It's surprising how far people will go just because someone who's in a position of authority will tell them to do something. And yeah, we'd like to think that we wouldn't willingly cause someone else harm, or that we're better than other people, that "There's no way I'd do something like that!" But you just don't know until you're in that situation.
Comparing the results of the poll (thus far more people believe that they wouldn't go on) I can safely draw the conclusion that people like to believe that they are more independent than they are. One of the biggest flaws in human character is that we are convinced of our own individuality and independence. The average results from the experiment stated that roughly two-thirds of the participants went all the way to the greatest shock. The people who responded yes are more truthful, or at least more aware of their limits, than the others taking part in the poll.
Absurd. How can you "safely draw that conclusion"? Two-thirds of a small sample group chose to continue, therefore all of humanity is dependent in nature? You must see the flawed logic there.
And accusing everyone who didn't answer the poll how you think they should have of being either a liar or delusional seems rather obtuse, don't you think?
Repetitions and variations of the study have been conducted hundreds and hundreds of times since, and the results have always been the same, between 60-70% of participants have delivered a lethal voltage. The sample-size is far from small.
He's not accusing anyone of lying, the simple fact of the matter is that although most of us would like to think we'd stop, between 60-70% of people won't in the given situation.
He did accuse people of just that, as is quoted. In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that 60-70% in the entire world would continue the experiment. Does that mean 60-70% of people are dependent upon authority to the point of being unable to make their own decision? No. Even if they say here that they wouldn't, but might in the actual situation, that is not necessarily a sign of submissiveness, just a failure to imagine the situation realistically. Maybe they would make the -choice- to continue if they were in the actual situation, regardless of what the psychologist told them.
I have been meaning to ask this question for quite some time, well basically ever since I finished reading about the Milgram Experiment...
Okay I will give a brief explanation of the Milgram Experiment. The Milgram experiment was devised by Stanley Milgram a psychologist at Yale University in 1961.
The subject was given the title teacher, and the confederate, learner. The participants drew slips of paper to 'determine' their roles. Unknown to them, both slips said "teacher", and 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]
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
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.
Too Long To Read Version: Your in a room with two other people, one is a psychologist sitting in a corner. The other is a nice man who you talk to for a while, this nice man mentions he has a heart problem. The nice man than gives you a small shock through a machine too demonstrate the feeling the nice man would receive later, when you administer it. Now the nice man is sent out of the room and into another room directly in front of yours, you know he is wired up to a machine that you are using, although you cannot see him. The psychologist gestures for you to proceed, so you stat reading out certain word pairs that you are made to read and you also read out 4 possible answers. If the nice man gets an answer wrong you are told to shock him with the machine, now it is wise to note that each shock goes up by 15 volts.
A while later the machine is starting to produce dangerous electrical shocks, shocks with over 400 volts. Now you can hear the nice man screaming and banging his head against the wall, you can hear him crying and begging for mercy, you can hear him wailing the he has a heart problem and he begs you to stop. As you are on the verge of leaving the psychologist tells you too keep going, that it won't be your fault if the man dies, although you don't want to because it is fatally dangerous to the man in the other room, so do you keep going or do you demand to leave?
Unknown to you the nice man in the other room was an actor, he was never being shocked although you thought he was.
Basically here is the question: Would you keep going for science, because the psychologist told you too or for your own reasons? Or would you demand to leave, that this is inhumane, that it is terrible?
Please give me some serious answers, and to anyone willing to wright a detailed comment on exactly how you would react under the circumstances, thank you. This will be quite helpful for me.
PS: This is the wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Going against our nature is a tough feat, no matter how much of a unique snowflake you think you are, you're still human and as such susceptible to social pressure.
Comparing the results of the poll (thus far more people believe that they wouldn't go on) I can safely draw the conclusion that people like to believe that they are more independent than they are. One of the biggest flaws in human character is that we are convinced of our own individuality and independence. The average results from the experiment stated that roughly two-thirds of the participants went all the way to the greatest shock. The people who responded yes are more truthful, or at least more aware of their limits, than the others taking part in the poll.
Absurd. How can you "safely draw that conclusion"? Two-thirds of a small sample group chose to continue, therefore all of humanity is dependent in nature? You must see the flawed logic there.
And accusing everyone who didn't answer the poll how you think they should have of being either a liar or delusional seems rather obtuse, don't you think?
Repetitions and variations of the study have been conducted hundreds and hundreds of times since, and the results have always been the same, between 60-70% of participants have delivered a lethal voltage. The sample-size is far from small.
He's not accusing anyone of lying, the simple fact of the matter is that although most of us would like to think we'd stop, between 60-70% of people won't in the given situation.
He did accuse people of just that, as is quoted. In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that 60-70% in the entire world would continue the experiment. Does that mean 60-70% of people are dependent upon authority to the point of being unable to make their own decision? No. Even if they say here that they wouldn't, but might in the actual situation, that is not necessarily a sign of submissiveness, just a failure to imagine the situation realistically. Maybe they would make the -choice- to continue if they were in the actual situation, regardless of what the psychologist told them.
