Poll: You're in the Milgram Experiment!

[Cain_Zeros]

I'd like to think that I'd stop, but in all honesty I can't say for certain that I would.

 

[lacktheknack]

UI'd never start the experiment in the first place. "You sadistic twats! Let me out of here!"

I'm not one for pain and violence.

 

[spartan1077]

I'd want to know what the purpose is. If the purpose seemed not "pulled out of their ass", I'd be happy to proceed and shock him till he ceases. It's science and science demands sacrifice.

 

[Lullabye]

See, whilst I am an asshole, I like to think that I have some common decency. Which extends to not shocking a person with heart problems.
I'd think the scientists were assholes and not participate in the first place.

 

[Vanaron]

Everybody cares... Your brain is built to care.

Yes, some are less susceptible than others, but in the right situation everybody is susceptible.

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?

There's a reason why those are called disorders...

But let me see: You're trying to convince me (a total stranger, who you never met and odds are never will meet) that you really don't care about social pressure...

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.

My statement wasn't based on the anatomy of the brain... But on the fact that since the dawn of mankind we've been social animals, that's how we evolved.

Being a anti-social rogue may be what all the kids find cool today, but not so long ago it meant you were destined to a very short, very lonely life.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

There's a reason why those are called disorders...

Yes, it's because of a pretty conformist standard that have been pretty ingrained in the field of medicine for quite some time. Remember, were talking about the same scientific branch that considered homosexuals and horny women "diseased" once upon a time.

But let me see: You're trying to convince me (a total stranger, who you never met and odds are never will meet) that you really don't care about social pressure...

Only the rational and intelligent part of me actually knows that there's a person responding to my posts in this thread. Emotionally however you're just a name on a computer screen, no more human or "social" than a blank piece of paper or a tape recorder. You could die tomorrow and I would never feel the same way or as strongly as if I saw an actual human being dying right in front of me. In fact, in the ways that matter im primarily writing this for my own amusement than actually having a social interaction with you.

It's kind of like playing tetris. Blocks of different shapes fall down the screen (the blocks being your arguments) seemingly at random (but with some kind of programming to it) and I respond by adapting my strategy according to which blocks I get, trying to piece them together in consecutive rows to create more room. It's not very social at all really. And if you were to cease communication with me for whatever reason, I'd just find some other anonymous screen name to play around with.

Points for effort for trying to find some kind of ironic angle on the subject matter and try to prove me wrong though. Or as the meme goes: "I see what you did thar!"

My statement wasn't based on the anatomy of the brain... But on the fact that since the dawn of mankind we've been social animals, that's how we evolved.

Actually, the evolution of the brains anatomy (and by extension our very psyche and self-awareness, since none of these things exist without the physical brain) of the homo sapiens hasn't evolved much at all during our existence.

The social patterns of our species was more of a utilitarian evolution rather than an actual biological one. This because back then, nature was a much more difficult place to survive in as a lone human being and there were a lot more safety in numbers and odds for prosperity.

To put it simply: it's easier to bring down an elephant for food if you gang up on it rather than trying to pull down the elephant on your own. Especially when you're only armed with sticks and stones.

Nowadays however, a single man with a rifle could bring down an elephant if he wanted to. And with minimal human interaction to boot (since you could basically order a sufficient weapon online)

Being a anti-social rogue may be what all the kids find cool today, but not so long ago it meant you were destined to a very short, very lonely life.

That's not entirely accurate.

It was a pretty long time ago when this was true. With the technological development of the species, the actual social needs for survival has significantly declined, and nowadays we are in no way near as dependant on other people the way we were back in let's say the earlier stone-age. In fact this system of laws, societies and industries are pretty much a system designed to get as many people as possible what they need with the least effort. Money is a perfect example of this. Just pieces of worthless paper that can be converted into basically anything you might need or desire as long as you have enough of it, and you can do it without even leaving your house. People can even work from home without having to do any actual social interaction with others.

In fact if you wanted to, you could live and die without anyone knowing about you other than an anonymous screen name on a computer. And this doesn't mean at all that your life has to be "short", since you could pretty much live as long as anyone else in today's digital world.

This just goes to show that the actual "need" for actual social interaction and being suceptible to social pressure is a purely subjective affair after a certain age. Infants need a degree of social interaction in order for their brains to develop properly (since they can get afflicted by autism if they recieve no social interaction or physical contact with other human beings at all). But once that phase is over, it's pretty clear that there isn't any real "need" to speak of from a biological perspective (other than for procreational purposes of course, which we certainly don't have any need of now since the world is terribly over-populated by humans as it is).

