14 ms·

Milgram experiment redone: crowd "tortures" man on fake TV show

76 points by kungfooey 17y ago

chubbard 17y ago
Is it really all that strange to find out that we aren't that different from how we were in 1960 with respect to authority? Back then we thought of authority as a government and the nation state, but today it's you and me, our entertainment, tvs, xboxes, corporations, and facebook that exert more control over us. In this case who is the authority? The game show host or the crowd? Is this the power of the perception that "everyone's doing" it has authoritative control over us? Scary stuff still. Does anyone want to volunteer for the new TV show "Alcatraz" where we recreate Stanford prison experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
- motters 17y ago
  Again I don't think this is about authority as much as it's about alignment with the perceived norm. People in positions of authority usually claim that they're merely upholding normal, necessary or desirable values, and others try to align themselves with that - often even without any explicit coercion, and especially if the authority is perceived to be of a higher social status.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    One of the key things from milgrim's experiment was the notion of giving up responsibility, the "teachers"in the experiment were absolved of all responsibility by the experimenters (authority). I would expect the same dynamic in crowds. Some people seem to feel that they cannot be held responsible for their behavior when they are in a crowd -- and to a large extent they are right. Before modern technology it'd be hard to keep track of who did what and when. Note: It's hard to take "studies" like this seriously, if you've ever read milgrim's book it's amazing the length they went to try and verify their results; whereas nowadays studies seem to be a lot less rigorous.
    - motters 17y ago
      Although I havn't seen the show, I doubt that it could be considered a scientific experiment. At best it highlights the Milgram result to a modern audience who may not be aware of it. Experiments like Milgram's would be unlikely to get past any ethics committee these days, due to the potential psychological trauma caused to participants.
- jongraehl 17y ago
  I'm sure there has been some inoculation in people who are informed of these horrific possibilities, which presumably is the goal of the documentary. I'm not sure if they'll remember next time they're pressured, but it should help. But human nature certainly hasn't changed, and won't. Social pressure is still stronger than nearly everyone's convictions. I see the expressed horror as mostly remorse over how the security and validation they felt (that allowed them to be so cruel) was a sham, and that now they're really seen as monstrous. They have a pretty good excuse; it's likely that most people would have embarrassed themselves as fully.
Jim72 17y ago
Is there still any doubt about the power of the television!?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  While the show is about TV, the dynamics behind it have nothing to do with TV, as any amount of time in a school yard will show you.
  - motters 17y ago
    Yes I agree that is isn't specifically about TV. It's about the power of peer pressure and the behavior of crowds. It's known that people try to align themselves with whatever they believe is "the norm" in any situation, even if this contradicts their prior beliefs.
    - Jim72 17y ago
      I was merely referencing the article: "Sociologist Jean Claude Kaufmann says the French version combines Milgram's use of authority with the power of live television." The article clearly demonstrates the amplification of the pressure and stress because of television environment. In this experiment, 80% of the participants kept on buzzing. In Milgram's experiment, 65% of the participants kept on buzzing. A 15% jump, to me, would show that the variable of the "TV" played a part.
      - jongraehl 17y ago
        The variable was mostly just "large live audience egging the participant on". If the participant were able to reason under contrary social pressure, he'd probably consider that the general (much larger) TV audience wouldn't necessarily react in the same way as the taping crowd, which is generally known to be prompted.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        That's stretching correlation to causation. First, the two studies are more than 25 years apart. Society has changed, and so have we. Second while participants believed they we "on a tv show" it's a logical leap to believe that this would somehow be a extenuating factor than if they were at a gathering of some other sort. A 15% jump, to me, would show that the variable of the "TV" played a part. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.
tdoggette 17y ago
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/17/torture/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/17... Glenn Greenwald compares this linking of television and torture to the swing of public opinion in America regarding our government's use of torture.
Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
This whole "experiment" disturbs me profoundly, and for about a dozen of factors, of which i can only cite a few : - They take the appearance of science, name this an experiment, when this is much more of a sensationalist TV show in the very style of the ones it's supposed to denounce. - A (very big) flaw that the milgram experiment already had, but that this show suffers from even more, due to the context and to the size of the sample, is the fact that they're working on a sample that isn't representative in any way of the global population, but only of the people susceptible of answering the announcements -- in the case of this tv show, people willing to go on television, and that's probably not a small thing. Also this pretends to be a reproduction of the milgram experiment, while the conditions are very different. Obeying to a show hostess and obeying to a doctor isn't the same thing, and shouldn't be analyzed as being the same. - Going further in my first point, while this is supposed to be scientific, it obviously is not. But even the motivations of the show are unclear. Supposedly it's there to warn us about the dangerous power of television, while it's actually obvious that the show is using the very mechanisms it's supposed to denounce. People act shocked while they satisfy those very appetites of violence and voyeurism. How clever. BTW I'm french, and watched a few extracts of the show, but i didn't have the occasion to watch it in full. It looks very fakeish, and very disturbing too. I guess the minimum the show director could do is display some proofs of the veracity of the show. Sociology, and human sciences in general, ought to be something serious, in the process and in the display. Mocking it while playing on people's indignation (which is almost as easy to exploit as their appetite for violence) is disgusting.
- greenlblue 17y ago
  It's sensationalist for the simple reason that they are able to convince people to go as far as almost killing a man or at least causing some major damage. I'm not sure why sample bias or anything else trumps the fact that when you put people in groups their propensity for committing horrific acts goes up.
  - allyt 17y ago
    For all we know, these are the kinds of people who, when approached on the street, said "sure, I'll go on The Death Show". They're the same kids who stomp on worms after it rains - a small minority of the complete population.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Those interested in further examination of psychology of this subject should look in Canadian scientist Bob Altermeyer's work on authoritarian personality traits.
- Perceval 17y ago
  The classic work on the 'authoritarian personality' is Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom.
maeon3 17y ago
Philip Zimbardo described this principle in depth: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459 http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459 He discusses Milgram, and Guantanamo. How seemingly well adjusted good citizens can rapidly and without notice turn into little lucifers at the drop of a hat with the right social engineering.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I think Zimbardo's biggest contribution ever has been grossly overlooked. He made the point after Milgrams experiment that everyone who disobeyed authority and stopped injuring the victim still required permission (from the authority that just had them injuring someone) to help their victim. It's not only that you can create little lucifers, but it's that you wholly prevent the good Samaritan ever appearing.
danteembermage 17y ago
Dupe ;) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1197224 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1197224 On some level it's good to know source does matter (npr vs. yahoo)
techiferous 17y ago
"To thine own self be true." -- William Shakespeare
louislouis 17y ago
"They say they simply wanted to see if we would go so far as to kill someone for entertainment." The ancient greeks built the Colosseum for this kind of entertainment. So it's not surprising really.
- zbyszek 17y ago
  Romans, surely?
timthorn 17y ago
Aren't most people aware of the Milgram experiment these days? I did participate in a psychology experiment once at university, and it was painfully obvious that the "person" in the other room I was playing against was a computer. I do worry about the validitiy of some of these experiments.
- chadgeidel 17y ago
  I don't think they are. I've mentioned it to my nerdy friends (who would be more inclined to know about these things) and THEY don't even know.
lsc 17y ago
I'm a little bit surprised and amused that people continue to be surprised at what horrible things humans are capable of doing. I mean, nearly all of us went to high school right?

