I'm saddened, but not remotely surprised. People will do awful things if convinced that's what they are supposed to be doing.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder if any of those people had heard of the Milgram experiment before. It would be interesting to know how being aware of your own potential for this sort of behavior would affect your ability to avoid it.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I feel like I'd keep going. I watch too many Japanese game shows to not punish ignorance.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I could so see that as something in a comedy movie by the Cohen brothers.
The hero has volunteered for a psych experiment just to get closer to the girl, a beautiful woman hiding behind glasses, a lab coat, and her badly coiffed hair.
He switches a switch and we hear electricity and a man scream. He cringes.
"Push it again" says the male in charge.
"No. I hurt that man."
Voice of electrocuted man in booth..."It did hurt. I thought this was supposed to be fake..."
"The rules say push it again. Do it."
"But...I mean that looked like it hurt. No."
In walks girl. "Do we have a problem here?"
Hero pushes button. Scream.
"No. No problem here."
Hero pushes button. Scream.
Victim: "Fake. Its supposed to be fake!!!"
Girl: "You know. They did a famous study showing that people will keep electrocuting someone if they are told to?"
Hero: "Really, how sad." Pushes button. Scream.
Girl: "I know. They would do it till it killed the victim."
Victim: "Killed?"
Push button. Scream.
Hero: "Some people are just so insensitive."
Push button. Scream.
Victim: "Stop. Please?"
Hero: "Quite, I'm talking to the girl here."
Pushes button. Scream.
Victim: "I think I just wet myself."
Girl: "Thank goodness we discovered things like that doing human research. We've gotten some great federal grants since then."
Hero: "Really? CIA? FBI?"
Pushes Button. Screams.
Victim: "That time I'm sure I wet myself. Could we stop now?"
Girl: "Mostly IRS actually."
Hero: "Hmmm. Imagine that."
Pushes button. Scream.
Victim: "Don't stop now. I'm beginning to enjoy it."
Pushes button. Scream. End scene.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Coincidentally, I just bought a bunch of .mp3s, including a rather disturbing song about the original Milgram experiment ("Buzzer," by Dar Williams. I'll refrain from quoting lyrics for copyright concerns, but you can listen to it freely and legally on NPR's Web site, if you're curious.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This just confirms my suspicion that in the event of a zombie plague, you can't trust anyone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Girl: "Mostly IRS actually."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A lot of research is skewed by the fact that the research is done only on people who sign up for product/marketing research for extra cash, and that demographic is .. uh, weird.
A lot of them also do it repeatedly with the same marketing and research groups, so you'll have data confounded by the fact that a lot of these dudes are terrified that they won't be called back to the research program if they don't play along with one scenario.
I read an article about it once. It was not something I didn't expect since I've watched researchers work with groups of perpetual labmonkeys.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
I like that scene, quick some one write a movie that has that in it.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Did anyone expect the data to change in the sixty-some since the last experiment? If so, why?
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
What I don't get is how they can consider even the revised experiment ethical. I mean, in the original experiment, many of the people required treatment because they thought they were doing bad things to people even after told the whole thing was a sham. In this case, the subjects are often still willing to go through with it, even if they're stopped. Wouldn't that have some nasty aftereffects too?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Is it really unethical if the only stress the people are facing is brought about by sudden self-awareness?
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Perhaps not to the same level that the original one was (I think some of those people actually believed they'd killed someone), but knowing you were willing to hurt badly on orders (and actually being prepared to do it)? Seems like it'd be past a line for some people.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Did anyone expect the data to change in the sixty-some since the last experiment? If so, why?
I don't believe anyone expected the data to change, but scientific principles need to be tested and retested. A single experiment provides only token evidence.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Is it really unethical if the only stress the people are facing is brought about by sudden self-awareness?
Seems like that might be extra-ethical. Maybe more people should be shown that when push comes to shove, they can be complete jerks, so they could do something about it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe it's a sign I'm not ready to come back yet, but I couldn't help seeing a correlary to how people accept the authority line that it's okay to have abortions. Does it make me less crazy to point this out regarding circumcisions (for people who have no religious reason to do so?) I know babies aren't supposed to really feel pain and all that. I'm talking in general terms, not of pain in particular, but of the flexion of ethics we see under authority.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe it's a sign I'm not ready to come back yet, but I couldn't help seeing a correlary to how people accept the authority line that it's okay to have abortions.
But no one thinks that way.
People didn't start to think that abortion was a right because some top-down authority told them so. All the top-down authorites were telling people that neither contraception or abortion were "okay".
People think that it's "okay" to have abortions because they think that they have a moral right to control their lives, and to control their person.
