," are the crucial variables in the experiment, as that is all the subject really has to go on. The "voltage" level of imaginary shocks is immaterial, since most people are aware that a person can take thousands of low-amperage volts and just feel a tingle. What is important is what the subject thinks the voltage means, which is more likely due to perhaps some personal experience with 110V AC house current (in the US), but mostly determined by the sounds of the "victim's" protests.
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
4. Comment #204640 by Steve13 on July 5, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Here's some footage from the experiment:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLP6eg8X13s&feature=related
And here's Derren Brown reproducing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
Other Comments by Steve13
5. Comment #204684 by 8teist on July 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I`d quite happily flick that switch if it would wake up some dozy creotard that was connected to the business end of an electrode. Other Comments by 8teist
6. Comment #204688 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Was this experiment replicated and peer-reviewed?It eerily reminds of the Zimbardo experiment, which has been exposed as fraudulent.
Other Comments by decius
7. Comment #204696 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 5, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Interesting notion from decius. The famous Milgram experiment having the validity of 'Coming of Age in Samoa'...?
Also, how bizarre there is a proscription on imaginary voltage! Doesn't that constitute a confounding variable?
Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning
8. Comment #204706 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Comment #204696 by NotcrowingbutyawningWell, it seems that psychology and experimental psychology have, over the years, been permeated by much pseudo-science -resulting in bogus experiments validating preposterous notions and unacceptable cover-ups of scientific malpractice.
Incredibly, some people in that field would still lead us to believe in the efficacy of egregious nonsense like lie-detecting machines or rorschach inkblot tests.
Other Comments by decius
9. Comment #204726 by dsijdavis on July 5, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Comment 204688 by deciusWhat? The Zimbardo experiment exposed as fraudulent? When did that happen? And what was fraudulent about it?
Other Comments by dsijdavis
10. Comment #204731 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 5, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Comment #204706 by decius
Reminds me of the Emo Phillips gag ''I went to a psychiatrist and he said 'tell me what you see on this card'. I said it was number four in the second series of Rorschack Ink Blot Test Cards, and he looked at me all kinda disappointed and I said 'Ok, it's a butterfly.''
Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning
11. Comment #204734 by mordacious1 on July 5, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I hope that this experiment wasn't fraudulent. I love telling this story to people, whether true or not, it gives some insight into human nature.Other Comments by mordacious1
12. Comment #204747 by Layla Nasreddin on July 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires you to continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice but to continue."
I recall reading about this experiment when I was about 15 or 16, and it really made an impression on me. I thought, well, I'd LIKE to think I wouldn't continue, but in truth I'd probably be far too much of a cowardly wimp and would follow their instructions (above). Which depressed the hell out of me, I can tell you that! :-(
On the other hand, thinking about it now, I might (or might not) have just pulled some manipulative stunt like bursting into tears or running around screaming, anything to get away, as opposed to simply refusing to do it. Of course, all of this would be a moot point since I already know what the experiment is (and so wouldn't be much of a subject), but still.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
13. Comment #204750 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Comment #204726 by dsijdavis Sorry, I don't feel like typing a long story. Brian Dunning has done a nice job recapitulating.
Of course, not many called it fraudulent, they chose a more diplomatic language.
To me, instead, skewing an experiment in a certain way is criminal.
The problem is that a lot of the psychology community disagrees with his findings. Some found that any results were rendered meaningless by insufficient controls. Some have problems with his analysis of the results, reaching a different conclusion based on the same data. Some found the sample population invalidated by selection biases, or the size of the sample inadequate for statistically useful results. Some found methodological flaws that tainted the participants' behavior. Let's look at some of these criticisms in closer detail.
* First, the issue of selection bias. Selection bias is where you choose your subjects in such a way that they are not truly representative of the general population. In this case, Zimbardo advertised to students to participate in an experiment about "prison life". Clearly, a large segment of the general population would be repulsed by such a concept, and you've got to have questions about anyone attracted to that idea. Thus, all applicants to the Stanford Prison Experiment were preselected for comfort with the idea of "prison life".
* Most of the Stanford guards did not exhibit any cruel or unusual behavior, often being friendly and doing favors for the prisoners. The most notorious guard, nicknamed John Wayne, explained that he was simply trying to emulate Strother Martin's character from Cool Hand Luke. Other analysts have found it difficult to support Zimbardo's conclusions, since the allegedly poisonous environment did not affect most participants, and the most notorious participant explained that his motivation came from a completely different source.
