Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=54165
Printed Date: February 21 2025 at 11:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
Posted By: Blacksword
Subject: Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 09:13
In a repeat of the famous 1963 'Milgram Test' researchers in the US, have ascertained that over 8 out of 10 people are still willing to inflict torture on their fellow man, if asked to do so by an 'authority' figure..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm - Shock the monkey....and the man..
The Milgram test involved the participants being asked to inflict ever increasing electric shocks on someone in the next room, whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The subject in the other room was an actor, and was not being shocked at all, but their fake screams, would convince the participant that they were really inflicting the pain. The test was designed to show that 'normal' people are often prepared to do terrible things when put under certain conditions, and ordered to act by someone, percieved to be 'in authority' Under test conditions, many subjects continued to deliver shocks to the 'victim' when ordered to, even after their screams had ceased, suggesting they were unconcious or even dead.
This important psychology test, explains why previously normal people would be willing to commit hideous acts of genocide and cruelty to their fellow man, without questioning the morality of their actions as an individual. In the case of the test, the subjects became so 'involved' in the research, and thus identified more with the official looking, lab coated, test co-ordinator, than the 'victim' in the next room. German military personel became engrossed and brainwashed in the Fuhrers vision for a Jew free Germany and Europe and mostly thought nothing of killing millions of Jews, including children for the 'greater good' of the Nazi campaign. The same applies to the massacres in Rwanda, the massacres by Christian Militia in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in the early 80's, and of course the genocides in the Balkans.
No real question here, just an opportunity to consider the suggestibility of the human mind, and human condition. The test suggested that the MAJORITY of men AND women would be prepared to perform hideous acts, under the right conditions.
Would you??
That said..have a very merry Christmas.. 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 09:51
Only under the right conditions though it depends on how hideous the acts are. 
-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 10:03
|
I think I could poke someone with a stick. Or maybe tickle her ear or something.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 10:36
 Blacksword wrote:
This important psychology test, explains why previously normal people would be willing to commit hideous acts of genocide and cruelty to their fellow man, without questioning the morality of their actions as an individual.
|
I find this claim, in particular, somewhat troublesome. The test itself literally explains nothing; rather it demonstrates an instantiation of a certain behavior. Moreover, we must take care in extrapolating results obtained in a laboratory to humanity in toto. In other words, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to generalize these specific cases (which may have been the outcome of poor methodology--that's not reported in the article) to some theory of humanity. Indeed, most of what the social scientists proclaim should be taken with a grain of salt since their theoretical frameworks lack the sort of foundations found in the hard sciences, namely those given to mathematical analysis.
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 12:57
Slartibartfast wrote:
Only under the right conditions though it depends on how hideous the acts are.
|
You saving that for everyone in "W's" administration?
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 13:26
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 14:00
|
In my psych class, the professor and textbook said that while it was a landmark study in developing our understanding of psychology, it could not be repeated because we no longer have the extremely lax ethical standards of 1930...
I probably would join the Goa'uld too, but only so I could go all Teal'c on them. ;-)
-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 14:07
Henry Plainview wrote:
In my psych class, the professor and textbook said that while it was a landmark study in developing our understanding of psychology, it could not be repeated because we no longer have the extremely lax ethical standards of 1930...
|
In someways those in 1930 didn't share with us the "extremely lax ethical standards" of today. Postmodernism and relativism seems to me a plague not only on ethics but on intellectual concerns as well.
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 14:18
|
Definitely not. I don't care if the guy is wearing a lab coat or a suit he still isn't going to get me to push that stupid button.
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 14:41
Trusting people in authority, not thinking critically for oneself.
And in a general sense, religion.
Have a Merry Christmas. 
Now eat your damn pudding and stop crying! 
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 14:48
stonebeard wrote:
And in a general sense, religion.
|
I'm not particularly religious, but I don't see your claim as true. There's no doubt, of course, that religion has been a great motivator of some of history's most horrid developments; on the other hand, religion often encourages people to acts of the highest moral caliber.
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 15:23
WinterLight wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
In my psych class, the professor and textbook said that while it was a landmark study in developing our understanding of psychology, it could not be repeated because we no longer have the extremely lax ethical standards of 1930...
|
In someways those in 1930 didn't share with us the "extremely lax ethical standards" of today. Postmodernism and relativism seems to me a plague not only on ethics but on intellectual concerns as well.
|
That is true. But I thought it was written down somewhere that you couldn't do that anymore because it's abusive and exploitative of your test subjects. Our lax ethical standards take a different form.
stonebeard, I swear, if this turns into a religious thread...
-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 15:28
Henry Plainview wrote:
But I thought it was written down somewhere that you couldn't do that anymore because it's abusive and exploitative of your test subjects.
Yes. I think that the experiment involving students assuming the roles of prisoners and guards at Stanford more or less signaled the end to that era of human experimentation.
Our lax ethical standards take a different form.
Neither of us have specified what those standards are. Might be interesting to do so, but then...
...if this turns into a religious thread... |
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 15:38
WinterLight wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
But I thought it was written down somewhere that you couldn't do that anymore because it's abusive and exploitative of your test subjects. |
Yes. I think that the experiment involving students assuming the roles of prisoners and guards at Stanford more or less signaled the end to that era of human experimentation. |
And yet here we are, which is why I am confused.
