News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fast by ireadmevs on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @05:40PM (#36607548)
> It's only natural human behaviour to not put effort in if there's no consequences or risk in doing so. This is Public/private partnerships 101.

That’s nonsense. That’s like saying that it’s only natural human behavior to abuse and be abused. If I put myself in the shoes of an underpaid sewage worker, that has a family to maintain, that sees the owner and investors of said private companies getting obscenely rich just by closings contracts under their AC… yeah, I’d slack the s* out of it too.

Re:Fast by imchillyb on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @07:02PM (#36608421)
> ...That’s like saying that it’s only natural human behavior to abuse and be abused...

I think that's exactly what experiments have shown the world. There are many follow-up experiments that prove exactly that.

The Stanford Prison Experiment has become one of psychology's most dramatic illustrations of how good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions - traceable to situational forces.

Those traceable situational forces can be minor and subtle things, and yet.

Re:Fast by zimpenfish on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @07:10PM (#36608513)
Re:Fast by CamperBob2 on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @07:46PM (#36608879)
No. The SPE was unethical and its methodology was garbage, but the observations were valid enough. When someone refuses to commit an atrocity for you, all you have to do is ask the next person in line. You won't have to go too far down the line before you find someone who is not only willing to follow an illegal order from an authority figure, but happy to. See also Milgram.

The conclusion was self-evident before they ran the experiment, so another criticism that could be leveled at the experiment was that it was redundant.

Re:Fast by scubbo on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @09:03PM (#36609556)
> The conclusion was self-evident before they ran the experiment, so another criticism that could be leveled at the experiment was that it was redundant.

"It's just common sense" is not a solid scientific proof. Testing something that we _think_ we know (but have no proven) is not a bad thing.

Re:Fast by photonerd on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @10:46PM (#36610427)
Ish. It’s usually more useful to test hypotheses about why something is. If that something isn’t then you can’t get an answer & will often demonstrate the counter-factual.

Simple “we confirmed water is wet” tests are not very good science. Whereas “what is wetness & why does it happen” is.

Re:Fast by CamperBob2 on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @09:58PM (#36610017)
The word "debunk" is doing some heavy lifting in those articles. "....Overall 58 per cent of people actually disobeyed the pushy experimenter [which means that 42 percent didn't.] How can we understand this variability, Reicher asked, if the agentic state is true?" What else would explain it -- and more important, what difference does it make?

Milgram found that 42% of people will administer electric shocks to someone who appears to be screaming in pain, as long as the order is given by an apparent authority figure. What is there to debunk, exactly?

Keep in mind what motivated these experiments: a desire to understand more about how the Nazis were able to accomplish what they did. It's not as if the findings of Milgram and Zimbardo were novel or controversial; they were merely trying to reproduce and understand something that the entire world had just observed.

Re:Fast by mike_hearn on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:51AM (#36613568)
I believe the debunking is that there's good evidence many of the participants realized they were in an experiment and the other person was an actor, but Milgram hid this in order to get a famous paper.
Re:Fast by mymac on Thursday July 06, 2023 @06:16AM (#36613737)
Does it matter? If someone may or may not be an actor by your judgment is going to cause you to possibly commit an atrocity then you should play it safe and refuse. Just in case...
Re:Fast by mike_hearn on Thursday July 06, 2023 @08:51AM (#36614990)
It matters for the validity of the experiment, yes. Bear in mind, the chances of the experiment being real were astronomically small, as university professors are not normally in the business of torturing members of the public. As there were (iirc) small rewards given for taking part, the rational thing to do is follow the instructions. This seems like an inherent problem for attempting to study order-following in a lab.
Re:Fast by CamperBob2 on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:14PM (#36621297)
And of course if you were a participant in the original experiment, you'd tell people, "Of course, I knew it was just an experiment, and it wasn't really happening."

You'd start by telling yourself that, so it would be easy enough to convince people looking to "debunk" the experiment later.

Re:Fast by mike_hearn on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:20PM (#36623235)
They told Milgram himself and he hid the interviews. From the second link above,

The new research builds upon findings from a previous study, which analyzed recordings of 91 conversations conducted immediately after the termination of the experiments. The recordings showed that most of the obedient subjects justified continuing the experiment because they believed the learner was not really being harmed.