| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
WinterLight 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
 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.
|
|
 |
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:16 |
|
I'm just glad I'm not normal.
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:21 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
I'm just glad I'm not normal. |
This.
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: December 20 2008 at 00:54 |
|
That.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
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.
Edited by Slartibartfast - December 20 2008 at 05:58
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
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.
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: December 20 2008 at 06:41 |
|
I don't take anything seriously. Does that mean I'm not normal?
Edited by Vibrationbaby - December 20 2008 at 06:42
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:08 |
|
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
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.
|
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
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
|
|
ZowieZiggy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 19 2005
Location: Siem Reap
Status: Offline
Points: 311
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.).
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why 'normal' people do terrible things..