I won't get into the ethical standards thing either, I have places to be for the next 3 hours. ;-)
-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 15:42
"He's not answering anymore." "The experiment requires that you go on". I saw Milgram's test during psychology classes, may years ago, and it made a big impression on me. I don't think I would have been one of the few who would have stood up and left the experiment.  Actually, to be very honest, I'm pretty sure of it.
Hopefully I'm changed now. 
|
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 17:36
Horrible genocide has occurred with depressing frequency throughout human history so you don't really need a lab test to confirm it can happen.
There will always be some brave and principled people who will stand up to genocidal maniacs but they will likely get killed and others will be too cowardly or weak to carry on the fight. So, yes I think in a particular set of circumstances the majority of people can be moved to commit horrendous 'inhuman' acts.
Funnily enough this reminds me of an article I read by arch cynic PJ O'Rourke about the audience at the original Live Aid. A Jewish friend of his rang him and said "It's horrible, they're in a frenzy." O'Rourke replied that at least it was a frenzy of charity, but the friend said: "But next time it could be "Kill the Jews!" meaning that the audience weren't thinking for themselves and could just as easily be moved to acts of sadism as kindness.
-------------
"And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!"
"He's up the pub"
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 21:28
WinterLight wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
But I thought it was written down somewhere that you couldn't do that anymore because it's abusive and exploitative of your test subjects.
Yes. I think that the experiment involving students assuming the roles of prisoners and guards at Stanford more or less signaled the end to that era of human experimentation.
Our lax ethical standards take a different form.
Neither of us have specified what those standards are. Might be interesting to do so, but then...
...if this turns into a religious thread... |
|
Here's how they work it in the States
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html - http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 21:30
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 21:38
WinterLight wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
This important psychology test, explains why previously normal people would be willing to commit hideous acts of genocide and cruelty to their fellow man, without questioning the morality of their actions as an individual.
|
I find this claim, in particular, somewhat troublesome. The test itself literally explains nothing; rather it demonstrates an instantiation of a certain behavior. Moreover, we must take care in extrapolating results obtained in a laboratory to humanity in toto. In other words, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to generalize these specific cases (which may have been the outcome of poor methodology--that's not reported in the article) to some theory of humanity. Indeed, most of what the social scientists proclaim should be taken with a grain of salt since their theoretical frameworks lack the sort of foundations found in the hard sciences, namely those given to mathematical analysis.
|
You make a good point here, WL, but I'm on the fence about it. I think the behavior is quite generalizable here in the mechanisms that trigger it: subordinate takes order from authority----> actions become progressively more terrible. The strongest effect comes when the shock starts at a lower, harmless voltage and then becomes unbearable. Think about how many dictators often present themselves as bringers of positive economic and social change - this effect could be even stronger, because the beginning condition is not neutral, it is even "positive" in the subordinate's mind. (Keep in mind that, as you say, we can't really delve into the precise physical mechanisms involved in the behavior. Social psychology does not aim for that, anyway.)
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 22:57
|
The problem with the article is that they assume different things and don't give us a complete information.
As far as I know, the original 'Milgram Experiment" doesn't prove that normal people can comit terrible acts, but that the average person can be MANIPULATED by a person with the abbility of doing so.
This doesn't imply necesarilly that a person will comit crimes or cause pain to others, only that can be manipulated, as a fact we Proggers know that, a lot of people listen music because an authoerity (DJ or Magazine) tells them it's good.
The grandfather of a friend told me he was in Germany during the mid/late 30's and got caught in a street where Hitler was giving a message, he was almost convinced by the nationalist message of a great nation, until he asked himself "How can this criminal impress me if I'm a Jewish".
Simple manipulation, Hitler exploited the patriot spirit of all Germans and a nation was ready to folow him without asking.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 19 2008 at 23:58
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
As far as I know, the original 'Milgram Experiment" doesn't prove that normal people can comit terrible acts, but that the average person can be MANIPULATED by a person with the abbility of doing so.
And so that person is capable of committing that particular crime.
This doesn't imply necesarilly that a person will comit crimes or cause pain to others, only that can be manipulated, as a fact we Proggers know that, a lot of people listen music because an authoerity (DJ or Magazine) tells them it's good.
Not sure if the metaphor is accurate, especially in view of the dubious claim that people's listening preferences are dependent on "authority" figures--in fact, I'm not sure if most people take music all that seriously.
Simple manipulation, Hitler exploited the patriot spirit of all Germans and a nation was ready to folow him without asking.
I think that this is a gross oversimplification of social psychological appeal of Fascism. At the very least, it begs the question on how patriotism is exploitable to the point of genocide.
|
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:16
I'm just glad I'm not normal.
-------------
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:21
Vibrationbaby wrote:
I'm just glad I'm not normal. |
This.
-------------
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:54
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 05:53
Hey, I see there's room in yours for it.
What makes it even more funny is al-Maliki's half-assed attempt to block the second shoe.
I'm also just noticing that he just flinched a little at the first one.
-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 05:59
I never understood that test. My problem is this:
Those people are told that the "torture" they inflict does not cause any damage. Yet those they inflict it on act as if it does. They are also told that the "victims" are doing this freely and can abort the procedure at any time.
