- Points
- 56
An experiment that gives a clue to why people treat each other so bad.
- Thread starter Master Yoda
- Start date
- Points
- 56
E
EmilyDarke
I find it very sad that things that I deem as natural (humility, generosity, integrity, selflessness) are now seen as weak traits. What happened to the 'human' part in humanity?
Lingham
Diamond Member
- Points
- 1
Yes, Emily, unfortunately these days it is all about me and my rights. I'm from an older generation where things were, I have to say, a bit different. As somebody said: "The past is another country: they do things differently there." I just wish we could find the way back to that country.
E
EmilyDarke
In some ways I agree, although certain things eg women's rights, racial apartheid (sp?) has definitely improved since 'the good ol' days'.
But you're right it's very much an 'every man for himself' attitude these days
Lingham
Diamond Member
- Points
- 1
Some things are, in deed, better, Emily, these days. maybe I'm just an old codger, wallowing in nostalgia, but it does seem that we live in an age where minorities are more important than the majority, and the shriller they are, the more important they seem to be.
Farm Boy 2
Legend Member
- Points
- 65
I think Yodas monkey experoment is a load of Bull . this one actuality happen many times .
Its a long read ADD sufferers should not attempt to understand this experoment
The Stanley Milgram Experiment was created to explain some of the concentration camp-horrors of the World War 2, where Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs and other enemies of the state were slaughtered by Nazis.
Many war-criminals claimed they were merely following orders and could not be held responsible for their actions, in the trials following the World War 2.
Were the Germans in fact evil and cold-hearted, or is this a group phenomenon which could happen to anyone, given the right conditions?
The psychologist Stanley Milgram created an electric ‘shock generator’ with 30 switches. The switch was marked clearly in 15 volt increments, ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
He also placed labels indicating the shock level, such as ‘Moderate’ (75-120 Volts) and ‘Strong’ (135-180 Volts). The switches 375-420 Volts were marked ‘Danger: Severe Shock’ and the two highest levels 435-450, was marked ‘XXX’.
The ‘shock generator’ was in fact phony and would only produce sound when the switches were pressed.
40 subjects (males) were recruited via mail and a newspaper ad. They thought they were going to participate in an experiment about ‘memory and learning’.
In the test, each subject was informed clearly that their payment was for showing up, and they could keep the payment “no matter what happens after they arrive[d]”.
Next, the subject met an ‘experimenter’, the person leading the experiment, and another person told to be another subject. The other subject was in fact a confederate acting as a subject. He was a 47 year old male accountant.
The two subjects (the real subject and the con-subject) drew slips of paper to indicate who was going to be a ‘teacher’ and who was going to be a ‘learner’. The lottery was in fact a set-up, and the real subject would always get the role of ‘the teacher’.
The teacher saw that the learner was strapped to a chair and electrodes were attached. The subject was then seated in another room in front of the shock generator, unable to see the learner.
Research Question
The Stanley Milgram Experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question:
“For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” (the dependent variable)
Remember that they had met the other person, a likable stranger, and that they thought that it could very well be them who were in the learner-position receiving shocks.
The Experiment
The subject was instructed to teach word-pairs to the learner. When the learner made a mistake, the subject was instructed to punish the learner by giving him a shock, 15 volts higher for each mistake.
The learner never received the shocks, but pre-taped audio was triggered when a shock-switch was pressed.
If the experimenter, seated in the same room, was contacted, the experimenter would answer with predefined ‘prods’ (“Please continue”, “Please go on”, “The experiment requires that you go on”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”), starting with the mild prods, and making it more authoritarian for each time the subject contacted the experimenter.
If the subject asked who was responsible if anything would happen to the learner, the experimenter answered “I am responsible”. This gave the subject a relief and many continued.
Results
During the Stanley Milgram Experiment, many subjects showed signs of tension. 3 subjects had “full-blown, uncontrollable seizures”.
Although most subjects were uncomfortable doing it, all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts.
25 of the 40 subjects continued to complete to give shocks until the maximum level of 450 volts was reached.
Conclusion - Obedience to Authority
Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so.
Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks. None stopped when the learner said he had heart-trouble. How could that be? We now believe that it has to do with our almost innate behavior that we should do as told, especially from authority persons.
Its a long read ADD sufferers should not attempt to understand this experoment
The Stanley Milgram Experiment was created to explain some of the concentration camp-horrors of the World War 2, where Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs and other enemies of the state were slaughtered by Nazis.
Many war-criminals claimed they were merely following orders and could not be held responsible for their actions, in the trials following the World War 2.
Were the Germans in fact evil and cold-hearted, or is this a group phenomenon which could happen to anyone, given the right conditions?
The psychologist Stanley Milgram created an electric ‘shock generator’ with 30 switches. The switch was marked clearly in 15 volt increments, ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
He also placed labels indicating the shock level, such as ‘Moderate’ (75-120 Volts) and ‘Strong’ (135-180 Volts). The switches 375-420 Volts were marked ‘Danger: Severe Shock’ and the two highest levels 435-450, was marked ‘XXX’.
The ‘shock generator’ was in fact phony and would only produce sound when the switches were pressed.
40 subjects (males) were recruited via mail and a newspaper ad. They thought they were going to participate in an experiment about ‘memory and learning’.
In the test, each subject was informed clearly that their payment was for showing up, and they could keep the payment “no matter what happens after they arrive[d]”.
Next, the subject met an ‘experimenter’, the person leading the experiment, and another person told to be another subject. The other subject was in fact a confederate acting as a subject. He was a 47 year old male accountant.
