• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Shocking Experiment

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A Santa Clara University psychologist, conducting a behavior experiment with paid volunteers, found that most people would repeatedly shock the crap out of a stranger if someone told them to do so. The experiment is a modern day version of the controversial experiment from back in the early 70s.

Burger found that 70 percent of the participants had to be stopped from escalating shocks over 150 volts, despite hearing cries of protest and pain. Decades earlier, Milgram found that 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks. Of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts.
Click to expand...
 
I am playing FarCry 2 a couple days ago. I am sitting on a hill looking over a few buildings and there is a zebra moving around by them. My 6 year old daughter walks into the room and is watching me. I scope in on the zebra, and she screams, "NO DADDY! That's mother nature." I then immediately scope in on a guy standing on a dock, an put the crosshairs right on his head. I look at her and say, "Head shot?" She screams, "YEAH!"

I am not sure what that says about humanity although she has been very versed in games not being real....
 
morality vs authority... most americans about 70% fall into authority (levels 3-4) where they would rather obey orders than ethical or their own morals. the last 30% not to be an elitist, are usually college educated or very religious (not fanatic, but moralistically religious, not saying your religious and killing people)... who have the 5th/6th stages of learning where ethics is more important than rules.

Kohlberg is a popular education pscyhologist... so how can you improve people not to be a jackass like this?

-you honestly have to either... keep educating them, exposing them... let them experience different cultures etc... role play "whats it like to be in their shoes"...
-its like learning... but its mostly encouraging youth to think outside the box, think what others might experience, practice writing etc.... learn social studies
-if we got rid of social studies, we would see more mindless drones. think china... where the government controls all knowledge in the classroom... their students then are geared to less exposure and more authority... less thinking about other people's pain... and more about learning the "truth" that they are informed from the government who wrote their history books.

more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
 
Heck, I've heard of the original. I recall being surprised at the time that that many people were so... sheep like. I'm more cynical now.
 
Kinda sad article. Sometimes I feel like orders and money has given way to hummanity, this most likley explains the brutal beatings you see on some video sites on unsuspecting people.
 
Every single one of these experiments is void for the simple reason that the participant knows that it is a lab setup, knows that the person being "shocked" is a willing particpant, and knows that any seriosu danger to the subject would put the experimenter under serious legal risk.

From that I would conclude that the experiment is setup in such a way that it is safe for the person being shocked, and that the person being shocked is, just like everyone else there, being paid for this job.

In the end, this is just another demonstration of the impotence of the field of psychology. You want to test people's morality? Give them a knife or a gun and tell them to try the same experiment. This is just another half-baked experiment to "prove" another half-baked theory.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Every single one of these experiments is void for the simple reason that the participant knows that it is a lab setup, knows that the person being "shocked" is a willing particpant, and knows that any seriosu danger to the subject would put the experimenter under serious legal risk.

From that I would conclude that the experiment is setup in such a way that it is safe for the person being shocked, and that the person being shocked is, just like everyone else there, being paid for this job.

In the end, this is just another demonstration of the impotence of the field of psychology. You want to test people's morality? Give them a knife or a gun and tell them to try the same experiment. This is just another half-baked experiment to "prove" another half-baked theory.
Click to expand...

I guess you are right, if a person is willing to be shocked and signed up for it, most people will just let them have it.
 
Pretty damning experiment the first time it was done, even moreso now that we've supposedly moved on (the first was done to try to explain how the people under Hitler could have commited such attrocities -- the answer, apparently, is that it's easy to torture people when you're 'just following orders').

It explains a lot though. People do what they're told to do by authority figures. It's unthinking, unquestioned loyalty to those they percieve as having power. This also partly explains why people catch flak for not blindly following leaders, as most people are quite willing to do literally anything they're told and can't fathom somebody protesting on moral grounds.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Every single one of these experiments is void for the simple reason that the participant knows that it is a lab setup, knows that the person being "shocked" is a willing particpant, and knows that any seriosu danger to the subject would put the experimenter under serious legal risk.