* Zimbardo himself was also criticized for actively participating in the experiment as one of the characters. He was the prison superintendent. Although he may have restrained himself from having any influence on the experiment, the fact that he put himself in the position of ultimate active authority over the guards' behavior calls this into question. Many designers of such experiments would summarily throw out such a study based on this alone.
* Some researchers have also questioned why Zimbardo neglected the effect of individual personalities, instead generally attributing all behavior to the prison environment. How did John Wayne's behavior as a guard compare to his behavior outside the experiment? Was he generally a friendly guy, or might he already have been a royal jerk? We don't know, so there was insufficient data to conclude that his behavior was changed by the experiment.
* The statistical validity of the sample of participants, 24 male Stanford students of about the same age, has been called into question as being too small and restrictive to be generally applicable to the population at large.
* I have one other issue with Zimbardo's results that I didn't find anyone else raising, and it goes back to my 15-point checklist in Skeptoid #37, How to Spot Pseudoscience. Zimbardo has dedicated much of his career to the promotion of the idea that bad environments drive bad behavior. I tend to be cautious of claims coming from sources dedicated to promoting them. The scientific method starts with a null hypothesis, not with a preconceived notion to justify; and that process invariably produces data that do not support the conclusion, and theories tend to change over time as a result. By my analysis, Zimbardo appears to be cherrypicking his results to justify the same conclusion that he has been promoting throughout his career. This doesn't make him wrong, it just gives me cause for skepticism.
* Finally, It's worth mentioning that by today's standards, the Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical and could never be performed in the United States. However, this point is not relevant to the validity of the results, and in any event, it was perfectly legal at the time.
Dr. Zimbardo and the Stanford Experiment came into the news again in 2004, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. American prison guards were accused of cruelty to Iraqi prisoners �" the great Naked Human Pyramidgate scandal. A number of soldiers and senior officers were court martialed and imprisoned or demoted. The prosecutors claimed that "a few bad apples" were responsible. The defense disagreed, and called in Dr. Zimbardo as an expert witness to testify that it was the environment that was responsible, not the individuals. "You can't be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel," he famously said. The court disagreed, finding (rightly, as many would say) that individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, and the few bad apples went to jail. Dr. Zimbardo then wrote the book The Lucifer Effect, drawing further parallels between his prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Comment #204734 by mordacious1
Mordy, if it's not true it gives no insight by definition, won't you agree?
Other Comments by decius
14. Comment #204752 by Chris_The_Positivist on July 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This is about social compliance, how people can accept authority without questioning it. Combined with the ambiguity surrounding a given person/groups rights, we draw a rather nice parallel with religion.The indoctrinated chant 'we believe in god and the scripture' (with unquestioning faith) and 'those who try and divert you from the will of the lord are infidels' (that must be killed). That's the non religious in this context who basically have no rights with regards to 'religious truth'....
So with the rights of 'an infidel' equal to that of something like a criminal and an unquestioning authority ordering you to kill or to turn up the proverbial voltage, we can see how easy it can be for seemingly decent people to do atrocious things.
Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist
15. Comment #204754 by mordacious1 on July 5, 2008 at 5:18 pm
DeciusNo, I don't agree. Everytime I tell the story people tell me that they could see themselves pulling the switch, with few exceptions. This tells me alot about them. It's like using a hypothetical.
Other Comments by mordacious1
16. Comment #204761 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Comment #204754 by mordacious1I see what you mean. It has clearly the power to elicit reactions.
Earlier I thought you were speaking of scientific insight derived from the results.
Other Comments by decius
17. Comment #204783 by Border Collie on July 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Damn, I thought this had been beat to death when I was an undergrad. If we knew how many imaginary amps they were administering we'd really know how imaginarily dangerous it was. Is imaginarily a word?Other Comments by Border Collie
18. Comment #204832 by 35bluejacket on July 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I would like to see an experiment of a firing squad using blanks. The riflemen being a mixture of fundamentalist Christians and atheists. Could we get the military to cooperate with us on that?Other Comments by 35bluejacket
19. Comment #204837 by 35bluejacket on July 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Speaking of institutions doing things to people, are any of you aware of the hundreds of consentration camps being built in the United States under FEMA and Homeland Security? Just do an easy search with Google.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
20. Comment #204856 by Cairnarvon on July 6, 2008 at 12:53 am
Speaking of institutions doing things to people, are any of you aware of the hundreds of consentration camps being built in the United States under FEMA and Homeland Security? Just do an easy search with Google.
Facepalm. This conspiracy theory is old and tired, and RD.net is the last place I'd expect to find someone who believes it.
