5 ms·

It's not the same because the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform. The whole pitch of the experiment was their beh

by j2kun 8y ago

It's not the same because the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform. The whole pitch of the experiment was their behavior was spontaneous, unsolicited, and caused by the setting. I.e., not caused by the experimenters asking the participants to behave a certain way. The Milgram effect (superiors asking you to cause pain because science + authority) has been replicated many times. This is all explained quite well in the article.

everdev 8y ago
> the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform The experiment was not about how clothing affects behavior but was about presenting a group with power and encouraging them to use it. The uniforms were important in establishing group identity, but not the sole or even primary focus of the experiment.
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  Please don't create arguments by taking clearly figurative language literally. There's plenty to fight about without that.
  - everdev 8y ago
    From OC: > I.e., not caused by the experimenters asking the participants to behave a certain way I think the point is, OC is presenting the experiment as something that comes about as a result of the setting (including uniform). But, I think from the researcher's and participants perspective, the instructions played a significant role. From article: > For Korpi, the most frightening thing about the experiment was being told that, regardless of his desire to quit, he truly did not have the power to leave. > Another prisoner, Richard Yacco, recalled being stunned on the experiment’s second day after asking a staff-member how to quit and learning that he couldn’t. A third prisoner, Clay Ramsay, was so dismayed on discovering that he was trapped that he started a hunger strike. > a taped conversation between Zimbardo and his staff on day three of the simulation: “An interesting thing was that the guys who came in yesterday, the two guys who came in and said they wanted to leave, and I said no,” So, yeah, the instructions were a huge part of the experiment. People wanted to leave and couldn't. The action/reaction between the participants ("I want to leave"/"No.", complain/6 hours in solitary) probably made the scenario much more real than the hallway posing as a jail or the fake uniforms. So, figuratively or literally I don't think it was about what happens when you put on a uniform. I think it's more about what happens when someone tells you to follow a set of rules that create an empowered/disempowered dynamic.
JackCh 8y ago
I'm under the impression that the Milgram experiments are also not quite what people have generally been lead to believe. I've not read the book yet (I just got a copy though) >"Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people went to maximum voltage on the shock machine was reported, very few people, I think, realized then and even realize today that that statistic applied to 26 of 40 people. Of those other 700-odd people, obedience rates varied enormously. In fact, there were variations of the experiment where no one obeyed." -Gina Perry, author of Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-loo... (I've not read the book yet, but I just got a copy.)
- shkkmo 8y ago
  The milgram experiments are far more interesting, and much better science that the SPE, but the popular understanding (and teaching) of them misses some of the most interesting conclusions that can be drawn from them. It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement. Well, to many people that hear about it for the first time, the mere fact that this behavior can be induced is shocking. It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      What those shocked people (Ha) are often not told is that Milgram went to great lengths to appeal to people's altruism (desire to progress the state of science) when selecting subjects and to persuade them of the scientific validity of what they'd be asked to do. That once the experiments began the experimenter would frequently pressure the 'teacher' by invoking the necessity of science. He was measuring "obedience to authority" insofar as "authority" meant trust in scientists credentialed by Yale. One variation on the experiment following the same script as the infamous variation tested obedience rates outside of the Yale campus and, of course, there was significantly less compliance. Or put another way >'according to academic Don Mixon, Milgram didn't measure immoral behavior in his lab. On the contrary, he argued that what Milgram measured was misplaced trust. [...] Don found the same results as Milgram but came to completely different conclusions. he argued that it wasn't immorality that drove Milgram's subjects to flip the switches but trust in the experimenter, who, despite the cries from the learner, calmly told them to continue and gave the impression that there was nothing to worry about. [...] According to Don, Milgram simply measured the faith that people put in experts: "He found just the opposite of what he thought he found; nothing about the subjects' behavior is evil. In fact, people go to great lengths, will suffer great distress, to be good. People got caught up in trying to be good and trusting the expert. [...] The only evil in the obedience research, Don came to believe, was "the unconscious evil of the experimenters"'

by j2kun 8y ago

everdev 8y ago

> the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform The experiment was not about how clothing affects behavior but was about presenting a group with power and encouraging them to use it. The uniforms were important in establishing group identity, but not the sole or even primary focus of the experiment.

JasonFruit 8y ago
Please don't create arguments by taking clearly figurative language literally. There's plenty to fight about without that.
- everdev 8y ago
  From OC: > I.e., not caused by the experimenters asking the participants to behave a certain way I think the point is, OC is presenting the experiment as something that comes about as a result of the setting (including uniform). But, I think from the researcher's and participants perspective, the instructions played a significant role. From article: > For Korpi, the most frightening thing about the experiment was being told that, regardless of his desire to quit, he truly did not have the power to leave. > Another prisoner, Richard Yacco, recalled being stunned on the experiment’s second day after asking a staff-member how to quit and learning that he couldn’t. A third prisoner, Clay Ramsay, was so dismayed on discovering that he was trapped that he started a hunger strike. > a taped conversation between Zimbardo and his staff on day three of the simulation: “An interesting thing was that the guys who came in yesterday, the two guys who came in and said they wanted to leave, and I said no,” So, yeah, the instructions were a huge part of the experiment. People wanted to leave and couldn't. The action/reaction between the participants ("I want to leave"/"No.", complain/6 hours in solitary) probably made the scenario much more real than the hallway posing as a jail or the fake uniforms. So, figuratively or literally I don't think it was about what happens when you put on a uniform. I think it's more about what happens when someone tells you to follow a set of rules that create an empowered/disempowered dynamic.

JackCh 8y ago

I'm under the impression that the Milgram experiments are also not quite what people have generally been lead to believe. I've not read the book yet (I just got a copy though) >"Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people went to maximum voltage on the shock machine was reported, very few people, I think, realized then and even realize today that that statistic applied to 26 of 40 people. Of those other 700-odd people, obedience rates varied enormously. In fact, there were variations of the experiment where no one obeyed." -Gina Perry, author of Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-loo... (I've not read the book yet, but I just got a copy.)

shkkmo 8y ago
The milgram experiments are far more interesting, and much better science that the SPE, but the popular understanding (and teaching) of them misses some of the most interesting conclusions that can be drawn from them. It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.
- romwell 8y ago
  >It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement. Well, to many people that hear about it for the first time, the mere fact that this behavior can be induced is shocking. It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    What those shocked people (Ha) are often not told is that Milgram went to great lengths to appeal to people's altruism (desire to progress the state of science) when selecting subjects and to persuade them of the scientific validity of what they'd be asked to do. That once the experiments began the experimenter would frequently pressure the 'teacher' by invoking the necessity of science. He was measuring "obedience to authority" insofar as "authority" meant trust in scientists credentialed by Yale. One variation on the experiment following the same script as the infamous variation tested obedience rates outside of the Yale campus and, of course, there was significantly less compliance. Or put another way >'according to academic Don Mixon, Milgram didn't measure immoral behavior in his lab. On the contrary, he argued that what Milgram measured was misplaced trust. [...] Don found the same results as Milgram but came to completely different conclusions. he argued that it wasn't immorality that drove Milgram's subjects to flip the switches but trust in the experimenter, who, despite the cries from the learner, calmly told them to continue and gave the impression that there was nothing to worry about. [...] According to Don, Milgram simply measured the faith that people put in experts: "He found just the opposite of what he thought he found; nothing about the subjects' behavior is evil. In fact, people go to great lengths, will suffer great distress, to be good. People got caught up in trying to be good and trusting the expert. [...] The only evil in the obedience research, Don came to believe, was "the unconscious evil of the experimenters"'