Hacker News Reader

>There are countless other quotes of guards and prisoners saying they were "just acting".

It seems entirely possible that "just acting" was an after the fact justification. People are very unreliable witnesses of their internal processes, this is probably even more true when someone has reason to feel guilt for their actions.

>I'm not sure it matters so much why you're locking someone in a closet for 6 hours (just acting, wanting the experiment to succeed, wanting to please your teacher, having sadistic tendencies, etc.)

Fake it until you make it, torturer edition.

Yes, exactly. Imagine trying to explain to people that you participated in something where you did horrible things for structural reasons. To really pull that off, you need to convince every interlocutor that they too would be prone to this. When it's much easier for your audience to believe that it's just you that's horrible, and they are fine and decent people who wouldn't do as you did.

Especially decades later, I'd be very reluctant to naively credit people's explanations here.

Except we don't have to, we have experimental evidence that shows what happens and what happens is not what 'happened' in the SPE.

We don't have to what?

I could believe that the SPE doesn't really get at it, but people do end up doing horrible things for structural reasons. That doesn't change the incentives for trying to explain that to people who weren't there.

What's the p-value on these? How many trials were there?

We have separate events, and we try to compare them, and use them as "evidence".

I don't think the SPE is great science, but people are very easily driven by circumstances, and it'll take a lot of time to fully unpack the dynamics and ethical consequences of that.

It's not the same because the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform. The whole pitch of the experiment was their behavior was spontaneous, unsolicited, and caused by the setting. I.e., not caused by the experimenters asking the participants to behave a certain way.

The Milgram effect (superiors asking you to cause pain because science + authority) has been replicated many times.

This is all explained quite well in the article.

> the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform

The experiment was not about how clothing affects behavior but was about presenting a group with power and encouraging them to use it. The uniforms were important in establishing group identity, but not the sole or even primary focus of the experiment.

Please don't create arguments by taking clearly figurative language literally. There's plenty to fight about without that.

From OC: > I.e., not caused by the experimenters asking the participants to behave a certain way

I think the point is, OC is presenting the experiment as something that comes about as a result of the setting (including uniform). But, I think from the researcher's and participants perspective, the instructions played a significant role.

From article: > For Korpi, the most frightening thing about the experiment was being told that, regardless of his desire to quit, he truly did not have the power to leave.

> Another prisoner, Richard Yacco, recalled being stunned on the experiment’s second day after asking a staff-member how to quit and learning that he couldn’t. A third prisoner, Clay Ramsay, was so dismayed on discovering that he was trapped that he started a hunger strike.

> a taped conversation between Zimbardo and his staff on day three of the simulation: “An interesting thing was that the guys who came in yesterday, the two guys who came in and said they wanted to leave, and I said no,”

So, yeah, the instructions were a huge part of the experiment. People wanted to leave and couldn't. The action/reaction between the participants ("I want to leave"/"No.", complain/6 hours in solitary) probably made the scenario much more real than the hallway posing as a jail or the fake uniforms.

So, figuratively or literally I don't think it was about what happens when you put on a uniform. I think it's more about what happens when someone tells you to follow a set of rules that create an empowered/disempowered dynamic.

I'm under the impression that the Milgram experiments are also not quite what people have generally been lead to believe. I've not read the book yet (I just got a copy though)

>"Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people went to maximum voltage on the shock machine was reported, very few people, I think, realized then and even realize today that that statistic applied to 26 of 40 people. Of those other 700-odd people, obedience rates varied enormously. In fact, there were variations of the experiment where no one obeyed."

-Gina Perry, author of Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-loo... (I've not read the book yet, but I just got a copy.)

The milgram experiments are far more interesting, and much better science that the SPE, but the popular understanding (and teaching) of them misses some of the most interesting conclusions that can be drawn from them.

It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.

>It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.

Well, to many people that hear about it for the first time, the mere fact that this behavior can be induced is shocking. It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.

What those shocked people (Ha) are often not told is that Milgram went to great lengths to appeal to people's altruism (desire to progress the state of science) when selecting subjects and to persuade them of the scientific validity of what they'd be asked to do. That once the experiments began the experimenter would frequently pressure the 'teacher' by invoking the necessity of science.

He was measuring "obedience to authority" insofar as "authority" meant trust in scientists credentialed by Yale. One variation on the experiment following the same script as the infamous variation tested obedience rates outside of the Yale campus and, of course, there was significantly less compliance.

Or put another way

>'according to academic Don Mixon, Milgram didn't measure immoral behavior in his lab. On the contrary, he argued that what Milgram measured was misplaced trust. [...] Don found the same results as Milgram but came to completely different conclusions. he argued that it wasn't immorality that drove Milgram's subjects to flip the switches but trust in the experimenter, who, despite the cries from the learner, calmly told them to continue and gave the impression that there was nothing to worry about. [...] According to Don, Milgram simply measured the faith that people put in experts: "He found just the opposite of what he thought he found; nothing about the subjects' behavior is evil. In fact, people go to great lengths, will suffer great distress, to be good. People got caught up in trying to be good and trusting the expert. [...] The only evil in the obedience research, Don came to believe, was "the unconscious evil of the experimenters"'

Potato, potato in my opinion.

