The Dark side of Science: The Milgram Experiment (1963) (Short Documentary)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2021
- #science #history
Learn while you're at home with Plainly Difficult!
The Milgram experiment was a study on obedience to authority figures conducted by Psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1963.
They measured the willingness of study participants to administer an electric shock on another person.
The Fascinating Horror of the study, has gone down in history as a horrific experience for the participants, leading to controversy.
Welcome to the Dark side of Science!
Want to become a channel member? / @plainlydifficult
Paypal Donate Link: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Help the Channel Grow Like, Comment & Subscribe!
Subscribe Here: ua-cam.com/channels/b0M.html...
Equipment used in this video:
Rode NTG3, Audient ID4, MacBook Pro 16, Hitfilm, Garage Band
Check out My Twitter:
/ plainly_d
Check out these other great channels:
/ dominotitanic20
/ cynicalc. .
/ jabzyjoe
/ @qxir
Sources:
library.nhsggc.org.uk/mediaAss...
By 49andrewr - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Government Press Office (Israel), CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Motatcho - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Wan me to cover more Experiments? Let me know in the comments below!
Very much enjoy these darkside of science videos. Your videos and breakdown are very digestible and concise.
Can you do when the US government, MIT and Quaker Oats gave radioactive oat meal to handicap children?
If you didn't do it yet.
Oh Project Iceworm and then the US' nuclear dump sites in the Pacific Atolls.
Bruh, we need more radioactivity.
Maybe some experiments done on twins? There are A LOT of fucked up ones
Oh yes please! This area fascinates me! Although I'd have problems watching anything that involves medical experimentation on animals. Even some of the psychological experimentation with animal subjects got pretty dark. (I'm thinking of Harry Harlow's experiments on infant Rhesus monkeys here).
But human experimentation? Go for it!
Check out experiments on "Is LSD any good on the battlefield?".
That's one of the funniest videos I've ever seen! The G.I.s ended up leaning their guns on a tree & they just started enjoying being out in the countryside. They told their commanding officer to do one!
Anyway, I've subscribed. But I was only following orders! 😃
Totally agree with Milgram. People are not outraged because of the ethicality of the test. They are terrified because it does reveal some very uncomfortable, dark truths about human nature.
I doubt most people really care.
Doubtful that it's one or the other. Most likely a combination of the two for most people
We can see now with great clarity how ppl are. I had the thought, in the beginning of the covid thing, that we "Americans would come together in unity to help each other in our great hour of need". Boy howdy, was I mistaken!. I should have gotten a hint during the campaign of Trump. The hatred people have had for all Trump supporters should have told me it wasn't gonna happen.
@@robinmartz9052 Or Trump supporters' hatred towards anyone who isn't of their race/religion, or those who are LGBTQ, or those who simply disagree with them...
@@AmbrosiusAmaimon Trump has supporters of all races and LGBTQ supporters 🤣 I think the MSM got to your head
One of the worst things that has ever happened to any society is the requirement for blind obedience to authority.
Like religion...
@@CreepX Actually, I was thinking more of government but yes, religion can be just as abusive.
COVID-19 lockdowns. 15 days turning into 15 or more months. And then governments getting excited about doing again for another “wave” that’s killing 1-2 people per 5 million.
What I'm seeing here isn't blind obedience to society, it's how far people in 1960 were willing to go for $4.
@@henryptung 30$ today and money was given from the start. People fall to pressure and orders will be followed
"People who are naïve enough to believe they are incapable of cruelty will always be subject to those who are without question"
Every time I hear some variation of "we would never do that" or "that couldn't happen here", my eyes roll into another dimension.
I've always been quite sympathetic to the suffering of others, wanting to relieve it as much as possible. Conversely, I've always thought 1 could be VERY cruel if necessary under the right circumstances, like like saving the life of kidnapped child, or locating a bomb planted by a terrorist if I knew for a fact the person held that knowledge. Given that circumstance, especially if the missing child was mine, I could be completely ruthless and without hesitation.
@@828enigma6 you sound like a fair and very nice person. Ever consider veganism? It strives to reduce as much suffering as possible, for animals and humans alike, which I believe would make you feel great knowing there are more things you can do to prevent even more suffering.
@@humanityisdumb4551 your name suits you
@@dirtpounder in what way?
@@828enigma6 Interesting you should post this, I am much the same. I am empathetic to a fault, care very much for my fellow man, but I have often reckoned I could commit acts that might be considered harsh if like you, given the right circumstances.
If it pertained to our son, my husband or family, I would have no qualms in taking whatever means necessary to protect them.
When it comes to WWII, another factor in obedience to authority was the fear that they themselves would end up like those they were told to harm. The survival instinct is very strong in most humans.
But it was WWII. In this experiment there was no such fear included and still people committed cruel acts. That's what's disturbing. The sheep mindedness.
Actually no. If you read sources like Ordinary Men, it goes into how the men involved in the Nazi war crimes knew they could refuse for little to no consequence. However they near universally did despite reservations because "orders are orders" and not wishing to appear weak to their friends
@@tamielizabethallaway2413 you realize tho, volts don’t kill, amperage does. Think about a stun gun, those are 50k volts, bow compare that to 400, it wouldn’t hardly do what stun gun could. And depends on AC/DC.
