Interesting comments about a similarly famous study with a similar gist, the Milgram experiment:

"Many other studies, such as Soloman Asch’s famous experiment[1] demonstrating that people will ignore the evidence of their own eyes in conforming to group judgments about line lengths, illustrate the profound effect our environments can have on us. The far more methodologically sound — but still controversial[2] — Milgram experiment demonstrates how prone we are to obedience in certain settings. "

[1] https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html [2] https://psmag.com/social-justice/electric-schlock-65377

I am a bit suspicious of the conclusions drawn from the Asch experiment. The subjects are put in a situation in which they are led to believe that one of two things is true: 1) I am unable to tell which line is longer 2) Every other person in this room is unable to tell which line is longer They are reported to have acted upset, which leads one to think they were not wanting it to be (1), but the only other option (they knew of) was (2), which is, in fact, even less plausible.

So, really, in that (very artificial) situation, concluding that they have lost the ability to tell which line is longer, while unlikely, was the least unlikely option. So, they chose to believe (1) over (2).

Their only mistake was in not thinking of the possibility that every other person, including the researcher, was trying to deceive them. That's not at all the conclusion that Asch (and others since) have drawn from it. I believe that study could replicate, but I don't think it means what they say it means.

The issue I have with the Asch experiment is that it also conflates conforming and belonging. External group pressure vs a want to be included.

It seems to me to be testing the second while being reported as the first.

Vsauce's Mind Field series replicates this experiment, in the traditional sensational way he does everything. It's still pretty interesting to actually watch the people and their facial reactions. Still, draw your own conclusions.

I've watched the whole video of the Milgram experiment. People claim those who were the teachers knew it was fake, but interviews years later have people claiming they really thought they killed the person in the other room.

Not to mention his experiment was replicated by several universities around the world[1], although due to modern ethical standards, it would be impossible to reproduce ethically at most universities today[2].

I don't think Milgram falls into the same category, especially with all the work they put in at Harvard in the controls (the learner was a tape recording; so everyone heard the exact same thing. It was the same professor in the room with him; always replicating the same dialog).

This is in direct contrast with Vsauce's trolley problem experiment, which had way too small a sample size, and who forced a response for one person by changing the conditions of the experiment (there was no one outside when he tried to get help).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...

[2]: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-mi...

> "People claim those who were the teachers knew it was fake, but interviews years later have people claiming they really thought they killed the person in the other room."

Some of the teachers undoubtedly thought it was fake, others did not. And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were). The "dehoaxing" most received immediately following the experiment was itself another hoax which in some cases was meant to persuade the teacher they had in fact been shocking somebody (but that the shocks were only very slight harmless shocks.) The dehoaxing was meant to introduce the teachers to the learner, to demonstrate that he was alive. Some did not even receive this dehoaxing, presumably because procedure was violated, which explains why a handful of them might believe they'd killed somebody.

> And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were)

No. No. No. That is entirely wrong. Watch the original video. Every one of the teachers is introduced to the learner after the experiment and they were told no actual harm came to them. At least in the original Milgram iteration, all of the teachers knew by the end.

And self-reporting about participation in a famous experiment, folks are known to exaggerate.

There are some folks who are pretty dead set on maligning Milgram alongside Zimbardo. Namely, Gina Perry wrote a book criticizing Milgram and his experiment's validity [1]. I haven't read it, but looking at some of the reviews, it seems most likely that it's a mixture of truth and the typical schlocky scientific journalism I've come to know and revile. [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Shock-Machine-psychology-exper...

[2] Funny anecdote- when I was still in science (brain imaging) a reporter from a major news outlet interviewed another member of my lab about what brain activity would look like in a dead person's brain. The question was entirely serious.

[2] Brain activity appears to continue after people are dead, according to new study. (9 march 2017)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/what-happens-die-...

The news article you cite is a bit over dramatic- the distinction between clinical and brain death has been around for a while. None of what is in there is really news, although it might be somewhat remarkable if they found activity 10 minutes out; then again, this is research from the medical community, which as others have pointed out is often quite methodologically flawed.

You too are being slightly too generous towards scientific journalism- a typical non-scientific audience wouldn't make the distinction between clinical and brain death, and the reporter likely wasn't either.

Might [2] have been related to this?

https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

You might be giving the reporter too much credit. It's very unlikely that she was familiar with that study before asking her question.

Minor point:

>...with all the work they put in at Harvard

I think the experiments were done at Yale.

Milgram wrote a book about the experiments and I agree, (at least as described in his book), they worked hard to test the hypothesis. (Setting up experiments outside the university, using both male and female experimenters, Having the experimenter play the student, etc.)

https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Experimental-Pere...

If we're interested in improving the world -- improving things like human dignity, welfare; and minimizing human suffering -- I think this is one of the most important concepts to understand about human nature.

It's the same concept I try to illustrate by noting the NASA Challenger disaster was not a case of an unknown, but one where groupthink murdered 7 astronauts.[1] The desire people have to conform to authority is extreme.

I can even think of a remarkable personal example from growing up, when a boy in class was given the punishment of having to sit next to an often-bullied girl. The teacher was not above the bullying, he had conformed to it. That must have had a detrimental effect on a young girl's self esteem.

So if we're still murdering, toeturing, and dehumanizing people in order to conform to concepts of authority and hatred, how much have we grown from our past?

