| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » 5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hardpan... |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_p2.html
5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is Doomed
By Alexandra Gedrose
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
The Setup:
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo wanted to find out how captivity affects
authorities and inmates in prison. Sounds innocent enough. Seriously,
what could go wrong?
Zimbardo transformed the Stanford Psychology Department's basement
into a mock prison. Subjects volunteered by simply responding to a
newspaper ad ...
.... and then passing a test proving good health and high-quality
mental stability, which are very important factors in deciding who
goes to prison. These volunteers were all male college students who
were then divided arbitrarily into 12 guards and 12 prisoners.
Zimbardo himself decided that he wanted to play too, and elected
himself Prison Superintendent. The simulation was planned to run for
two weeks.
Yep, nothing at all can go wrong with this.
The Result:
It took about one day for every subject to suddenly go as insane as a
shit-house rat. On only the second day, prisoners staged a riot in the
faux detention center, with prisoners barricading their cells with
their beds and taunting the guards. The guards saw this as a pretty
good excuse to start squirting fire extinguishers at the insurgents
because, hey, why the hell not?
From that point on, the Stanford Prison that had already gone to hell,
just continued to ricochet around in hell for day after day. Some
guards began forcing inmates to sleep naked on the concrete,
restricting the bathroom as a privilege (one that was often denied).
They forced prisoners to do humiliating exercises and had them clean
toilets with their bare hands.
Incredibly, when "prisoners" were told they had a chance at parole,
and then the parole was denied, it didn't occur to them to simply ask
out of the damned experiment. Remember they had absolutely no legal
reason to be imprisoned, it was just a damned role-playing exercise.
This fact continued to escape them as they sat naked in their own
filth, with bags on their heads.
Over 50 outsiders had stopped to observe the prison, but the morality
of the trial was never questioned until Zimbardo's girlfriend,
Christina Maslach, strongly objected. After only six days, Zimbardo
put a halt to the experiment (several of the "guards" expressed
disappointment at this). If you were about to applaud Maslach as the
only sane person involved in this clusterfuck, you should know that
she went on to marry Zimbardo, the guy who orchestrated the whole
thing.
What This Says About You:
Ever been harassed by a cop who acted like a major douchebag, pushing
you around for no reason? Science says that if the roles were
reversed, you'd likely act the same way.
As it turns out, it's usually fear of repercussion that keeps us from
torturing our fellow human beings. Give us absolute power over
somebody and a blank check from our superiors, and Abu Ghraib-esque
naked pyramids are sure to follow. Hey, if it can happen to a bunch of
Vietnam-era hippie college students, it sure as hell could happen to
you.
The Milgram Experiment (1961)
The Setup:
When the prosecution of the Nazis got underway at the Nuremberg
Trials, many of the defendants' excuse seemed to revolve around the
ideas of, "I'm not really a prick" and, "Hey man, I was just following
orders." Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to test
willingness of subjects to obey an authority figure. Maybe he could
just, you know, ask people? Oh, hell no. That would not be nearly
horrifying enough.
Instead he ran an experiment where the subject was told he was a
"teacher" and that his job was to give a memory test to another
subject, located in another room. The whole thing was fake and the
other subject was an actor.
The subject was told that whenever the other guy gave an incorrect
answer, he was to press a button that would give him an electric
shock. A guy in a lab coat was there to make sure he did it (again no
real shock was being delivered, but the subject of course did not know
this).
The subject was told that the shocks started at 45 volts and would
increase with every wrong answer. Each time they pushed the button,
the actor on the other end would scream and beg for the subject to
stop.
So, can you guess how this went?
The Result:
Many subjects began to feel uncomfortable after a certain point, and
questioned continuing the experiment. However, each time the guy in
the lab coat encouraged them to continue. Most of them did, upping the
voltage, delivering shock after shock while the victim screamed. Many
subjects would laugh nervously, because laughter is the best medicine
when pumping electrical currents through another person's body.
Eventually the actor would start banging on the wall that separated
him from the subject, pleading about his heart condition. After
further shocks, all sounds from victim's room would cease, indicating
he was dead or unconscious. If you had to guess, what percentage of
the subjects kept delivering shocks after that point?
Five percent? Ten?
Between 61 and 66 percent of subjects would continue the experiment
until it reached the maximum voltage of 450, continuing to deliver
shocks after the victim had been zapped into unconsciousness or the
afterlife. Repeated studies have shown the same result: Subjects will
mindlessly deliver pain to an innocent stranger as long as a dude in a
lab coat says it's OK.