@@tamielizabethallaway2413 so you mean that just because it doesn't kill the person, it's not torture? You're one of the potential threats to humanity with such a mentality. And with all the "logic" you explained is formed after you got all the information from the video. Were you oblivious to it like the participants you wouldn't be able to come up with that. And no mentality just come out of nowhere. This experiment was an attempt to find out potential cruelty in common people that comes out during crisis such as wars.
They were lied to about having a better way of life and be able to work by propaganda films
Well, better for the teachers to find out this way, rather than at a war crimes tribunal.
Hilarious and sad, true.
Nah, it'll just repeat itself again as it already is in China and NK and soon to come in Australia and the rest of the west...
@@gugan_1678 "rest of the west" Please allow me to introduce you to organized crimes, death threats over words, and willful ignorance towards the impoverished and the downtrodden everyone in the world has participated in.
@@iqbalindaryono8984 that’s the point, the governments aren’t lone actors in making totalitarianism manifest, because without their obedient citizens, who salivate like rabid animals at the mere scent of tyranny and religiously support their public officials (despite the bitter sweet irony being that most of them will probably have every other Facebook or Twitter post be a vague rant about how much they loathe oppression and tyranny, and how much they love everyone and value human life), most of the worst atrocities committed in human history would not have transpired. If you instill just enough fear, and lace it with propaganda, you’ll have a portion of the citizenry ready to help push whatever agenda you have, even if that agenda works against that very same portion of the population.
@@Littlemanloki by saying that you're implying that the citizens of a state is a single hivemind that follows a single idea rather than the numerous individuals each with their own values, ideas, and fears. Shit's so reductive, it's like saying the entire content of the internet is just 1's and 0's. That's not even counting the irony of you being a citizen of a country.
Something that many people don't understand about themselves what you say you wont do and what you can be made to do are completely different things.
i know id do nearly anything if paid enough XD
I am always amazed at the disconnect we make when we feel like there's nothing we can do or when something doesn't feel related to us. For example, we know that due to our choices people suffer in poor working conditions. Yet I still make the choice to buy cheap clothing just because it's convenient as I suspect do many others.
Furthermore, often the poor working conditions are still better than if they never existed at all. The act of encouraging these working conditions both hurt and help the workers, which does create a dissonance that most people don't know how to parse. It's similar to the Avocado farms that get strong armed by Mexican Cartels. The bad has embedded itself within the good which makes the decisions whether to purchase avocados not so simple and black or white.
@@maowcat1587 yes true that things aren't black and white. However your example doesn't really support your initial statement. The additional cost to raise the conditions is rather small compared to the price of the product so the cost of improvement wouldn't lead to less work as people will still be able to afford the product on the demand side.
Your example is a good representation however of how complicated things get in real life as opposed to my simplified statement above.
It's not whether it's possible, it's whether there's incentive by those in charge to do so. It's easy to say the additional costs to raise conditions are small compared to the price as someone who isn't in charge of the financials of such a company. Everything in a free market is driven by competition and companies will look for any advantage they can find. The rewards has to be worth the cost or the cost doesn't happen. By buying sweatshop goods you are enabling the corporations responsible to continue their practices, as there's no incentive to change. On the other hand, boycotting those corporations products will harm the workers directly who still benefit from the meager conditions they work in, as the absence of the sweatshops would remove jobs and money from their local economies that they rely on (which is that initial point I failed to bring up, my mistake).
When you have corporations like Nike who say one thing publicly and then do another in their business practices, there's nothing but dissonance at multiple levels in purchasing their products.
The creepiest part is, imagine how many people would've gone through 100% without much distress if the teacher administrating the voltage couldn't hear the reaction from the learner.
That’s because people hate to witness suffering, and it drives them to action. If you’re not aware, never see it or doesn’t effect you, why would they care? I’m not saying you shouldn’t, it’s just easier not to
@B0L1D yeah why not it's already dead.
In 18th version of this experiment, the teacher still could hear the reaction, but he hadn't have to pull the lever - only to read questions. 37 out of 40 continued to the end.
@@Edmonton-of2ec It wouldn't bother them?
I'd imagine it would probably be like being part of a crew manning a missile silo or a ballistic missile submarine. If they were given the order to launch the payload they wouldn't see the results of what they had just done but they could still imagine it.
@@twistedyogert That’s… what I said you illiterate nitwit. I just said that’s not a good thing
The experiment was replicated fairly recently in France, under the disguise of a fake tv game show. The participants thought they were participating in the game aired on live tv, and there was an audience. The host was an actual famous game show host, so the subjects didn't suspect anything. They were made to believe a man was in a box, answering questions, and anytime he gave a wrong answer he would receive electric shocks if they chose to send some, going from a small shock to higher, dangerous ones. They could chose to leave at any given time, and were asked if they wished to stop at each step of the game. They were told previously that there would be no money on the line. A few of them ended up leaving, but so many of them stayed... even after the "man in the box" stopped talking or screaming and was then allegedly "unresponsive". So many of the participants acted like they were worried at first, but then would send a shock anyway. I remember a woman actually smiling as she sent a high voltage shock... when everything was over and they were told it was all an experiment, the ones who stayed tried to find excuses like "oh I knew it was fake" (it was CLEAR they did not know). The footage was released as a documentary, it is a great watch, if you can find a version with subtitles I highly recommend it. It's called "Le jeu de la mort" (probably "the game of death" in English). If you understand French, the full documentary is on youtube.
Very interesting. Thank you.