From that I would conclude that the experiment is setup in such a way that it is safe for the person being shocked, and that the person being shocked is, just like everyone else there, being paid for this job.

In the end, this is just another demonstration of the impotence of the field of psychology. You want to test people's morality? Give them a knife or a gun and tell them to try the same experiment. This is just another half-baked experiment to "prove" another half-baked theory.
Click to expand...

They didn't know that the first time the experiment was run -- psychology wasn't as closely regulated a field back then.

Also, supposing this is true, people still keep ramping up the volts through audible cries of pain and anguish on the other side. So either the know it's a sham and are participating anyway, which is in and of itself questionable ethics (knowing that the idea is to get good results and deliberately trying to throw them off) -- or they're rationalizing it with "well they asked for it", which is perhaps even more dangerous.

'Safe' or not, there's still convincing displays of pain involved, and people are still ignoring that. Doesn't matter if they know it won't kill the other person.
 
KaiserWarrior said:
They didn't know that the first time the experiment was run -- psychology wasn't as closely regulated a field back then.

Also, supposing this is true, people still keep ramping up the volts through audible cries of pain and anguish on the other side. So either the know it's a sham and are participating anyway, which is in and of itself questionable ethics (knowing that the idea is to get good results and deliberately trying to throw them off) -- or they're rationalizing it with "well they asked for it", which is perhaps even more dangerous.

'Safe' or not, there's still convincing displays of pain involved, and people are still ignoring that. Doesn't matter if they know it won't kill the other person.
Click to expand...

They don't know WHAT the experiment is, but they do know it's an experiment. Furthermore, it's an experiment being run by a professor at a prestegious university that would lose their job and go to jail if they actually caused serious harm to anyone. I'm sorry, but anyone in their right mind would conclude that there is no serious danger to any participant.

As for pain, they didn't "ask for it", they signed a contract and got paid for it. It isn't questionable to continue knowing there is no danger because you're not told what the experiment really is. The person doing the shocking is told that it is a memory-related experiment and in that context the fact that you know all participants are boith safe and paid takes away any moral or ethical question from my mind.
 
Is it wrong that I think it would be fun to sit in a chair and be shocked like that?
 
You know I'm surprised that any college student would fall for this consider how much this has been publicized over the years. :rolleyes:
 
actually the experiments are done with users who do not know in advance (well maybe not this one) but the original experiment was a controlled experiment. it was very sad!

the guy in the 1960's video we watched in my education courses at uw-milwaukee was crying and begging the scientist to not make him do it. and he would anyway... push the button... he always obeyed authority. about 60-70% of the population has done this in controlled experiments
 
i'd like to see a test between...

rpg/fantasy gamers and the general population to see if they have a lower rate... since they use more "imaginative" and "in your shoes" type gaming it might stimulate their learning processes to be more compassionate. unless they play a pk.
 
Well it would’ve been funny if one of the volunteers blew a gasket, beat the shit out of the “authority figure” in an attempt to “free” the people being experimented on.

Imagine the look on dude’s face when he’s like “Push the button again…”

*karate chop to the neck*

heh…that’d teach you not to do experiments on people like that.



shit...that sounds like the premise of good movie. Dude in an experiement freaks out and kills everyone in attempt to free the subjects of the experiement only to find out they were all actors and the place is now surrounded by the cops / FBI.
 
Steve you kinda bring up a goodpoint. Did you look at the Kohlberg link?

-70% population falls into levels 3 and 4... authority first.
-the remaining 30% suppisvely are either to young (levels 1-2) or are high level ethical/moral thinkers (levels 5/6)

however i had several hypocritcal high moral communist friends in college. hated republicans the war etc.... "left wingers"... their solution even with all their morals... is always the same;
revolutionize, kill people, take over etc... which is the same shit different story. as the who once said:

"meet the new boss... same as the old boss".

so where do chaotic/anarchist etc fit into the testing? the user who doesn't have high morals they listen to, and is against authority. that is not part of the psychologist's study.
 
The constant selfishness and rudeness people display on a daily basis would be easy to transfer to someone else. After a few days of being on-call I would love to have the ability to push a button and shock someone.
 
