Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In this scenario consent has been given by the learner (from the teacher's point of view).
    If they didn't want to be in such a position they didn't have to be (which is flaw 1).
    Secondly there was the option to discontinue, as we see in the first video (by the learner and teacher, flaw 2).
    Thirdly people know about the experiments (the social authority ones) which in itself is a third flaw that can't be over come.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    These people seemed to be more tricked into doing it. I mean i know it's dumb to believe that much electricity would not cause any lasting damage, but thats all thats being tested here really, how easily they can be tricked by a man in a white coat. That and their knowledge of physics.

    To say it proved people would inflict "horrific torture" if they were told to by authority, they would need to be clearly informed that this is what they were inflicting, because these people seriously seemed to believe they were inflicting "no lasting damage", which is very different...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    If a doctor told me to give a patient some pills and on the packet it said "fatal" I'd still trust their authority and assume it was an exception because they are a doctor and I know nothing about medicine.
    You're missing out an element that the Milgram study involved.

    Would you still continue to give that patient the medication (for the sake of comparison, lets say the administration of it took a period of time) even if the patient began screamed in agony, begging you to stop, telling you that he had a heart problem (which, again for the sake of comparison, you knew would be a contraindication for this medication)?

    Edit: Actually, I would assume at this point, you would turn to the doctor for instruction (as in the study), at which point he would say to continue, thus responsibility lies upon him as the doctor... Hmm..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scarletsmoke)
    I considered your point, however disagree. That experiment was to see how much trust people put into a figure of authority, ie the scientist/doctor present. Comparing this to hitler is a little absurd to say the least, as there eas very little experimentation going on, but a whole lot more genocide.
    Actually in uni we where told about this experiment in context with the Nazi's and Hitler.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    You're missing out an element that the Milgram study involved.

    Would you still continue to give that patient the medication (for the sake of comparison, lets say the administration of it took a period of time) even if the patient began screamed in agony, begging you to stop, telling you that he had a heart problem (which, again for the sake of comparison, you knew would be a contraindication for this medication)?

    Edit: Actually, I would assume at this point, you would turn to the doctor for instruction (as in the study), at which point he would say to continue, thus responsibility lies upon him as the doctor... Hmm..
    Yeah. And I don't think it's so unreasonable for someone to do that (although I'd expect them to be tentative and to try to make sure a few times that the doctor really meant it, which Milgram's subjects did do), it's still almost completely the doctor's fault. I wouldn't think "oh my god, people will administer deadly medication if they are told to!" Just that they trust someone who appears to know better than them, which is not news.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    One of the things that gets me are peoples reactions. Don't get me wrong we've all been in a similar situation in some way before (adrenalin wise).
    And that's what I think is easy to forget. The non actors, when that happens you get this burst of adrenalin, what should you do, are they dead so on so forth.
    I think that's what makes it so easy for us behind our screen to say we wouldn't do it.
    Personally, I don't know if I would, I hope I wouldn't
    However, and I know this isn't the same thing but; I was in a uni accommodation 'shop' so to speak. We were discussing if we could afford one place. And it was VERY expensive. Suddenly they 'joked' with us, and we're already on the spot, and not sure about where else there is, "oh, place X, we just sold that" *5 second pause* "just kidding" "mike you shouldn't joke about that, that happened 2 days ago to someone, it actually had been sold".

    Now typing it out it feels, stupid. But we've all been in those stupid "HOLY ****!" moments. This one, this isn't so stupid. It's harder to rationalise. My reaction in the rent was "I'm out". It was obvious they were trying to **** with our minds to get us to sign.
    But would your reaction be the same with trained professionals where it's not as obvious?

    Furthermore if someone's signed a contract saying x is okay, does that not help rationalise it even more?
    Does that not shift their responsibility back on to them? They don't appear to have been coerced. They appear to have known everything.
    One question that I'd definitely hope to consider "why do they specifically need me to press these buttons? sure they need someone but I don't even know about this experiment, it's just pressing buttons, why wouldn't someone in their department be doing it?"
    But would I question it? That's another matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Yeah. And I don't think it's so unreasonable for someone to do that (although I'd expect them to be tentative and to try to make sure a few times that the doctor really meant it, which Milgram's subjects did do), it's still almost completely the doctor's fault. I wouldn't think "oh my god, people will administer deadly medication if they are told to!"
    Still, that being said, it's a pretty impressive display of how an authority figure can, while exherting very little pressure, encourage a participant to go against their own will (revealed by their highly anxious behaviour).