A small trivia: $4 in 1961 is $35 today. The subjects were paid handsomely.
By what standarts, Auschwits'?
@@heavystalin2419 it’s hard to compare it.Most people in 20s , 30s ware slowly brainwashed and manipulated in to racial hate till they believed it’s necessary and right to fulfill this genocide crimes, for good good of course, and I am sure they got promised to by greatly rewarded with high standard occupation and pay 💰 and retirement. It take decades to trained and changed their brains for all that hell they commit in cold blood.
At a university in Sweden participants for such psychology experiments are paid the equivalent of $30 in movie tickets or even up to $100 in cash
They were payed by the hour. That's why they dragged the test to the end
@@lollmemmSm0keweed - Was wondering the same thing
These horrors of these experiments and disasters are nothing for Plainly Difficult - he's used public transport in South London.
I remember when the number 71 bus was 30p
Lmao
Him and Jago Hazzard I imagine
I've never been to London. But that sounds hilarious. I would like to go an experience public transport in South London however. God bless those people. They sit on the wrong side of the car, and drive on the wrong side of the road.
@@Cline3911 what?
I think Mick Foley said it best when he said:
"Deep inside you are merely a mirror image of all my atrocities!!
The ugliness that exists outside, lives inside every one of you!"
Everybody is totally missing the point. This isn't about whether or not you have the capacity for cruelness and hate. It's about whether or not you can stand up to authority, convention, or the clique of cool kids.
WE FAILED
Humans showed they are incapable of standing up to authority even when the test was designed to make it obvious they should be standing up to authority. Because they lack any intelligence and trust in themselves
Now apparently the incentives given weren't strong enough because they only benefit strangers, and that is where your point comes in., Change the learner to a family member and see how it goes, now that'd be a fascinating delve into tribalism
@@GoBatman98 I couldn't possibly tell you how many people respond to me like that.
Im pretty sure you want to be offended, only I didn't say anything offensive, I probably just hit a little too close to home.
My apologies.
Feel free to disagree with actual complete thoughts if u wish
@@GoBatman98I have a little trouble believing that, but I'm just gonna let it lie
@@lunardestruction you seem to be one of the more lucid commenters on here (😯), I wonder if you have considered Plato’s cave analogy for the human condition? This experiment shows us Plato’s cave in operation :-
The teacher is really one of us in the cave, the authority figure in the lab coat in cahoots with the learner, are the ones casting shadows on the wall of the cave, causing fear in the teacher to continue.
Humans are all of us inside varied iterations of the cave. Milgram paid the participants in his experiment a nominal fee, basically covering their expenses. But in real life, our payment is that we get to eat and feed our family today. The participant is free to leave the University but for us there is no way out of the cave -
I recently read a little of George P Grant. He was strongly influenced by the thought of Simone Weil. They both were young around the time of the war. Grant was in England at Oxford when war broke out- as a thinking person he said to himself “the enlightenment now is truly dead. If it were suspected dead after the Great War, now it is surely obvious to all, after a second war on the heels of ‘The War To End All Wars’ “
After the second war he got a position as a philosopher in a university in Canada, and thought that Plato’s analogy of the cave was an excellent place to start to begin to unthink his way out of the quagmire of enlightenment thought.
He became a ‘Christian Platonist’. He recognised Plato’s Sun, or Daylight, the Good, the First Principle, as the cross of Christ.
Not only that, but this one, who IS the ☀️ is born into the cave with us. See the icons - they have the infant Christ born into a cave, a tomb.
Grant is known as ‘Canada’s lone wolf’, and ‘the owl of Minerva’. He trailblazed the way out of Milgram’s experiment.
Dzzzzzzap !! ⚡️⚡️⚡️
Peace ✌️ from Paul, in Northwest Europe. :)))))
@@lunardestruction On the other hand, OP is correct on certain levels.
*Circumstances can force whether or not the decision is moral or not relies upon what justifies it in the mind of the individual.*
Sure, some people can stand up to authoritative figures, but in certain cases, they don't.
Some don't go up against authority because they rationalize it as "there is only one of me against God knows how many". They see the reality of their situation being that it doesn't matter if they rebel, because they're just one person - a single person's stamina and endurance who isn't trained to fight won't last long. They realize that there is a limit to what they can do because the chances of success are slim (and not everyone is lucky - especially in the caae of Ronald Poppo).
"I was just following orders" is a powerful phrase for self-justification simply because it shifts responsibility onto the authority figure.
*Not everybody is a hero.*
Especially in a scenario where the authority figure is an armed robber who shouts "don't be a hero". _Not a whole lot of folks are going to have the balls to see whether or not they get shot._
Compared to most controversial experiments, Milgram's experiment was quite ethical, considering no one got hurt on a physical or mental level, only being caused a state of distress than (hopefully) would be alleviated when explained afterward, though they may have needed some therapy sessions afterward. On the other hand, Zimbardo's experiment was absolutely unethical.
Zimbardo's experiment was staged "demonstration".
And the guy that allegedly "broke down" later said he just had to prepare for exam and acted to get out faster...
I mean you obviously received mental damage if you need therapy after
For some people, especially the ones that have a high scholarly level, that could affect an emotional level. You have a person that probably complains about how the society is full of sheep that obey everything the authority says and then you are giving electric shocks to an unknown person till they probably passed away cause some guy with a white coat is asking you to do it.