Take the daughter to Cabela's and show her the cool African animal display. Then take her to the gun area and show her the cool guns used to create the cool African animal display. ;)

One of my daughters loves animals and wants to be a veterinarian. We thought this might dissuade her from her other love: steak. Nope - she's told us that she'll happily take care of them and when it's time, happily euthanize them so she can have her ribeye, prepared medium rare. lol kids...
 
unless it was a woman, I'd probably shock 'em to the max. I'd skip all the in between voltages and go right to the red line and hold the button down for extended shock and yell out "WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR"
 
Ockie said:
I guess you are right, if a person is willing to be shocked and signed up for it, most people will just let them have it.
Click to expand...

Is this another of those "you deserve X regardless of everything else just because you did Y" reasonings I see so often? I can hardly think that someone deserves to be subjected to 450volts of electricity for an infinite time just because you can callously argue a fallacy without regards to any empathy or emotion.

Needless to say, I most likely would have shocked the shit of the person, but not because of some bullshit argument about them signing up for it. I know I can be an asshole and I'm not going to disseminate responsibility for it like the rest of the world does on a daily basis.
 
Exavior said:
Is it wrong that I think it would be fun to sit in a chair and be shocked like that?
Click to expand...

Go take out the wires of a light switch and play with them until you get shocked the first time. Then when the pain fades and the strange sensation in your hand finally goes away, tell me how fun it is.
 
maademperor said:
unless it was a woman, I'd probably shock 'em to the max. I'd skip all the in between voltages and go right to the red line and hold the button down for extended shock and yell out "WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR"
Click to expand...

Why hold back on women? They are always screaming about being treated equally. :eek:
 
Kristofff said:
Is this another of those "you deserve X regardless of everything else just because you did Y" reasonings I see so often? I can hardly think that someone deserves to be subjected to 450volts of electricity for an infinite time just because you can callously argue a fallacy without regards to any empathy or emotion.
Click to expand...

While that might be a fair argument if it were conceivable that you could sign up for this without being told what would happen to you, it isn't in this scenario.

That's like saying you shouldn't shoot someone with a paintball gun because it hurts. They didn't go to play laser tag and accidently end up playing paintball. You can't sign a generic release and end up being shocked with hundreds of volts. If they were actually being shocked then they were very well aware of exactly what was involved, and likely would have been compensated with hundreds or thousands of dollars as tens of thousands of people are every year for more dangerous drug trials.
 
If I can legally shock someone like that, I would crank it up to the maximum voltage allowed.

:p
 
Nemesis999 said:
While that might be a fair argument if it were conceivable that you could sign up for this without being told what would happen to you, it isn't in this scenario.

That's like saying you shouldn't shoot someone with a paintball gun because it hurts. They didn't go to play laser tag and accidently end up playing paintball. You can't sign a generic release and end up being shocked with hundreds of volts. If they were actually being shocked then they were very well aware of exactly what was involved, and likely would have been compensated with hundreds or thousands of dollars as tens of thousands of people are every year for more dangerous drug trials.
Click to expand...

According to your paintball example, the equivalent is going to the paintball grounds and after you shoot someone, continuing shooting them as they are screaming in pain and saying its ok to do because, while they expected to be shot once, they put themselves in a scenario where they know they may be shot, therefore you get to shoot them as many times as you want. That is what you are saying, regardless of any semantics or hypotheticals you try to mitigate it with.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Every single one of these experiments is void for the simple reason that the participant knows that it is a lab setup, knows that the person being "shocked" is a willing particpant, and knows that any seriosu danger to the subject would put the experimenter under serious legal risk.

From that I would conclude that the experiment is setup in such a way that it is safe for the person being shocked, and that the person being shocked is, just like everyone else there, being paid for this job.

