What is Digg?118 Comments
- hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -6/+80Conditioning an 11month old baby to be afraid...thats pretty sick
- ArmyOfFun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+63Illegal? I'm surprised there hasn't already been a reality TV show based on the Milgram or Standford prison experiments.
- Daveecee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+46Why wouldn't Milgram's experiment be able to be performed today?
Nobody was actually receiving electric shocks. - GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Note that the Milgram experiment was recently repeated--in a limited manner. The results weren't very different than the original, and gender was factored in. The result: men are slightly more independent in their thinking.
- plhearn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16The Milgram study was performed right after WWII. After hundreds of Nazi general's were tried for killing jews and found not guilty because they were "just taking orders." Its one of the most eye-opening studys ever performed because it shows us that we always have to question authority because humans in general will believe that they are not responsible for their actions if they are acting under the orders of an authority figure.
- KrazyA1pha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Well, considering the fact that the experiment was conducted in 1920, he's probably either dead or too old to remember.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Even worse was that he didn't reverse the conditioning. How messed up is that guy now?
- Attrition, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13It's not the physical pain of a person that would make it immoral (since there are no real shocks), but the emotional effect on the participants, that make it wrong. Above GnuTzu mentions it was in fact repeated recently (in a limited manner), however. So maybe Illegal is a strong word for that one.
- sikosmurf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Because the people doing the shocking were receiving far greater trauma than they had expected when they agreed to the experiment.
- smek2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@Vascabruta: "Sounds like what happened in real life in the 30's and 40' with the Nazi's" — Actually in Germany, the Milgram experiment is taught as part of the standard high school curriculum. There is even a very good (and scary) documentary who links the Milgram experiments result to what happened during Third Reich. An Order is the most dangerous thing, most of us will obey an order, even if its contradict reason and our own moral beliefs. That's why i personally don't like the notion of patriotism and allegiance to a flag. It's too easy to misuse the psychological bond to these kind of virtual systems and symbols and get people to do things they normally would not even dare to dream.
- Daveecee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10So tell them that they didn't hurt anybody when the study is over, maybe?
Or is just the fact that they went so far as to seemingly cause pain like that make them question their own morals? - softboiled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8the experimenters videotaped this experiment and made a short documentary on it. the participants were told at the end of the experiment that the guy behind the partition was an actor, but the experiment clearly put a lot of stress on the participants. many of them couldn't stop their hands from shaking and some had nervous tics and were laughing in a really disturbing manner because of their anxiety.
but even with all the ethical violations these studies are always being brought up in psych classes because the experimenters learned so much form them. - Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Speaking of authority experiments, there was also a study done on the London bus system. People went onto the bus and asked people to give up their seats. When they were by themselves, they were rebuffed. However, when they entered the bus with a person dressed up as a police officer, the person they asked capitulated the majority of the times. It showed a connection between a compliance when there is a perception of authority. The subjects had no reason to give up their seats other than the asker had the appearance of being backed by official authority.
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If it's science, it's unethical. If it's entertainment, gather round!
- godmode, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7That Little Albert one was pretty f'd up. I wonder how that kid must have turned out.
- badulescub, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Scaring the heck out of a baby boy to prove that "fear can be conditioned" is pathetic, stupid and abject. Interview any war veteran; you’ll get the idea about fear and how it can be conditioned. How much of a psychologist you have to be to have a little decency?
- DiggCommando, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Milgram and Zimbardo's experiments and findings should be taught as part of any standard high school curriculum. While actually performing the experiments might or might not be illegal (IANAL), getting approval from the board that is supposed to approve all academic psych studies would be difficult if not impossible.
- juicelyn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8"Psychology isn't a science."
What ***** planet are you from? - ParanoidSardine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Psychology is a science. Experimental psychologists use scientific methods to examine psychological phenomena. It is just as scientific as the "hard" sciences.
- libertao, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Because it caused unknowing participants lasting psychological trauma. To my knowledge it was not banned by government, it was banned by the independent American Psychological Association because they deemed it unethical and didn't want that reputation for psychology.
- paidhima, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The Stanford Prison Experiment is loosely taken as the basis for the 2001 movie "Das Experiment" and several incidents from the experiment are mirrored in the movie. It's not the greatest movie ever, and sometimes a bit sensationalist, but very interesting.
- digid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Big Albert?
- ParanoidSardine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Pavlov's experiments were psychology (although they were a serendipitous side effect of his digestion experiments) and even by today's standards, it would be an ethical study. This can be a hot topic as many people will suggest that any sort of animal testing is unethical. Many worse study are being conducted today on animals (just take a look at the studies that are being done on rats' brains), so I don't see how Pavlov's studies would be considered unethical.
- lovek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What's the difference between ethics and morals anyway?
- TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"predicting" what is going to happen is a hypothesis. Actually testing it and either proving or disproving it needed to be done to create a theory.
- GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The dogs still got fed on a reasonable schedule.