Also a lot of the people were never debriefed. That's the unethical part. Some weren't told it was fake.
If no one got hurt on a mental level, why the therapy sessions afterward? His participant selections were not within scientific methods, and he completely ignored the 1947 Nuremberg Code about human subjects.
That face when you find out that most heros and monsters, in real life, look exactly the same.
the monsters might even look like people you know
The monsters are always people .
Scooby Doo.
The only downside is that the monsters have news outlets now to paint them as philantropists.
A lot of monsters actually believe that they are hero's or that there not doing anything wrong
@@GB-vd9do Seen them over and over in my life. They taught me quite a bit. Also we are not that far away from another "burn the witch" scenario. Behind our veils we are all the same.
You never know what you are capable of, "good" or "bad", until you face the actual situation. It's always a struggle not to take the easy way out and you always have to remember the principles you live by.
Other than that, the Impulse to follow orders seems to be evolutionarily beneficial. We are pack animals after all. And following orders of the stronger and more experienced members of our group in general has been beneficial for group and individual survival.
Exactly so.
True, I've always knew we were still animals ever since i was really young. It just makes sense to me
@@ms.pirate eh, it at least explains why you insist upon pooping in all of your family's potted plants.
@@ScumfuckMcDoucheface No, that was only fun when it used to piss my mom off... Now that she's dead... it's just more trouble than it's worth. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 pffft, you're just not trying hard enough.
My psychology class talked about this and I was the only person who had prior knowledge to the experiment, and getting to talk about it with my teacher during class was really memorable.
They just gave you a better grade just admit it 😂
Had they told you guys about critique and re-evaluation of data from the experiment?
My English teacher talked about the Pol Pot regime in the class and I was the only one who had prior knowledge to them. And yes I got the better grades.
I found this video after my psyc class went over the experiment (also found little Albert video too) I just enjoy how it goes more in depth, since what we read was like a summary. It reminded me of my grade school days in a private school. Sometimes it felt like a cult doing and thinking things that "God" wants us to do. Anything else would be considered a "sin". I used to blindly follow what I was told, but as I grew I silently questioned things in my mind. It makes me wonder if I would still be that way today with any kind of authority. Americans have more "rights" where might legally fight back. However, if your in another country things are less (lax?)and defying authority could end you. Like being a North Korean citizen with the wrong haircut. (Sorry for rambling)
We did a Milgram experiment in a science class a million years ago when I was in high school. We were broken up into groups of teachers, learners, and experimenters and each group had their roles explained to them (however hot sauces from mild to ghost pepper were substituted for the shocks). I was assigned as a teacher and when my turn came up I refused to participate. That got me a weeks worth of detention for refusing to do the assigned class work and failing to do a group project with my assigned group. It pissed my parents off and there was a conference with the principal, my teacher, my mother, and myself where my mother repeatedly pointed out that my refusing to participate WAS a valid result for the just as it would have been for the real study therefore I did participate in the assignment by choosing not to torture someone with hot sauce. My teacher was made to give me a passing grade and my detentions were cancelled. I don’t know if she used that experiment again but I never heard anyone mention it after that particular year.
Good for you! There are not enough people who would/ will take your stance.
Good for you! Great presence of mind 🤗
Not really an experiment if you know the outcome, The "teachers" were led to believe that they were merely assisting, whereas they were actually the subjects of the experiment. So you wouldn't of refused in real life as you wouldn't of known what exactly you where gonna do sounds fun to do but I imagine so many students didn't adminster the lethal cause they had that bias
Lmao you pulled a pro gamer move on them
@@timverrecchia1654 they had the opportunity to just refuse to shock the other person but they didn't
I seen a similar experiment on tv, but with 10 strangers. Only one lady completely refuse to shock the man at any point.
Good on her
That broad was a psycho, for sure!
This experiment is exactly why I want to teach my future children that you can question authority while still respecting authority. Respect doesn’t mean blindly follow and questioning allows you to decide if it’s worth it to you to continue.
First time I heard about this experiment was during an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit featuring Robin Williams as the suspect. He even replicated the experiment using Olivia Benson in the learner position and made her partner, Eliot Stabler, think she was genuinely being shocked. It was a good episode, long before the show disappeared up it's own ass.
I had no idea that Robin guested on SVU. Procedural crime dramas aren't my thing, but I might have to look that one up. Thanks!
This is exactly what I thought of!!
Same, actually. It was awful even then, so seeing the actual experiment is crazy.
1st time I heard of this experiment was the 1st Ghostbusters movie.
That Stabler was too damn unstable. Didn't he shoot a kid at one point?
"You volunteered, didn't you! You're getting paid, aren't you?!" "Yeah, well you can keep your five bucks!" - _Ghostbusters_
*gives correct answer* "Sorry, this isn't your lucky day!"
I knew I wasn't the only one who immediately thought that.
I don't believe it to have been unethical. His question was weather or not people would follow orders to hurt or kill another person. He did that. Folks rarely like it when you hold a mirror up to what's under the surface.
There’s also another layer that was not considered. Being brought into a room, paid a decent wage for your time, and told that you have to continue to electrocute a random citizen- That’s completely different than the soldiers of Nazi Germany, who had an incentive to round up and kill Jews. They HATED Jews. Maybe there were some that were just “following orders”, but most of them loved that shit. They bought in to the racism and xenophobia, they adopted it as a part of their identity. It wasn’t just harming innocent strangers, it was disposing of anyone who didn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes.