76 points by kungfooey 17y ago

Is it really all that strange to find out that we aren't that different from how we were in 1960 with respect to authority? Back then we thought of authority as a government and the nation state, but today it's you and me, our entertainment, tvs, xboxes, corporations, and facebook that exert more control over us. In this case who is the authority? The game show host or the crowd? Is this the power of the perception that "everyone's doing" it has authoritative control over us? Scary stuff still. Does anyone want to volunteer for the new TV show "Alcatraz" where we recreate Stanford prison experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

motters 17y ago
Again I don't think this is about authority as much as it's about alignment with the perceived norm. People in positions of authority usually claim that they're merely upholding normal, necessary or desirable values, and others try to align themselves with that - often even without any explicit coercion, and especially if the authority is perceived to be of a higher social status.
- dantheman 17y ago
  One of the key things from milgrim's experiment was the notion of giving up responsibility, the "teachers"in the experiment were absolved of all responsibility by the experimenters (authority). I would expect the same dynamic in crowds. Some people seem to feel that they cannot be held responsible for their behavior when they are in a crowd -- and to a large extent they are right. Before modern technology it'd be hard to keep track of who did what and when. Note: It's hard to take "studies" like this seriously, if you've ever read milgrim's book it's amazing the length they went to try and verify their results; whereas nowadays studies seem to be a lot less rigorous.
  - motters 17y ago
    Although I havn't seen the show, I doubt that it could be considered a scientific experiment. At best it highlights the Milgram result to a modern audience who may not be aware of it. Experiments like Milgram's would be unlikely to get past any ethics committee these days, due to the potential psychological trauma caused to participants.
jongraehl 17y ago
I'm sure there has been some inoculation in people who are informed of these horrific possibilities, which presumably is the goal of the documentary. I'm not sure if they'll remember next time they're pressured, but it should help. But human nature certainly hasn't changed, and won't. Social pressure is still stronger than nearly everyone's convictions. I see the expressed horror as mostly remorse over how the security and validation they felt (that allowed them to be so cruel) was a sham, and that now they're really seen as monstrous. They have a pretty good excuse; it's likely that most people would have embarrassed themselves as fully.

