http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100317/twl-torture-game-show-draws-nazi-compari-3fd0ae9.html
QuoteA French television experiment where unwitting contestants were encouraged to torture an actor has drawn comparisons with the atrocities of Nazi Germany.
The Game Of Death had all the trappings of a traditional television quiz show, with a roaring crowd and a glamorous and well-known hostess.
But contestants on the show did not realise they were taking part in an experiment to find out whether television could push them to outrageous lengths.
The game involved contestants posing questions to another 'player', who was actually an actor, and punishing him with 460 volts of electricity when he answered incorrectly.
Eventually the man's cries of "Let me go!" fell silent, and he appeared to have died.
Not knowing that their screaming victim was an actor, the apparently reluctant contestants followed the orders of the presenter, as well as chants of "Punishment!" from a studio audience who also believed the game was real.
Milgram experiment at it's best (?).
This caught my eye this morning and my first thought was Cram's game show story. Considering I had only read it yesterday, to then see an article about something very similar the next day...
If you look at the video, it turns out that the participants were led to believe it was a pilot for a new TV show. Which is a different show from the "Zone Extreme" show that the experiment was shot for.
I find this kind of hard to believe, weren't Milgram's experiments widely denounced?
I wonder about the details behind this story, the article itself reads kind of sensational (with the word NAZI blinking in the title and all)
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
If you look at the video, it turns out that the participants were led to believe it was a pilot for a new TV show. Which is a different show from the "Zone Extreme" show that the experiment was shot for.
I find this kind of hard to believe, weren't Milgram's experiments widely denounced?
not to my knowledge. The Milgram experiments have been replicated many times, with many different variables, and the results always seem to come out the same.
Denounced as unethical, yes.
Most later 'obedience' testing made changes to the experiment so that it would meet ethics requirements.
Game shows though, probably don't have ethics requirements... I mean, have you seen television gameshows?! :vom:
no, what's a .. television?
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 01:43:33 PM
Denounced as unethical, yes.
not to jack the topic or anything, but I've always found this phenomenon interesting
because ethics boards were not invented until
after Milgram's work. It was the golden age of psychology, when you could really fuck with people and not face any consequences because
It's Science.
So Milgram was working within the established rules, and based on his actions, they changed the rules. Now
after the fact, it appears like he was doing this renegade research. But at the time, it was legit and acceptable.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 17, 2010, 02:21:37 PM
because ethics boards were not invented until after Milgram's work. It was the golden age of psychology, when you could really fuck with people and not face any consequences because It's Science.
And we thought we could improve on that. :argh!:
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 17, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
IIRC it was the psychological trauma being done to the actual subjects... some of them were really freaked out and disturbed when delivering horrible levels of shock to 'victims'... I think some of the follow ups discussed nightmares etc. almost as thought the subjects were tortured... by making them torture.
In fact, one of the disputes over the experiment was the conclusion... Why did people do this? He argued it was blind obedience. Others have argued that it was trust... they trusted the "Doctor" when he said that it wouldn't cause damage etc. or that they felt coerced/forced into the behavior.
I think generally, the experiment is repeatable (and has been tested multiple times), but the conclusions are still murky.
Yeah, it was the guilt of those who were asked to do the "torture" that was the issue.
Also, anyone really interested in this should subject read Zimbardo's The Lucifer Principle. Lots has been talked about Zimbardo's prison experiment, but I believe this is the only book where he himself gives a full account of what happened, including his own rationalizations for continuing the experiments (rationalizations that, when challenged, revealed the full extent of what was actually going on, which shocked and deeply disturbed him).
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 17, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
IIRC it was the psychological trauma being done to the actual subjects... some of them were really freaked out and disturbed when delivering horrible levels of shock to 'victims'... I think some of the follow ups discussed nightmares etc. almost as thought the subjects were tortured... by making them torture.
In fact, one of the disputes over the experiment was the conclusion... Why did people do this? He argued it was blind obedience. Others have argued that it was trust... they trusted the "Doctor" when he said that it wouldn't cause damage etc. or that they felt coerced/forced into the behavior.
I think generally, the experiment is repeatable (and has been tested multiple times), but the conclusions are still murky.
I'd say they're fairly clear. Uncomfortably revealing, but clear.
The exact mechanisms in play in those situations bears further analysis, but then you run into the "ethics" problem.
Quote from: Richter on March 17, 2010, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 17, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
IIRC it was the psychological trauma being done to the actual subjects... some of them were really freaked out and disturbed when delivering horrible levels of shock to 'victims'... I think some of the follow ups discussed nightmares etc. almost as thought the subjects were tortured... by making them torture.