The idea that man is an inherently social creature even down to the biological level (and the only level that really matters when it comes to our development) is mostly a popular myth than a fact. The technological evolution and our reaction to it has made a pretty good job of illustrating this.

 

[Negatempest]

Snip

Not sure if he mentioned this in the OP, but I've heard that all that was said to the participants when they asked to stop was, "We're sorry, but you need to keep going." The point of the experiment, like others have probably said, was to find out if people could be influenced to do horrible things just from being told to by someone who seemed to be in authority, like the Nazi grunts who cremated people because they were told to by their CO's.

OP: I've heard about this experiment three or so times so I'm already out for the experiment. But being blind about the experiment, I probably would.

I know that much, but to me is more like "Why should I even begin it in the first place?". My thought process, unless for some reason I get paid to do this...maybe it's some sadist job of mine, is that if I see no benefit from it or threatened to do it...why do something like this? I mean if "God" in person was to come down, look me square in the eye and say, "Kill that man right there because I told you too." I'd say "Why?". Just saying i'm not stupid enough to do something like that unless there was a damn good reason to do it.

To me, whether I know it is a set-up/experiment of some kind is besides the point. Why even begin in the first place is my question.

P.S. I'm not calling the people that do do this stupid, I am saying that in my view to even begin that would be a stupid move on my part.....without some reason anyways.

 

[Vanaron]

Yes, it's because of a pretty conformist standard that have been pretty ingrained in the field of medicine for quite some time. Remember, were talking about the same scientific branch that considered homosexuals and horny women "diseased" once upon a time.

Actually, no... It's because those disorders have a tendency to cause harm on the people that possess them as well as the people around them, not to mention the fact that these conditions are debilitating as in people who possess them are, in some cases, unable to feel basic human emotions.

Actually, the evolution of the brains anatomy (and by extension our very psyche and self-awareness, since none of these things exist without the physical brain) of the homo sapiens hasn't evolved much at all during our existence.

The social patterns of our species was more of a utilitarian evolution rather than an actual biological one. This because back then, nature was a much more difficult place to survive in as a lone human being and there were a lot more safety in numbers and odds for prosperity.

To put it simply: it's easier to bring down an elephant for food if you gang up on it rather than trying to pull down the elephant on your own. Especially when you're only armed with sticks and stones.

Nowadays however, a single man with a rifle could bring down an elephant if he wanted to. And with minimal human interaction to boot (since you could basically order a sufficient weapon online)

That's precisely the point, we needed each other for so long, and it may be true that now we don't. But our brains have been hardwired to need other people for so long that now we just do.

So to cut it short: The guy who was sociable lived longer and had lots of baby and the rogue got mauled by a cougar.

That's not entirely accurate.

It was a pretty long time ago when this was true. With the technological development of the species, the actual social needs for survival has significantly declined, and nowadays we are in no way near as dependant on other people the way we were back in let's say the earlier stone-age. In fact this system of laws, societies and industries are pretty much a system designed to get as many people as possible what they need with the least effort. Money is a perfect example of this. Just pieces of worthless paper that can be converted into basically anything you might need or desire as long as you have enough of it, and you can do it without even leaving your house. People can even work from home without having to do any actual social interaction with others.

In fact if you wanted to, you could live and die without anyone knowing about you other than an anonymous screen name on a computer. And this doesn't mean at all that your life has to be "short", since you could pretty much live as long as anyone else in today's digital world.

This just goes to show that the actual "need" for actual social interaction and being suceptible to social pressure is a purely subjective affair after a certain age. Infants need a degree of social interaction in order for their brains to develop properly (since they can get afflicted by autism if they recieve no social interaction or physical contact with other human beings at all). But once that phase is over, it's pretty clear that there isn't any real "need" to speak of from a biological perspective (other than for procreational purposes of course, which we certainly don't have any need of now since the world is terribly over-populated by humans as it is).

The idea that man is an inherently social creature even down to the biological level (and the only level that really matters when it comes to our development) is mostly a popular myth than a fact. The technological evolution and our reaction to it has made a pretty good job of illustrating this.

Yeah, we may not need social interaction with all the technology we've got... But what are we doing with all of this technology?