Take your own advice and do a Google search, and actually look at the results that aren't batshit conspiracy nuts too this time.
Other Comments by Cairnarvon
21. Comment #204861 by decius on July 6, 2008 at 1:19 am
Comment #204837 by 35bluejacket Sorry, mate.
Forgive my bluntness, but you have just demonstrated as much gullibility and lack of critical thinking as any religious person.
I strongly advise you to remedy this situation.
Here are a few resources where you can apprehend basic scepticism and critical-thinking skills, while having fun.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive.asp
(don't overlook the page links)
http://www.randi.org/
http://www.csicop.org/
Other Comments by decius
22. Comment #204899 by 35bluejacket on July 6, 2008 at 6:03 am
deciusNo problem. I'm just looking for the truth. Sometimes you have to wade through the swamp. Thanks for the leads.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
23. Comment #204905 by errm... on July 6, 2008 at 6:28 am
Comment #204688 by deciusDecius,
I've just looked at Wiseman's "Quirkology" (chapter 3)and he cites: C L Sheridan and R G King Jnr. "Obedience to authority with an authentic victim" Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, pages 165-6 1972 and refers to "several equally striking follow-up studies" without any citations. The Oxford Companion to the Mind discusses the experiment on pages 566-568 but mentions only criticisms on ethical grounds. I hope that this helps. The Sheridan & King experiment used puppies as victims by the way.
Other Comments by errm...
24. Comment #204906 by 35bluejacket on July 6, 2008 at 6:31 am
decusI don't find anything specific (or evidence) about the so-called consentration camps on these sites. I'll keep looking. Randi has always been my favorite. One of these so-called refurbished camps, complete with high concertina wire faced in, the camp's sign calls itself "Residence" is near where I live and does exist. Its right next to the railroad. I guess we will find out what it's for in the future. Not much we could do anyway.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
25. Comment #204909 by decius on July 6, 2008 at 6:50 am
Comment #204906 by 35bluejacketThey probably don't speak specifically of those imaginary camps, but they will give you the instruments to distinguish conspiracy theories, anti-science or crack-pottery when you come across some.
Scepticism is a method, not a set of notions.
Can you give me the coordinates of that place?
BTW, I don't doubt something as described by you exists, the logical fallacy is in the interpretation of its intended use.
Other Comments by decius
26. Comment #204910 by decius on July 6, 2008 at 7:00 am
Comment #204905 by errm...Thanks errm..., I am still not impressed with this experiment.
Other Comments by decius
27. Comment #204913 by Radesq on July 6, 2008 at 7:07 am
decius I don't know what 35bluejacket is referring to but tent prison facilities (inspired by Gitmo?) are being built in Texas and I suspect in other Southern US states to hold immigrants in deportation proceedings. Raymondville, TX for example [the use of the term concentration camp is inappropriate for these facilities - although they do remind one of the Japanese American internment camps of WWII] http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/immigration-detention/more-detention-nightmares-maggots-food-mtc-s-raymondville-prison Other Comments by Radesq
28. Comment #204917 by Buddha on July 6, 2008 at 7:17 am
And here's Derren Brown reproducing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
I have the dubious honour of being friends with the actor in the Derren Brown show that was pretending to be electrocuted during the Milgram experiment.
Aside from occasional appearances as a thug in "Eastenders" or "The Bill", you can regularly find Adrian playing in a band with his brother around the pubs of SW London: http://www.myspace.com/getduffy
Other Comments by Buddha
29. Comment #204921 by 35bluejacket on July 6, 2008 at 7:40 am
deciusPleaswe don't assume I'm some young impressional pup, wet behind the ears. I'm 64 yo and have seen a lot bad real shit in my time. :) {From the American Native view point mostly.} I'm just asking questions and looking for evidence. Whatever that thing is, in my back yard (Taylor , Texas) is, bothers me. Look it up on Google Earth. It's next to the railroad track (south). And the guards don't want you near. Though it maybe no big deal. Nobody seems to know much here.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
30. Comment #204923 by decius on July 6, 2008 at 7:47 am
Comment #204913 by RadesqThx, that's a perfectly sensible explanation for at least some of these alleged deportation camps. I love how some conspiracy sites have already labelled the whole story as "Death Camps in America".
I am afraid I will have to write a lengthy tutorial on how to detect this sort of tripe, as soon as I have a minute.