Perhaps this is a common sense explanation, but it doesn’t make sense how this experiment would connect with his family’s trauma in Europe. It was a misguided attempt at understanding the psychology of genocide and inflicting pain upon others, in my opinion.
Great video as always
It's unethical towards the volunteers
@@sittinonthegodamcornerdoindope what you said seems to make sense but I think there's a few things your missing out, I'm not an expert so some things may be off but the participants were not forced to give the learner a shock but when they hesitated they were given a verbal prod from the researcher like "carry on", or "you will not be responsible for any potential harm". So they wasn't forced, also the reason why they did this study and gave the prods to see the effects of obedience and following an authoritarian figure which is like a leader or someone higher up then you.
Another misconception was they yes they were being paid to partake in the study but they could leave at any time and still get the reward money even if they ended the study really early which was up to them so money wouldn't have effected the results.
Also back to the first point is nazis weren't completely racist as its more like they were brainwashed with misconceptions and following the authority figure so it's not like nazis did all those awful things only because they were racist. There is a good study that also shows this and it wasn't even a study really as it was an actual event like the nazi thing, as an a racist commander in some war zone like Vietnam or someplace similar (I can't remember what it's called but you can probably find it on google) and basically how it went was the commander started doing some sus stuff but it was minor so the soldiers looked the other way but eventually they did worse stuff and joined in with the commander. Long story short that happened and only the commander was charged of the really fuked up stuff but the soldiers weren't as it was found that it was because of being obedient to the authoritarian commander. This shows that people are more capible of doing things they wouldn't normally dream of doing so it wasnt just because of racism. There's also a lot of good books about this stuff in nazis. Anyway that example was from memory so it might not be 100% correct but you get the point. Also this theory isn't my own and it's just a theory so it isn't strickly all correct. Good ideas tho
Probably should have commented after watching the vid xD
@@Joker-bs1bh I may be mistaken... BUT I think you're likely remembering the "Cannibal Japanese General of WWII"... He ran a Prison Camp, where several American Pilots were taken after they ditched into the sea...
One by one, they were tortured horribly to death and eaten... First, only the General and a few top officers ate a few bits of the first American... BUT with the propaganda and the General's specific blathering on about eating the enemy to gain their strength (or similar BS) eventually lower officers asked to join, and then enlisted... digging up the bodies and tearing them apart to salvage all they could...
If I recall correctly, there's another "angle" on this story, because the pilot of that plane, who'd done all he could (having crashed before and learned from the experience) managed to avoid capture and was eventually rescued by American ships... AND he turned out to be George H W Bush...
I'd love to give a link, but I can't entirely even recall which channels or what the exact titles were... BUT pluck a few terms out of this muddle of the thing (and gross over-simplification) and feel free to search it on YT and see if that's the incident you recall... ;o)
There are actually a lot of problems with the design and execution of these experiments, including that not all subjects believed the setup was real, and the "experimenter" frequently going off script from the 4 escalating prompts. Also, it was the appeals to contributing to scientific progress that most frequently prompted continuation, not the authority commands. It is worth searching for the criticisms of the experiments as it is a good illustration of the difficulty and impact of maintaining a truly controlled experiment with isolated variables.
This! Dude, every other time I see one of these cringe comments like "we are dark evil beings, cruel, and awful, sometimes you hold up a mirror and you don't like what stares back." I kinda lose my mind a little, because it was an extremely flawed test. It basically showed nothing, but psychological experiments, especially using people, are extremely tough to do. It's why they're easy to scrutinize. I find it a little ironic that everyone jumps to the "people are evil" conclusion, because an authority figure told them so, even though the experiment trying to say they just follow the leader low key sucked.
@@shanestern1788 Anyone who thinks "humans are evil" are beyond dumb and sheltered to how the human mind actually works along with nature.
Appealing to scientific progress is still an appeal to authority.
Japan, Germany Russia, China etc were deeply flawed too in the 1930s and 1940s. It seems that you have learnt nothing from history
@@shanestern1788 How would you have done it? It's easy to just say the experiment was flawed and sucked and proved nothing, but what would you have considered sufficient?
I’ve heard of this experiment before, but I never knew the guy that ran it had family directly affected by the holocaust. That itself puts a lot of this in context for me.
My takeaway here isn’t to leave thinking “well that isn’t me” but rather “that COULD be me.” Being a strong and good person isn’t a trait you’re born with or a skill you learn once, but rather a constant stream of decisions you make every day.
I feel like this is related but, I had a math teacher my sophmore year of high school. He randomly told us one day that "No one can tell you what to do, not even with a gun to your head. You will always have a choice in life" It's always stuck with me, and it pops into my head every now and then. Probably a bad thing to tell to a bunch of 15/16 year olds, but I feel like that advice might come in handy here.
A comedic version of this was used in the beginning of the first _Ghostbusters_ movie, with Bill Murray's character repeatedly shocking the male participant (even when he had the correct answers) whilst hitting on the female participant.
I was thinking of the same scene. 😂
Dude, you've painted this experiment in a whole new (but still ethically macabre) light by giving context that nothing else I've seen or read about this experiment has given. Notably about the psychologist conducting the experiment. Holy smokes, dude...
There’s a great movie regarding the experiment, it’s very well made
You should read critique of this experiments and modern re-evaluation of Milgram's data.
There was more to it then just obedience as Milgram has stated.
