Poll: You're in the Milgram Experiment!

[HSIAMetalKing]

I would totally stop, but that's only because I'm too familiar with this experiment from being a Psych Minor.

I believe that, for the sake of the forum, we are supposed to assume that you have no outside knowledge of the experiment and that we wouldn't figure it out. So, for sake of argument let's say you had no way of knowing that the experiment is a setup. As for me, I would probably do it. I am not a rebel. I submit to authority almost always. I would continue because I couldn't see it and an authoritarian figure was urging me on.

Maybe, but for me it's interesting to consider that knowledge of the purpose of the experiment can modify a person's behavior. In a way we adapt our ethics based on what we know, so a person who understands that they do not have to submit to an authority figure when they sense that they are being pressured into harming another person will be less likely to actually do it if they are in a similar scenario.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Wow.......just reading that stressed me out. What...the.....fuck?

*ahem* anyway, whether or not I'd stop, depends almost entirely on the authority figure, I'd say. If it's a wimpy wheezy little guy in the corner telling me to guy on, i'd probably not listen to him. If it's either a commanding disembodied voice, or a person who seems nice and earns even a little bit of my trust, then the learner is screwed. but that's my opinion at least. I'm probably WAY off.

That being said. i would NOT want to take that or any variant of that test.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

or a person who seems nice and earns even a little bit of my trust, then the learner is screwed.

This is why they don't have Stephen Fry as the Authority Figure in Milgram style experiments.

 

[Arrogancy]

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?

Alright, I'm willing to concede the point. Perhaps "safely" wasn't the proper word, but I still stand by my point. First off, I am not calling every escapist who answered yes to the question a liar. Rather, I am stating that the escapists who answered no are more aware of their limits. Many probably would stop before they reached the last lever, but I still believe that there are many more who answered yes who would not. In reading the responses to the poll I can draw the conclusion that many of the people who answered yes are anarchists. They depict themselves as resisting any and all authority that they disagree with. Since I find it highly unlikely that so many people actively resist any and all authority all the time I don't credit those responses as much as others. Another thing is that many people confuse the issue. Like the original psychologists who engineered this experiment they see it as a measure of sadism rather than what it is, a measure of pressure. I completely discredit these responses because it was this type of thinking that led the original architects of the experiment to predict that one in one thousand people would go all the way to the end. These responses I discredit almost completely. The point I am trying to make is that people are more submissive than they like to admit, which is inherent in human nature, I believe. Also they have run this test hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

 

[Jedoro]

I quit US Army Basic Training; I didn't misbehave and get kicked out, I stopped following orders and told them I quit, and after enough of it they let me out. I think telling a psychiatrist that I'm not going to shock someone anymore isn't much of a stretch for me.

 

[TWRule]

Alright, I'm willing to concede the point. Perhaps "safely" wasn't the proper word, but I still stand by my point. First off, I am not calling every escapist who answered yes to the question a liar. Rather, I am stating that the escapists who answered no are more aware of their limits. Many probably would stop before they reached the last lever, but I still believe that there are many more who answered yes who would not. In reading the responses to the poll I can draw the conclusion that many of the people who answered yes are anarchists. They depict themselves as resisting any and all authority that they disagree with. Since I find it highly unlikely that so many people actively resist any and all authority all the time I don't credit those responses as much as others. Another thing is that many people confuse the issue. Like the original psychologists who engineered this experiment they see it as a measure of sadism rather than what it is, a measure of pressure. I completely discredit these responses because it was this type of thinking that led the original architects of the experiment to predict that one in one thousand people would go all the way to the end. These responses I discredit almost completely. The point I am trying to make is that people are more submissive than they like to admit, which is inherent in human nature, I believe. Also they have run this test hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

Very well. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of people who answered that they'd stop when perhaps they might not in the actual situation. There are probably people who said they wouldn't stop simply to perpetuate some sort of internet tough-guy persona, too.

I wouldn't say that all the people who answered yes are anarchists that fly in the face of all authority. If someone actually said something like "I never take authority into account", I wouldn't blame you for questioning the authenticity of their response. However, the majority of people would probably take the authority into account, but find some stronger moral principle to overrule it in this situation (such as, refusing to kill someone for any cause, or not wanting to take moral responsibility for the subject's possible death). I still disagree with making any sort of blanket statement about human nature, especially from empirical data, but I don't suppose I can dissuade you.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

Wow.......just reading that stressed me out. What...the.....fuck?