In fact, one of the disputes over the experiment was the conclusion... Why did people do this? He argued it was blind obedience. Others have argued that it was trust... they trusted the "Doctor" when he said that it wouldn't cause damage etc. or that they felt coerced/forced into the behavior.
I think generally, the experiment is repeatable (and has been tested multiple times), but the conclusions are still murky.
I'd say they're fairly clear. Uncomfortably revealing, but clear.
The exact mechanisms in play in those situations bears further analysis, but then you run into the "ethics" problem.
I think the argument goes:
Person A - Obviously people will follow direction without thinking.
Person B - Err, no... those people simply trusted the Expert when he said that the shock wouldn't hurt the person.
Person C - No, deep down they knew at some level that the 'victim' was an actor.
etc.
One of the recreations used an animal rather than a human to get around theory C, there was some evidence to support theories A and B though.
Particularly, in one test there was a person who was knowledgeable on the issue of electric shock and basically told the Doctor that he was wrong and did not finish the test.
IF A was truly correct, this guy should have, in theory, completed the test because Authority told him to... He stoppped, (so goes the counterclaim) because he KNEW that the 'Expert' was wrong. So acting with knowledge, he didn't simply trust the expert.
So that's two very different claims. After all, in the experiment the subject was told that there would be no harm to the victim, if they believed that, then it goes to humans being creatures that want to trust Authority, but not necessarily willing to blindly follow orders.
The Nazis on the other hand, were likely aware that shooting someone in the head or gassing them would, in fact, "harm" them. So there's a bit of a hole there.... at least in some of the criticisms of the test.
Some studies suggest it was a combination of dehumanization via propaganda and the power of shared responsibility which allowed the Nazis to more easily commit atrocities (if a group are ordered to shoot at someone, its impossible to know which bullet was the one which does the killing, and the shared experience makes it easier for their commanding officer to get them to do it
again), but its a pretty complex area of study.
Also, lulz via Salon:
QuoteI just watched an amazing discussion of this French experiment on Fox News. The Fox anchors -- Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum -- were shocked and outraged that these French people could be induced by the power of television to embrace torture.
Speaking as employees of the corporation that produced the highly influential, torture-glorifying 24, and on the channel that has churned out years worth of pro-torture "news" advocacy, the anchors were particularly astonished that television could play such a powerful role in influencing people's views and getting them to acquiesce to such heinous acts. Ultimately, they speculated that perhaps it was something unique about the character and psychology of the French that made them so susceptible to external influences and so willing to submit to amoral authority, just like many of them submitted to and even supported the Nazis, they explained. I kept waiting for them to make the connection to America's torture policies and Fox's support for it -- if only to explain to their own game show participants at home Fox News viewers why that was totally different -- but it really seemed the connection just never occurred to them. They just prattled away -- shocked, horrified and blissfully un-self-aware -- about the evils of torture and mindless submission to authority and the role television plays in all of that.
Meanwhile, the bill recently introduced by Joe Lieberman and John McCain -- the so-called "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act" -- now has 9 co-sponsors, including the newly elected Scott Brown. It's probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect -- including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," which everyone expects to last decades, at least. It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges.
This bill has produced barely a ripple of controversy, its two main sponsors will continue to be treated as Serious Centrists and feted on Sunday shows, and it's hard to imagine any real resistance to its passage. Isn't it shocking how easily led and authoritarian the French are?
http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/1eWxv73eD0w/index.html
Fuck.
Irony overdose. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: Richter on March 17, 2010, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 17, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
IIRC it was the psychological trauma being done to the actual subjects... some of them were really freaked out and disturbed when delivering horrible levels of shock to 'victims'... I think some of the follow ups discussed nightmares etc. almost as thought the subjects were tortured... by making them torture.
In fact, one of the disputes over the experiment was the conclusion... Why did people do this? He argued it was blind obedience. Others have argued that it was trust... they trusted the "Doctor" when he said that it wouldn't cause damage etc. or that they felt coerced/forced into the behavior.
I think generally, the experiment is repeatable (and has been tested multiple times), but the conclusions are still murky.
I'd say they're fairly clear. Uncomfortably revealing, but clear.
The exact mechanisms in play in those situations bears further analysis, but then you run into the "ethics" problem.
I think the argument goes:
Person A - Obviously people will follow direction without thinking.
Person B - Err, no... those people simply trusted the Expert when he said that the shock wouldn't hurt the person.
Person C - No, deep down they knew at some level that the 'victim' was an actor.
etc.
