rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (03/23/85)
In article <210@zaphod.UUCP> bobd@zaphod.UUCP (Bob Dalgleish) writes: >Millikan is most famous for his experiment in torture: he showed that 9 >people out of 10 (or some such) would apply dangerous levels of voltage >to a subject (shill) when the experimenter and/or other shills applied >social pressure. This is the one quoted in intro psych classes. The psychologist was Stanley Milgram. His experiments were not on "torture" -- they were on obedience to authority. There was no evidence that the subjects were experiencing any pleasure from shocking the person (who was out of sight, and was in fact a tape recorder). Nor was the person pushing the button doing it to get anything from the shockee. They were told that the other person had agreed to be in a learning experiment where they would be shocked for incorrect answers. "Torture" seems to indicate something else. The people ADMINISTERING the shock showed great signs of stress and unhappiness, but as long as the experimenter kept saying things like "you have agreed to participate, and you must continue" they tended to go along -- not realizing that they had the right to quit at any time. These experiments are frightening in what they tell us about "normal" people. They have been repeated in a variety of settings, and are easy to replicate. Recommended readings: "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram, and lest we forget "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis "The Terrible Secret" by Walter Laqueur. [ My, aren't we getting serious.... ] -- "I'm the only President you've got" -- Lyndon Johnson Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/26/85)
In my undergraduate days at UCLA, I used to volunteer occasionally as a subject in some of the various experiments that the psychology department would be performing (I needed the money, and they paid fairly well [comparatively] for an hour's work). I once found myself in a version of the exact experiment being discussed. In this case, I was supposed to go through the "shock" routine before and after seeing a rather poor "stag film" to see how it affected my aggressiveness at the shock board. Unfortunately for the experimenter, I immediately recognized the experiment and decided to have some fun. I kept the shock levels very low during the initial run, then BLASTED the thing (level 10, or whatever it was) after the film. The experimenter was really impressed. At the end, I admitted to him that I knew how the whole experiment worked and had been playing with them. I didn't want them to screw up their statistical database by treating my results as "real." They were rather upset and amused at the same time. This sort of situation is always a risk if the experimental subject figures out what's really going on in these experiments. But in many cases, they probably never admit that they haven't been making "real" responses. --Lauren--
urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (03/27/85)
Seems to me there was a TV movie based on this experiment.
It made the additional point that the (fictitious) scientist
who was replicating the experiment was in much the same position
as the subjects of the experiment. That is, he was "forced"
(by the requirements of his profession) to subject these
individuals to the highly unpleasant experience of participation
in the experiment. Nice touch.
Mike
--
Mike Urban
{ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban
"You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"