Most subjects wouldn't begin to object until after 300-volt shocks.
Zero of them asked to stop the experiment before that point (keep in
mind 100 volts is enough to kill a man, in some cases).
What This Says About You:
You might like to think of yourself as a free-thinking marauder, but
when it comes down to it, odds are you won't stick it to The Man
because of the fear The Man will stick it right back up your ass. And
this was just a guy in a lab coat--imagine if he'd had a uniform, or a
badge.
Charles Sheridan and Richard King took this experiment one step
further, but asked subjects to shock a puppy for every incorrect
action it made. Unlike Milgram's experiment, this shock was real.
Exactly 20 out of 26 subjects went to the highest voltage.
Almost 80 percent. Think about that when you're walking around the
mall: Eight out of ten of those people you see would torture the shit
out of a puppy if a dude in a lab coat asked them to. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 6, 9:35 pm, Hardpan <hardpan_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_p2.html
5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is Doomed
By Alexandra Gedrose
The thesis that human are doomed doesn't seem to follow with any
force, just because we are beginning to understand how our minds work.
I like the similar thesis, but with a different conclusion, by E.O.
Wilson;
Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates
behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep
reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those
satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain
enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the
channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
own lives. They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
precepts.
Social engineering has the potential of profoundly altering every part
of human behavior. It will not always affirm the status quo, as in the
case of incest avoidance. Some very human propensities, which may have
been of great adaptive value in the stone age, are now largely self-
destructive. The most virulent of these, aggression and xenophobia,
can be blunted. Other equally human propensities for altruism and
cooperation might be enhanced. The value of institutions and forms of
government can be more accurately judged, alternative procedures laid
out, and steps cautiously suggested. Economists and corporate
planners, once aware of the facts of human nature and measuring more
than material transactions, should be able to devise more effective
policies.
Close self-examination and the planned manipulation of values can be a
distasteful exercise. But in a world growing steadily more complicated
and dangerous, the alternatives are not promising. A society that
chooses to ignore the existence of the innate epigenetic rules will
nevertheless continue to navigate by them and at each moment of
decision yield to their dictates by default. Economic policy, moral
tenets, the practices of child-rearing, and almost every other social
activity will be guided by inner feelings whose origins are beyond
comprehension. Such a society cannot effectively challenge the ancient
hereditary oracle dwelling within the epigenetic rules. It will
continue to live by the "conscience" of its members and by "God's
will." Such an archaic procedure just might, by fantastic good
fortune, lead in the most direct and untroubled manner to a stable and
wholly benevolent world. More likely, it will perpetuate conflict and
continue to drag humanity relentlessly along what is at best a
tortuous and agonizing path.
On the other hand, the deep scientific study of the epigenetic rules
will call the oracle to account and translate its commands into a
precise language that can be understood and debated. People who know
human nature in this way are more likely to agree on universal goals
within the constraints of that nature and recognize absolute ethical
truths, if such can be shown to exist. And though societies cannot
escape the inborn rules of epigen-esis, and would lose the very
essence of humanness if they even came close to succeeding, they can
employ knowledge of the rules to guide individual behavior and
cultural evolution to the ends on which their members may someday
agree.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hardpan" <hardpan_101 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbc224t5ltdvreqrdaehf2osn3rfr1qhc2 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_p2.html
5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is Doomed
By Alexandra Gedrose
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
The Setup:
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo wanted to find out how captivity affects
authorities and inmates in prison. Sounds innocent enough. Seriously,
what could go wrong?
Zimbardo transformed the Stanford Psychology Department's basement
into a mock prison. Subjects volunteered by simply responding to a
newspaper ad ...
... and then passing a test proving good health and high-quality
mental stability, which are very important factors in deciding who
goes to prison. These volunteers were all male college students who
were then divided arbitrarily into 12 guards and 12 prisoners.
Zimbardo himself decided that he wanted to play too, and elected
himself Prison Superintendent. The simulation was planned to run for
two weeks.
Yep, nothing at all can go wrong with this.
The Result:
It took about one day for every subject to suddenly go as insane as a
shit-house rat. On only the second day, prisoners staged a riot in the
faux detention center, with prisoners barricading their cells with
their beds and taunting the guards. The guards saw this as a pretty
good excuse to start squirting fire extinguishers at the insurgents
because, hey, why the hell not?