The connection here is the opposite of what you claim...in both cases, the "authority" is telling people "that person over there signed up for what's coming to them, they have no right to get an abortion/leave the experiment, even if it hurts or kills them. The experiment/embryo matters more than their comfort, or health, or life."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Did anyone expect the data to change in the sixty-some since the last experiment? If so, why?
The same reason why data would possibly change in testing people's responses to interaction with flamboyant homosexuals between now and a few decades ago.
Ethics and ethically constructing environments do change and in some cases they can change radically from generation to generation.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
So I've never really understood the Milgrim experiment in this way: What exactly were they told regarding the potency of the shocks they were administering. Were they told anything other than the "you must proceed" that you hear about at all?
I would certainly give someone all the shocks if I was informed by the experimenter that this experiment was approved, that it was proven to cause no lasting physical or psychological damage, and I believed them (aka it was being performed at a reputable place and not in a dingy room in a motel).
I don't see it as particularly malicious to agree to harming someone if you *know* (or are convinced that) you are not causing any extreme or lasting harm. so yeah, did people actually believe they had killed people? if so, were they asked why in the world they "just killed a man" after they did the experiment or anything?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Three people take part in the experiment: "experimentor", "learner" ("victim") and "teacher" (participant). Only the "teacher" is an actual participant, i.e. unaware about the actual setup, while the "learner" is a confederate of the experimenter. The role of the experimenter was played by a stern, impassive biology teacher dressed in a grey technician's coat, and the victim (learner) was played by a 47 year old Irish-American accountant trained to act for the role. The participant and the learner were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations.[1]
Two slips of paper were then presented to the participant and to the "learner". The participant was led to believe that one of the slips said "learner" and the other said "teacher," and that he and the actor had been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said "teacher," but the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner," thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher." At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]
The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]
The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]
At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]
If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]
1. Please continue. 2. The experiment requires that you continue. 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue. 4. You have no other choice, you must go on.
If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Hm. I'm interested what I'd do, but there would have to be an experiment I don't know about to have it actually be accurate.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: So I've never really understood the Milgrim experiment in this way: What exactly were they told regarding the potency of the shocks they were administering.
"The following designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches. going from left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches after this last designation are simply marked XXX.)"
And the "learner" was told to say that he had a heart condition.
"At 285 volts, his response can be described only as an agonized scream. Soon thereafter, he makes no sound at all."
You can't hear that and not think that the guy on the other side isn't at risk for some kind of total collapse.
quote:I would certainly give someone all the shocks if I was informed by the experimenter that this experiment was approved, that it was proven to cause no lasting physical or psychological damage, and I believed them (aka it was being performed at a reputable place and not in a dingy room in a motel).
Well, that's the question. If you see a man screaming in agony, what does it take for you to believe that really, he'll be okay? A white lab coat? The Presidental Seal?
quote:I don't see it as particularly malicious to agree to harming someone if you *know* (or are convinced that) you are not causing any extreme or lasting harm.
It's not about being malicious. It's about what people will do to innocent people. The subjects essentially tortured an innocent person, because they were told that the experiment was more important the the other guy's health, life, right not to be tortured, and wish to not be tortured.
quote:so yeah, did people actually believe they had killed people?
No. But a lot of people expressed concerns that they could give the learner a heart attack. So they knew that what they were doing might kill an innocent person.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think a scene not too different from that appeared in Ghostbusters. The commentary definitely referenced the Milgram experiments. Is it Milgram or Milgrim? Milgram.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think it would be interesting to see how I would actually respond. I, of course, believe that I would not only refuse, but also attempt to shut down the experiment. I can see myself asking for the review board documentation (I don't remember the actual names now, but I know that all experiments involving people and animals require review from an ethics committee). But it would be interesting to actually know. However, I am pretty sure that I would be excluded from any test like this (scientist whose job requires a certain number of ethics courses where things like this experiment, the Tuskagee experiments, informed consent are discussed in detail). That would be an interesting experiment- can they get grad students to actually perform unethical experiments despite our ethics training. To be honest, with the phd on the line, I think very few grad students would say no.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can see myself asking for the review board documentation (I don't remember the actual names now, but I know that all experiments involving people and animals require review from an ethics committee). But it would be interesting to actually know. However, I am pretty sure that I would be excluded from any test like this (scientist whose job requires a certain number of ethics courses where things like this experiment, the Tuskagee experiments, informed consent are discussed in detail). That would be an interesting experiment- can they get grad students to actually perform unethical experiments despite our ethics training. To be honest, with the phd on the line, I think very few grad students would say no.