Poll: You're in the Milgram Experiment!

[The Heik]

licketty-snip

I would likely refuse to even start the experiment unless I knew what it was about.

I don't like being put into a scientific situation without at least a reason why we were doing it. And if they give out a reason, I would stop the minute the actor started to "feel" pain. I don't torture people as a matter of principle. Especially if all I have to go on is what they told me.

As a side note, I would likely punch the scientist after he explained the experiment to me. No one should know the extent of their own evil, and this experiment does just that.

 

[SpikeyGirl]

Considering the infamy of this experiment I think almost anyone subjected to it nowadays (if ethics laws allowed it, which they do not) would see right through it immediately.

Regardless I thought one of the chief things we learned from it is that we cannot accurately predict how we would act in a given situation.

There have been variations of the experiment that have worked to find similar results, look at the wiki page near the bottom.

However the experiment was a blind one, participants were unaware of the true nature of the experiment until afterwards, which is what made it so effective as an experiment.
By informing us of the experiment and how it worked we are going to give a biased answer because we know what to do to change the results however we want (fondly known as the 'fuck you' effect in my psychology class)

Try Asch's study on conformity next!

Ah yes, good old demand characteristics. Shouldn't forget them.
Asch's results have proved to be a bit harder to replicate iirc. Plus absolutely no one would claim they'd be a conformer.

Every time one of my psychology teachers tried to give an example of any experiment we would fuck it up because she'd try it based on something we'd just spent two lessons studying.
<color=white>That's kind of my point here

 

[AwesomeFerret]

I would. There's research to be done on the people who are still alive.

Oh I see what you did there.

My problem here is that anyone who says that they would stop is accused of trying to make themselves look good, when in fact there are people who don't see the point of the infliction of pain for a simple experiment.

 

[Mcupobob]

No, because once you know what the experiment is then its easier to see it form a different point and skew the standard results.

 

[epikAXE]

I'm going to make a prediction.

The majority of the people in this thread are going to say "no way, I'd totally stop!"

The majority of those people will be wrong.

-m

Yes...having a moral sense of humanity...thats totally wrong...

But I must confess, id have to keep going in the name of science. Because if you weigh up the moral ambiguity of the situation, you could easily say that animal testing is wrong, which isnt really somthing I agree with. I guess it depends whether you think it goes against that mans rights, or if he has more right to not be tested on as opposed to, a rat for example.

 

[Daggedawg]

Well, since I already know about it I would just stop and go home.

But if I hadn't known... hmm... I do hate causing pain in others, so I think I would have quit.

 

[Liiizard]

I'd stop once he starts mentioning the heart condition, but not out of altruism. I'd point out to the psychologist that having a subject with a heart condition invalidates his conditioning experiment, and that if he wants to continue he can push the button himself, and HE can be the one to go to prison if the subject's heart gives up. I'm not going to jail unless it's for my own experiment.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I'm going to make a prediction.

The majority of the people in this thread are going to say "no way, I'd totally stop!"

The majority of those people will be wrong.

-m

Yes...having a moral sense of humanity...thats totally wrong...

But I must confess, id have to keep going in the name of science. Because if you weigh up the moral ambiguity of the situation, you could easily say that animal testing is wrong, which isnt really somthing I agree with. I guess it depends whether you think it goes against that mans rights, or if he has more right to not be tested on as opposed to, a rat for example.

You misread me. I didn't say these people were wrong for having a conscience. I said these people were wrong, because in the actual situation, they would almost certainly push their conscience aside - and the data bears me out on that claim.

-m

 

[conflictofinterests]

The first shocks, the one's where he isn't really in pain, I'd probably continue, but I'm not sure how long into the painful ones I'd go. I really don't like causing pain.

 

[Nimcha]

I'd figure out pretty fast that the guy wouldn't actually be shocked by me.

So yeah, I'd keep going.

You can't figure it out, he's behind a wall.

I know. How would that stop me from figuring it out?

Okay how would you figure it out if you had no knowledge of the Milgram experiment prior to the one you are currently in? There is a CD or tape (I can't remember fully) of the nice man screaming played at certain points to make it seem like you are hurting him. So how would you figure out he isn't in any pain and that the experiment isn't what you thought it was?

Because such an experiment would probably be highly illegal. Plus, while reading the description I already figured out it had to be an actor before that was already mentioned.

So, just plain old common sense.

 

[Count Igor]

I wouldn't start.
Well, unless I'm being physically forced, then I wouldn't. If I had a gun to my head (Or thereabouts) then I would carry on shocking him, but not if I wasn't being threatened.
I don't see myself getting into that situation, anyway.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

I'm going to make a prediction.

The majority of the people in this thread are going to say "no way, I'd totally stop!"

The majority of those people will be wrong.

-m

What he said.

Of course most people want to believe that authority can't boss them around. I'd love to say that I'd just turn to the experimenter and say, "I'm calling 911 because you're torturing someone, you sadistic jerk," whip out my phone, and screw everything up. And be justified in doing it.

But you know, apparently people were horrified and tormented over what they did in that experiment. They said they really thought they'd never have done it. This proves we're all just a bunch of sheeple, and we'll do anything if we feel like we can foist the moral responsibility off onto someone else. We suck.

Also, ethics laws would prohibit this now -- one reason why we won't ever learn as much about human psychology as we should. We don't even allow our own experiments.

 

[FightThePower]

I would stop but only because I know way too much about this because I do Psychology at Uni.

 

[TerranReaper]

"Kill" the man, then kill psychologist. ALL MUST DIE!

OT: I honestly do not know what I would do in that situation. I would either stop or do it while feeling like shit at the same time. Although, given the use of logic, you would think that something like this wouldn't be allowed at all. What I think would determine the overall decision is whatever you were told or would have knowledge of before going in.

 

[aguagu1]

Am I missing something here? From what I have read you aren't punished at all for demanding to leave the experiment. So by continuing with the experiment, you would kill a man, and if you stopped, there is no consequence. I don't see ANY reason why you would keep going in the given situation.

 

[jakeEHTlovless]

well, if i keep going, i can get my science experience up, and i can finally make fire bullets of dooooom!

but in all seriousness, if i was put in this position, i would want to leave, BUT i would at least ask what the point of the experiment is. it sounds to me like this is just a record to see if you would make the right choice. but, it would be intresting to know exactly how many vaults the human body could stand until you die... to get to my point, yes, i would keep going. you have to experience what its like to hold the life of someone in your hands, and that my friends is what would change who you are.

btw, if any one knows how much electricity it takes to kill someone, tell me, i dont feel like googling it.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Am I missing something here? From what I have read you aren't punished at all for demanding to leave the experiment. So by continuing with the experiment, you would kill a man, and if you stopped, there is no consequence. I don't see ANY reason why you would keep going in the given situation.

But people did. Currently, psychologists' theory is that people feel an absolution from their moral problems with the situation, when the experimenter tells you that they'll take responsibility, just do the experiment, it must continue, it's not your fault. Once people hear the magic "it's not your fault" message, they don't really have a conscience about it anymore.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Frankly, i won´t even pretend to know what i´d do in that situation. But that is not the same as "I´m not sure." The phrase "I´m not sure." implies not the same thing as "I don´t know." in this context. Therefor, i add my own option and say: "I don´t know."

If i was in that situation, i hope that i would come to my senses and stop. But like i said, i don´t know.