Why 'normal' people do terrible things..

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..

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..

I think I could poke someone with a stick. Or maybe tickle her ear or something.

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?

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...

Edited by Henry Plainview - December 19 2008 at 14:03

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.

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.

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...

"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.

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

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.)