Poll: You're in the Milgram Experiment!

[Xanadu84]

The only caveat is that if the experiment were recognizable to me, then I may disagree with the experimenter because I know whats going on.

You don't even have to be familiar with the particular experiment. Being familiar with scientific methods overall would pretty much be sufficient to deduce that there's something iffy about the entire situation...

That's only true because we have ethical standards in experiments now.

 

[TWRule]

He didn't accuse people of lying, it's not about lying. Most people (indeed, anyone mentally healthy and stable) would reply to the question "Would administer a lethal shock to an individual in the name of a minor psychological experiment?" with an adament "No!". They'd be entirely genuine in their reply. It's not a failure to concieve the situation, they understand the question perfectly (it's not a complicated question). They genuinely believe they wouldn't.

The experiment itself hinges on the presence of the authority figure. All participants expressed extreme discomfort, asking questions and asking to stop the experiment. They didn't stop because the authority figure read out his script (The experiment will be ruined if you stop, etc). From this we can conclude that someone who wouldn't normally kill a human, may actually do so under the influence of authority, ie submit to the authority figure and do something that goes against their personal morals - ie, a clear cut case of submissiveness.

No one said anyones dependent on an authorty figure to make a decision, thats beside the point of the experiment. The point is that an authority figure can affect the decisions an individual to the extent of that 60% of participants (healthy, mentally stable law abiding citizens) were willing to deliver a lethal voltage.

As to your last sentence, anyone who would willingly make the decision to murder a human being in the same of science without the influence of authority needs to be locked away.

I don't know why you're so defensive about this. It's not personal, every study so far indicates that this is an aspect of humanity common to us all.

I'm defensive about this because these same sort of blanket generalizations about human nature threaten the moral/ethical fabric of the human race.

If it's common to all humans, why are 30-40% ignoring it?

How does the presence of authoritative pressure ensure that the people who chose to continue did so purely due to that pressure?

How is someone's responsibility for hitting the button removed by someone else telling them to do it? How can you know whether they wouldn't have done it anyway, regardless of what they say? You are willing to dismiss what they say on this poll, after all.

The conclusion of this experiment is one giant fallacy of false cause.

 

[tthor]

i would definitely demand to stop this. Unless the experimenter were to threaten me, I can see little reason to continue with this torture. I don't care if his death wouldn't be on my hands, I will not let this man die if I can help it

EDIT: I think the original results (stolen from wikipedia) best convey why our predictions of if we would do it or not would probably be wrong,

Results

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Everybody cares... Your brain is built to care.

Yes, some are less susceptible than others, but in the right situation everybody is susceptible.

How do you know that im not a psychopath or suffer from some other kind of anti-social personality disorder or that I've cultivated a similar mindset that in pratical terms emulate these conditions in many ways?

Saying that our brain is "built to care" isn't a very scientific statement you know. We know EXTREMELY LITTLE about how the human brain works, and even the worlds leading neurobiologists can only give rough estimates about which parts of the brain govern which mental and physical responses. When it comes to in-depth knowledge about what specific neurons and synapses control, no one really knows.

 

[Kae]

You know the only way that our answers would be actually truthful is if we are held to said experiment, regardless I answered no, I do not think I would be capable of going on but as I said although I believe that I would have mercy for the man the only real way to know if I would back off would be to actually be in the experiment under the condition of ignorance of the experiment.

 

[loc978]

Pretty sure I'd opt out immediately after hearing what my part in the experiment was. No shocks administered. I'm really good at walking out despite direct orders (I'm also really good at damaging property if I'm locked in a room)... just ask my old battalion commander.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think I'd ask someone to check on the guy, and if they said he was fine I'd keep going

 

[SkyeNeko]

hey he says im not responsible if he dies? = guy on the other side signed a release form. shock 'im again. Bzzzzz!

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I'd like to think that I'd stop, but in all honesty I can't say for certain that I would.

 

[lacktheknack]

UI'd never start the experiment in the first place. "You sadistic twats! Let me out of here!"

I'm not one for pain and violence.

 

[spartan1077]

I'd want to know what the purpose is. If the purpose seemed not "pulled out of their ass", I'd be happy to proceed and shock him till he ceases. It's science and science demands sacrifice.

 

[Lullabye]

See, whilst I am an asshole, I like to think that I have some common decency. Which extends to not shocking a person with heart problems.
I'd think the scientists were assholes and not participate in the first place.

 

[Vanaron]

Everybody cares... Your brain is built to care.

Yes, some are less susceptible than others, but in the right situation everybody is susceptible.

How do you know that im not a psychopath or suffer from some other kind of anti-social personality disorder or that I've cultivated a similar mindset that in pratical terms emulate these conditions in many ways?

There's a reason why those are called disorders...