I remember seeing the teachers shocking apparatus on display at a science center when I was a kid. It was a big and intimidating box that the teacher used to deliver the fake shocks! Great video PD!
Peter Gabriel wrote a song about this “We do what we’re told”
Actually, the fourth prod, "you have no other choice, teacher," never yeilded an obedient response. So in fact, we don't do what we're told. We do what we think
we ought to.
DIGGING IN THE DIRT...oh wait...
@@abrahamlincoln9758 You are missing the part where teacher was already told to administer a shock of increased voltage. The "prod" happened only if reluctance to obey was evident. For the 60% who continued on, that is undoubtedly an obedient response. Obedience can be won by award, intimidation, trickery, or a variety of tactics. Regardless of any such influence, the fact they did as directed is the very definition of obedience. To meet the reasons for Milgram's study, the experiment used only the guise of authority and its desires.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I guess it depends on what psrspective you view it from. In the teachers' minds I would say undoubtedly they were making the choice to proceed with a scientific experiment, not the choice to follow an order. From the perspective of the experimenter there was obviously manipulation, but I believe the experiment was to see what and how the teacher would think.
There's a very disturbing story about a man who called a Wendy's and manipulated a manager's husband into molesting an 18 year old girl. Over the phone, from hundreds of miles away. It unravels eriely similar to Milgram. The caller and molester are now both in prison. Don't know what happened to the girl.
Another strange one is a prank call to a Burger King where someone claiming to be the fire department told the manager to break every window in the building to prevent a gas explosion. And they did.
Milgram seems to be everywhere.
Milgrams 37 - great song from my favourite PG album.
Next we need the Stanford Prison Experiment!
It's crazy how ineffective and flawed it was but people reference it as gospel all the time
@@caso3253 Probably because it rings true with our cynical view of our fellow man. I try to keep an optimistic view myself, but even being conscious of it it's still tough when you look at the news sometimes.
F*ck the Stanford experiment. Where the milgram experiment is unethical by modern standards, the Stanford experiment is a full on shit-show even in historical context.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was faked. Many of the participants were actors who had been coached on exactly how to respond.
@@noldos Milgram's experiment is fine, but his interpretation of results doesn't stand any critique
This is why I have never understood the ongoing desire to keep dragging OAPs through the courts over the last 20/30 years. The thinking seems to be that some lowly 17 year old guard could have stopped WWII in its tracks by making a stand
@smorris12 - I get your point but if you don't set an example and hold people accountable, nobody learns from the errors of their ways.
@@__WJK__ But that particular course was pretty well finished by the 70s. Anything after that is just kicking the corpses (as the phrase has it.) And I'll argue that the message that needs keeping in mind should live on long after those involved are gone
@@smorris12 The message is lost already, I'm afraid. Look outside! No vaxx, no nothing. Just like the Nazis, "we" are doing it in the name of health and cleanliness so that "they" come to their senses. Literally the same angle. Authoritarian fascism at its best. On a global scale, this time - hence "Glozis" their name.
"How could they?!", the 68's asked their parents; "Why aren't you doing as you're told!?", today's students have come full-circle.
@@__WJK__ Let’s be honest, the “error of their ways” was “don’t be on the losing side of an existential war.” And that’s how WWII got started in the first place.
@@__WJK__ You realize a lot of those 17-year-old kids would have been killed if they had disobeyed orders right? Seems pretty crappy to punish people for self-preservation.
One of the most important experiments when it comes to understanding the human mind. I keep this experiment (and related) in mind constantly. We need to keep on our toes to keep ourselves in check. We're all capable of the most heinous of actions.
Very true! We all should keep this in mind
To make it simplified, impulse is a short way to describe it.
And a way to combat impulse is by disciplining yourself, gaining self control. To understand certain limits.
I have a fear that one day I may enlist unknowingly in such an experiment and do horrible stuff. One has to have an incredibly solid moral compass and capacity of empathy so as to do the right thing when everything and everyone is against you. Respect to the people who manage to do that 👍🏻
As always, good work. This case also reminds me of Jane Elliot's "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment. I think I learned about these two cases the same year while in college, this one in standard psychology and Jane Elliot in psychology of education. The Blue/Brown eyes experiment might be worth looking into for your channel.
So something to ponder, would Milgrams experiment be thrown off with the introduction of women as the learner with men as teachers and vise versa. Would men be less likely to carry out orders if the learner was a women?
Interesting point.
Actually that is an interesting point. There's a reason why many shock movies use women as victims, because people sympathize more with a woman than with a man. Think about how many men are mowed down and/or brutally murdered in normal movies without a second thought, but shock movies can use a single woman to be more shocking and get more reaction.
I think a lot of it would depend on your overall life experience with women.
For example, in the US, women are generally dominant over men and often use this power to degrade men in order to make themselves feel powerful. In this case, I bet a lot of men would shock the women all the way to the top and would go higher of they could. Revenge is not the best term but I can't think of a better one.......you get the idea though..........
P.S. I don't hate women at all, just stating a possibility.
I studied this a long time ago when studying experimental ethics. I seem to remember that one of the variants he ran used women, but in what role I can’t recall.
@@rrknl5187 The wage gap and the male CEOs would like a word with you.
I'm an electrician and I know at least that I could never willingly and knowingly shock someone because I'm very aware of the pain this causes, I had an electric accident myself in the past and it was easily the most pain I've ever experienced even though it lasted less than a second and I deal with chronic pain.
