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.
When you examine studies, you ALWAYS have to look at the variables. Pay attention to sample size, location, mood, who is running the study, etc.
Also, are there control groups? Was this a peer-reviewed study?
I say this because we, as Americans, take whatever is pushed to us through the media and accept it as fact. When the fact is, most of these "opular" studies are really bogus in their results. The best example I can think of right off the top of my head is the study that was released during the 90s claiming that marijuana KILLED brain cells.
What they did not tell you: They pumped 3 pounds of marijuana (smoke) through a gas mask to a monkey in under 45 minutes. It was not the marijuana that killed brain cells. It was the suffocation.
I say this because we, as Americans, take whatever is pushed to us through the media and accept it as fact.
I completely agree. Another example is the definitive study on second hand smoke which lobbyists have been citing for decades. Taking a room full of elderly individuals asking them their history of second hand smoke, and then determining an extensive reasoning behind the 15% who do have lung cancer is not a double blind scientific study. It's called ''medical research'' and it's been selling ideas for years.
It's almost sickening, isn't it? We really are the blind leading the blind.
Firefly, I really think you would enjoy a documentary I just watched called Stupidity. It isn't fantastic, but definitely has some eye-opening issues. It has sparked me to start a Stupidity topic very soon. I'm trying to organize it so it is easy to read...for the idiots. Haha. jk...sort of.
Firefly, I really think you would enjoy a documentary I just watched called Stupidity. It isn't fantastic, but definitely has some eye-opening issues. It has sparked me to start a Stupidity topic very soon. I'm trying to organize it so it is easy to read...for the idiots. Haha. jk...sort of.
Can't wait.
I would also recommed a book called ''Bad Science'' by Ben Goldacre. It's all about how scientific studies are innacurate, but become accepted as fact by the majority, even within the scientific community. It all really boils down to money and who pays for these studies with what those interested third parties want the studies to show. A sad state of affairs indeed.
That sounds awesome! Definitely, needs to be in our household. Thank you! I can't wait to read it, then become real angry.
My wife just said: "Oh tell that fireman (firefly, she meant) thank you for the suggestion, it's good to hear of other people that actually know how to read and interpret a study outside of Academia."
That sounds awesome! Definitely, needs to be in our household. Thank you! I can't wait to read it, then become real angry.
No problemo. I was pretty naive before reading this book. It gave me a healthy, much needed dose of cynicism.
My wife just said: "Oh tell that fireman (firefly, she meant) thank you for the suggestion, it's good to hear of other people that actually know how to read and interpret a study outside of Academia."
It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I try to keep as well informed on the subject as possible, since ''bad science'' can have major implications for everyone.
With regard to the OP, I love the Milgram experiment, especially the context within which it was conducted. Interestingly, despite the pretty solid validity of it, he was discredited by his peers, who were unwilling to admit that Americans were capable of the same atrocities as committed by the Nazis simply under the mild duress of ''I was taking orders''. Something important to remember.
However I can't help but complain of the absence of the Zimbardo prison experiment. On a social level it really does show that power corrupts. On a personal level, it really reminded me of IOT training and the intricacies of breaking down individuals. Good stuff.
. . . anyway, none of these experiments really surprise me. Humans are extremely extroverted creatures - we're social, and as such are affected by the social orders and actions of others.
How often do you psychologist types conduct crazy experiments like that?
Not talking from a psychologists perspective, a mere AS level doesn't give me that right, but what I can tell you is that now they aren't allowed to do that kind of thing for ethical reasons. Kind of bittersweet. I mean, I'm all for human rights, but some of the stuff scientists did back in the day was just too cool.
