Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

psypost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#41

Post by palmotea »

stavros wrote: post #33
newsclues wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that have been abused are more likely to abuse others. If we remove this cycle of abuse, what is the natural rate of humans that will hurt others? An uncomfortable idea, as victims become perpetrators, it may be best to segregate victims to prevent future abuse and victimization.

People that have been treated well are more likely to treat other people well. If we remove this cycle of decency, what is the natural rate of humans that will hurt others? The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then.

> The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then.

Yeah, but you can also find that rate if you remove the trigger (abuse) from the environment (society) and see how the rate changes.

You don't have to lock someone in a coffin, or something ridiculous like that (and that would be counterproductive anyway). You create a society, or a least a sub-society, where there's no abuse, and see how much abuse is invented by the people raised in that environment.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#42

Post by newsclues »

stavros wrote: post #33
newsclues wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that have been abused are more likely to abuse others. If we remove this cycle of abuse, what is the natural rate of humans that will hurt others? An uncomfortable idea, as victims become perpetrators, it may be best to segregate victims to prevent future abuse and victimization.

People that have been treated well are more likely to treat other people well. If we remove this cycle of decency, what is the natural rate of humans that will hurt others? The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then.

If a child is sexually abused, perhaps society would benefit from segregating the victims of abuse to prevent the cycle of abuse from continuing?

Let’s put it another way, if a catholic priest touches a choirboy, it’s not a good idea to let the choirboy become a priest and victimize the next generation of choirboys.

Gross but perhaps a benefit to society

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#43

Post by Miraltar »

crazygringo wrote: post #38

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing. It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow ins…

Well, if you're supposed to administrate shocks to teach or test someone's memory, asking the question while they're screaming isn't just about protocol, it does break down the purpose of these shocks. Saying that participants did administrate shocks because they trusted the legitimacy of what they thought they were doing doesn't hold up under these circumstances.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#44

Post by kakacik »

user2722 wrote: post #4
Mordisquitos wrote: post #3

Interesting. If we can assume the experimenter's failure to enforce the rules was mere clumsiness or incompetence, rather than an indicator of underlying intentional manipulation of the experimental conditions à la Stanford prison experiment, this can be interpreted in many different ways. The (eventually) disobedient subjects were better at respecting the experimental process they were given than the "obedient" ones…

It really calls into questions the conclusions drawn from the last 50 years. Here's the ones disproven I remember: * kids grow to be rich because they accept delayed gratification * alpha males are the leader of the pack and all other males are useless * people accept violence if there is a higher authority which justifies it with a reason How many people suffered or delivered suffering because of their beliefs in th…

The first point, and I can see in my own life, is valid. Not properly rich by any means, but vastly surpassed any expectations and most of my peers from earlier life (which is rather easy when coming from poor eastern Europe but somehow most folks from back home didn't, too deep in their little comfort zones or fears of risks that were mostly made up).

It can be reframed as cca discipline too, willingness to suffer a bit for later rewards. Can see this as massive success multiplier in many real world situations.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#45

Post by goatlover »

crazygringo wrote: post #38

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing. It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow ins…

It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#46

Post by stavros »

palmotea wrote: post #41
stavros wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that have been treated well are more likely to treat other people well. If we remove this cycle of decency, what is the natural rate of humans that will hurt others? The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then.

> The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then. Yeah, but you can also find that rate if you remove the trigger (abuse) from the environment (society) and see how the rate changes. You don't have to lock someone in a coffin, or something ridiculous like that (and that would be counterproductive anyway). You c…

Right but then you don't need to change anything, simply measure how many people act the opposite way to what they were raised, and then you'll know.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#47

Post by crazygringo »

Miraltar wrote: post #43
crazygringo wrote: post #38

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing. It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow ins…

Well, if you're supposed to administrate shocks to teach or test someone's memory, asking the question while they're screaming isn't just about protocol, it does break down the purpose of these shocks. Saying that participants did administrate shocks because they trusted the legitimacy of what they thought they were doing doesn't hold up under these circumstances.

No, because you'd have to show that the participants thought there was a breakdown of the procedure and purpose, and that they continued despite that.

If they think the procedure is to read the next question when the previous one has been completed, and they do, even if the other person is screaming, they think they're "following rules". They're not the ones who came up with the procedure.

Which is the whole point: the participants were trying to follow rules, even if they made mistakes in following those rules. The idea that there was a total "breakdown" of the rules doesn't seem supported at all.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#48

Post by sneak »

bambax wrote: post #9

> By staying silent and letting the memory study fall apart, the experimenter allowed an atmosphere of illegitimate violence to flourish. Many people are cruel. Not all people, maybe; not most people, also maybe; but some people enjoy hurting others. We see this everywhere. Isn't it possible that this kind of profile jumped on the occasion to inflict pain on people with no fear of repercussions? In other words, isn't…

No. I highly encourage people to read his book. What you are describing is a classic example of Fundamental Attribution Error - the assumption that people’s actions are primarily the result of some innate trait, versus that of circumstance.

His study plainly shows that most people, in the right circumstances, will act in unimaginably cruel ways.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#49

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

This study is so flawed in so many ways that it doesn’t prove or disprove anything in any way. The most obvious thing is that the assumption that the test subjects did not realise it was fake. It was not controlled in any way and many of the subjects (presumably Yale students and so hardly complete dumb-dumbs) propably thought it was just a lark.

Re: Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

#50

Post by crazygringo »

goatlover wrote: post #45
crazygringo wrote: post #38

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing. It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow ins…

It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...
Post reply on HN