If that is so, I can only conclude that they are not taking the test seriously - and knowing that, I can't take the test results seriously.
-------------
https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 06:41
I don't take anything seriously. Does that mean I'm not normal?
-------------
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:08
Slartibartfast wrote:
Hey, I see there's room in yours for it.
What makes it even more funny is al-Maliki's half-assed attempt to block the second shoe.
I'm also just noticing that he just flinched a little at the first one.
|
Hahaha, I didn't even notice that...look at the smirk W gets after he dodges the first one
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:13
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I never understood that test. My problem is this:
Those people are told that the "torture" they inflict does not cause any damage. Yet those they inflict it on act as if it does. They are also told that the "victims" are doing this freely and can abort the procedure at any time.
If that is so, I can only conclude that they are not taking the test seriously - and knowing that, I can't take the test results seriously.
|
I don't think it would be fair to conclude that, but it's certainly possible to an extent. But one thing about the emotions being manipulated here, is that the subject does not think about the context - they just know that the "victim" is demonstrating pain and that a man in a lab coat is pressuring them to keep going (if the experimenter and confederate do a good job, then they can control a lot of the situational confound). If they did not take the experiment seriously, they would not show such high levels of emotional instability (some participants of Milgram's study were very upset with what was done to them).
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:37
jimmy_row wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I never understood that test. My problem is this:
Those people are told that the "torture" they inflict does not cause any damage. Yet those they inflict it on act as if it does. They are also told that the "victims" are doing this freely and can abort the procedure at any time.
If that is so, I can only conclude that they are not taking the test seriously - and knowing that, I can't take the test results seriously.
|
I don't think it would be fair to conclude that, but it's certainly possible to an extent. But one thing about the emotions being manipulated here, is that the subject does not think about the context - they just know that the "victim" is demonstrating pain and that a man in a lab coat is pressuring them to keep going (if the experimenter and confederate do a good job, then they can control a lot of the situational confound). If they did not take the experiment seriously, they would not show such high levels of emotional instability (some participants of Milgram's study were very upset with what was done to them).
|
The participants are initially given a low-voltage shock as sample of the shocks that they, if they choose, will apply to the other. The subsequent shocks aren't real, of course, but it is implied that they are. So, while it is an exaggeration to call it "torture", it certainly is a matter of knowingly inflicting pain on another. That the "students" can stop the experiment at any time could provide the basis for the teacher's rationalization of his actions.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 11:35
WinterLight wrote:
And so that person is capable of committing that particular crime.
No Winter Light, an experiment has parameters and the discoveries can only be applied to the point under study, the Milgram Experiment was designed to prove people can be manipulated, from there to say they are able to commit terrible crimes, there's a long distance.
You don't know if the people who pressed the button were said that this will cause pain but is harmless and that it will help their learning process, or what else they have been said, because (and I know this) researchers also manipulate results to get what they want.
People may be able to inflict a painful but harmless pain to a person if they believe that at the end the benefit will be more valuable, but I'm sure not even a significative part of this people will be willing to apply deadly pain to a person.
The Milgram Experiment only proves people can be manipulated....To what point? Nobody will know untuil a test designed for that purpose is created.
Not sure if the metaphor is accurate, especially in view of the dubious claim that people's listening preferences are dependent on "authority" figures--in fact, I'm not sure if most people take music all that seriously.
Precisely, people who don't care are the easier to manipulate, peopl,e who care and know are harder to manipulate.
Some years ago after a class, I took some of the students to have a beer and we talked about everything, including music, and we're no talking about average people, we are talking about advanced law students with some degree of knowledge, people who have taken at least Art and Music History plus Musical Appreciation 101 and 102 which are obligatory classes in General Studies.
Most of them were casual listeners, the vast majority said "Hey they have won a Grammy, they have to be good, this people know who they grant an award"
So they can be manipulated by an authority figure, in this case the Musical Academy, who they assume know more than the average listener.
Simon Cowell has a strong credibility because he's harsh, offensive and appears in TV, just imagine that.
I think that this is a gross oversimplification of social psychological appeal of Fascism. At the very least, it begs the question on how patriotism is exploitable to the point of genocide.
Of course is not the only factor, I'm not that naive, but surely a good percentage of Germans acted as they acted because they believed it was better for their country.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 14:19
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
No Winter Light, an experiment has parameters and the discoveries can only be applied to the point under study, the Milgram Experiment was designed to prove people can be manipulated, from there to say they are able to commit terrible crimes, there's a long distance.Yes, I realize this, and in fact I pointed this out in a previous post. My intention for the statement which you quote was illumine the apparently circular reasoning in your post. In any case, despite the notoriety of the experiment, its results should not surprise anyone: that people can be manipulated is nothing new under the sun.
You don't know if the people who pressed the button were said that this will cause pain but is harmless and that it will help their learning process, or what else they have been said... Actually, the experimenters administered a low-voltage test shock to the participants, who were then left assume that the shocks which they gave were real.
...because (and I know this) researchers also manipulate results to get what they want. Sure, but again its nothing new under the sun.
