Some education fot the children on the board.Follow

One of the remarkable things about both experiments is the degree to which people got caught up in them.

In the shock experiment, the people administering the shocks really thought they were hurting their subjects. That's the whole point: the situation was escalated gradually, the authority figure was telling them they had to do it, they thought the situation was out of control and going way too far... but they still hit the switch.

Regarding the prison experiment, as I'm sure you read, there was a lot of frivolity the first day. By the second day the "guards", unprompted, were using a lot of the same control tactics that guards in real prisons use. By the third day they were honing those tactics to include turning the "prisoners" against each other to make them more manageable. None of the "prisoners", who also knew this was not a real situation, ignored those attempts and said "Hey, guys, they're trying to turn us against each other." This was also the day the first emotional breakdown occurred among the "prisoners". Some of the "guards" thought things were going too far. Not one of them spoke out. The other "prisoners" thought that the "prisoner" who broke down was going to get them in trouble. In a non-real setting.

By the sixth day they had to end the experiment. It was causing too much distress among the "prisoners", and there had been another emotional breakdown. Others were showing signs of depression.

The "guards" were angry that the experiment was being cut short. Angry. Because they were losing their position of authority. In a non-real setting.

I've always had an issue with the "how far will people go" type experiements. While I agree that they do provide some interesting insights into human behavior, I don't think you can blanketly conclude that any individual will do things like that in a real world situation.

I allways had a problem with uneducated cell phone IT flunkies thinking they understand the results of high level psychology experiments. While I agree they provide some humerous insights into human ignorance, I don't think you can take them seriously.

Fortunately, no one else does, either.


Contrast that to a "real world" situation, where say a police deputy is asked to administer shocks to a subject being questioned. He's going to know that this isn't something everyone agreed to. He's going to know that this is "wrong". He's going to know that this isn't just an experiment. He's not going to assume that this is contolled and above board. Most importantly, prior to being put into that situation, he presumably already has a very good idea of what "normal" and "controlled" within the context of his job is and would know that this is something well out of the normal scope of his job.


Contrast it to a "real world" situation, where say a US Military prison gaurd is asked to threaten prisoners with dogs and force them to preform sex acts on one another. He's going to know this is "wrong". He's going to know that this isn't just an expiriment. H'es not going to assume this is controlled and above board. Most importantly prior to being put in that situation he presumable allready has a very good idea of what "normal" and "controlled" within the context of his job are and would know that is somthing well out of the normal scope of his job. Then he'd do it because he was told to, because so long as there's someone else to shield responsibility people will do pretty much whatever they're told.

Oops, I used an actual real world situation instead of one of Gbaji's imaginary ones.

Heh. Sorry about that, folks. Um, clearly reality isn't going to mesh with Gbaji's worldview, but that's not a surprise to anyone.