Jesus, I'm sorry
I've always been fascinated by this experiment. I think the biggest assurance from the teacher's perspective is that the shocks were only painful with no lasting consequences. I prefer to be optimistic and feel that the teacher would refuse/quit much earlier if the experimenter said there was a threshold in which permanent damage or even death could occur.
Majority doubted the shocks were real. And had all the reasons to believe scientists. It was performed in university after all.
Take all those people to some dark basement in the middle of nowhere and make them all believe shocks are real -- you'd get quite different results.
But Milgram had to get shocking results to promote his career and get funding. And that he did.
There're lot of modern critique and re-evaluation of published data. Should look into it if you're interested
Very very very well made. This experiment has always made me feel just, very sick. Also the Stanford one. Looking forward to that video 😊
Oh yeah, Doctor Zimbardo even regrets that lmao
Very good study into borderline cruelty and narcissism. You know? They were apparently supposed to switch roles after?! Imagine how that would of gone?!!!
@@EvilBrit89 that would've had almost certainly really nasty end results.
Milgram's experiment was fine, but his interpretation of the results were highly questionable.
Stanford prison experiment was just flawed and staged. Zimbardo later called it "demonstration" when critiqued.
Do you by any chance also believe in "Genoveze effect" even after the story has been debunked half a century ago and modern studies demonstrate the opposite effect?
I remember my Psych 101 professor entered our lecture hall on the first day and told us all to jump up and down and quack like ducks. And all of us did so. He used that as a base for hitting home the crazy stuff people will do for someone that they see as an authority figure.
Much of the negative feeling, controversy over this is because ppl don't want to face the depressing result.
I've argued this before if it showed opposite results it would be lorded as a great experiment into how humans are so great or something
I think the reason the guys in the experiment proceeded, sometimes up until the end, was partly because they were scared there would be some consequence to not continuing the shocking of the "learner". The guy running the experiment truly was just wearing a labcoat, but he was perceived as authority, and a lot of people have learned the hard way not to displease those in authority roles, especially back then when physical punishment was common against children.
And, to further give the lab rats credit, they had been assured that the shocks they were applying weren't going to harm the "learner" in the long term. They even believed they had a chance to be in the guy's place. This is unlike that Adolf guy that was trialed after WW2, he knew what he was doing, how he was going to hurt and kill people, so even though he was also probably scared of getting similarly deported if he dissented, he was still not a moral man, trying to hide behind the excuse of "just following orders".
They aren’t talking about guys like him high in command . They were thinking and talking about all the soldiers that were neighbors and friends and grew up with the people they were carrying to gas chambers and the people they were brainwashed to hate .
There’s also a phenomena in humans that when a person is given a routine task they depersonalize the experience and the other person in mind.
They see the other human being as an obstacle that is preventing them from moving on with their day…
I want to see this done on a larger scale, and in done in various countries with different cultures.
For example, in Japan, it seems that there is a culture of conformity, in contrast to America's culture of individuality. In some countries, there may be a culture of automatic distrust towards authority, whereas in others there may be a culture of automatic admiration.
There are so many factors that can influence the outcomes of an experiment like this. I'd predict that the results would be mostly the same, because humans are so fundamentally similar from an evolutionary perspective, but I imagine there would be at least some differences in results, and seeing what correlates with those differences would provide brilliant insight.
Bruh... It's been underway for the last year and a half so far, care to guess what is?!
That's funny that you mentions Japan first, they actually have a game literally named MILGRAM where players vote characters to be forgiven or not, it's kinda a musical game and they have a youtube channel where you can watch the songs included in the game
@@nodrogdivad you see the light
@@nodrogdivad KKonaW damn right bruther!
@@nodrogdivad yah and the idiots who don’t believe in science are dropping like flies
I feel like we are currently living through a global Milgram experiment.
Just stumbled onto your channel this week, but I’m really enjoying it! I put the videos on while I get ready for work in the morning. Helps me get a little smarter each day
My experience is sort of the flipside, however falls into the line of, 'You do not know what you would do unless given the circumstance'
We were involved in a horrific impaired collision years ago, that involved fatalities, (Driver of other vehicle was impaired) that left us with life altering medical issues.
We have long forgiven those in the other vehicle, and if I had a nickel for every time someone has told me over the 38 years they couldn't do that ... well you know the rest.
Point being, you don't know until given the circumstance how you would react.
I’m sorry this happened to you and your loved one(s). It takes a lot of character to forgive, but I think it also is the best way to rebuild your life and move forward.
So sorry to hear that. Glad you're doing better!
Imagine if they would tell the subjects "okay! Let's change seats now."
Never underestimate how cruel human beings can be, especially when influenced by authority. I have read a lot about this experiment, it gives a very interesting...if a little troubling insight into the human condition.
I know i couldn't do that because hearing someone in pain because of my actions would motivate me far more than any authority figure to do the right thing and stop.
I'm using this video in my psychology class tomorrow for my students, went through the Milgram Study, Asch's Line Experiment and The Hawthorne Studies! :)
it was extremely flawed imo
@@Rebrn-bk5em that was kind of the whole point of the class I had nearly 2 months ago at this stage, seems weird to reply to a comment that's nearly that old
For the next experiment... maybe rat utopia one? I kinda forgot the name of the experiment
Rat Utopia tracks
That was the name but down the rabbit hole did an in depth video on it so I kinda doubt he will as it will just be the exact same content
Dont blame the puppet, blame the one pulling the strings
Next time someone tells you "even if someone tells you to do it, you still did it on your own accord!" Show them this video
There's a variation on this, where one asks: "Who is guilty of murder? The man who issues the order, or the one who pulls the trigger?"