Even more so, Don's perspective is even more shocking. The people doing something that (to their best knowledge) hurts the other person and hurts them (less so, but still) because their authority person told them its for the greater good?

I'd take a sadist that thinks for themselves instead.

Milgram didn't persuade these people that science is good. He persuaded them that what they'd be asked to do was for science.

In either case, it's far off from the "people follow orders" narrative. When teachers in the Milgram experiment were confronted with direct orders their compliance rates plummeted. They were compliant when they believed they were cooperating Milgram, and uncompliant when they believed they were being ordered by Milgram. During their periods of compliance they identified with Milgram by sharing the common goal of advancing science. The forth prod, the direct order ("You have no other choice, you must go on") caused any perception of a shared identity between the teacher and Milgram to evaporate and with it, their compliance.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...

>Milgram didn't persuade these people that science is good. He persuaded them that what they'd be asked to do was for science.

..which is something a volunteer for a science test sees as a good thing.

>In either case, it's far off from the "people follow orders" narrative.

Indeed. I always took it along the lines of "when put in a setting where it's acceptable to harm others consequence-free, people need little to do so".

This doesn't seem to contradict what you are saying.

> It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.

Actually, it doesn't really. The experiment says far more about the importance of perceptions of authority than it does about "good" or "bad" people.

> Actually, it doesn't really.

I think you misread. The results of the Milgram experiment (that authority is more important) are what go against the common narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people. You're agreeing with him.

The thing I find frustrating with Milgram is there is three narratives going on simultaneously.

1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk 2. The pretend actual reality: someone is being (potentially) fatally injured - certainly being hurt beyond the point of toleration 3. The false reality: - everything is fine because of science

Almost everyone is concerned that they may be in reality 2 - they ask the researchers who say some variation of "please continue". This leads them to the entirely correct conclusion that this is a safe environment and they can continue.

However, they are meant to have concluded that they really are in reality 2 and we judge them accordingly - even though they were never in reality 2, and never did anything horrifying to anyone.

But why should they consider the other person their responsibility - surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger!

>But why should they consider the other person their responsibility

Because that's what we hope to expect from people in a society: to not be bystanders when others are harmed, and not be accessory to such harm.

>- surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the researchers are blackmailing the other subject or holding them against their will.

What you know is that they seem to be in great pain.

It boils down to this: do you believe your eyes and common sense, or what the authority tells you?

The experiment shows that many opt for the latter - and that is scary.

>If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger!

History has shown us that this is not the conclusion the people make.

Remwmber "First they came for _____, but I didn't say anything because I was not a ____"?

It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1, because if they did, then the whole experiment makes no sense, unless the "teacher" felt pressure to conform. That is still a similar conclusion, AND in the absence of evidence that the torture was fake, is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering -- and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...

> >1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk

>It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1

There is ample evidence that many of the teachers believed the experiment to be a sham and understood that nobody was actually being harmed. Some of them noticed inconsistencies in the experimental procedure, such as the learner not being paid, flaws in the narrative such as the learner with supposed heart problems being far too willing to be subjected to shocks for beer money, or general incredulity at the entire circumstance including unwillingness to believe Yale would permit such obviously unethical experimentation.

>is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering

It only shows that if the learner is persuaded it's being done in the name of a cause the learner already believes in.

>and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...

People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays. Adolf Eichmann claimed he was just dispassionately following orders, but do you really believe that? You shouldn't. The traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments would have you believe just following orders is normal human psychology, but actually the experiments did not show that.

>People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays

Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities.

Does it makes it any better?

Replace (science + man in a lab coat) with (religion + man in a robe) or (political ideology + man wearing the right insignia) or ("we are saving the world" BS + manager in a $80 T-shirt), and you'll get the same results as long as the cause is believable.

If you are the one being hit with a stick for nothing, does it really matter to you that the one who did it truly believed that it was for some higher cause - without pausing to think how perhaps this is not the best way to get there?

> "Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better?"

A Nazi who is a true believer is emphatically not better than a German who was merely following orders. I think most would say he's actually worse.

However an observer who recognizes the of role belief is better than an observer who discounts belief and views the situation only as Milgramian obedience to authority. The former observer is better than the later because he has a more accurate understanding of the nature of the problem, and is therefore better equipped to deal with it.