Hmmmm...
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html

Only the rational and intelligent part of me actually knows that there's a person responding to my posts in this thread. Emotionally however you're just a name on a computer screen, no more human or "social" than a blank piece of paper or a tape recorder. You could die tomorrow and I would never feel the same way or as strongly as if I saw an actual human being dying right in front of me. In fact, in the ways that matter im primarily writing this for my own amusement than actually having a social interaction with you.

It's kind of like playing tetris. Blocks of different shapes fall down the screen (the blocks being your arguments) seemingly at random (but with some kind of programming to it) and I respond by adapting my strategy according to which blocks I get, trying to piece them together in consecutive rows to create more room. It's not very social at all really. And if you were to cease communication with me for whatever reason, I'd just find some other anonymous screen name to play around with.

Points for effort for trying to find some kind of ironic angle on the subject matter and try to prove me wrong though. Or as the meme goes: "I see what you did thar!"

You can rationalize this anyway you want, but the fact remains that someone from across the globe (for all you know) just got you to put all of this effort into writing this wall of text. I don't usually use smileys but here's one for you: =)

 

[Latman2k]

I remember seeing a game show about this in japan that was a big deal. As for me, I would do it even without the shrinks prodding, simply because he knew the risks he was getting into and the consequences.

 

[internetzealot1]

Hmm...would I torture someone to death for absolutely no personal gain, having nothing but some strangers word that nothing bad could happen to me, or would I leave and enjoy the rest of my day.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Actually, no... It's because those disorders have a tendency to cause harm on the people that possess them as well as the people around them, not to mention the fact that these conditions are debilitating as in people who possess them are, in some cases, unable to feel basic human emotions.

That's not really correct. Not all psychopaths are actually a stereotypical killer armed with a knife and on the prowl for youn teenagers who lost their virginity.

A sizeable portion of psychopaths across the world are basically just human beings who are completely anti-social emotionally. In fact most of them don't even get any diagnosis because outwardly no one can really tell that there's something "wrong" with them.

And that's just the thing, there's nothing scientifically proven that these so called "disorders" are actually signs of something "wrong" or debilitating with a person. For all we know it could just be a variant configuration of a human mind, the way some people have photographic memory or any other rare but otherwise non debilitating condition.

Also, many psychopathic traits can actually be induced through simple contemplation. I should know since I've achieved just that on my own.

That's precisely the point, we needed each other for so long, and it may be true that now we don't. But our brains have been hardwired to need other people for so long that now we just do.

So to cut it short: The guy who was sociable lived longer and had lots of baby and the rogue got mauled by a cougar.

No the point is that the development has shown that we're not "hardwired" at all in the matter that popular belief hold. It's a subjective thing where some people have a much more profound social need while others have none what so ever.

And this becomes more apparent due to the fact that had it been a true biological "hardwiring", then anti-social people wouldn't exist, since only the sociable genes would have survived while the non-sociable kind would've died out completely. As you said yourself: the rogue would've most likely gotten mauled by a cougar. Yet still these rogues exist today, despite the fact that their ancestors evidently was of the more sociable kind who procreated.

Yeah, we may not need social interaction with all the technology we've got... But what are we doing with all of this technology?

Hmmmm...
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html

Oh, not to be snippy now or anything but you pretty much shot your argument in the foot by bringing up facebook as a point to your cause.

Haven't you noticed how facebook so often serve to alienate people from eachother more than it brings them together? Take friendships for instance. A friendly relationship used to need hard work and emotional investment. Back in the stone age good friends might have gone out hunting together and bonded through killing some dangerous predator together. Before facebook we actually had to meet with our friends in real life and invest time and effort to make the relationship last and prosper, in ways like travelling to one anothers homes in case we didn't live close by, sharing meals together, consuming intoxicants together etc.

And then along comes facebook and suddenly every "best friend" along with every single casual acquaintance are just one single click away. You'd think that people would act more social than ever, right? Wrong!

Since everyone are so easily accessable, people lose more and more reason to even talk to eachother. No real bonding is actually occuring, people get reduced to simple screen names on whose wall it occasionally pops up some new pictures to look at once in a while. In fact, facebook is starting to make human interaction just as "virtual" and hollow like my emotional image of you as an actual human being somewhere in the world.

This is in fact one of the reasons I've refused to get a facebook account myself. I've realized that it would only serve to devalue and dehumanize the few people who are supposed to be my most important friends and relatives.

Though it's not particularly surprising that most people haven't realized this fact, because the vast majority of them caught onto facebook because it started out as a fad. I spent some more thought over the matter myself, and it's clear that getting a facebook account and use it as a substitute to actual interaction will only serve to be debilitating to my relationships with important people than improving them. If I don't have a "one click away" access to my friends and they don't have it to me, then we'll mutually remain more indisposable than ones so called "friends" on facebook.