One of the recreations used an animal rather than a human to get around theory C, there was some evidence to support theories A and B though.
Particularly, in one test there was a person who was knowledgeable on the issue of electric shock and basically told the Doctor that he was wrong and did not finish the test.
IF A was truly correct, this guy should have, in theory, completed the test because Authority told him to... He stoppped, (so goes the counterclaim) because he KNEW that the 'Expert' was wrong. So acting with knowledge, he didn't simply trust the expert.
So that's two very different claims. After all, in the experiment the subject was told that there would be no harm to the victim, if they believed that, then it goes to humans being creatures that want to trust Authority, but not necessarily willing to blindly follow orders.
The Nazis on the other hand, were likely aware that shooting someone in the head or gassing them would, in fact, "harm" them. So there's a bit of a hole there.... at least in some of the criticisms of the test.
My own udnerstanding of experiemntal design would invalidate the results from situation C you mentioned. Since it's a very emotionally charged issue, you can't rely on self - report once the exact nature of the test has been revealled. Some people will lie so hard they fool themselves with excuses such as "I KNEW it was a fake / actor / test". Same pitfalls as asking people about their sexuality, deviant behavior, etc. Some folks will, just not self report because of stigma, fear, or shame.
Before the unveiling, a post - survey asking them (among other questions) about the professionalism, trustworthyness, or otherwise validity of the Doctor as an "Authority" might shed more light there.
Also, run testing with a variety of "Authority" vs. "Non - authorities", "Harmful (fatal)" vs. "Non - Harmful (non-fatal)"?
This guy Burger replicated Milgram's work in the present day, and tried a few interesting variations.
In one variation, he informed the participants up front that they wouldn't actually be hurting anybody, and that they could stop at any time. Even then, the compliance rates matched Milgram's 1961 run.
In another variation, the participants witnessed somebody else refusing to obey the doctor and walking out of the experiment. Burger hoped that by setting defiance as part of a norm, the participants might have a higher will to defy authority themselves. Except they didn't. They also complied at the same rate that milgram reported in '61.
Here's a really fucked up variation, but it does disprove C:
QuoteCharles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy who was given real electric shocks. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six that had refused to comply were all male (54% of males were obedient[26]); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept
Quote from: Richter on March 17, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: Richter on March 17, 2010, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on March 17, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what about Milgram's experiment was considered unethical. Nobody was actually being shocked. Was it the trauma to the people doing the shocking?
It seems like having the studio audience might bring in a different factor. Milgram's experiment only had a guy in a position of authority. The studio audience thing reminds me of that line experiment.
IIRC it was the psychological trauma being done to the actual subjects... some of them were really freaked out and disturbed when delivering horrible levels of shock to 'victims'... I think some of the follow ups discussed nightmares etc. almost as thought the subjects were tortured... by making them torture.
In fact, one of the disputes over the experiment was the conclusion... Why did people do this? He argued it was blind obedience. Others have argued that it was trust... they trusted the "Doctor" when he said that it wouldn't cause damage etc. or that they felt coerced/forced into the behavior.
I think generally, the experiment is repeatable (and has been tested multiple times), but the conclusions are still murky.
I'd say they're fairly clear. Uncomfortably revealing, but clear.
The exact mechanisms in play in those situations bears further analysis, but then you run into the "ethics" problem.
I think the argument goes:
Person A - Obviously people will follow direction without thinking.
Person B - Err, no... those people simply trusted the Expert when he said that the shock wouldn't hurt the person.
Person C - No, deep down they knew at some level that the 'victim' was an actor.
etc.
One of the recreations used an animal rather than a human to get around theory C, there was some evidence to support theories A and B though.
Particularly, in one test there was a person who was knowledgeable on the issue of electric shock and basically told the Doctor that he was wrong and did not finish the test.
IF A was truly correct, this guy should have, in theory, completed the test because Authority told him to... He stoppped, (so goes the counterclaim) because he KNEW that the 'Expert' was wrong. So acting with knowledge, he didn't simply trust the expert.
So that's two very different claims. After all, in the experiment the subject was told that there would be no harm to the victim, if they believed that, then it goes to humans being creatures that want to trust Authority, but not necessarily willing to blindly follow orders.
The Nazis on the other hand, were likely aware that shooting someone in the head or gassing them would, in fact, "harm" them. So there's a bit of a hole there.... at least in some of the criticisms of the test.
My own udnerstanding of experiemntal design would invalidate the results from situation C you mentioned. Since it's a very emotionally charged issue, you can't rely on self - report once the exact nature of the test has been revealled. Some people will lie so hard they fool themselves with excuses such as "I KNEW it was a fake / actor / test". Same pitfalls as asking people about their sexuality, deviant behavior, etc. Some folks will, just not self report because of stigma, fear, or shame.