From that point on, the Stanford Prison that had already gone to hell,
just continued to ricochet around in hell for day after day. Some
guards began forcing inmates to sleep naked on the concrete,
restricting the bathroom as a privilege (one that was often denied).
They forced prisoners to do humiliating exercises and had them clean
toilets with their bare hands.
Incredibly, when "prisoners" were told they had a chance at parole,
and then the parole was denied, it didn't occur to them to simply ask
out of the damned experiment. Remember they had absolutely no legal
reason to be imprisoned, it was just a damned role-playing exercise.
This fact continued to escape them as they sat naked in their own
filth, with bags on their heads.
Over 50 outsiders had stopped to observe the prison, but the morality
of the trial was never questioned until Zimbardo's girlfriend,
Christina Maslach, strongly objected. After only six days, Zimbardo
put a halt to the experiment (several of the "guards" expressed
disappointment at this). If you were about to applaud Maslach as the
only sane person involved in this clusterfuck, you should know that
she went on to marry Zimbardo, the guy who orchestrated the whole
thing.
What This Says About You:
Ever been harassed by a cop who acted like a major douchebag, pushing
you around for no reason? Science says that if the roles were
reversed, you'd likely act the same way.
As it turns out, it's usually fear of repercussion that keeps us from
torturing our fellow human beings. Give us absolute power over
somebody and a blank check from our superiors, and Abu Ghraib-esque
naked pyramids are sure to follow. Hey, if it can happen to a bunch of
Vietnam-era hippie college students, it sure as hell could happen to
you.
The Milgram Experiment (1961)
The Setup:
When the prosecution of the Nazis got underway at the Nuremberg
Trials, many of the defendants' excuse seemed to revolve around the
ideas of, "I'm not really a prick" and, "Hey man, I was just following
orders." Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to test
willingness of subjects to obey an authority figure. Maybe he could
just, you know, ask people? Oh, hell no. That would not be nearly
horrifying enough.
Instead he ran an experiment where the subject was told he was a
"teacher" and that his job was to give a memory test to another
subject, located in another room. The whole thing was fake and the
other subject was an actor.
The subject was told that whenever the other guy gave an incorrect
answer, he was to press a button that would give him an electric
shock. A guy in a lab coat was there to make sure he did it (again no
real shock was being delivered, but the subject of course did not know
this).
The subject was told that the shocks started at 45 volts and would
increase with every wrong answer. Each time they pushed the button,
the actor on the other end would scream and beg for the subject to
stop.
So, can you guess how this went?
The Result:
Many subjects began to feel uncomfortable after a certain point, and
questioned continuing the experiment. However, each time the guy in
the lab coat encouraged them to continue. Most of them did, upping the
voltage, delivering shock after shock while the victim screamed. Many
subjects would laugh nervously, because laughter is the best medicine
when pumping electrical currents through another person's body.
Eventually the actor would start banging on the wall that separated
him from the subject, pleading about his heart condition. After
further shocks, all sounds from victim's room would cease, indicating
he was dead or unconscious. If you had to guess, what percentage of
the subjects kept delivering shocks after that point?
Five percent? Ten?
Between 61 and 66 percent of subjects would continue the experiment
until it reached the maximum voltage of 450, continuing to deliver
shocks after the victim had been zapped into unconsciousness or the
afterlife. Repeated studies have shown the same result: Subjects will
mindlessly deliver pain to an innocent stranger as long as a dude in a
lab coat says it's OK.
Most subjects wouldn't begin to object until after 300-volt shocks.
Zero of them asked to stop the experiment before that point (keep in
mind 100 volts is enough to kill a man, in some cases).
What This Says About You:
You might like to think of yourself as a free-thinking marauder, but
when it comes down to it, odds are you won't stick it to The Man
because of the fear The Man will stick it right back up your ass. And
this was just a guy in a lab coat--imagine if he'd had a uniform, or a
badge.
Charles Sheridan and Richard King took this experiment one step
further, but asked subjects to shock a puppy for every incorrect
action it made. Unlike Milgram's experiment, this shock was real.
Exactly 20 out of 26 subjects went to the highest voltage.
Almost 80 percent. Think about that when you're walking around the
mall: Eight out of ten of those people you see would torture the shit
out of a puppy if a dude in a lab coat asked them to.
Which is why we need independent regulation to maintain law and order.
Although obviously the regulators could fall foul of the same type of
behavior they are supposed to be deterring. No need to run any experiments.
This is already widely understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right
HTHelps |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:18 am
|
|