You can rationalize this anyway you want, but the fact remains that someone from across the globe (for all you know) just got you to put all of this effort into writing this wall of text. I don't usually use smileys but here's one for you: =)

"Effort"?

It's not more of an effort than solving a crossword puzzle (in fact this is even less of an effort since I tend to suck at crossword puzzles) and the reasons im doing this are largely the same as one would have when solving crosswords. This is just brain gymnastics and argument-flexing. It's no more personal than that.

And if you're going to insist that it's something more then the psychoanalytical spot-light could just as easily be pointed at you and bring your own ego into question. After all, how could anyone possibly consider YOU to be simply an unimportant amount of ones ans zeros processed through a couple of servers and computers and not recognize you as a real person? You who have spent the better part of your life of self-realization and the pursuit of some subjectively important goals?

Are you really telling me that your ego isn't whispering in your ear that such a notion would be preposterous and for that reason I must surely just be delusional about myself and my social needs?

But if you turn off the voice of your ego for a moment: could it be possible that sometimes a cigarr is just a cigarr and not representative of something else?

 

[sleekie]

I'd be morbidly interested in knowing what I'd do. On the one hand, I'm weakwilled, on the other hand, I'm quite anti-authority. Although my usual reaction to highly stressful interactions is passive withdrawal, in this instance it would actually work.

I have a feeling I'd end up doing it if I felt sufficiently intimidated by the researchers, and not doing it if I didn't.

 

[Yeager942]

I'm voting for "I'm not sure" because I have no idea what I'd do if I was in the experiment. I'd like to believe that I'd stop, but in truth, I'll never know.

 

[Vanaron]

That's not really correct. Not all psychopaths are actually a stereotypical killer armed with a knife and on the prowl for youn teenagers who lost their virginity.

A sizeable portion of psychopaths across the world are basically just human beings who are completely anti-social emotionally. In fact most of them don't even get any diagnosis because outwardly no one can really tell that there's something "wrong" with them.

And that's just the thing, there's nothing scientifically proven that these so called "disorders" are actually signs of something "wrong" or debilitating with a person. For all we know it could just be a variant configuration of a human mind, the way some people have photographic memory or any other rare but otherwise non debilitating condition.

Also, many psychopathic traits can actually be induced through simple contemplation. I should know since I've achieved just that on my own.

They are by definition debilitating:

The World Health Organization's ICD-10 defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called Dissocial personality disorder.
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
-Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
-Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
-Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
-Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
-Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
-Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
-Persistent irritability.

Maybe you're romanticizing psychopathy(or anti-social disorders) as "I wish I felt nothing" syndrome.

No the point is that the development has shown that we're not "hardwired" at all in the matter that popular belief hold. It's a subjective thing where some people have a much more profound social need while others have none what so ever.

And this becomes more apparent due to the fact that had it been a true biological "hardwiring", then anti-social people wouldn't exist, since only the sociable genes would have survived while the non-sociable kind would've died out completely. As you said yourself: the rogue would've most likely gotten mauled by a cougar. Yet still these rogues exist today, despite the fact that their ancestors evidently was of the more sociable kind who procreated.

And yet we are finding that anti-social disorders are affected primarily by genetics... Go figure...

Oh, not to be snippy now or anything but you pretty much shot your argument in the foot by bringing up facebook as a point to your cause.

Haven't you noticed how facebook so often serve to alienate people from eachother more than it brings them together? Take friendships for instance. A friendly relationship used to need hard work and emotional investment. Back in the stone age good friends might have gone out hunting together and bonded through killing some dangerous predator together. Before facebook we actually had to meet with our friends in real life and invest time and effort to make the relationship last and prosper, in ways like travelling to one anothers homes in case we didn't live close by, sharing meals together, consuming intoxicants together etc.

And then along comes facebook and suddenly every "best friend" along with every single casual acquaintance are just one single click away. You'd think that people would act more social than ever, right? Wrong!

Since everyone are so easily accessable, people lose more and more reason to even talk to eachother. No real bonding is actually occuring, people get reduced to simple screen names on whose wall it occasionally pops up some new pictures to look at once in a while. In fact, facebook is starting to make human interaction just as "virtual" and hollow like my emotional image of you as an actual human being somewhere in the world.

