Even these stats suggest that most people are not bad. Those stats show 20% that means that 80% are not like that. Those stats show the vast majority of people by far a actor of 4 *are not bad. And that is in corporate settings or prison settings. I would suggest that the police as a whole, the chance that someone is a good person isis far far more than four times.
I didn't actually watch the video's since I'm familiar with the experiment but which stats?
Milgram Experiment:
"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,[1] and all administered shocks of at least 300 volts. Subjects were uncomfortable doing so, and displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. These signs included sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1] Every participant paused the experiment at least once to question it. Most continued after being assured by the experimenter. Some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating."
Those results show the majority of people would kill someone if told to by a superior as 450 was the lethal voltage.
The prison experiment wasn't really obtaining measurable results as much as it was observing behavior. The behavior became so abhorable that the experiment needed to be concluded early. But not until an outsider was brought in to observe did any of the people conducting the study realize how crazy it was:
"Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[16] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than 50 people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the experiment was discontinued.[14]"
To those who are saying "humans aren't evil" I'd also call your attention to another set of data from the Milgram experiment:
"Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] He also reached out to honorary Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick, who noted that this experiment would not be concrete evidence of the Nazis' innocence, due to fact that "poor people are more likely to cooperate." Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and, they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."[7]"
In other words. When asked how evil other people are, the majority of people assume other people are good. But Milgram's results proved them all wrong.
I think most of us see ourselves as good people. Most of us surround ourselves with people who treat us well, and most of us behave better when we have to face our victims, and are in a society where there is punishment for misbehavior.
But the reality is most people are evil. And if you put them in the right conditions they will do things you would never imagine they would.
Without True Darkness there can not be True Light , its the it has always been and will always be ... Accept it and move on , its a balance that is neccassary
This is an excuse for crappy people to act like crappy people. Toleration of evil is not necessary nor is it necessary anyone behave in an evil fashion.
The world is made more interesting by challenge and adversity, that much is true.
But suppose that tomorrow everyone became trustworthy and stopped intentionally hurting others. War ends. Crimes with victims end. World peace etc.
Would there not still be hurricanes? Floods? Disease? Would the earth no longer have a finite amount of resources that we are consuming?
We don't need to provide our own problems. There are plenty of challenges out there without us creating more.
Even these stats suggest that most people are not bad. Those stats show 20% that means that 80% are not like that. Those stats show the vast majority of people by far a actor of 4 *are not bad. And that is in corporate settings or prison settings. I would suggest that the police as a whole, the chance that someone is a good person isis far far more than four times.
I didn't actually watch the video's since I'm familiar with the experiment but which stats?
Milgram Experiment:
"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,[1] and all administered shocks of at least 300 volts. Subjects were uncomfortable doing so, and displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. These signs included sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1] Every participant paused the experiment at least once to question it. Most continued after being assured by the experimenter. Some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating."
Those results show the majority of people would kill someone if told to by a superior as 450 was the lethal voltage.
The prison experiment wasn't really obtaining measurable results as much as it was observing behavior. The behavior became so abhorable that the experiment needed to be concluded early. But not until an outsider was brought in to observe did any of the people conducting the study realize how crazy it was:
"Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[16] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than 50 people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the experiment was discontinued.[14]"
To those who are saying "humans aren't evil" I'd also call your attention to another set of data from the Milgram experiment:
"Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] He also reached out to honorary Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick, who noted that this experiment would not be concrete evidence of the Nazis' innocence, due to fact that "poor people are more likely to cooperate." Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and, they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."[7]"
In other words. When asked how evil other people are, the majority of people assume other people are good. But Milgram's results proved them all wrong.
I think most of us see ourselves as good people. Most of us surround ourselves with people who treat us well, and most of us behave better when we have to face our victims, and are in a society where there is punishment for misbehavior.
But the reality is most people are evil. And if you put them in the right conditions they will do things you would never imagine they would.
The stats from previous poster
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Milgram's experiment did not prove they were wrong, that people were bad. It proved that people were willing to cause someone pain provided they thought it was ok and someone else was taking the blame.