But let me see: You're trying to convince me (a total stranger, who you never met and odds are never will meet) that you really don't care about social pressure...

Saying that our brain is "built to care" isn't a very scientific statement you know. We know EXTREMELY LITTLE about how the human brain works, and even the worlds leading neurobiologists can only give rough estimates about which parts of the brain govern which mental and physical responses. When it comes to in-depth knowledge about what specific neurons and synapses control, no one really knows.

My statement wasn't based on the anatomy of the brain... But on the fact that since the dawn of mankind we've been social animals, that's how we evolved.

Being a anti-social rogue may be what all the kids find cool today, but not so long ago it meant you were destined to a very short, very lonely life.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

There's a reason why those are called disorders...

Yes, it's because of a pretty conformist standard that have been pretty ingrained in the field of medicine for quite some time. Remember, were talking about the same scientific branch that considered homosexuals and horny women "diseased" once upon a time.

But let me see: You're trying to convince me (a total stranger, who you never met and odds are never will meet) that you really don't care about social pressure...

Only the rational and intelligent part of me actually knows that there's a person responding to my posts in this thread. Emotionally however you're just a name on a computer screen, no more human or "social" than a blank piece of paper or a tape recorder. You could die tomorrow and I would never feel the same way or as strongly as if I saw an actual human being dying right in front of me. In fact, in the ways that matter im primarily writing this for my own amusement than actually having a social interaction with you.

It's kind of like playing tetris. Blocks of different shapes fall down the screen (the blocks being your arguments) seemingly at random (but with some kind of programming to it) and I respond by adapting my strategy according to which blocks I get, trying to piece them together in consecutive rows to create more room. It's not very social at all really. And if you were to cease communication with me for whatever reason, I'd just find some other anonymous screen name to play around with.

Points for effort for trying to find some kind of ironic angle on the subject matter and try to prove me wrong though. Or as the meme goes: "I see what you did thar!"

My statement wasn't based on the anatomy of the brain... But on the fact that since the dawn of mankind we've been social animals, that's how we evolved.

Actually, the evolution of the brains anatomy (and by extension our very psyche and self-awareness, since none of these things exist without the physical brain) of the homo sapiens hasn't evolved much at all during our existence.

The social patterns of our species was more of a utilitarian evolution rather than an actual biological one. This because back then, nature was a much more difficult place to survive in as a lone human being and there were a lot more safety in numbers and odds for prosperity.

To put it simply: it's easier to bring down an elephant for food if you gang up on it rather than trying to pull down the elephant on your own. Especially when you're only armed with sticks and stones.

Nowadays however, a single man with a rifle could bring down an elephant if he wanted to. And with minimal human interaction to boot (since you could basically order a sufficient weapon online)

Being a anti-social rogue may be what all the kids find cool today, but not so long ago it meant you were destined to a very short, very lonely life.

That's not entirely accurate.

It was a pretty long time ago when this was true. With the technological development of the species, the actual social needs for survival has significantly declined, and nowadays we are in no way near as dependant on other people the way we were back in let's say the earlier stone-age. In fact this system of laws, societies and industries are pretty much a system designed to get as many people as possible what they need with the least effort. Money is a perfect example of this. Just pieces of worthless paper that can be converted into basically anything you might need or desire as long as you have enough of it, and you can do it without even leaving your house. People can even work from home without having to do any actual social interaction with others.

In fact if you wanted to, you could live and die without anyone knowing about you other than an anonymous screen name on a computer. And this doesn't mean at all that your life has to be "short", since you could pretty much live as long as anyone else in today's digital world.

This just goes to show that the actual "need" for actual social interaction and being suceptible to social pressure is a purely subjective affair after a certain age. Infants need a degree of social interaction in order for their brains to develop properly (since they can get afflicted by autism if they recieve no social interaction or physical contact with other human beings at all). But once that phase is over, it's pretty clear that there isn't any real "need" to speak of from a biological perspective (other than for procreational purposes of course, which we certainly don't have any need of now since the world is terribly over-populated by humans as it is).

The idea that man is an inherently social creature even down to the biological level (and the only level that really matters when it comes to our development) is mostly a popular myth than a fact. The technological evolution and our reaction to it has made a pretty good job of illustrating this.

 

[Negatempest]

Snip

Not sure if he mentioned this in the OP, but I've heard that all that was said to the participants when they asked to stop was, "We're sorry, but you need to keep going." The point of the experiment, like others have probably said, was to find out if people could be influenced to do horrible things just from being told to by someone who seemed to be in authority, like the Nazi grunts who cremated people because they were told to by their CO's.

OP: I've heard about this experiment three or so times so I'm already out for the experiment. But being blind about the experiment, I probably would.