People may be able to inflict a painful but harmless pain to a person if they believe that at the end the benefit will be more valuable, but I'm sure not even a significative part of this people will be willing to apply deadly pain to a person.
The Milgram Experiment only proves people can be manipulated....To what point? Nobody will know untuil a test designed for that purpose is created.
Actually, the experiment, as with any experiment, doesn't prove anything; rather the results of an experiment provide evidence either for or against a particular claim.
Precisely, people who don't care are the easier to manipulate, peopl,e who care and know are harder to manipulate.
Probably true.
Some years ago after a class, I took some of the students to have a beer and we talked about everything, including music, and we're no talking about average people, we are talking about advanced law students with some degree of knowledge, people who have taken at least Art and Music History plus Musical Appreciation 101 and 102 which are obligatory classes in General Studies. But here's the problem: their legal expertise hardly precludes the possibility of musical ignorance. As you stated above, those "who don't care are the easier to manipulate." It's conceivable that your colleagues don't share your passion or knowledge of music.
Most of them were casual listeners, the vast majority said "Hey they have won a Grammy, they have to be good, this people know who they grant an award" Again, I think that the fact they're "casual listeners" is crucial to understanding this.
So they can be manipulated by an authority figure, in this case the Musical Academy, who they assume know more than the average listener. That's not necessarily an unreasonable assumption that the Academy is better fit to judge than the "average listener" (I don't agree with that point of view, but still it's not unreasonable). Indeed, in matters in which I lack the necessary training, I think that it's best to accept (tentatively, at any rate) the consensus of experts.
Simon Cowell has a strong credibility because he's harsh, offensive and appears in TV, just imagine that. Do people really take him seriously? I think it's more likely that they enjoy the spectacle of his crude mean-spirited posture (not a flattering commentary on our society, I admit). Of course is not the only factor, I'm not that naive, but surely a good percentage of Germans acted as they acted because they believed it was better for their country.
Again, while what you say contains a certain element of truth, it still begs the question: what leads a national majority to accept the notion that genocide is in their best interest? You might wish to read Fromm's Escape from Freedom for an inquiry into the social psychological reasons for the rise of Fascism.
|
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 15:18
WinterLight wrote:
This is getting ionteresting.
Yes, I realize this, and in fact I pointed this out in a previous post. My intention for the statement which you quote was illumine the apparently circular reasoning in your post. In any case, despite the notoriety of the experiment, its results should not surprise anyone: that people can be manipulated is nothing new under the sun.
Yes, but the Miilgram Experiment TRIED to prove almost anybody can be manipulated
Actually, the experimenters administered a low-voltage test shock to the participants, who were then left assume that the shocks which they gave were real.
Yes, but they also assumed the shocks would be painful but hardly mortal or harmful.
Actually, the experiment, as with any experiment, doesn't prove anything; rather the results of an experiment provide evidence either for or against a particular claim.
That's the problem with authority, miost people believe an experiment like this proves multiple things
But here's the problem: their legal expertise hardly precludes the possibility of musical ignorance. As you stated above, those "who don't care are the easier to manipulate." It's conceivable that your colleagues don't share your passion or knowledge of music.
I'm not talking about legal formation exclusively.
Here in Perú we have two years in the University called General Studioes, and this people had taken more art classes than you can believe, and most of them come from private schools where Art is an oligatory class.
This doesn't make them experts, but they know more than the average citizen.
Again, I think that the fact they're "casual listeners" is crucial to understanding this.
Yes I agree
That's not necessarily an unreasonable assumption that the Academy is better fit to judge than the "average listener" (I don't agree with that point of view, but still it's not unreasonable). Indeed, in matters in which I lack the necessary training, I think that it's best to accept (tentatively, at any rate) the consensus of experts.
I believe it's unreasonable, becauuse most people know that this is decided by an economic factor rather than by artistic.
Do people really take him seriously? I think it's more likely that they enjoy the spectacle of his crude mean-spirited posture (not a flattering commentary on our society, I admit).
I think people trust him, people assue that somedy can only afford being such a jerk if they know what they are talking about.
Again, while what you say contains a certain element of truth, it still begs the question: what leads a national majority to accept the notion that genocide is in their best interest? You might wish to read Fromm's Escape from Freedom for an inquiry into the social psychological reasons for the rise of Fascism.
Read it some years ago, thanks for the tip.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 16:04
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Yes, but the Miilgram Experiment TRIED to prove almost anybody can be manipulated Correct. Still, in my view, it's the sort of trivial experiment that gives social scientists the poor reputation that they have in academia (not sure what it's like in Peru, but I imagine that people have a low tolerance for this sort of silliness anywhere in the world). It's not a particularly novel claim, nor is it one that easily lends itself to verification.
Yes, but they also assumed the shocks would be painful but hardly mortal or harmful.
True. Yet they were acting under the assumption that the "learner" would feel significant pain, not mortal or harmful as you say, but 450 volts isn't exactly relaxing. That's the problem with authority, miost people believe an experiment like this proves multiple things
Agreed. And for that matter, people who should know better (such as other scientists, professionals, etc.) behave in essentially the same manner as the unlettered. The intellectual community, despite notable exceptions, generally functions to justify state ideology.
I'm not talking about legal formation exclusively.