*ahem* anyway, whether or not I'd stop, depends almost entirely on the authority figure, I'd say. If it's a wimpy wheezy little guy in the corner telling me to guy on, i'd probably not listen to him. If it's either a commanding disembodied voice, or a person who seems nice and earns even a little bit of my trust, then the learner is screwed. but that's my opinion at least. I'm probably WAY off.

That being said. i would NOT want to take that or any variant of that test.

Well maybe the guy himself isn't intimidating enough because he is a small nerdy looking psychologist, but you are in his building around (what you think to be) dangerous equipment, you also notice that he has no problem with (what you think) killing a man horrifically. So you probably would do what he says.

 

[No_Remainders]

A while later the machine is starting to produce dangerous electrical shocks, shocks with over 400 volts.

I'd have to know how high the current is before answering.

 

[zHellas]

I'd either:

a.) Push the button rapidly & repeatedly, in order to kill the guy quickly and save him from any more pain.

or

b.) Refuse, and if they try to make me I'd bite, scratch, kick, punch, stab(if I can find something) them in opposition.

 

[Wintermoot]

if I,m told the man would be okay I would keep going (unless they would say the man would surely die)
also what is in it for me?

 

[lemiel14n3]

I think I'd stop when he started screaming. until then, fuck him. He knew what he was getting into.

The interesting thing is the stress exhibited by the "teacher" he's the one in a position that should have no stress, after all he's not the one getting zapped.

 

[Polaris19]

Demand to leave. I don't hurt people, simple as that. If it starts to get to be too much, than I'd be done.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I'm going to make a prediction.

The majority of the people in this thread are going to say "no way, I'd totally stop!"

The majority of those people will be wrong.

-m

What do you mean they would "be wrong"? As in they wouldn't actually do it? Or that it would be wrong to leave?

I don't understand why anyone would continue? It's just a psychologist saying "Keep going". So what? Why am I listening to this guy? Why am I meant to do what he said?

 

[KiKiweaky]

Woah, I should have ansewerd before reading other peoples posts. What a devious experiment... I would say I'd have stopped. As I always, fucking always used to get myself in trouble with authority (not the police) in school or lately work.

Nearly lost my job because I felt one of the chefs was treating me like shit. When I was called into the office to explain I had to shut down.... to the point where I was asked 'are you listening to me' by my boss. If I tried to defend myself I'd only make my boss worse in tuen making me worse and it would end up in a shouting match the end of which I would have probably lost my job. So i just sat there. I hate biting my tounge, that was possibly the angriest I was in the last 6 months and I had to sit there and say nothing.

So while I may come off as being a tool, when it comes to being told to do something. If I generally dont want to do it I won't. That scientist would get a big fat no from me I'm afraid.

 

[VanityGirl]

I'd say, shock the crap out of the mofo on the other side. I hate teaching anyways.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I could imagine myself laughing

 

[superbatranger]

I honestly can't say if I'd continue or not. Granted, if I didn't know about the true nature of the experiment, I might be inclined to continue. But, who knows? I certainly don't.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Well maybe the guy himself isn't intimidating enough because he is a small nerdy looking psychologist, but you are in his building around (what you think to be) dangerous equipment, you also notice that he has no problem with (what you think) killing a man horrifically. So you probably would do what he says.

Fair point actually. But then I'd be more frightened, not necessarily "tricked"(if someone trustworthy was urging me) or intimidated. But yeah you've got a point.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'm going to make a prediction.

The majority of the people in this thread are going to say "no way, I'd totally stop!"

The majority of those people will be wrong.

-m

Actually no, I think the people who say here they would stop would stop. Why? Thanks to this topic we know we'd be in that experiment (assuming for the sake of conversation that this is the first time we're hearing about it). We could just as much troll the scientists, even if we would continue we'd know the screams would be faked.

Regardless of what we'd do, the results would be pretty much worthless.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I remember reading about this experiment on Cracked. It was one of the top 5 or 7 or whatever messed up experiments. I think it was number 3.

I don't know what I'd do, because I'm not part of the experiment.