    Think about it from the participant's perspective: They would have done some sort of cost:benefit analysis.

    Continuing
    Cost: Shocking the hell out of some guy. Possibly fatal. Massive anxiety.
    Benefit: Avoid a possible confrontation with the experimenter. Avoid ruining one trial of his experiment. Avoid him getting grumpy at me.

    It seems as though the cost is HUGELY disproportionate to what is gained by obeying. And this was done just because a guy insisted he continue, barely even glancing up to do so.

    See what I mean?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Still, that being said, it's a pretty impressive display of how an authority figure can, while exherting very little pressure, encourage a participant to go against their own will (revealed by their highly anxious behaviour).

    Think about it from the participant's perspective: They would have done some sort of cost:benefit analysis.

    Continuing
    Cost: Shocking the hell out of some guy. Possibly fatal. Massive anxiety.
    Benefit: Avoid a possible confrontation with the experimenter. Avoid ruining one trial of his experiment. Avoid him getting grumpy at me.

    It seems as though the cost is HUGELY disproportionate to what is gained by obeying. And this was done just because a guy insisted he continue, barely even glancing up to do so.

    See what I mean?
    This leaves out several things.
    Consent had been given by all parties.
    The adrenalin rush.
    The reassurance of no long term repercussions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Still, that being said, it's a pretty impressive display of how an authority figure can, while exherting very little pressure, encourage a participant to go against their own will (revealed by their highly anxious behaviour).

    Think about it from the participant's perspective: They would have done some sort of cost:benefit analysis.

    Continuing
    Cost: Shocking the hell out of some guy. Possibly fatal. Massive anxiety.
    Benefit: Avoid a possible confrontation with the experimenter. Avoid ruining one trial of his experiment. Avoid him getting grumpy at me.

    It seems as though the cost is HUGELY disproportionate to what is gained by obeying. And this was done just because a guy insisted he continue, barely even glancing up to do so.

    See what I mean?
    I do see what you mean, but I don't think that was the situation. I don't think they thought anyone would die or be properly hurt.

    The experiment is very good at showing that people will follow the instructions of someone in a perceived position of authority, but I don't think it shows that people will do terrible things or that we all have it in us to torture or kill someone like people say that it does. For that the fake experimenter would need to specifically say "Administer the shock, and kill that man please. The experiment requires you to kill that man." Maybe you'd get the same results, I don't know, but I think that's the only way you'd truly convince me that the people were weighing up the choice between killing a man or disobeying and annoying an experimenter.

    Edit: I think that's why there's such a big difference between the % of people who obeyed in the experiment and the amount of people who say they would do the same, and the way that so many people say "I know I wouldn't do it if it was me!" because people are being tricked into thinking the subjects' mindset was making the choice between disobeying and killing/badly harming someone, when in reality I doubt that's what was happening in their heads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    I do see what you mean, but I don't think that was the situation. I don't think they thought anyone would die or be properly hurt.
    Have you seen the debriefing interviews? A few of the participants stated that they believed that they had killed the guy and were massively relieved to find out that it wasn't real.

    Towards the higher end, after the confederate banged on the wall in a plea to stop the shocks, he went completely silent without response. This would suggest that something rather serious had happened to him. The anxiety that was being displayed at this point by the part's suggest that they were completely buying the idea that they were killing the guy. They still continued. One part ended up uncontrollably giggling because he was so anxious.

    If they did not believe they were killing him, then certainly there would have been a belief of a significant chance that they might be. Surely this risk is enough to validate getting up and confronting the experimenter in terms of a cost:benefit analysis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    guess what that says about human nature.

    and lol at the girl in the second video, the biology student. "have we killed him...snigger". what a tool.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Have you seen the debriefing interviews? A few of the participants stated that they believed that they had killed the guy and were massively relieved to find out that it wasn't real.