I know that much, but to me is more like "Why should I even begin it in the first place?". My thought process, unless for some reason I get paid to do this...maybe it's some sadist job of mine, is that if I see no benefit from it or threatened to do it...why do something like this? I mean if "God" in person was to come down, look me square in the eye and say, "Kill that man right there because I told you too." I'd say "Why?". Just saying i'm not stupid enough to do something like that unless there was a damn good reason to do it.

To me, whether I know it is a set-up/experiment of some kind is besides the point. Why even begin in the first place is my question.

P.S. I'm not calling the people that do do this stupid, I am saying that in my view to even begin that would be a stupid move on my part.....without some reason anyways.

 

[Vanaron]

Yes, it's because of a pretty conformist standard that have been pretty ingrained in the field of medicine for quite some time. Remember, were talking about the same scientific branch that considered homosexuals and horny women "diseased" once upon a time.

Actually, no... It's because those disorders have a tendency to cause harm on the people that possess them as well as the people around them, not to mention the fact that these conditions are debilitating as in people who possess them are, in some cases, unable to feel basic human emotions.

Actually, the evolution of the brains anatomy (and by extension our very psyche and self-awareness, since none of these things exist without the physical brain) of the homo sapiens hasn't evolved much at all during our existence.

The social patterns of our species was more of a utilitarian evolution rather than an actual biological one. This because back then, nature was a much more difficult place to survive in as a lone human being and there were a lot more safety in numbers and odds for prosperity.

To put it simply: it's easier to bring down an elephant for food if you gang up on it rather than trying to pull down the elephant on your own. Especially when you're only armed with sticks and stones.

Nowadays however, a single man with a rifle could bring down an elephant if he wanted to. And with minimal human interaction to boot (since you could basically order a sufficient weapon online)

That's precisely the point, we needed each other for so long, and it may be true that now we don't. But our brains have been hardwired to need other people for so long that now we just do.

So to cut it short: The guy who was sociable lived longer and had lots of baby and the rogue got mauled by a cougar.

That's not entirely accurate.

It was a pretty long time ago when this was true. With the technological development of the species, the actual social needs for survival has significantly declined, and nowadays we are in no way near as dependant on other people the way we were back in let's say the earlier stone-age. In fact this system of laws, societies and industries are pretty much a system designed to get as many people as possible what they need with the least effort. Money is a perfect example of this. Just pieces of worthless paper that can be converted into basically anything you might need or desire as long as you have enough of it, and you can do it without even leaving your house. People can even work from home without having to do any actual social interaction with others.

In fact if you wanted to, you could live and die without anyone knowing about you other than an anonymous screen name on a computer. And this doesn't mean at all that your life has to be "short", since you could pretty much live as long as anyone else in today's digital world.

This just goes to show that the actual "need" for actual social interaction and being suceptible to social pressure is a purely subjective affair after a certain age. Infants need a degree of social interaction in order for their brains to develop properly (since they can get afflicted by autism if they recieve no social interaction or physical contact with other human beings at all). But once that phase is over, it's pretty clear that there isn't any real "need" to speak of from a biological perspective (other than for procreational purposes of course, which we certainly don't have any need of now since the world is terribly over-populated by humans as it is).

The idea that man is an inherently social creature even down to the biological level (and the only level that really matters when it comes to our development) is mostly a popular myth than a fact. The technological evolution and our reaction to it has made a pretty good job of illustrating this.

Yeah, we may not need social interaction with all the technology we've got... But what are we doing with all of this technology?

Hmmmm...
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html

Only the rational and intelligent part of me actually knows that there's a person responding to my posts in this thread. Emotionally however you're just a name on a computer screen, no more human or "social" than a blank piece of paper or a tape recorder. You could die tomorrow and I would never feel the same way or as strongly as if I saw an actual human being dying right in front of me. In fact, in the ways that matter im primarily writing this for my own amusement than actually having a social interaction with you.

It's kind of like playing tetris. Blocks of different shapes fall down the screen (the blocks being your arguments) seemingly at random (but with some kind of programming to it) and I respond by adapting my strategy according to which blocks I get, trying to piece them together in consecutive rows to create more room. It's not very social at all really. And if you were to cease communication with me for whatever reason, I'd just find some other anonymous screen name to play around with.

Points for effort for trying to find some kind of ironic angle on the subject matter and try to prove me wrong though. Or as the meme goes: "I see what you did thar!"

You can rationalize this anyway you want, but the fact remains that someone from across the globe (for all you know) just got you to put all of this effort into writing this wall of text. I don't usually use smileys but here's one for you: =)

 

[Latman2k]

I remember seeing a game show about this in japan that was a big deal. As for me, I would do it even without the shrinks prodding, simply because he knew the risks he was getting into and the consequences.