This is in fact one of the reasons I've refused to get a facebook account myself. I've realized that it would only serve to devalue and dehumanize the few people who are supposed to be my most important friends and relatives.

Though it's not particularly surprising that most people haven't realized this fact, because the vast majority of them caught onto facebook because it started out as a fad. I spent some more thought over the matter myself, and it's clear that getting a facebook account and use it as a substitute to actual interaction will only serve to be debilitating to my relationships with important people than improving them. If I don't have a "one click away" access to my friends and they don't have it to me, then we'll mutually remain more indisposable than ones so called "friends" on facebook.

The "fact" that facebook works to alienate people rather than bring them together is irrelevant because the reason people use it is to try and advance their social interactions... Maybe as you say the results are not the desired ones, it doesn't matter because it can only succeed(and it has) as long as people give social interaction importance.

Oh, so you do have friends and people who are important to you? So you're not entirely anti-social are you? Seriously, I'm not trying to be snippy or ironic here, so let me restate my point:

Yeah, some people are more susceptible to social pressure than others. But everybody is susceptible to social pressure to some extent.

"Effort"?

It's not more of an effort than solving a crossword puzzle (in fact this is even less of an effort since I tend to suck at crossword puzzles) and the reasons im doing this are largely the same as one would have when solving crosswords. This is just brain gymnastics and argument-flexing. It's no more personal than that.

And if you're going to insist that it's something more then the psychoanalytical spot-light could just as easily be pointed at you and bring your own ego into question. After all, how could anyone possibly consider YOU to be simply an unimportant amount of ones ans zeros processed through a couple of servers and computers and not recognize you as a real person? You who have spent the better part of your life of self-realization and the pursuit of some subjectively important goals?

Are you really telling me that your ego isn't whispering in your ear that such a notion would be preposterous and for that reason I must surely just be delusional about myself and my social needs?

But if you turn off the voice of your ego for a moment: could it be possible that sometimes a cigarr is just a cigarr and not representative of something else?

Well, for one, I like tetris too.

But you're right, it is possible that you are doing this solely for the brain workout. So answer me this: Can you care about someone if you don't care what they think? And if you do care about what they think aren't your actions susceptible to influence from their opinion of you?

 

[Mandalore_15]

We the whole point of the Milgram experiment was to show how people can "shut off" their reasoning faculties and go on doing something they would otherwise know to be wrong simply because someone told them to. I like to believe that I wouldn't, but you can never know unless you're put in the exact same situation.

Just to point out though, Stanley Milgram deserves a serious *****-slap for doing this experiment. Those that kept going often had nightmares, huge feelings of guilt, and some even got post-traumatic stress disorder. There's no way he wouldn't have known that would happen, being a psychology professor. The test itself was morally wrong in my view.

But they also got twenty greenbacks That makes the guilt and regret for what you have done Very worthwhile...

Haha, I actually had to look this term "greenbacks" up... XD Fair play to you, matey!

 

[epikAXE]

You misread me. I didn't say these people were wrong for having a conscience. I said these people were wrong, because in the actual situation, they would almost certainly push their conscience aside - and the data bears me out on that claim.

-m

Ahh I see. Ill have to give the experiment details a little re-read. So the data says thats a person would be most likey to push thier morals aside to continue the experiment...thats interesting and slightly, worrying, I mean, what does it say about the way a human mind works...

 

[Astoria]

We talked about this in psychology. Even though people say they wouldn't do it, in the actual situation pretty much everyone would. Since we're born we are told that we have to do whatever the person in charge tells us to, so we do. There would be people who are senstive but even those people would probably still do it to the point where the other person starts crying out in pain.

I'd like to say I wouldn't do it but in reality I would.

 

[smithy_2045]

I hope I would stop. I tend to question authority, so without a satisfactory response from the director of the experiment I'd probably stop.

 

[robodukky]

Assuming I would have no other option but to zap the man, I would probably continue. If I had the choice to leave whenever, then I would leave before it starts. Then again, most people would...

 

[Lieju]

I wouldn't continue.

I mean, why would I? I think in a similar situation where I would think there was something to be gained I might do it.

I'd probably ask the psychologist why he was doing it and what was the purpose of the whole thing, and why wasn't he hitting the button. That's what I normally do, ask questions.

I don't respond well to authority-figures telling me what do, so I might just get confused and start crying. Honestly that's what would most likely happen.

Although, I should also note that I would be very bad at noticing the man in question was (supposedly) in danger, so I might just keep on going because it didn't register that he was in pain or in danger.