3 ms·

The thing I find frustrating with Milgram is there is three narratives going on simultaneously. 1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one

by PJDK 8y ago

The thing I find frustrating with Milgram is there is three narratives going on simultaneously. 1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk 2. The pretend actual reality: someone is being (potentially) fatally injured - certainly being hurt beyond the point of toleration 3. The false reality: - everything is fine because of science Almost everyone is concerned that they may be in reality 2 - they ask the researchers who say some variation of "please continue". This leads them to the entirely correct conclusion that this is a safe environment and they can continue. However, they are meant to have concluded that they really are in reality 2 and we judge them accordingly - even though they were never in reality 2, and never did anything horrifying to anyone. But why should they consider the other person their responsibility - surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger!

romwell 8y ago
>But why should they consider the other person their responsibility Because that's what we hope to expect from people in a society: to not be bystanders when others are harmed, and not be accessory to such harm. >- surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the researchers are blackmailing the other subject or holding them against their will. What you know is that they seem to be in great pain. It boils down to this: do you believe your eyes and common sense, or what the authority tells you? The experiment shows that many opt for the latter - and that is scary. >If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger! History has shown us that this is not the conclusion the people make. Remwmber "First they came for _____, but I didn't say anything because I was not a ____"?
pofilat 8y ago
It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1, because if they did, then the whole experiment makes no sense, unless the "teacher" felt pressure to conform. That is still a similar conclusion, AND in the absence of evidence that the torture was fake, is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering -- and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...
- JackCh 8y ago
  > >1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk >It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1 There is ample evidence that many of the teachers believed the experiment to be a sham and understood that nobody was actually being harmed. Some of them noticed inconsistencies in the experimental procedure, such as the learner not being paid, flaws in the narrative such as the learner with supposed heart problems being far too willing to be subjected to shocks for beer money, or general incredulity at the entire circumstance including unwillingness to believe Yale would permit such obviously unethical experimentation. >is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering It only shows that if the learner is persuaded it's being done in the name of a cause the learner already believes in. >and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business... People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays. Adolf Eichmann claimed he was just dispassionately following orders, but do you really believe that? You shouldn't. The traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments would have you believe just following orders is normal human psychology, but actually the experiments did not show that.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better? Replace (science + man in a lab coat) with (religion + man in a robe) or (political ideology + man wearing the right insignia) or ("we are saving the world" BS + manager in a $80 T-shirt), and you'll get the same results as long as the cause is believable. If you are the one being hit with a stick for nothing, does it really matter to you that the one who did it truly believed that it was for some higher cause - without pausing to think how perhaps this is not the best way to get there?
    - JackCh 8y ago

by PJDK 8y ago

romwell 8y ago

>But why should they consider the other person their responsibility Because that's what we hope to expect from people in a society: to not be bystanders when others are harmed, and not be accessory to such harm. >- surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the researchers are blackmailing the other subject or holding them against their will. What you know is that they seem to be in great pain. It boils down to this: do you believe your eyes and common sense, or what the authority tells you? The experiment shows that many opt for the latter - and that is scary. >If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger! History has shown us that this is not the conclusion the people make. Remwmber "First they came for _____, but I didn't say anything because I was not a ____"?

pofilat 8y ago

It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1, because if they did, then the whole experiment makes no sense, unless the "teacher" felt pressure to conform. That is still a similar conclusion, AND in the absence of evidence that the torture was fake, is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering -- and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...

JackCh 8y ago
> >1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk >It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1 There is ample evidence that many of the teachers believed the experiment to be a sham and understood that nobody was actually being harmed. Some of them noticed inconsistencies in the experimental procedure, such as the learner not being paid, flaws in the narrative such as the learner with supposed heart problems being far too willing to be subjected to shocks for beer money, or general incredulity at the entire circumstance including unwillingness to believe Yale would permit such obviously unethical experimentation. >is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering It only shows that if the learner is persuaded it's being done in the name of a cause the learner already believes in. >and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business... People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays. Adolf Eichmann claimed he was just dispassionately following orders, but do you really believe that? You shouldn't. The traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments would have you believe just following orders is normal human psychology, but actually the experiments did not show that.
- romwell 8y ago
  >People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better? Replace (science + man in a lab coat) with (religion + man in a robe) or (political ideology + man wearing the right insignia) or ("we are saving the world" BS + manager in a $80 T-shirt), and you'll get the same results as long as the cause is believable. If you are the one being hit with a stick for nothing, does it really matter to you that the one who did it truly believed that it was for some higher cause - without pausing to think how perhaps this is not the best way to get there?
  - JackCh 8y ago