Other Comments by decius
31. Comment #204928 by mordacious1 on July 6, 2008 at 8:03 am
Well, since they're "consentration camps", doesn't that imply that people are there of their own free will?Other Comments by mordacious1
32. Comment #204930 by 35bluejacket on July 6, 2008 at 8:06 am
deciusWhat I like about being old is seeing things pan out :). Just hope to see this one consiricy bunked. I would like to see a little peace, a little country life, but then again we have (and always had) the Christian thing and this is Bush country. Maybe I will move back to Pine Ridge reservation. It's a little quieter now. Keep up the good work.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
33. Comment #204932 by decius on July 6, 2008 at 8:10 am
Comment #204921 by 35bluejacketI apologise if I sounded condescendent.
My intention was to point out that you started with an unlikely conclusion and not with a search for evidence, and that's nothing to do with age or background.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
Other Comments by decius
34. Comment #204943 by mordacious1 on July 6, 2008 at 8:47 am
35bluejacket"Maybe I will move back to Pine Ridge Reservation".
Interesting. I would think that the reservation system, set up by the U.S. Government, was a very early form of concentration camps, wouldn't you say?
Other Comments by mordacious1
35. Comment #204953 by 35bluejacket on July 6, 2008 at 9:37 am
Yes, but that is a long long story including the seige of Wounded Knee and its aftermath murders in the 70s. It gets political (McCain, Democrats too). And the forced moving of thousands of Arizona poverty ridden Navahos so as to mine coal in 74. It takes an atheist spirit of search for truth to sort out the hype of both sides, but this is really not the site to go into this.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
36. Comment #205280 by jo5ef on July 7, 2008 at 2:29 am
While aspects of the Stanford prison experiment were undoubtedly flawed, it is clear that it does furnish us with yet another example of the surprisingly high degree of compliance shown to authority by people in institutional situations. The strip search prank call scam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam is another recent, and frightening, example.Other Comments by jo5ef
37. Comment #205465 by 35bluejacket on July 7, 2008 at 10:04 am
Is it possible to do an experiment to show the blind response to authority, say using atheists in one group and fundamental christians in another, like the firing squad using blanks I mentioned earlier? Am I a little biased here? :)Other Comments by 35bluejacket
38. Comment #206482 by CrimsonRick on July 8, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Getting my degree in psychology I had to come across these studies several times so I wanted to answer some questions posted above.1. "Why is it unethical to make people think they're delivering shocks to someone?" A lot of the footage from the experiments show that people did show genuine distress and discomfort because they thought they were actually delivering shocks and potentially hurting people, even if they were told that the responsibility lay with the experimenter, they knew they were still cooperating. If someone coerced you into hurting someone else, wouldn't you feel the least bit distressed? Also, some of the details and names from the experiments were released to the local media and some of these people were ostricized as being cold-hearted or willing to hurt others. As a result of this and the prison experiment, it's impossible to do a study where people feel unecessary stress or pain.
2. Someone brought up the idea of different authority figures. The study was actually replicated in many different manners, for example having the subject/actor in the same room, even having the test subject have to hold down the other person in order to deliver the shock, and even with animals and each of the studies showed that a fair amount of the subjects continued. They also found that if the experimenter was wearing a lab coat and was more official/scientific looking or sounding, people were more willing to go along because they perceived them as more authoritative and knowledgeable as opposed to someone in plain clothes like an assistant.
Along these lines, men and women reacted differently, with women being more willing to delivery higher shocks or go all the way, and this is most likely because in that time period, women felt much more of an authority from male authority figures compared to men interacting with male authority figures. Women felt even more pressure to continue.
3. The prison study being flawed - Most studies are actually flawed and all the flaws pointed out (Self-selection, experimenter being involved, no controls, etc) definitely make this an easy-to-pick-apart study that you can't draw many conclusions from but it does illustrate some interesting points. One of the main reasons it's discussed today is because it shows that people will often "act" in such a way that they feel they are required to or expected to act. Like the guy labeled "John Wayne" who admitted to pretending to be like a movie character because he thought he should be tough. It's brought up the notion of prison staff in general possibly believing they should act like prison guards in movies and TV and be more strict. Not every subject acting as a prison guard felt this expectation and that's why you saw differences in their behavior.
Other Comments by CrimsonRick
39. Comment #206845 by 35bluejacket on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 pm
It would seem to me that these experiments should be working towards the goal of finding out what philosophy or system of thought produces a strong moral individual compass as as opposed to a radar personality of blind obedience.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"...the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #204592 by rydrum2112 on July 5, 2008 at 10:02 am
Milgram is awesome, this is probably best experiment on human behavior ever, with Solomon Asch's Line Study, and Zimbardo's Prison Study coming close and they all have to do with conformity.Other Comments by rydrum2112