In the end, this is just another demonstration of the impotence of the field of psychology. You want to test people's morality? Give them a knife or a gun and tell them to try the same experiment. This is just another half-baked experiment to "prove" another half-baked theory.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. The person being shocked only seems to be a willing participant at first, and will scream and cry in a growingly disturbing manner as the voltages are increased. Furthermore, most people won't consider from the meta perspective you are, and this would be significantly less likely in the 1970s. Heck, you could actually make this real with a death row inmate, absolving the professor of responsibility if the guy dies, making your meta logic collapse.

And amusingly, the "real" test you described happened in WWII, with the Holocaust. There people listened to authority, to the tune of killing a pretty big number of people. The original point of this experiment was an attempt to prove that American were different from Germans, and that they wouldn't listen to authority if it compromised their own morals (the idea being that if the experiment showed this to be true, something like the Holocaust could never happen here). When the experiment showed results opposite to his hypothesis, the professor was greatly disturbed and ceased his work.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Every single one of these experiments is void for the simple reason that the participant knows that it is a lab setup, knows that the person being "shocked" is a willing particpant, and knows that any seriosu danger to the subject would put the experimenter under serious legal risk.

From that I would conclude that the experiment is setup in such a way that it is safe for the person being shocked, and that the person being shocked is, just like everyone else there, being paid for this job.

In the end, this is just another demonstration of the impotence of the field of psychology. You want to test people's morality? Give them a knife or a gun and tell them to try the same experiment. This is just another half-baked experiment to "prove" another half-baked theory.
Click to expand...

Nope!
Watch the U-tube videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWWYljYwpw
Several 'teachers' express the fear that "That guy might be dead in there!" yet eventually continue when the 'professor' insists that "The experiment MUST continue," "You have no choice," etc.
 
jroe52 said:
morality vs authority... most americans about 70% fall into authority (levels 3-4) where they would rather obey orders than ethical or their own morals. the last 30% not to be an elitist, are usually college educated or very religious (not fanatic, but moralistically religious, not saying your religious and killing people)... who have the 5th/6th stages of learning where ethics is more important than rules.

more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It's interesting to see someone make a formal scale.
The distribution in no great surprise... :(
 
Everyone needs an outlet to take their "anger" and "frustrations" out on... If this was given a chance to anyone, why not take it?
 
jroe52 said:
morality vs authority... most americans about 70% fall into authority (levels 3-4) where they would rather obey orders than ethical or their own morals. the last 30% not to be an elitist, are usually college educated or very religious (not fanatic, but moralistically religious, not saying your religious and killing people)... who have the 5th/6th stages of learning where ethics is more important than rules.
Click to expand...
I doubt very seriously if I will EVER reach Level 6, since I disagree with the premise. I'm pretty much at Stage 4. And I agree completely with this:
One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values. As a consequence of this, it may not adequately address the arguments of people who value other moral aspects of actions.
Click to expand...
 
Kristofff said:
According to your paintball example, the equivalent is going to the paintball grounds and after you shoot someone, continuing shooting them as they are screaming in pain and saying its ok to do because, while they expected to be shot once, they put themselves in a scenario where they know they may be shot, therefore you get to shoot them as many times as you want. That is what you are saying, regardless of any semantics or hypotheticals you try to mitigate it with.
Click to expand...

Well that's not quite the same. That's harming someone above and beyond what they signed up for.

Now if you had decided up front that a person didn't count as "hit" until you got them 5 times, then yes, I'd pump 4 more rounds into them once they hit the ground. Why not? That's the game you're playing.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Well that's not quite the same. That's harming someone above and beyond what they signed up for.

Now if you had decided up front that a person didn't count as "hit" until you got them 5 times, then yes, I'd pump 4 more rounds into them once they hit the ground. Why not? That's the game you're playing.
Click to expand...

This post was nothing but a way to find an excuse for your hypothetical scenario of sociopathic behavior.
 
Kristofff said:
This post was nothing but a way to find an excuse for your hypothetical scenario of sociopathic behavior.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, Internet psychologist. That's slightly below regular psychologists... If that's possible, lol.


I guess by applying the term "sociopath" to 70% of the population is how this joke of a profession keeps in business.

I personally love how "greatness" in psychology is measured by how long it takes to prove you wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top