A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Register or Log In

1. 

   DDM
   Member

   I just stumbled onto this video today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w&NR I'd heard about this before, but seeing it in action is a bit eerie. It's scary how eager some of them are to hurt others. I'm not sure about the experiment in the video, but in the original test the subjects were given a shock themselves before administering a shock to the actor, so they knew what it felt like. Even so, they still went on with it. Scary stuff.

   How far do you think you guys would go?

   I don't know how far I'd go. I know I wouldn't object if it was just a small prick of pain, but I'd like to think I know for certain that if it ever got to the screaming stage I'd just stop there. I equate it to the same as punching someone in the arm(with malicious intent) as opposed to punching them in the face. The intent is to harm in either case, but one is far worse than the other.

   Posted 3 years ago #
2. 

   Logan
   Member

   I think most of us would like to believe that we'd take a stand and stop at some point, but the results of that study suggested otherwise, which is what sparked so much controversy.

   I do feel, however, that among those who are apostates of one religion or another, e.g. most of the regulars on this board, there's a stronger tendency to resist authoritative pressure in favor of what our own thoughts (/reason/conscience etc.) tell us than one might find among the general population. I call it the Huck Finn "Alright, I'll go to hell" principle.

   Posted 3 years ago #
3. 

   Daniel Florien
   Administrator

   I'd be interesting if they did this test and separated the results by religion. Or maybe they have that info and I don't know about it.

   Posted 3 years ago #
4. 

   GeekGirl
   Member

   I would be very interested in seeing how this would pan out among different religions as well.

   @DDM - VERY scary stuff. I also would like to think I wouldn't even participate knowing about the shocks, but I guess until I am tested in that regard, I won't know for sure. And I guess the same would be true for anybody.
   But it does make you wonder how you would have fared had you been unfortunate enough to have been born in Germany right before or during WWII. I will never know if would have had the courage to stand up or even leave the country in the face of that kind of inhumanity, but hopefully I will never have to know. (less likely now that Shrub is no longer in office :)

   Posted 3 years ago #
5. 

   JonJon
   Member

   "I do feel, however, that among those who are apostates of one religion or another, e.g. most of the regulars on this board, there's a stronger tendency to resist authoritative pressure in favor of what our own thoughts (/reason/conscience etc.) tell us than one might find among the general population."

   I think this is a good argument, but there are arguments the other way as well. I think I could make a decent case that religious conviction on some matters is often less flexible than non-religious conviction, so that if the thing ordered didn't line up with religious conviction, those with religious conviction would be less likely to deviate from their normal behavior patterns. (The obvious exception would be if the man in a white coat was replaced with a religious leader...)

   I'm with Daniel: I'd love to see the results of this broken down by religion.

   Posted 3 years ago #
6. 

   phrankygee
   Member

   Brian Dunning has an episode of Skeptoid devoted to the Milgram Experiment in which he points out some of its methodological weaknesses.

   I don't think Dunning made a very compelling case, but for those interested in a different perspective, you might go to Skeptoid.com and search for the milgram episode.

   Ultimately, I'm more convinced by the Nazi experiment, or the Stalinist experiment, or the Guantanamo experiment, or the Darfur experiment, or the Roman experiment (etc, etc...) Than I am by the Milgram experiment.

   Hell, if you want to witness a milder form of this, there are thousands of employees of various types who have to be either slightly mean or very mean to people in the course of their jobs. Not by actively delivering painful shocks, but by denying access to places/resources, repossessing property, foreclosing on homes, selling people overpriced or worthless or dangerous products, bad investments, etc...

   How many times have we all heard the phrase "I'm sorry, it's not personal, it's just business"? Probably even less often than "I have to ask my manager". It's all part of the same phenomenon.

   Posted 3 years ago #
7. 

   Ty
   Moderator

   Good point, Phranky.

   Delivering electric shocks is more direct, but people hurt other people all the time at the behest of authority figures.

   Posted 3 years ago #
8. 

   Elemenope
   Moderator

   Part of the problem with the experiment is that delivering electric shocks is way more fun than saying no to a (justifiably) angry customer.

   Posted 3 years ago #
9. 

   Ty
   Moderator

   No kidding.

   There are any number of people I'd shock the living crap out of just for fun.

   Posted 3 years ago #
10. 

    Logan
    Member

    Wasn't there a Simpsons episode about that in the nearly forgotten first season?

    Posted 3 years ago #
11. 

    Ty
    Moderator

    Yeah!

    With Doctor whats-his-name!

    I totally remember that.

    Posted 3 years ago #
12. 

    DDM
    Member

    there are thousands of employees of various types who have to be either slightly mean or very mean to people in the course of their jobs. Not by actively delivering painful shocks, but by denying access to places/resources, repossessing property, foreclosing on homes, selling people overpriced or worthless or dangerous products, bad investments, etc.

    Just because I don't like someone and am mean to them doesn't mean that I want to hurt or kill them. Though the end result may be the same, there is a remarkable mental difference between physically hurting/killing someone rather than denying them something of a non-essential nature(as opposed to medication, etc.).

    This actually reminds me about an article I read on active and passive euthanasia. It's pretty fucked up stuff.

    Posted 3 years ago #
13. 

    phrankygee
    Member

    Just because I don't like someone and am mean to them doesn't mean that I want to hurt or kill them.

    I agree, sort of, but that is beside the point of the part of my post that you quoted. The point of my post (and of the milgram experiment) is that the people being mean DON'T dislike the person they are hurting. They don't have any reason to be mean, other than "that guy said I was supposed to".

    Active vs. Passive euthanasia (and murder, too) is an interesting topic, but it's not necessarily related to what I was talking about.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.