Isn't this the same concept that we're supposed to disagree with when it came to the Nazis, North Korea, etc.? That we are free and just society, and we fight to defeat those who aren't?

1-https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/weekinreview/the-natio...

I think characterizing the Challenger launch decision as murder is unfair. At worst it was manslaughter.

I believe groupthink killed those astronauts. However, I'm not really focusing this argumemt around the idea of bringing leaders at NASA up on murder charges.

It's interesting to contrast this with yanny / laurel / dress color

That's an interesting perspective. I myself "want" the drama to be true not because I want to be unaccountable for my actions, but rather:

1) I want validity that the pressures I feel are normal. Not so that I can give in to them, though I'm sure "excusing" past mistakes would feel good, but so that I feel the difficulty of doing the "right" thing is legit.

2) mostly, however, I want to excuse OTHER people. I want assurances that, however buggy, people aren't individually evil, that something pressures them in such a way that when my judgement of people (as a group) is inaccurate there is a "rational" reason for it.

Otherwise I can't explain things like neonazis, gamergaters, certain "news" and their zealots, etc. Without this one supposed flaw of human nature, the existence of these groups become far more terrifying.

I largely agree with your perspective - with a couple of differences. Most importantly, while I see what you're getting at with #2, I don't think disproving the SPE makes it so you can't explain things like neonazis, etc.

The line that resonated with me was:

> According to Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher, psychologists who co-directed an attempted replication of the Stanford prison experiment in Great Britain in 2001, a critical factor in making people commit atrocities is a leader assuring them that they are acting in the service of a higher moral cause with which they identify — for instance, scientific progress or prison reform. We have been taught that guards abused prisoners in the Stanford prison experiment because of the power of their roles, but Haslam and Reicher argue that their behavior arose instead from their identification with the experimenters, which Jaffe and Zimbardo encouraged at every turn.

So I don't think your second statement is disallowed by this article's findings. Most people randomly chosen off the street aren't necessarily evil - but some can be. And those who are can have a profound influence on those who aren't. Especially when there's a concept of a "greater good" on the line. (Insert Godwin's Law subject reference here).

For me, that's the big lesson - be suspicious of the "greater good."

[edited for formatting]

I don't think people are drawn to it because it's giving an excuse for bad behavior. The Stanford experiment resonates with a lot of people because it mirrors civilization as a whole (hierarchical class based system)

The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

Ten years earlier a book was published which was a work of sociology based on participant observation, an approach many here would regard as unscientific. It was very much an explanation of behaviour in the real world.

Erving Goffman's Asylums [0], in its four essays, identifies the creation of social roles and related rituals as the raw material of the social institution. In this case the institution was a real mental hospital.

My take on the kind of psychological experiment under discussion is that by studying an artificial social situation they have already failed. The petri dish of a very small mock prison on a campus just doesn't tell us anything very useful. Yet we can see eye catching results being amplified and then becoming part myth and part morality tale. However, the belief that human agency is contingent and flawed, that we often don't know how we know the things we know[1], or whey we do the things we do remains.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylums_(book) [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Knowledge-Growth-Wittgenstein-R...

> we, as individuals, cannot really be held accountable for the sometimes reprehensible things we do.

opposite. It shows that we have to be held accountable - without credible threat of such accountability the reprehensible things will be done.

>it is also profoundly liberating. It means we’re off the hook. Our actions are determined by circumstance.

not even close. It means that person A putting person B in the position of power without proper checks on that power and without effective system of accountability for the power abuse is guilty too of whatever power abuses person B would commit.

Setting aside that part of the article's point is that it's unclear what (if anything) the experiment shows at all, that's not really a rebuttal. You're agreeing that systems create behavior, and adding on that therefore those in the system need to be restrained with the threat of accountability.

But you see how even if you believe the experiment argues that systems need to be held accountable, that still lets individuals off the hook? "It's not my fault, I was only following orders. Someone should have been holding me accountable." In fact, the article has a direct account of Zimbardo's experiment being used to defend a criminal. It turns out later that the defense was largely a lie.

>You're agreeing that systems create behavior

i don't think systems create behavior. They do though unleash and amplify. They also can force. I don't think any doctor, with their deeply ingrained "do no harm", would administer a shock in the Milgram for example.

> "It's not my fault, I was only following orders.

I think following an order backed by a credible punishing force is separate subject.

>Someone should have been holding me accountable."

That comes as an attempt at defense when you're already being held accountable, and which is basically equivalent to an admission that you've made a error calculating your chances of being held accountable, and it is puzzling to see why/how some reasonable people would still fall for it and accept such admission as a defense whether in legal or in moral/ethical space.

Doctors administer lethal injections in many states that institute the death penalty. Nobody forces them to accept such a role.

Someone I know used to specialize in physically rehabilitating torture victims...for the sake of getting them put back together just enough so they could withstand further torture.

Systems create behavior. Its a large part of how cycles of abuse persist.

You're not disagreeing with either the commenter you're replying to or the article itself.

>Just as the Gospel promised to absolve us of our sins if we would only believe

Ironic example... and wrong.

BTW is not for "believe", but for repent, change the old ways and continusly live good for the rest of life. And have faith... too.

You're probably right, but please let's not get into an off-topic religious debate. Those turn into flamewars.

Is not about that, but how persistent some idea can be, because honestly, how fact-check everything?

I believe that you didn't mean it to be that, but experience has shown that it turns into that with high probability if the discussion is allowed to proceed.