| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Leningrad 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 7991
|
 Topic: Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
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.
|
 |
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
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.
|
|
GothKitten
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
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
|
|
GothKitten
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
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
|
|
visitor2035
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 61
|
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.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
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
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 22 2008 at 07:15 |
|
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
The Whistler
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113
|
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
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
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..?
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
Edited by WinterLight - December 22 2008 at 11:02
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
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.
Edited by Dean - December 21 2008 at 04:40
|
|
What?
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.).
|
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
If you have a weird phobia...sometime you just have to wonder if you were ..."used" as a child
Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