Here in Perú we have two years in the University called General Studioes, and this people had taken more art classes than you can believe, and most of them come from private schools where Art is an oligatory class.
This doesn't make them experts, but they know more than the average citizen.
More or less the same in most US colleges. Perhaps Peruvian schools hold their students to more rigorous standards or maybe the students have stronger motivation to learn, but if they're anything like their US counterparts then I'm doubtful that passing a college course indicates much of anything.
I believe it's unreasonable, becauuse most people know that this is decided by an economic factor rather than by artistic. Again, there might be some cultural differences here. Perhaps Peruvians are a bit more astute on these matters than we in the States--I'm completely serious, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Despite the significant number of Catholics in the US, it is still largely a Protestant nation, and with that goes the principle that wealth implies goodness, and conversely. So, for some US citizens, the "economic factor" legitimizes the authority of the Academy (again, I think that view is misguided, but it's still the predominant view nevertheless).
Read it some years ago, thanks for the tip. Hope you didn't mistake my tone as condescending--it's not what I meant to convey. In any case, since you've read Fromm, and assuming that you are convinced by his arguments, then you should be well aware that patriotism, though a component, is by far only a facet of a complete explanation.
|
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 18:14
WinterLight wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I never understood that test. My problem is this:
Those people are told that the "torture" they inflict does not cause any damage. Yet those they inflict it on act as if it does. They are also told that the "victims" are doing this freely and can abort the procedure at any time.
If that is so, I can only conclude that they are not taking the test seriously - and knowing that, I can't take the test results seriously.
|
I don't think it would be fair to conclude that, but it's certainly possible to an extent. But one thing about the emotions being manipulated here, is that the subject does not think about the context - they just know that the "victim" is demonstrating pain and that a man in a lab coat is pressuring them to keep going (if the experimenter and confederate do a good job, then they can control a lot of the situational confound). If they did not take the experiment seriously, they would not show such high levels of emotional instability (some participants of Milgram's study were very upset with what was done to them).
|
The participants are initially given a low-voltage shock as sample of the shocks that they, if they choose, will apply to the other. The subsequent shocks aren't real, of course, but it is implied that they are. So, while it is an exaggeration to call it "torture", it certainly is a matter of knowingly inflicting pain on another. That the "students" can stop the experiment at any time could provide the basis for the teacher's rationalization of his actions.
|
That's an interesting take on it. I'd been focussing on the participant's actions; it may be useful to examine that kind of situation from the teacher/authority's vantage - more in line with the Stanford Prison experiment...
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 18:36
|
This sounds really as a useless topic. Everybody knows that human people made dreadful things during the history of humanity. What's the purpose?
History speaks unfortunately for itself. I guess it would be fine to close this thread.
-------------
ZowieZiggy
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 18:36
WinterLight wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Yes, but the Miilgram Experiment TRIED to prove almost anybody can be manipulated
Correct. Still, in my view, it's the sort of trivial experiment that gives social scientists the poor reputation that they have in academia (not sure what it's like in Peru, but I imagine that people have a low tolerance for this sort of silliness anywhere in the world). It's not a particularly novel claim, nor is it one that easily lends itself to verification. |
|
This is a misrepresentation of social psychology in general. Were they trying to PROVE anything? C'mon, you're placing motives in their heads. Certainly the scientist working within a peer-controlled framework (usually doing their work for the good of knowledge and science) is more credible than court and law where someone is working with an agenda
"Social scientists" (which is just fancy talk meaning that their subject matter is far more complex than the "hard sciences") sometimes have a bad rep publicly because of the factions that don't abide by the scientific approach (i.e., ultra-political sociologists: don't confuse them with social psychologists!) and by the stage their field is at - the social sciences only really began progressing scientifically in the late 19th and 20th centuries - they're just getting some steam going. And don't forget that fact that there are a LOT of big ego's in academia, there are plenty of scholars who piss on other fields because it inflates their head.
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 19:45
jimmy_row wrote:
This is a misrepresentation of social psychology in general.
Not sure that I represented anything in any way.
Were they trying to PROVE anything? C'mon, you're placing motives in their heads.
I admit that the term "prove" is not entirely accurate (I say as much above). Still, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the purpose of that experiment (or any experiment, for that matter) is to establish or confirm some hypothesis (or its contrary).
Certainly the scientist working within a peer-controlled framework (usually doing their work for the good of knowledge and science) is more credible than court and law where someone is working with an agenda.
Well, let's not be naive here: academia is replete with political maneuvering.
"Social scientists" (which is just fancy talk meaning that their subject matter is far more complex than the "hard sciences") sometimes have a bad rep publicly because of the factions that don't abide by the scientific approach (i.e., ultra-political sociologists: don't confuse them with social psychologists!) and by the stage their field is at - the social sciences only really began progressing scientifically in the late 19th and 20th centuries - they're just getting some steam going.
I agree that the social sciences is "far more complex" than the mathematical sciences; but it is, in fact, this complexity that generally renders scientific methodology in such research fairly useless.
And don't forget that fact that there are a LOT of big ego's in academia, there are plenty of scholars who piss on other fields because it inflates their head.