I'll also say this: I personally believe dedication to a cause is amoral. If it's the right cause, dedication to it is generally moral. If it's the wrong cause, dedication to it is immoral. It's not dedication that made true believer Nazis evil, but rather the cause to which they had dedication. Many of the men who died fighting the Nazis were similarly dedicated to their causes. Furthermore, specifically relating to the Milgram experiments, people who are dedicated to a good cause can be mislead into behaving in an immoral way. If we didn't recognize that, we might be left to conclude that apathy is virtuous.

When I was in middle school in the late 80s, our social studies teachers coordinated a mock segregation experiment. 1 out of every 8 students was identified as an "Other". We were told that the "Others" were less deserving of respect and that it would be okay to make fun of them. The "Others" would always be last in line, would be required to use "Others"-only restrooms, etc. Teachers were told to favor the regular students and not the "Others." There were no prisoners and guards. The distinction was those with privilege and those without.

The experiment was planned to last three days. It was stopped after less than a day and a half. I remember the principal coming on over the PA and announcing that the experiment was ending immediately and that treating any "Others" any differently from then on would result in a suspension. There were students showing up in the office crying about it. Not just complaining. Literally in tears.

The problem, primarily, was that it was a middle school. There's already a group of students that all the other students mistreat or pick on or don't respect as well. There's already a social pecking order. When some of those low social rank students were assigned to the "Others" group, they really got bullied by people. What I remember being the most shocking was how several teachers were bullying and treating students badly. Yelling at them or punishing them for no reason at all. Just because they had a paper sign that said "Other" on their shirt.

The thing that this drilled into me is how vile people can be to each other when they think they deserve it or otherwise aren't deserving of basic respect or equality. The older I get the more I look back on this little experiment and am shocked by what happened. Xenophobia and sectarian divisiveness is a remarkably easy way to dehumanize and strip other people of basic human rights. It's really quite terrifying how easy it was and how quickly it happened. How all the students and staff just readily accepted the new social order because that's what the authority said was true. How people abused that social order for no good reason. How people who were ostensibly pretending were actually acting in horrific ways. It's difficult to know in the moment what's acting and what isn't when it's a stranger doing it.

Wow. Middle school is already a zoo; to deliberately open the cage doors and let the animals out was a crazy idea.

See also, The Wave: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/

It’s a consistent phenomenon with people. As soon as someone finds out that it’s socially acceptable to behave badly towards some group, many otherwise nice people have no problem being absolutely terrible towards complete strangers.

A relatively recent example is the “it’s OK to punch nazis” meme, but there are many others. (If you haven’t heard about this, it’s the idea that it’s perfectly good and admirable to walk up to people and physically assault them merely because of their stated horrific political opinions.)

It’s difficult to even talk about this, because the backlash is so strong. If someone is against punching nazis (for instance), are they defending nazis? Are they also then, by extension, a nazi, and deserving to be punched? As soon as there is an actual “Other” group which is unprotected by social norms, any discussion is almost pointless.

"It's perfectly acceptable to beat up gays" is probably a better example of this troubling phenomenon than "It's perfectly acceptable to beat up people who have publicly declared their membership in a murderous conspiracy"

> when they think they deserve it or otherwise aren't deserving of basic respect or equality

... or when they are told to do so, told what bad things to do (which you even relate yourself) and given a schedule of bad actions to take, and moreover told that what they are doing was a positive good, in this case the advancement of education of all students, and just a scientific experiment. Missing these parts out is what is being discussed both in the headlined article and in other parts of this very discussion.

The acceptance here is in fact the uncritical acceptance that such experiments are valid, constructive, and not biased by forcing a particular desired outcome in order to support some agenda, or by ignoring an uncontrolled external factor that skews the results. Whereas one should have questioned what your social studies teacher was trying to demonstrate, and whether the experiment was correctly fashioned for demonstrating it in the first place.

It is time to re-visit what was drilled into you in middle school, more critically.

You're dancing around your point. Just state it.

while the submissiveness angle is interesting, the most intriguing/important conclusion of the article is how impelled we are to see ourselves as the "good guys/girls", and how that's rationalized. time and again, the author comes back to this specific rationalization, including in reference to his bank-robbing cousin and zimbardo himself.

when you're trying to understand someone else's "bad" actions, it's important to realize that they don't see themselves as a bad person, that their rational brains will wrap memories around an inherent belief in their own "goodness". that comes from a regular failing in how we narrate our lives into simple categories of "good" and "bad".

people make mistakes constantly, and are constantly making up for them. social life is an endless chain of conflict resolution with ourselves as the protagonist.

The scary thing is that even torturers convince themselves of their "goodness". They will classify their violations as "necessary" or "warranted by the situation" and go further to assert that they have "standards". They say they don't do the things these other, "real" torturers are known for.

I think the significance of "just acting" is the knowledge that the suffering inflicted isn't real. That obviously has ramifications for the experiment: what people are willing to act out in a theatre isn't very indicative of what they might be capable of in a non-theatre setting.