They felt uncomfortable about it. They didn't want to do it. They only did it when they were assured it was okay and the person conducting it would take responsibility.
If anything it proves that people are generally good but weak willed.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
After years of playing many many many PvP games, I gave it up. Got tired of the cheaters and hackers. Got tired of the angry comments to me or my friends that did not cheat or hack. Got tired of the vitriol of other gamers that tried to pound their chests when they won. It just was not fun. And while AI still has shortcomings, at least they act more civil.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
In 2012, Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that there was "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".[19][20] She described her findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a difficult situation."[21] In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."[22]
Supposing that's true, then you still have 44% obeying. That may not be a majority but it's still quite telling given that if the experiment had be true those people would have literally killed someone. However based on the excerpt she appears to have reached her conclusion via hearsay.
Also of those who did stop / raised objectives, you have to wonder how many did so for moral reasons, and how many did so because they weren't confident they wouldn't get charged with murder or at the least manslaughter.
Edit: Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that more people would go through with it if they knew the nature of the experiment? If I knew the nature of the experiment and that I was the one being tested I would refuse almost straight away. Seems like a lot of people went back after the fact and told a different narrative to make themselves sound better.
I think Eldurian is seeing evil everywhere, while what we have is rather too much selfishness in the world. Certainly laws help bind societies together in their joint aims, but those laws were created from a shared understanding of what is right and wrong.
I agree that people are not inherently evil, but I'm not certain I agree that societies were created to instill needed rules. In fact I think societies are what instilled the bad ideas in people that make them sick in the first place. Without society they wouldn't have had any reason to be sick/toxic in the first place. I feel that society was formed as a measure of protection, but also as a measure of power for the rulers in most cases. This continues to today where the people with the most money control everything. They control the thoughts of others through social media and entertainment.
Any social system or structure is a two edged sword, there will be negatives as well as positives. When it comes to social media I would say it is the citizen who control that, and when you think of the witch hunts and the cesspit it can be, it is hardly a hallmark of what we can achieve with a society with less rules and less structure.
I wouldn't agree with that entirely. The kids are taught a message in school, by their parents, and by media. Then they pass that message through social media believing in it. Before social media it was via word of mouth instead.
It is the nature or nurture argument, I think we are formed from both.
In 2012, Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that there was "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".[19][20] She described her findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a difficult situation."[21] In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."[22]
Supposing that's true, then you still have 44% obeying. That may not be a majority but it's still quite telling given that if the experiment had be true those people would have literally killed someone. However based on the excerpt she appears to have reached her conclusion via hearsay.
Also of those who did stop / raised objectives, you have to wonder how many did so for moral reasons, and how many did so because they weren't confident they wouldn't get charged with murder or at the least manslaughter.
Edit: Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that more people would go through with it if they knew the nature of the experiment? If I knew the nature of the experiment and that I was the one being tested I would refuse almost straight away. Seems like a lot of people went back after the fact and told a different narrative to make themselves sound better.
Someone needs to give Eldurian a hug, but not me as I am worried about the spikey bits.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Someone needs to give Eldurian a hug, but not me as I am worried about the spikey bits.
I'm pretty content. I share a home with an amazing woman who I actually trust and have a very small number of people outside her I can place trust in.
The thing is, I know the majority of people I can't. Put too much faith in most people and they will let you down given time.
Now I'm slow to put a great amount of faith in people and it ends in a lot less shock and anger when I get betrayed.
I still give people the benefit of the doubt and try to treat them as a good person until otherwise. I just recognize that most of them will prove otherwise eventually.
Someone needs to give Eldurian a hug, but not me as I am worried about the spikey bits.
I'm pretty content. I share a home with an amazing woman who I actually trust and have a very small number of people outside her I can place trust in.
The thing is, I know the majority of people I can't. Put too much faith in most people and they will let you down given time.
Now I'm slow to put a great amount of faith in people and it ends in a lot less shock and anger when I get betrayed.
I still give people the benefit of the doubt and try to treat them as a good person until otherwise. I just recognize that most of them will prove otherwise eventually.
I think that you have to consider a few things. How did said people let you down? Perhaps those people have issues or reasons of their own for not doing something you think is mandatory.