Before the unveiling, a post - survey asking them (among other questions) about the professionalism, trustworthyness, or otherwise validity of the Doctor as an "Authority" might shed more light there.
Also, run testing with a variety of "Authority" vs. "Non - authorities", "Harmful (fatal)" vs. "Non - Harmful (non-fatal)"?
It wasn't the test subjects that made the claim that they 'knew', it was later critics who claimed that it was likely that on some level they KNEW... I think the argument was something like "Obviously, no one is gonna get hurt in an experiment... its not anything like the real world".
I follow now! Bit more beleivable if they self - report before questioned or revealed to.
I can see a problem with the procedure being TOO well known though. If they think "OH!, it's the XYZ style experiment.", results are invalid, sicne they knew what they were being tested on. (I got a job offer from a program for teen with autism by calling them on the obvious indistinct or projective questions in their employee questionaire.)
Acting failure would be a bit harder to detect.
Quote from: Cain on March 17, 2010, 03:35:02 PM
Yeah, it was the guilt of those who were asked to do the "torture" that was the issue.
Also, anyone really interested in this should subject read Zimbardo's The Lucifer Principle. Lots has been talked about Zimbardo's prison experiment, but I believe this is the only book where he himself gives a full account of what happened, including his own rationalizations for continuing the experiments (rationalizations that, when challenged, revealed the full extent of what was actually going on, which shocked and deeply disturbed him).
Beat me to it. They ended it early iirc, because the "authorities", the guards, were getting way out of hand, some of the prisoners were on the verge of suicidal, as well as all the guilt stuff. Very revealing experiment on the inherent nastiness of some human social structures.
Quote from: Regret on Today at 03:12:46 AM
I'd watch it.
I don't know if you can get the video on this but here's the Sky report
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/French-TV-Experiment-Which-Encouraged-Players-To-Torture-Another-Contestant-Condemned-In-France/Article/201003315575334?lpos=Strange_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15575334_French_TV_Experiment_Which_Encouraged_Players_To_Torture_Another_Contestant_Condemned_In_France
I was going to scaryurl the link actually but I think that is quite scary enough . . .
When I studied Milgram in college we always assumed that no reputable college ethics committee would ever let the Milgram programme be replicated and a lot of the power of Milgram, beyond the whole banality of evil thing, lies in this "uniqueness". So I'm quite intrigued that the 15 "psychologists" behind this "experiment" are not claiming any institutional affiliation. Maybe TV is the new educational institution which will take this kind of "research" forward. Onward to "The Running Man" we jolly well go . . .
PS I found this link to a recent Meta-analysis of DISobedience in the original Milgram test sets yesterday -
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/news2/Packer_Perspectives.pdf
Cross-posted from
"New REALITY TV " thread
Quote from: Cramulus on March 17, 2010, 07:12:46 PM
Here's a really fucked up variation, but it does disprove C:
QuoteCharles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy who was given real electric shocks. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six that had refused to comply were all male (54% of males were obedient[26]); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept
Wow, that's really not good. :(
Also: http://www.japanfortheuninvited.com/articles/nasubi.html
QuoteFor more than a year, a young comedian called Nasubi (meaning "eggplant") was the unwitting star of one of Japan's most infamous TV shows. For 24 hours a day, Nasubi was naked and alone in a small room. His only relief from hunger, discomfort and boredom came from prizes he won in the competitions he spent all day entering. He wouldn't be released until he had won one million yen (about $10,000 or £5,000) in prizes.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 17, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
Particularly, in one test there was a person who was knowledgeable on the issue of electric shock and basically told the Doctor that he was wrong and did not finish the test.
IF A was truly correct, this guy should have, in theory, completed the test because Authority told him to... He stoppped, (so goes the counterclaim) because he KNEW that the 'Expert' was wrong. So acting with knowledge, he didn't simply trust the expert.
Not everybody is fucked up enough to actually do it. In the original experiment 35% refused to continue. So its interesting, but not remarkable. Also, I looked this up, it wasn't because he thought it was dangerous, it was because he knew just how much they hurt, as he'd had several (accidentally) himself, something the actor (or the non acting puppy) were doing their best to convey. It does suggest that previous experience with the type of pain is a confounding factor. You see this with non authority situations as well (IE, pro waterboarding pundits changing their mind after being waterboarded).
Also, the Milgram experiment was noted when we covered psych ethics as being described as unethical, but in reality could still get past an ethics review board today.