Today's standards for training dogs no longer recommend harsh punishment--including those that incite fear. Rewards are recommended instead, and that's what associating food (reward) with a ringing bell was all about. - smek2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually in Germany, the Milgram experiment IS taught as part of the standard high school curriculum. There is even a very good (and scary) documentary who links the Milgram experiemnt results to what happened during Third Reich. An Order is the most dangerous thing, most of us will obey an order, even if its contradict reason and our own moral beliefs. That's why i personally don't like the notion of patriotism and allegiance to a flag. It's too easy to misuse the psychological bond to these kind of virtual systems and symbols and get people to do things they normally would not even dare to dream.
- plhearn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yes, I researched the Milgram study in college and all of the participants were told afterward that the patients who were shocked were in on it.
- primal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The experiment was done in the very early days of psychology as a science. Most areas of science start out very off base, so back and study biology, chemistry and physics starts and "founding" fathers.
- neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4None of these studies would be illegal, they just wouldn't pass any ethics boards (IRB) for approval.
- BobTrips, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Psychology has basically two branches, experimental and (traditional) clinical. Clinical folks often downplay the scientific method as what they do often does not hold up when subjected to rigorous evaluation. There's is more of a religious - faith approach.
The experimental branch of psychology is quite scientific. That is, scientific methodology is used to determine how variables interact.
- jessestorm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+43? That's it? What about Pavlov's dogs (I know this was technically physiology)?
All major psychological experiments have to pass an evaluation by an ethics committee. Anything involving harming humans or larger animals wouldn't pass today. - libertao, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I agree it is unethical and should never be done, but I have to admit it is interesting that a human subject could be conditioned from loud noise + white rat to fearing white hair on a Santa Claus mask.
- GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Oh, how eerie!!! The new comment system allowed me to report the apparent spam link above as offensive. But, it's only offensive in the sense that the link appears to be misleading (as if it was relevant though it's not). However, the link doesn't seem to reach some evil advertising scheme or such (it's actually kind of cute), so I felt a bit guilty reporting it. Then, I caught myself rationalizing that the Digg authorities would act appropriately (not over-reacting) and that I shouldn't bother feeling guilty about it. And then... I realized how very Milgram experiment that was... how eerie.
- mccrusc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4In the linked Wikipedia Entry about the experiment, when asked about how reconditioning would have been done the guy basically said that they would show the kid the same stimuli while diddling him instead of scaring him... so instead of being afraid of rats, he would be aroused by them...
gross. - ILikePants, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Another lesson is of course about the ethics themselves--it's not taught in every psych 101 class just for the knowledge about status and obedience. It's that scientists should always be careful to act in an ethical manner towards respondents. The study was one of several precedents for the relatively stringent regulatory hoops researchers always have to jump through.
- blackjack75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Last name: Einstein. He became a scientist so he could get his revenge on the rats.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Excuse me? Pray tell, what horrors did Kinsley perpetrate? I did like the "***** up" joke though.
- mcherm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Can you give us a reference to this repeat of the study?
- Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Anyone read Brave New World? Very good book. It details how, in the story, they conditioned their babies in much the same way as the "Little Albert" experiment. They conditioned them to fear books and pretty things like flowers, such things being unnecessary to society.
- aantix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You guys should check out The Three Pound Universe.
http://www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/
[quote]
Along with depth electrodes, Heath's team would often surgically implant a sort of tube, called a canula, through which they could deliver precise amounts of a chemical directly into the brain. Oriental sacred texts (and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World) mention a legendary bliss drug called "soma", the food of the Himalayan gods. The real life version might be acetylcholine, a natural chemical neurotransmitter. When the Tulane researchers injected acetylcholine into a patient's septal area, "vigorous activity" showed up on the septal EEG, and the patient usually reported intense pleasure -- including multiple sexual orgasms lasting as long as thirty minutes.
[/quote] - ArmyOfFun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There is a Frontline episode about the blue eyes exercise:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html (main page)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/script.html (transcript) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3dugg up because this comment exactly reflects how degenerate our society is really becoming these days.
I can already see it.
"Prison Bitch... exclusively on FOX 9 PM PST" - valkraider, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Big brothers and Big sisters have been doing this to their little siblings since time began.
- CaptMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Predicting is useful, but it's not science. You have to actually test something and record the results. For all we know, Little Albert could have grown to love white rats and really really hated loud noises.
- BobTrips, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure that one couldn't do research along the lines of Milgram and Zimbardo these days.
There would be a bit more emphasis placed on informed consent and active monitoring, but the basic procedure could be followed.
The "Little Albert" study couldn't be done as it uses a child who could not give informed consent. - robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This article is inaccurate.
Dateline covered an experiment exactly like the obedience experiment last year. - Vascabruta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Sounds like what happened in real life in the 30's and 40' with the Nazi's
- BobTrips, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Not so. Anything which might harm either humans or animals would be more difficult to have approved these days. But not impossible by any means.
- spidoman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Nobody was shocked.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is