He didn't accuse people of lying, it's not about lying. Most people (indeed, anyone mentally healthy and stable) would reply to the question "Would administer a lethal shock to an individual in the name of a minor psychological experiment?" with an adament "No!". They'd be entirely genuine in their reply. It's not a failure to concieve the situation, they understand the question perfectly (it's not a complicated question). They genuinely believe they wouldn't.
The experiment itself hinges on the presence of the authority figure. All participants expressed extreme discomfort, asking questions and asking to stop the experiment. They didn't stop because the authority figure read out his script (The experiment will be ruined if you stop, etc). From this we can conclude that someone who wouldn't normally kill a human, may actually do so under the influence of authority, ie submit to the authority figure and do something that goes against their personal morals - ie, a clear cut case of submissiveness.
No one said anyones dependent on an authorty figure to make a decision, thats beside the point of the experiment. The point is that an authority figure can affect the decisions an individual to the extent of that 60% of participants (healthy, mentally stable law abiding citizens) were willing to deliver a lethal voltage.
As to your last sentence, anyone who would willingly make the decision to murder a human being in the same of science without the influence of authority needs to be locked away.
I don't know why you're so defensive about this. It's not personal, every study so far indicates that this is an aspect of humanity common to us all.
This, the poll is just a mostly useless guess. The only way to find out would be to actually be in the experiment, and not know about it beforehand.
The entire point of it is that obviously most people don't THINK of themselves as cruel and capable of doing stuff like that, but a surprising number would be under certain conditions. So its not about people lying or being stupid, its just about human nature to respect authority and the idea of what scientific progress means.
Repetitions and variations of the study have been conducted hundreds and hundreds of times since, and the results have always been the same, between 60-70% of participants have delivered a lethal voltage. The sample-size is far from small.
He's not accusing anyone of lying, the simple fact of the matter is that although most of us would like to think we'd stop, between 60-70% of people won't in the given situation.
All the repetitions and variations have shown there's only one variable that significantly affects the percentages and that's proximity to the Authority Figure.
I think what's even more telling in the Milgram Experiment is that in the original series of tests only one person out of the people who stopped in protest asked about the well being of the person they thought they were zapping.
You don't even have to be familiar with the particular experiment. Being familiar with scientific methods overall would pretty much be sufficient to deduce that there's something iffy about the entire situation...
He didn't accuse people of lying, it's not about lying. Most people (indeed, anyone mentally healthy and stable) would reply to the question "Would administer a lethal shock to an individual in the name of a minor psychological experiment?" with an adament "No!". They'd be entirely genuine in their reply. It's not a failure to concieve the situation, they understand the question perfectly (it's not a complicated question). They genuinely believe they wouldn't.
The experiment itself hinges on the presence of the authority figure. All participants expressed extreme discomfort, asking questions and asking to stop the experiment. They didn't stop because the authority figure read out his script (The experiment will be ruined if you stop, etc). From this we can conclude that someone who wouldn't normally kill a human, may actually do so under the influence of authority, ie submit to the authority figure and do something that goes against their personal morals - ie, a clear cut case of submissiveness.
No one said anyones dependent on an authorty figure to make a decision, thats beside the point of the experiment. The point is that an authority figure can affect the decisions an individual to the extent of that 60% of participants (healthy, mentally stable law abiding citizens) were willing to deliver a lethal voltage.
As to your last sentence, anyone who would willingly make the decision to murder a human being in the same of science without the influence of authority needs to be locked away.
I don't know why you're so defensive about this. It's not personal, every study so far indicates that this is an aspect of humanity common to us all.
I'm defensive about this because these same sort of blanket generalizations about human nature threaten the moral/ethical fabric of the human race.
If it's common to all humans, why are 30-40% ignoring it?
How does the presence of authoritative pressure ensure that the people who chose to continue did so purely due to that pressure?
How is someone's responsibility for hitting the button removed by someone else telling them to do it? How can you know whether they wouldn't have done it anyway, regardless of what they say? You are willing to dismiss what they say on this poll, after all.
The conclusion of this experiment is one giant fallacy of false cause.
i would definitely demand to stop this. Unless the experimenter were to threaten me, I can see little reason to continue with this torture. I don't care if his death wouldn't be on my hands, I will not let this man die if I can help it
EDIT: I think the original results (stolen from wikipedia) best convey why our predictions of if we would do it or not would probably be wrong,
Results
Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.
How do you know that im not a psychopath or suffer from some other kind of anti-social personality disorder or that I've cultivated a similar mindset that in pratical terms emulate these conditions in many ways?
Saying that our brain is "built to care" isn't a very scientific statement you know. We know EXTREMELY LITTLE about how the human brain works, and even the worlds leading neurobiologists can only give rough estimates about which parts of the brain govern which mental and physical responses. When it comes to in-depth knowledge about what specific neurons and synapses control, no one really knows.
You know the only way that our answers would be actually truthful is if we are held to said experiment, regardless I answered no, I do not think I would be capable of going on but as I said although I believe that I would have mercy for the man the only real way to know if I would back off would be to actually be in the experiment under the condition of ignorance of the experiment.
Pretty sure I'd opt out immediately after hearing what my part in the experiment was. No shocks administered. I'm really good at walking out despite direct orders (I'm also really good at damaging property if I'm locked in a room)... just ask my old battalion commander.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