    Towards the higher end, after the confederate banged on the wall in a plea to stop the shocks, he went completely silent without response. This would suggest that something rather serious had happened to him. The anxiety that was being displayed at this point by the part's suggest that they were completely buying the idea that they were killing the guy. They still continued. One part ended up uncontrollably giggling because he was so anxious.

    If they did not believe they were killing him, then certainly there would have been a belief of a significant chance that they might be. Surely this risk is enough to validate getting up and confronting the experimenter in terms of a cost:benefit analysis.
    Well, in the doctor example I might be extremely anxious that the person would die, but as long as I truly believed the person was a genuine doctor I'd think my worry was irrational. Surely the subjects could entertain both the idea that maybe something was up, making them extremely anxious and causing some of them to quit, and the idea that nothing was really wrong because the experimenter knows better than them. And people who were interviewed afterwards would mention that they thought the guy had died because they did actually think that and because it's significant in that interview, but at the time they convinced themselves that everything was fine and of course the experimenter knew what he was doing. The idea that it's either kill the guy or disobey is extremely simplified, the human mind doesn't only hold two thoughts at once.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    I think the main reason people followed those orders was because the "experimenters" would be the ones who would be taking responsibility for anything that happened. I think the results were very very specific to that one situation of people thinking they were part of an experiment. I don't think you can really use it to explain Nazis taking orders.
    You can, the people in this experiment had less of an incentive to follow the instructions than the Nazi's. They would be accused of subversion and incarcerated or simply shot if they failed to follow orders.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've known about this experiment since I was about 12....
    But yeah, it's scary that so many people would go through with that, but it has pretty much no ecological validity in the sense that there are so few real-life situations in which people would be faced with a similar task. I doubt I'll ever be faced with something like that, so I'm not going to waste time worrying about it.

    Also, any human being is technically capable of murder, rape, bombing etc, if circumstances drive them to it.

    It was a very interesting experiment though. Those were the days, when there were far fewer ethical concerns in psychological research. :p:

    But genuinely, participating in this particular experiment could seriously harm you mentally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    guess what that says about human nature.

    and lol at the girl in the second video, the biology student. "have we killed him...snigger". what a tool.
    :coma:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get what's "disgustingly horrific" about it. Wow, some people press a few buttons "OH NOES - What does dis say about human nature!!!11 THIS IZ WELLL SICKKK"

    TBH, if I was just told to do something like that. And the scientist person insisted it was OK and wasn't harmful, then I'd probably just listen to them and carry on :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    Recent BBC documentary recreated the experiment.

    Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3
    Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 2/3
    Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 3/3

    Over two thirds are known to complete the experiment and 9 out of 12 in the BBC recreation followed suit. It's kinda strange in how we sanitise the Nazi's although most of them give the same excuse that they were "following orders" whilst normal average people can similarly cause extreme pain and suffering to a complete strange solely because they were told to.
    I studied this in psychology. It's interesting - makes you wonder what you would do in a certain similar situation - it's easy to condemn those during the holocaust - but these studies just go to show how obedient people can be under an authoritive figure
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gil Gunderson)
    I remember hearing about a case in the US. The manager of a McDonalds, held a woman against her will because they were told to by someone on the phone who said they were "police officer". In any case, the person on the phone kept telling them to do more and more stuff like stripping the woman down and worse. Then the janitor walks in, had a listen and said it was a load of crap. The woman was compensated I believe, similar cases have happened in the past. I believe but this is the one I heard about. :rolleyes:

    http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&n...embedded#at=26

    I believe this was combination of stupidity and cruelty, rather just wiliness to obey but obviously that too.
    looks like the prank caller never got caught, man that sucks.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    PS Helper
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    you think its cool you could potentially be persuaded to kill someone just because the person telling you is in a position of authority? :lolwut:
    Yes, I find it fascinating how people reacted to the situation. Don't know what I would have done, but its hard to apply this to an outside situation really.

    I just think its really interesting what the experiment shows about human nature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The whole concept behind it is disgusting. What kind of person would even come up with that? It's horrendous. And people seem to be forgetting that those people were told that there would be no lasting damage to the tissues. They knew that they wouldn't be causing death, so you can hardly compare it to the mass genocides of WWII where guards of concentration camps were fully aware that they were aiming to kill inmates.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.