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.
Orion, hard to say. It really depends on who you work for and how much money is involved. My senior year during my undergrad I work on two experiments with my professors. One was on the diagnostic effects of boredom, and the other on false memories. I would say the latter was pretty intriguing, seeing as, for the sake of science I had to lie to every participant.
Then my first semester for masters we conducted a placebo-alcohol study on a bunch of 18 year old for fun. LOVE FRESHMAN.
Then my first semester for masters we conducted a placebo-alcohol study on a bunch of 18 year old for fun. LOVE FRESHMAN.
Reminds me of my favorite study ever . . . it was on the ratio of yellow skittles to all skittles. We had to make a pie graph. IT was my favorite because after we were done, we got to eat all the skittles, and the yellow ones are my favorite and were already separated out in a neat little pile.
. . . yeah, and I go to a four-star public school /w accelerated education in all classes. But the US education discussion is another one for another day . . . .
Because giving somebody who's on LSD a rocket launcher is safe. Awesome Video. Was that LSD? The symtoms seemed like it.
I'm fairly sure it was LSD. I just lol'd so hard at the well spoken English narrator commenting on how the radio operator climbed the tree to feed the birds.
Did they ever say what they wanted to test it for?
I think they thought they could create fearless soldiers. The armed forces stll does it in an unofficial capacity. Often it's pretty easy to acquire speed or other stimulants from the resident doc on base, not that it's advisable for all roles mind you.
So anyone else notice the OP gives a link to the article on - get this - cracked.com? Are we really going to leave it up to the experts at Cracked to interpret these cases? These cases are philosophically interesting because they provide a motivation for the social aspects of knowledge and justification. People don't want to be wrong, and they want to be accepted by their peers. The important thing to keep in mind about these experiments is that they, in now way, reflect how things really are. In the experiment, literally everyone in the subject's immediate social group was lying to them. But this is certainly a non-standard approach to the world. Maybe we could get the conclusion that the world would be doomed if everyone lied all the time, but I doubt even that. In normal circumstances, we have a very good ability to track the truth. We want certainty in our beliefs and we want them to be justified. All these experiments do is make what should be simple thought experiments into actual events. And what we learn from these things are somewhat trivial.
Are we really going to leave it up to the experts at Cracked to interpret these cases?
Cracked.com is awesome. And these experiments are real, I looked them up, real and legit. Cracked.com is some stupid conspiracy site, it's more like a site for a lot of people on some sort of drugs.
Maybe we could get the conclusion that the world would be doomed if everyone lied all the time, but I doubt even that. In normal circumstances, we have a very good ability to track the truth. We want certainty in our beliefs and we want them to be justified.
Humans are very gullible, it is hard to detect a lie on such short notice.
Cracked.com is awesome. And these experiments are real, I looked them up, real and legit. Cracked.com is some stupid conspiracy site, it's more like a site for a lot of people on some sort of drugs.
I realize the experiments are real. My point was that Cracked has no business interpreting the results of these experiments. I mean it's funny and all. But this was the reference for the OP - not exactly a reliable source for interpretation. The OP is essentially using a flawed analysis of some famous experiments to motive the claim that we're all doomed.
Humans are very gullible, it is hard to detect a lie on such short notice.
Poo. I don't know if I'm not being clear or what, but my points don't seem to be making it from my head to the community. But my point was that it would take a mass conspiracy of deception for these results to have any practical value in society. Take the experiment with the lines. People would just lie by answering incorrectly. The subject knew what the answer was, but because those around him were lying, he no longer felt justified in his belief. Knowledge and justification seem to have a social nature to them. But in order for this experiment to tell us anything about humanity or even a society, we would have to have a tremendous portion (nearly all) of the population "in on the joke" so to speak. They would have to lie about the state of affairs of the world at last in some cases in order to have any real effect. And even then, I'm not sure what this experiment would show.
These experiments rely on deception and manipulation of the subject, often to the detriment of the subject. It can cause quite a bit of psychological stress on someone to believe something very obvious and suddenly think he's wrong. And the Milgram experiment was just another example of cruel deception. The payoff on these is very small while the risk to the subject is high - which is exactly why experiments like these are considered nowadays to be unethical.
The OP is essentially using a flawed analysis of some famous experiments to motive the claim that we're all doomed.
Hah... I am the OP, and this doesn't say were doomed, it just means were stupid. Also saying 'doomed' brings more people to the topic.
he no longer felt justified in his belief. Knowledge and justification seem to have a social nature to them.
What your saying is that he has no faith in himself to stand up to peer-pressure.
psychological stress on someone to believe something very obvious and suddenly think he's wrong.
If it were so obvious to him, then he would have to assume that everyone around him is stupid. If he does not want to stad out I get what you are saying.
HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT MY.... never mind. Physiology at its best. And more proof that Christianity is a horrible base for morals, as the Samaritan story came from the Bible... I think. They taught us that in Bible class all those years ago...