To not be let down you would have to find people who have like-minded ideals I would think or just not worry about it when someone doesn't do something you expect.
Someone needs to give Eldurian a hug, but not me as I am worried about the spikey bits.
I'm pretty content. I share a home with an amazing woman who I actually trust and have a very small number of people outside her I can place trust in.
The thing is, I know the majority of people I can't. Put too much faith in most people and they will let you down given time.
Now I'm slow to put a great amount of faith in people and it ends in a lot less shock and anger when I get betrayed.
I still give people the benefit of the doubt and try to treat them as a good person until otherwise. I just recognize that most of them will prove otherwise eventually.
Well I take people as they come I don't have faith in them, its just I would not presume they are as bad as you do. When it comes to letting you down, by the time someone could do that I have probably got to know them quite well.
But you can't live life without getting to know people who let you down, and you cant inure yourself from how that feels. It is just part of the ups and downs.
Comments
Milgram Experiment:
"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,[1] and all administered shocks of at least 300 volts. Subjects were uncomfortable doing so, and displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. These signs included sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1] Every participant paused the experiment at least once to question it. Most continued after being assured by the experimenter. Some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating."
Those results show the majority of people would kill someone if told to by a superior as 450 was the lethal voltage.
The prison experiment wasn't really obtaining measurable results as much as it was observing behavior. The behavior became so abhorable that the experiment needed to be concluded early. But not until an outsider was brought in to observe did any of the people conducting the study realize how crazy it was:
"Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[16] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than 50 people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the experiment was discontinued.[14]"
To those who are saying "humans aren't evil" I'd also call your attention to another set of data from the Milgram experiment:
"Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] He also reached out to honorary Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick, who noted that this experiment would not be concrete evidence of the Nazis' innocence, due to fact that "poor people are more likely to cooperate." Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and, they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."[7]"
In other words. When asked how evil other people are, the majority of people assume other people are good. But Milgram's results proved them all wrong.
I think most of us see ourselves as good people. Most of us surround ourselves with people who treat us well, and most of us behave better when we have to face our victims, and are in a society where there is punishment for misbehavior.
But the reality is most people are evil. And if you put them in the right conditions they will do things you would never imagine they would.
The world is made more interesting by challenge and adversity, that much is true.
But suppose that tomorrow everyone became trustworthy and stopped intentionally hurting others. War ends. Crimes with victims end. World peace etc.
Would there not still be hurricanes? Floods? Disease? Would the earth no longer have a finite amount of resources that we are consuming?
We don't need to provide our own problems. There are plenty of challenges out there without us creating more.
They felt uncomfortable about it. They didn't want to do it. They only did it when they were assured it was okay and the person conducting it would take responsibility.
If anything it proves that people are generally good but weak willed.
Let's party like it is 1863!
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Also of those who did stop / raised objectives, you have to wonder how many did so for moral reasons, and how many did so because they weren't confident they wouldn't get charged with murder or at the least manslaughter.
Edit: Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that more people would go through with it if they knew the nature of the experiment? If I knew the nature of the experiment and that I was the one being tested I would refuse almost straight away. Seems like a lot of people went back after the fact and told a different narrative to make themselves sound better.
It is the nature or nurture argument, I think we are formed from both.
Someone needs to give Eldurian a hug, but not me as I am worried about the spikey bits.
There's a great Black Mirror episode on this.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The thing is, I know the majority of people I can't. Put too much faith in most people and they will let you down given time.
Now I'm slow to put a great amount of faith in people and it ends in a lot less shock and anger when I get betrayed.
I still give people the benefit of the doubt and try to treat them as a good person until otherwise. I just recognize that most of them will prove otherwise eventually.
To not be let down you would have to find people who have like-minded ideals I would think or just not worry about it when someone doesn't do something you expect.
Well I take people as they come I don't have faith in them, its just I would not presume they are as bad as you do. When it comes to letting you down, by the time someone could do that I have probably got to know them quite well.
But you can't live life without getting to know people who let you down, and you cant inure yourself from how that feels. It is just part of the ups and downs.