Jim72 17y ago

Is there still any doubt about the power of the television!?

run4yourlives 17y ago
While the show is about TV, the dynamics behind it have nothing to do with TV, as any amount of time in a school yard will show you.
- motters 17y ago
  Yes I agree that is isn't specifically about TV. It's about the power of peer pressure and the behavior of crowds. It's known that people try to align themselves with whatever they believe is "the norm" in any situation, even if this contradicts their prior beliefs.
  - Jim72 17y ago
    I was merely referencing the article: "Sociologist Jean Claude Kaufmann says the French version combines Milgram's use of authority with the power of live television." The article clearly demonstrates the amplification of the pressure and stress because of television environment. In this experiment, 80% of the participants kept on buzzing. In Milgram's experiment, 65% of the participants kept on buzzing. A 15% jump, to me, would show that the variable of the "TV" played a part.
    - jongraehl 17y ago
      The variable was mostly just "large live audience egging the participant on". If the participant were able to reason under contrary social pressure, he'd probably consider that the general (much larger) TV audience wouldn't necessarily react in the same way as the taping crowd, which is generally known to be prompted.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      That's stretching correlation to causation. First, the two studies are more than 25 years apart. Society has changed, and so have we. Second while participants believed they we "on a tv show" it's a logical leap to believe that this would somehow be a extenuating factor than if they were at a gathering of some other sort. A 15% jump, to me, would show that the variable of the "TV" played a part. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

tdoggette 17y ago

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/17/torture/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/17... Glenn Greenwald compares this linking of television and torture to the swing of public opinion in America regarding our government's use of torture.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago

This whole "experiment" disturbs me profoundly, and for about a dozen of factors, of which i can only cite a few : - They take the appearance of science, name this an experiment, when this is much more of a sensationalist TV show in the very style of the ones it's supposed to denounce. - A (very big) flaw that the milgram experiment already had, but that this show suffers from even more, due to the context and to the size of the sample, is the fact that they're working on a sample that isn't representative in any way of the global population, but only of the people susceptible of answering the announcements -- in the case of this tv show, people willing to go on television, and that's probably not a small thing. Also this pretends to be a reproduction of the milgram experiment, while the conditions are very different. Obeying to a show hostess and obeying to a doctor isn't the same thing, and shouldn't be analyzed as being the same. - Going further in my first point, while this is supposed to be scientific, it obviously is not. But even the motivations of the show are unclear. Supposedly it's there to warn us about the dangerous power of television, while it's actually obvious that the show is using the very mechanisms it's supposed to denounce. People act shocked while they satisfy those very appetites of violence and voyeurism. How clever. BTW I'm french, and watched a few extracts of the show, but i didn't have the occasion to watch it in full. It looks very fakeish, and very disturbing too. I guess the minimum the show director could do is display some proofs of the veracity of the show. Sociology, and human sciences in general, ought to be something serious, in the process and in the display. Mocking it while playing on people's indignation (which is almost as easy to exploit as their appetite for violence) is disgusting.

greenlblue 17y ago
It's sensationalist for the simple reason that they are able to convince people to go as far as almost killing a man or at least causing some major damage. I'm not sure why sample bias or anything else trumps the fact that when you put people in groups their propensity for committing horrific acts goes up.
- allyt 17y ago
  For all we know, these are the kinds of people who, when approached on the street, said "sure, I'll go on The Death Show". They're the same kids who stomp on worms after it rains - a small minority of the complete population.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Those interested in further examination of psychology of this subject should look in Canadian scientist Bob Altermeyer's work on authoritarian personality traits.

Perceval 17y ago
The classic work on the 'authoritarian personality' is Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom.

maeon3 17y ago

Philip Zimbardo described this principle in depth: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459 http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459 He discusses Milgram, and Guantanamo. How seemingly well adjusted good citizens can rapidly and without notice turn into little lucifers at the drop of a hat with the right social engineering.

electromagnetic 17y ago
I think Zimbardo's biggest contribution ever has been grossly overlooked. He made the point after Milgrams experiment that everyone who disobeyed authority and stopped injuring the victim still required permission (from the authority that just had them injuring someone) to help their victim. It's not only that you can create little lucifers, but it's that you wholly prevent the good Samaritan ever appearing.

danteembermage 17y ago

Dupe ;) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1197224 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1197224 On some level it's good to know source does matter (npr vs. yahoo)

techiferous 17y ago

"To thine own self be true." -- William Shakespeare

louislouis 17y ago

"They say they simply wanted to see if we would go so far as to kill someone for entertainment." The ancient greeks built the Colosseum for this kind of entertainment. So it's not surprising really.

zbyszek 17y ago
Romans, surely?

timthorn 17y ago

Aren't most people aware of the Milgram experiment these days? I did participate in a psychology experiment once at university, and it was painfully obvious that the "person" in the other room I was playing against was a computer. I do worry about the validitiy of some of these experiments.

chadgeidel 17y ago
I don't think they are. I've mentioned it to my nerdy friends (who would be more inclined to know about these things) and THEY don't even know.

lsc 17y ago

I'm a little bit surprised and amused that people continue to be surprised at what horrible things humans are capable of doing. I mean, nearly all of us went to high school right?