Not exactly. Academics generally don't have awareness of fields outside of their domain; thus, they tend to relegate such egoism to their own department (which subfield falls where in the hierarchy, etc.).
|
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 20:01
WinterLight wrote:
Correct. Still, in my view, it's the sort of trivial experiment that gives social scientists the poor reputation that they have in academia (not sure what it's like in Peru, but I imagine that people have a low tolerance for this sort of silliness anywhere in the world). It's not a particularly novel claim, nor is it one that easily lends itself to verification.
Not a poor reputation, but most people don't care about them.
True. Yet they were acting under the assumption that the "learner" would feel significant pain, not mortal or harmful as you say, but 450 volts isn't exactly relaxing. I thought it was 150 volts, but despite this, an authority had told them that it was harmless and people tend to believe what an authority figure says
Agreed. And for that matter, people who should know better (such as other scientists, professionals, etc.) behave in essentially the same manner as the unlettered. The intellectual community, despite notable exceptions, generally functions to justify state ideology.
Today there's a strong apathy, but on the past decades, the tendency was being against the state.
More or less the same in most US colleges. Perhaps Peruvian schools hold their students to more rigorous standards or maybe the students have stronger motivation to learn, but if they're anything like their US counterparts then I'm doubtful that passing a college course indicates much of anything.
It depends, in the Catholic University for example, you had to learn or else you were out, it was very rigorous, each semester 600 students were accepted to Sciences (Most of them wanted to be engineers) and 600 to Letters (Almost 50% went to laws, the rest to Psychology, Sociology, Economics, etc), you only reached a professional department after two years of letters or sciences.
In some Sciences Careers, only 4 or 5 students reached a degree per year and in Letters at least 30% or 40% never reached a Professional Program, because you had a certain number of classes you could fail and try again and some classes were designed to be a filter.
Now I been told it's different, it's mostly a business, so many more people reach a degree.
Again, there might be some cultural differences here. Perhaps Peruvians are a bit more astute on these matters than we in the States--I'm completely serious, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Despite the significant number of Catholics in the US, it is still largely a Protestant nation, and with that goes the principle that wealth implies goodness, and conversely. So, for some US citizens, the "economic factor" legitimizes the authority of the Academy (again, I think that view is misguided, but it's still the predominant view nevertheless).
I don't know if more astute, but I believe more versatile as an average.
Not because we are specially intelligent, but because we live in a poor country. In USA you have a career and unless you are terribly bad, you will have a decent job and enough to live, doesn't matter if you don't know anything else but your career.
Here only 10% can save some money, only 4o% have a salary that allows to survive, 50% more or less doesn't have a job or receives less than 300 bucks a month, so you need to be good in your career and be more versatile than a lot of people who are as good as you.
Many guys with a law or medical degree are driving cabs or surviving by miracle, because the state can't afford to pay you a dime if you don't work, so as you can guess there's no unemployment insurance.
So you have to know about everything you can.
Hope you didn't mistake my tone as condescending--it's not what I meant to convey. In any case, since you've read Fromm, and assuming that you are convinced by his arguments, then you should be well aware that patriotism, though a component, is by far only a facet of a complete explanation.
No, don't worry, never thought that, I only read it because it was mandatory in psychology class.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 21:14
WinterLight wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
I admit that the term "prove" is not entirely accurate (I say as much above). Still, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the purpose of that experiment (or any experiment, for that matter) is to establish or confirm some hypothesis (or its contrary).
It's not unreasonable to "suppose," just as long as you don't discount the findings of a scientific field due to this. We've learned a lot from psychology; if these scientists were in it for their own policital gain, we would not have seen the huge strides that we did throughout the 20th century and into this one.
I agree that the social sciences is "far more complex" than the mathematical sciences; but it is, in fact, this complexity that generally renders scientific methodology in such research fairly useless.
Well it's the scientific method that has lead to our current understanding of the human as and individual (and other animals, for that matter), beings as social creatures, and all of their behaviors. Without the scientific method our scholars would be incabable of explaining behavior with such objectivity. If the methodology was useless, we would not have come anywhere near where we are.
Not exactly. Academics generally don't have awareness of fields outside of their domain; thus, they tend to relegate such egoism to their own department (which subfield falls where in the hierarchy, etc.).
my anecdotal evidence says otherwise (witness - my school). |
|
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 00:23
jimmy_row wrote:
It's not unreasonable to "suppose," just as long as you don't discount the findings of a scientific field due to this. We've learned a lot from psychology; if these scientists were in it for their own policital gain, we would not have seen the huge strides that we did throughout the 20th century and into this one.
I was being somewhat rhetorical: it really is the purpose of any experiment to establish or confirm some hypothesis. This is not a criticism; it's a statement of fact.
Well it's the scientific method that has lead to our current understanding of the human as and individual (and other animals, for that matter), beings as social creatures, and all of their behaviors. Without the scientific method our scholars would be incabable of explaining behavior with such objectivity. If the methodology was useless, we would not have come anywhere near where we are.
In fact, that's my point: social scientists don't have the grasp on human behavior that they suppose. It's simply too complicated a system to approach with scientific methodology. Moreover, most social "science" merely apes what the mathematical sciences actually do. It's a tough pill, I imagine, for someone in the field to swallow; but I think it's beyond argument.
my anecdotal evidence says otherwise (witness - my school).
