Quick Veiw - Basically, people had to answer a very simple question. Which of these lines matches up to this picture.
Here's the scary part.
1/3 of the subjects would answer incorrectly if the 3 or more subjects before them did. This proves how peer-pressure works.
This is kind of like asking "Which color is Black The text of the background on this post?"
This was a (more than) simple vision test, which 33% of the subjects failed.
Upon doing more research...
If 1 subject is in the room, it has virtually no influence on another.
If 2 subjects are in the room, only a small influence
if 3 subjects are in the room, in has a moderate influence
3 subjects is enough to persuade you too look like a huge idiot.
The normal excuse "Poor Eyesite"
The Good Samaritan Experiment
Here's what happened.
1 group of people were told to give a sermon about the good Samaritan. If you don't know the good Samaritan story, it was a man who helped a less fortunate as other did not.
While the other group of people were told to get a job.
It was set up so a homeless man would be on the street as the test subjects went to give there presentations/sermons.
You would expect that the people giving The Good Samaritan story would stop to help more often than people giving the presentation about getting a job? Right, it only makes sense.
Well. No. On average the subjects giving The Good Samaritan would only stop for the homeless man 10% of the time. And there on their way to give a presentation on how to be a good person. We're all heart-less bastards (It's the Bas-ta word if it censors it.)
One more
The Milgram Experiment
This is honestly the scariest thing I have heard, since, something....
Basically, a man in a lab coat was wondering how much subjects would listen to an authority figure. So he got some subjects, an actor, and some puppies.
The subject would site in a different room than the actor. Whenever the actor got an answer wrong, the subject would send an electric shock to the actor.
The actors job was to scream, bang on the wall, and cry for mercy. Again, no real shock was administered.
Some subjects did object, but when the lab coat guy said it was okay, they would shock them up.
The 'shock' went up to 450 volts (100 can kill a guy). When then actor stopped making noises, 26/40 subjects would go on to the max voltage. You know, 63% of you would shock some guy cause the authority figure said it was okay.
The puppy thing was a joke.
I love the WERP sub-forum. I deserve... A merit. No, I deserve... applaus.
These experiments only reveal the inner workings of the human mind. I have read the article you linked and they are quite interesting. Of course, these experiments do not necessarily show that we are doomed. It is very likely that people 100 to 200 years ago would have shown just as astonishing of results.
Huh apparently the D.A.R.E officer in 3rd grade was right peer pressure sucks. That little comment at the beginning of the article killed me though "Really, the only way you could get the line questions honestly wrong is if you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed them directly on your eyeballs (which would have made for an even more awesome experiment, but we're getting off the point)." I believe some of these things though because I've noticed that about my self, even though I tell my self not to care what other people think somehow I care if they think i'm stupid or not.
"Really, the only way you could get the line questions honestly wrong is if you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed them directly on your eyeballs (which would have made for an even more awesome experiment, but we're getting off the point)."
Yeah. I love that. It's nice to get a metaphor that exact to how stupid we can be.
And it really doesn't say much. People are rational thinkers.
For the first experiment, for example, there was no hard evidence that participants conformed to the other people's answers because they felt being peer pressured, but simply wondered "How can 3 other people be wrong? I must of heard the question wrong, or something..."
I've noticed that about my self, even though I tell my self not to care what other people think somehow I care if they think i'm stupid or not.
I have actually blushed, in a dark theater when I'm the only one laughing at the scene playing on the movie. So I agree that we all have the "keeping up with the Jones'", malady. I noticed that other than the seminary students mentioned, the ages of the participants in the other tests weren't mentioned. The reason I mention this is as I grow in maturity I no care if I'm the only who gets the joke. I also expect to be the only one who'll pull over and at ask if I can call a wrecker, etc. for the stranded motorist.
"How can 3 other people be wrong? I must of heard the question wrong, or something..."
Well, it's a test. If you read the actual article it never said the three other people tried to get it right, they were probably told to get it wrong away from the 4th subject.
Subject 1,2, and 3 are in a room. Lab Coat Guy tells subject 1,2, and 3 to get the question wrong in front of subject 4. That simple.
Always? Under certain situations, people make irrational decisions. People are not always rational, especially under stress or while in an awkward situation, such as the experiment you talked about.
but simply wondered "How can 3 other people be wrong? I must of heard the question wrong, or something..."
Yes, but chances are he was fairly confident the first time he heard the question. This test proves that people will doubt themselves if what they predicted is wrong, despite it not making sense.
The above link also shares some weird psychological stuff.
. In another test, an unsuspecting group of people who had visited Disneyland in the past were placed in a room with a cardboard cutout of Bugs Bunny and/or were shown fake ads for Disneyland featuring Bugs. Afterwards, 40 percent claimed they vividly remembered seeing a guy in a Bugs Bunny costume when they were at Disneyland. They didn't, of course (Bugs isn't a Disney character).
You can doubt these experiments all you want, and I wouldn't doubt that there are holes in all of them, but I do believe in the power of suggestion. Even if a test does have a loop hole, it should not be completely forgotten.
Always? Under certain situations, people make irrational decisions. People are not always rational, especially under stress or while in an awkward situation, such as the experiment you talked about.
Quite so. While stress and peer pressure as well as other factors can have you make the incorrect choices, people still think rationally.
And by that I mean, we don't randomly do things for no apparent reason at all. If I am mad for example, I may hit the wall and cuss a lot in public. While not the best choice, is it still not rational, as I am acting on the behalf of my goals?
Yes, but chances are he was fairly confident the first time he heard the question. This test proves that people will doubt themselves if what they predicted is wrong, despite it not making sense.
Well of course, when 50000000 other people say something else, there is a reason to doubt yourself. Its pretty rational don't you think? Same thing when you look at someone else's test and they got a different answer from you. Even if it was a simple question that I knew, I may have doubts about my answer and go back and check my work.
And I mean only 1/3 of the people were affected by this "eer pressure".
I just don't think these experiments show some weird mysterious inner working of the brain or something. They can be explained logically.
The human minds is really very gullible, it isn't until we get much older that we really start to understand that what anyone else thinks of us isn't worth a damn! As some of my role models say "Maturity is overrated." remember when we were kids we didn't give a crap what anyone else thought of us.
I liked the Milgram experiment. Pretty much proves how most of us, if not all of us, are capable of pretty much anything, given proper circumstances.
Now, too bad these are all old experiments that were conducted in a time where morality didn't really become a priority in psychological experiments. Otherwise I would be a psychologist, just for that reason.
Just because.
They can be explained logically.
Logical answer: Humans are social hierarchy based creatures.
That explains every single one of these experiments.
Humans are pretty stupid when it gets down to the core of it.
I would never like to be put in the position of the milgram experiment and I hope no one else has to. I hate choosing between order and what I want to do.
I would never like to be put in the position of the milgram experiment and I hope no one else has to. I hate choosing between order and what I want to do.
I wonder what would happen if someone with an overly alpha dog personality type were to do that experiment.
Anyways, chances are you would listen to him. Your thoughts probably wouldn't matter much. Of course, there's that smaller chance that you would tell the dude with the lab coat to eff off, but most people won't do that, lol.
