Here is a link to the text of the article "Obedience" by Ian Parker. As before, email me if you have any trouble opening it, and I'll paste the text into an email for you.
This article brings up a wide range of issues dealing with Milgram's experiment--the problems and controversy surrounding it, as well as the value and possible applications of it to real life.
What did you think about the criticism of it from the various Milgram experts and social psychology professionals? Do you think it's possible that many of the subjects saw through the ruse and simply continued to cooperate because they were playing their part in an elaborate scientific role-play? Do you think there is any real value to Milgram's experiment, when we can see everything we need to know about obedience and human cruelty just by observing real life?
Sorry--I posted the wrong article. Hope this helps for Wednesday!!
ReplyDeleteEmily W.
Well, as with most philosophical/psychological things that I learn, I pretty much always tie them in with the movie: "The Dark Knight." The whole "situation-based behavioral change in normal people" concept discussed by Ross in the later paragraphs of this article certainly seemed to be one of the moral centerpieces of "The Dark Knight" highlighted by the character "Two-Face." Does anyone else think the same? Does anyone else often relate "The Dark Knight" to stuff like this?
ReplyDeleteI can see where you are coming from with the "two-face" example. Personally I believe that depending on many factors like the persons mood or what they ate could affect how far they could have gone in the experiment so many variables could change peoples results. It relates to the two-face example because people have different attitudes or personalities depending on the type of day they've had which could alter their results.
ReplyDeleteMarcus C.
Do you honestly think that if that had a pb&j verses a grilled cheese would completely alter the experiment though. I agree that there are a lot of variables that could change a few things, but overall I don't think it would change the overall results that Milgram found and Burger replicated. What do you think though?
DeleteI totally agree with Devin and Marcus, and with the article; people respond differently based on situational variances. However, I do not agree with many of the scholars which say Milgram's experiment was a hoax. I believe his findings were completely true; human beings cave under pressure of an authoritative figure, especially when they feel trapped.
ReplyDeleteMarty P.
Also, one of the responses from one of Milgram's test subjects was that he was "unconvinced" of the reality of Milgram's experiment because he was denied the opportunity to take the part of the "learner." Is there a feasible way in which this man could have been the "learner" without Milgram compromising his study? If so, how?
ReplyDeleteMarty P
I think his experiment would have been compromised if the learner and teacher were allowed to switch spots. They eventually would have discovered that the learner was not actually getting real shocks.
DeleteWouldn't that have ruined the experiment? If they did switch places then the second person would have no response because they know it didn't hurt. So would they have gotten different results if they did it that way?
DeleteJackie M.
Parker asked if this experiment was necessary because we should know how people would react due to "real historical examples". I feel that it was a good experiment if the flaws could have been fixed to assure that ALL of the "teachers" believed that it was real. People always see things in the news that may disturb them, but most may not grasp how real things are until it happens to them and they have to react to it. "Talk is Cheap" & "Action Speaks Louder Than Words".
ReplyDeleteBrad Carlin
I agree with Brad about how he says talk is cheap. Most of the time actions usually always speak louder than words. With that said I also agree with Marty. I can see how some of the test subjects couldn't believe that the Milgram study was real. A way that they could have the test subject be the learner was to let them but give them an extremely low shock.
ReplyDeleteMarcus C.
There's a definite possiblity that people were just playing along. It sounded like the experiment wasn't completely flawless and people were able to determine that the experiment was bogus.
ReplyDelete