At your school, departments don't fall into cliques and hierarchical pettiness? I don't believe it.
|
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 04:28
WinterLight wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
It's not unreasonable to "suppose," just as long as you don't discount the findings of a scientific field due to this. We've learned a lot from psychology; if these scientists were in it for their own policital gain, we would not have seen the huge strides that we did throughout the 20th century and into this one.
I was being somewhat rhetorical: it really is the purpose of any experiment to establish or confirm some hypothesis. This is not a criticism; it's a statement of fact.
Well it's the scientific method that has lead to our current understanding of the human as and individual (and other animals, for that matter), beings as social creatures, and all of their behaviors. Without the scientific method our scholars would be incabable of explaining behavior with such objectivity. If the methodology was useless, we would not have come anywhere near where we are.
In fact, that's my point: social scientists don't have the grasp on human behavior that they suppose. It's simply too complicated a system to approach with scientific methodology. Moreover, most social "science" merely apes what the mathematical sciences actually do. It's a tough pill, I imagine, for someone in the field to swallow; but I think it's beyond argument. |
|
The scientific element of the social sciences is heavily governed by statistical analysis and probability, which means that any experiment can only predict a likelihood of hypothesis rather than be a proof of it. There are too many unknowns and external influences for human behaviour to be deterministic and it can only be predictive if the all the 'knowns' are those that actually determine behaviour.
For me the important outcome of the Milgram test was not that 70% of subjects continued to push the button, but that 30% did not.
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 10:26
WinterLight wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
I was being somewhat rhetorical: it really is the purpose of any experiment to establish or confirm some hypothesis. This is not a criticism; it's a statement of fact.
Not establish or confirm, but to TEST. The scientific method aims to be objective. A hypothesis that is refuted is also helpful to future research.
In fact, that's my point: social scientists don't have the grasp on human behavior that they suppose. It's simply too complicated a system to approach with scientific methodology. Moreover, most social "science" merely apes what the mathematical sciences actually do. It's a tough pill, I imagine, for someone in the field to swallow; but I think it's beyond argument.
After a dozen credit hours of research methods, I know better than that. Have you ever heard of BF Skinner? He and his followers tested human behavior with the same approach as the "hard sciences" (by the way, much psychological research comes down to a statistical analysis like Dean said, so it's also a "mathematical science". When you say it's a tough pill to swallow, you're insinuating that my bias is coloring my argument. I'm going to bite my lip...for now.
At your school, departments don't fall into cliques and hierarchical pettiness? I don't believe it.
Oh yes. And it's nothing compared to the ivy league. |
|
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 10:30
Dean wrote:
The scientific element of the social sciences is heavily governed by statistical analysis and probability, which means that any experiment can only predict a likelihood of hypothesis rather than be a proof of it.
Yes, of course. Again, I stated as much previously in that experimental results provide evidence rather than proof. I left it unstated that such evidence is usually elicited from so-called significance tests (to which you allude above). Still, whether the tested "element" is indeed scientific remains, I think, questionable.
There are too many unknowns and external influences for human behaviour to be deterministic and it can only be predictive if the all the 'knowns' are those that actually determine behaviour.
Agreed. But this is essentially what I stated regarding "complexity." Personally, I'm not convinced by determinism.
For me the important outcome of the Milgram test was not that 70% of subjects continued to push the button, but that 30% did not.
I feel similarly. Perhaps some of the 30% felt genuine concern for the learner's well-being; others may have been naturally contrarian. Probably impossible now, but I think it would be interesting to learn more about the predominant characters of both groups.
|
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 10:44
jimmy_row wrote:
Not establish or confirm, but to TEST. The scientific method aims to be objective. A hypothesis that is refuted is also helpful to future research.
Don't understand why you take issue with the terms "establish" and "confirm." Indeed, a the contrary of a "hypothesis that is refuted" is in fact confirmed (or, at least, supported). This is fairly conventional diction in logic and mathematics; perhaps these terms connote negative features in other fields.
After a dozen credit hours of research methods, I know better than that. Have you ever heard of BF Skinner? He and his followers tested human behavior with the same approach as the "hard sciences" (by the way, much psychological research comes down to a statistical analysis like Dean said, so it's also a "mathematical science".
As it turns out, I think Skinnerian psychology is misguided, mainly because of this apeing of the mathematical sciences. Moreover, the use of stats does not make a field mathematical (this is clear from rudimentary logic: does my use of bananas make me a monkey?). As an aside, many mathematicians don't regard statistics as a legitimate mathematical field (I don't necessarilly agree here, but that is not an uncommon view).
When you say it's a tough pill to swallow, you're insinuating that my bias is coloring my argument. I'm going to bite my lip...for now.
Well, it probably does. Your training colors the way that you perceive the world (as does mine). This is not necessarily an evil as long as it is recognized and properly handled.
|
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 11:07
|
WinterLight wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
Don't understand why you take issue with the terms "establish" and "confirm." Indeed, a the contrary of a "hypothesis that is refuted" is in fact confirmed (or, at least, supported). This is fairly conventional diction in logic and mathematics; perhaps these terms connote negative features in other fields.