The two subjects (the real subject and the con-subject) drew slips of paper to indicate who was going to be a ‘teacher’ and who was going to be a ‘learner’. The lottery was in fact a set-up, and the real subject would always get the role of ‘the teacher’.
The teacher saw that the learner was strapped to a chair and electrodes were attached. The subject was then seated in another room in front of the shock generator, unable to see the learner.
Research Question
The Stanley Milgram Experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question:
“For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” (the dependent variable)
Remember that they had met the other person, a likable stranger, and that they thought that it could very well be them who were in the learner-position receiving shocks.
The Experiment
The subject was instructed to teach word-pairs to the learner. When the learner made a mistake, the subject was instructed to punish the learner by giving him a shock, 15 volts higher for each mistake.
The learner never received the shocks, but pre-taped audio was triggered when a shock-switch was pressed.
If the experimenter, seated in the same room, was contacted, the experimenter would answer with predefined ‘prods’ (“Please continue”, “Please go on”, “The experiment requires that you go on”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”), starting with the mild prods, and making it more authoritarian for each time the subject contacted the experimenter.
If the subject asked who was responsible if anything would happen to the learner, the experimenter answered “I am responsible”. This gave the subject a relief and many continued.
Results
During the Stanley Milgram Experiment, many subjects showed signs of tension. 3 subjects had “full-blown, uncontrollable seizures”.
Although most subjects were uncomfortable doing it, all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts.
25 of the 40 subjects continued to complete to give shocks until the maximum level of 450 volts was reached.
Conclusion - Obedience to Authority
Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so.
Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks. None stopped when the learner said he had heart-trouble. How could that be? We now believe that it has to do with our almost innate behavior that we should do as told, especially from authority persons.
Farm Boy 2
Legend Member
- Points
- 65
- Points
- 392
Talking experiment with human nature.............
Background to the Third Wave experiment[edit]
The experiment took place at Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, during the first week of April 1967. Jones, finding himself unable to explain to his students how the German population could have claimed ignorance of the extermination of the Jewish people, decided to demonstrate it to them instead. Jones started a movement called "The Third Wave" and told his students that the movement aimed to eliminate democracy. The idea that democracy emphasizes individuality was considered as a drawback of democracy, and Jones emphasized this main point of the movement in its motto: "Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action, strength through pride."
The experiment was not well documented at the time. Of contemporary sources, the experiment is only mentioned in the Cubberley High School student newspaper,The Cubberley Catamount. It is only briefly mentioned in two issues, and one more issue of the paper has a longer article about this experiment at its conclusion. Jones himself wrote a detailed account of the experiment some nine years afterwards and more articles about the experiment followed, including some interviews with Jones and the original students.
PS: Made a good movie as well
Background to the Third Wave experiment[edit]
The experiment took place at Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, during the first week of April 1967. Jones, finding himself unable to explain to his students how the German population could have claimed ignorance of the extermination of the Jewish people, decided to demonstrate it to them instead. Jones started a movement called "The Third Wave" and told his students that the movement aimed to eliminate democracy. The idea that democracy emphasizes individuality was considered as a drawback of democracy, and Jones emphasized this main point of the movement in its motto: "Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action, strength through pride."
The experiment was not well documented at the time. Of contemporary sources, the experiment is only mentioned in the Cubberley High School student newspaper,The Cubberley Catamount. It is only briefly mentioned in two issues, and one more issue of the paper has a longer article about this experiment at its conclusion. Jones himself wrote a detailed account of the experiment some nine years afterwards and more articles about the experiment followed, including some interviews with Jones and the original students.
PS: Made a good movie as well
N
Naughty Thoughts
The Milgram experiment was highly flawed and there are many places where the flaws and errors are noted. Here's just one:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...s-milgram-obedience-experiments/#.U00bU5E_XJs
It still gets bandied about, because it is very convenient for certain personality types to be able to shift blame to an external focus rather than accepting responsibility.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...s-milgram-obedience-experiments/#.U00bU5E_XJs
It still gets bandied about, because it is very convenient for certain personality types to be able to shift blame to an external focus rather than accepting responsibility.
- Points
- 0
Excellent thread, but I don't agree completely with the monkey/human analogy. Humans are innately greedy and equipped with excellent social skills, including the ability to lie and manipulate others convincingly; monkeys aren't. It wouldn't take long for a human to find a way to get those bananas without getting beat up.
Farm Boy 2
Legend Member
- Points
- 65
I am not so sure about that Naughty T there are many real life examples of people committing atrocities following orders from a higher authority ,
There seems to be a common thread and that is start small and work your way up .
Here is a example
Allegations of atrocities made by General Yeager, US Army.
Roxy Rabbit
Silver Member
- Points
- 0
Sounds like pack mentality and conforming to society.......just another strong link between humans and primates! I'm no researcher or scientist but as humans isn't it our ability to be compassionate and use reason and logic before acting be one of the few things that DOES separate us? If I'm wrong fair call but sadly enough I don't know if I am even though it is more common these days to see people behaving like monkeys than humans! I have lately been shown a couple of amazing animal clips on Fb of mother dogs/lionesses/bears adopting orphaned babies from either their prey or other opposing species without question as if they were their own- thats better than some humans treat their OWN children!
TheRoamingEyeball
Gold Member
- Points
- 0
First time I saw this I immediately thought that's how religion has such a strong foothold.
- Points
- 56
Its not just aggression. I believe we all inherit beliefs that are not our own and live put many parts of our lives to the benefit of those who have set up the WAY IT IS.
Very good point. An obvious point I did not actually think abut.