>> One person pressed the button 190 times

That cheered me up. God only knows what was wrong with their study but when someone shocks themselves 200 times just to throw off your excel macros I think you should at least reconsider your bedside manner.

Reminds me of nothing more than a very early episode of the Simpsons

I'm curious how much of a shock it was subjectively. Small shocks could be mildly pleasurable due to the endorphin response, similar to the mechanism that makes spicy food pleasurable.

You didn't read the article.

It says they shocked the participants before the study started so the curiosity factor was not present.

The article says they exposed people to the shocks and other stimuli to get a response to the 5$ question. It doesn't say they took the people and gave them 15 minutes to play around with the thing. Curiosity is still very much in the game, especially when there's nothing else to do.

A much more meaningful way to do this experiment would've been to have people sit and receive regular shocks (not under their own control), and to sit with nothing else to do, provide an incentive for staying 15 minutes and see how quickly they give up.

And while i'm writing: The article also mentions they couldn't find people who enjoy the time alone, but didn't mention whether they asked people who habitually medidate.

One participant shocked themselves 190 times. I'd say I'd concede curiosity is the main factor the first one or two times.

Yes, but the mean number of times was less than 1.5, with maximum 4 if you exclude that outlier. The vast majority of cases are perfectly compatible with curiosity, a scenario the paper ignored completely, and which could have been at least partially addressed simply by asking participants why they pressed the button.

This is an OK study, sexed up in a very cynical and ignorant way.

Isn't it also a false dilemma? I'd be lost in my thoughts and will shock myself just for the kick of it too, maybe as a curiosity or maybe in a masochistic way.

I'm really interested in what was going through that participant's mind.

The article does mention that they are going to investigate mediation later.

The fundamental problem is that the study is substituting the author's interpretations of behaviors for a simple description of the behaviors. The authors tell the participants to think when they are in the empty room but there is no verification that thinking is the condition the participants avoid by pressing the button and equally, there's no proof that "pain" is the condition they sought by pressing the button.