Moot point now. You used the wrong words; because one of the central tenets of the scientific method is objectivity. Therefore, the experimenter should have no goals in mind wrt the results. Those two word implied such.
As it turns out, I think Skinnerian psychology is misguided, mainly because of this apeing of the mathematical sciences. Moreover, the use of stats does not make a field mathematical (this is clear from rudimentary logic: does my use of bananas make me a monkey?). As an aside, many mathematicians don't regard statistics as a legitimate mathematical field (I don't necessarilly agree here, but that is not an uncommon view).
It isn't the most popular anymore, but I'll be damned if operant conditioning didn't provide a dandy little model to examine behavior. The research has supported it for years...but you say the methods are out of whack, so then how do we know one way or the other. Well, another important part of the process in psychology is prediction of behavior. Conditioning models are not the best at doing this, but they excel withing the framework they can be applied (outside the "black box"). The approach does not "ape" anything, because the main contention of behaviorism is that psychology should not aim for more than it is capable of. If the approach was misguided, then their models of psychopathology would not have much success: and we know that is simply not true, because token economy, ABA research & treatment design, behavioral therapy, shaping and CBT have all been successful within the grounds they are able to cover.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
Well, it probably does. Your training colors the way that you perceive the world (as does mine). This is not necessarily an evil as long as it is recognized and properly handled.
So...MY bias is what makes this whole thing so hard for me to grasp, while your bias is invisible and not a hindrance to your position?
|
|
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: December 21 2008 at 12:41
jimmy_row wrote:
Moot point now. You used the wrong words; because one of the central tenets of the scientific method is objectivity. Therefore, the experimenter should have no goals in mind wrt the results. Those two word implied such.
They're not the wrong words, but for whatever reason you believe that they entail lack of objectivity. Moreover, isn't it absurd to demand that "the experimenter should have no goals in mind wrt the results"? Of course, the experimenter has specific goals; for otherwise she would not perform the experiment. To reduce subjectivity, one takes certain precautions (double-blind experiments, etc.).
The approach does not "ape" anything, because the main contention of behaviorism is that psychology should not aim for more than it is capable of.
It should be clear that the principle which you cite does not preclude errant or sloppy use of mathematics.
So...MY bias is what makes this whole thing so hard for me to grasp, while your bias is invisible and not a hindrance to your position?
In this particular case, I think that's so, and despite how it may appear I don't intend any belligerence here. Obviously, I could be completely wrong (though I don't think so); perhaps the tables would be turned if you were to criticize the field in which I work.
As a matter of fact, I have more than a passing interest in psychology and a healthy respect for some psychologists, it's just that I'm rather skeptical of much of the work done in it.
|
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 04:32
ZowieZiggy wrote:
This sounds really as a useless topic. Everybody knows that human people made dreadful things during the history of humanity. What's the purpose?
History speaks unfortunately for itself. I guess it would be fine to close this thread. |
On the contrary, this is perhaps one of the most important topics that can ever be discussed. The Milgram test, is not really the issue here, and yes you are right, humans have always done terrible things throughout history. But, understanding the psychology that drives these actions; specifically how an entire nation or race of people can be manipulated into committing atrocities, could be vital in preventing it from happening again. In any case, considering how you, as an individual, would fair in this test, is also an important or at least interesting question to ask yourself, is it not..?
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 04:35
Just gonna pop in with my Intro to Psych education...folks Milgram and Zimbardo were a pansies. The REAL interesting stuff was back in the wild west days of psychology, before ethics and stuff. See the "Little Alfred" case to see what I mean.
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 07:15
The Whistler wrote:
Just gonna pop in with my Intro to Psych education...folks Milgram and Zimbardo were a pansies. The REAL interesting stuff was back in the wild west days of psychology, before ethics and stuff. See the "Little Alfred" case to see what I mean. |
 If you have a weird phobia...sometime you just have to wonder if you were ..."used" as a child
-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 08:45
The Whistler wrote:
Just gonna pop in with my Intro to Psych education...folks Milgram and Zimbardo were a pansies. The REAL interesting stuff was back in the wild west days of psychology, before ethics and stuff. See the "Little Alfred" case to see what I mean. |
Hey, what you got against Lil' Alfred?
http://www.bluesworld.com/LILAL.html - http://www.bluesworld.com/LILAL.html
-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: visitor2035
Date Posted: January 07 2009 at 18:34
The question not asked is what is normal? Which makes the question a paradox.
As it's basis is the Us what more needs said.
|
Posted By: GothKitten
Date Posted: January 08 2009 at 06:26
there is no such thing as normality it is a whole load of nothingness trust me if anyone would be normal we all just might as well kill our selves lmao
-------------
serenity and peace is all i need to achieve my main goal within this century
|
Posted By: GothKitten
Date Posted: January 08 2009 at 06:26
p.s. ive had a lot of sugar today so im kind of off my rocker a bit lol
-------------
serenity and peace is all i need to achieve my main goal within this century
|
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: January 08 2009 at 17:42
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
as a fact we Proggers know that, a lot of people listen music because an authoerity (DJ or Magazine) tells them it's good.
|
Or music website...
This test just shows that people confuse the law and with what is right.
|
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: January 08 2009 at 18:27
|
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was alright. Everything was alright. The struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
|
|
