Recently in Unfiled Category

With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. ...A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.
--Stanley Milgram (1965)

Those of you not studying Psyschology or old enough to remember Stanley Milgram may wonder how so many people in Iraq became the willing and sadistic servants of Saddam Husseins regime.

In the 1960's Psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted what is now considered a seminal set of experiments on human obedience.

The experiments were conducted on volunteers to show how virtually anybody could be obedient, to the point of violating their personal values, when a figure in authority required that they be that way. As he himself mentions above, it was a remarkable demonstation of how otherwise mild mannered people could become authoritarian and sadistic if they believed they were following orders.

"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidy approaching nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered 'Oh God, lets stop it'. And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end."

In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter
explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."

Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.

The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the
shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always
end up as the "learner.")

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and
continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

...Ultimately 65% of all the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 150 volts, and almost all carried on to 300 volts. [1]

I recall watching footage of these experiments at school many years ago, the images have stuck with me ever since. As a final thought, and before you think that you would never do this: It was predicted beforehand, by a sample of college students, middle-class adults and psychiatrists, that only one "teacher" in a thousand (0.1%) would obey the experimenter's instructions
to apply shocks in excess of 300 volts. 65% actually went all the way to 450 volts.

References:

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol 55, pp 470-478.

Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, vol 19, pp 848-852.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, vol 18, pp 57-76.

Milgram, S. (1965). Liberating effects of group pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 1, pp 127-134.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York, Harper and Row.

[1]The Milgram Experiment: A Lesson in Depravity [I believe this source is incorrect in stating that all "teachers" went to 300 volts, and I have edited the text above to reflect this]

Stanley Milgram Website

The Economist has an article about Dr Gary Wells's recent research on the validity of identity parades, with some evidence that should convince all but the most ardent supporter of their questionable value in a criminal trial.

THE value of identity parades is questionable. For a start, the number of people in a normal line-up means that the chance of picking the suspect by chance is a lot higher than a statistician would consider safe for any scientific test. Then there is the question of whom it is meaningful to put in a parade besides the suspect. But most dangerous of all is the risk that a witness may be led into a choice by remarks, whether chance or deliberate, by somebody involved in conducting a parade.

This last risk, at least, is well recognised. But there is a widespread assumption that, an identification having been made from a parade, subsequent banter can do little harm. Not so. According to Gary Wells and his colleagues at Iowa State University, even remarks made two days after an identity parade might compromise a witness's eventual reliability in court.

Dr Wells's research, just published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, took more than 250 subjects and showed them a video of what appeared to be a terrorist planting a bomb. At one point, the camera focused in so that the man's face was clearly visible. The subjects were then shown a photographic line-up of six people who looked similar to the �bomber�. In fact, none of these photos actually was of the bomber. Nevertheless, with a bit of encouragement to make some sort of choice, every one of the subjects identified one of the pictures as being of the bomber�itself an observation that raises questions.

Having made a choice, the subjects were assigned at random to one of a number of groups, each of which was treated differently. Dr Wells wanted to find out both the effects of feedback, and how they changed depending on when the feedback was given. The three sorts of feedback were: none at all; a confirmation that the subject had picked the correct individual; or an observation that the wrong individual had been picked. This feedback might be given either immediately, or at a second session which took place 48 hours later. The subjects were also asked (again, either immediately, or after 48 hours) a series of questions about how confident they were in their choice, how good a view they had had of the incident, how much attention they had paid, and so on.

Dr Wells expected, from previous results, that those who had immediate confirmation that they had picked the suspect would be more confident about their decision than those who had not. He was not disappointed in this expectation. The new and worrying result was that exactly the same thing happened even when the first confirmation that a subject had chosen correctly happened 48 hours after the identity parade. That, if it is confirmed by subsequent research, has great implications for the reliability of witnesses in trials, since it is easy to design codes of conduct that prevent immediate feedback, but harder to devise ways of stopping details slipping out later.

This matters because research has shown that, in America at least, it is not only the fact that a witness picked out a suspect in an identity parade that matters in court. The confidence with which the witness defends the choice under cross-examination sways verdicts. Identity parades have long looked unsatisfactory as material evidence. This result is another reason to question them.

HardwareZone Forums - what's this...

I find it very irritating when people link to images on my site without permission, in effect getting themselves free image hosting.

In a fit of pique last night, when this happened yet again, I substituted the original graphic linked for a new one that hopefully got the point across.

Yes folks, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Cattlemen's Beef Board have clubbed together to bring little girls a website dedicated to the one thing that's always on their mind - BEEF.

The message for your teeny bopper daughters is it's "cool 2b real". Print out Burger Town party invitations for your friends, or perhaps take the "What type of beef do you most like to eat with your friends?" poll.

The fun doesn't stop there though, you could flick through the recipe section, not only were they tested by kids, heck kids even named them! Mmmm they have tortilla wrap with slices of roast BEEF, or perhaps a barbeque BEEF sandwich. Maybe you'd prefer the taco salad with strips of BEEF, no? Well try the english muffin pizza with ground BEEF.

With testimonies from girls like Megan (age 11), Judy (age 12) or Jenna (age 12), this sites a rockin'. Mooove on down and take a look. Steer your way to the site right here.