I've got a background in electronics and electrical wiring. "Dr., just leave it up too me, I'll teach this stupid SOB. Let me make some modifications to your gadget here and I'll have Einstein's and Tesla's walking out of that room. Give me screwdriver"
I’ve actually heard about this Experiment or Study before, but it was an hour long, very spread-out and redundant documentary. Nice of you to put this more compact, but fully informative version together. Well done, thanks!
"Although most were observed to exhibit extreme discomfort when administering the 450-volt shock."
MOST? WHAT DO YOU MEAN *MOST*?
My two favorite "psych experiments gone wrong!" Milgram now and the promise of the Stanford Prison Experiment later 😎
I think telling the person that was the teacher of the actual experiment could be detrimental to their psychology only because going into it (IN TRUST) thinking it is about memory. Then learning it was to pick apart harm under orders. Now, I think this experiment is genius. However unethical in some regards.
Yeah, less information given beforehand, less stress afterwards.
There was a TV movie in 1976 called “The Tenth Level”, starring William Shatner, that was inspired by Stanley Milgram’s experiments. Pretty interesting.
If I remember a video I watched months ago correctly, this experiement was proven to have many data collection errors and even errors on the method used, even beyond lying about the true nature of the experiment to subjects, not stopping at signs of disconfort and lacking any safety for potential effects it could cause. It's "half-true" as we cannot use the results to as real life evidence for anything.
Anyways, I have a bias to believe on the study because past school bullying experiences and some time watching "shock videos" made me learn anyone can do anything, given enough positive reinforcement. Even if it involves methodically hunting down members of a theoethnic group, abusing and killing them, being completely aware of what you are doing and batching no eye about it, maybe even boast about it with joy. It's not about morals, it's about if you dislike the person enough or your support group says it's good.
Moral of the story if you wear a white lab coat you can do anything
Well, think about it: rebellion against an authority is usually instigated by a small band of people with the loudest voices. Most people would probably be willing to exchange one authority for another if they feel their sentiments are aligned.
If there had been 2 experimenters and one of them was a dissenter, the teacher may feel emboldened to agree and voice solidarity with the dissenting authority figure.
All in all, this helps to illustrate the enormous responsibility of leadership. You're not just the boss, you're the moral compass of the society you represent.
Glad to see this covered, especially in light of the experiment being rerun this year.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the timing of this video's release to be BASED AF.
@@nodrogdivad do you mean "biased"? This is the second time I've see you write "BASED" on this guy's videos and it's confusing the sh*t out of me.
@@jessicahanley5080 #LiberalsCantArgue
I studied this experience and I found it so interesting how people 1st reaction was to obey because everyone in my class thought their first reaction would obviously to be scared and to stop it. That really shows how we are forced to obey in front of more experienced people even though we shouldn't since it doesn't respect our own values. It's so scary really
Just discovered this channel, please keep doing these Dark Side of History videos!! SUBBED
this just goes to show, not only do people need to be told not to hurt each other, they also have to be told not to listen to anyone who says they should.
Would have been interesting to run a second test so the "teacher" could ALSO feel the same increase in voltage (without the dangerous voltages of course). No doubt the Golden Rule (Treat others as you would like to be treated) is easier to put into practice when we take a walk in the other person's shoes :)
What are you trying to say??? That they should torture the test subject depending on his results? What would that accomplish?
See, that makes you feel better, sure. Somebody who was doing something "Bad" was punished. But the original experiment was pretty scrupulous on making sure nobody was really hurt. You're substituting a person who hasn't actually done any harm for any number of people you might think of who have done harm and calling it good that at least someone suffered for what they've done, despite the person being punished having not actually done anything but be convinced by the experiment and continued anyway.
So your idea A) it punishes a person who was tricked into thinking they were causing pain into actually feeling pain, which is at the least causing more pain and potential injury than the first experiment ever really did; and B) it teaches nothing to anyone, not least because it removes the experimental conditions that were testing the limits of empathy and submission to authority here, instead using the most basic negative reinforcement possible; and C) it actively turns the people conducting the experiments into torturers for literally no reason because they would be either forcing a person to electrocute themselves or, more likely, they would get shocked once and leave.
I have no idea what you thought this idea would accomplish. Maybe you have some misguided idea that causing pain to a person who thinks they're harming somebody would increase their empathy. Maybe you just like the idea of punishing that transgression. Maybe the idea of breaking their will appeals to you. In no circumstance would this help anyone, or teach anyone anything.
I really, really hope for your sake you just didn't think this through instead of just getting off on the idea of payback this disproportionate.
@@morganrobinson8042 - Hmm, maybe I'm missing something (maybe not), admittedly, I have a tough time understanding some of what the commentator is saying/conveying, given the commentator's dialect/wording is different than my native language. I'll watch the video again and see if my thoughts/curiosities (re slightly altering the experiment) are out of sorts or at odds...
In one of the milgrams experiment scenarios, the teacher held down the hand of the learner to make sure the learner got shocked. Teachers stopped at a lower voltage level but they did go through many shocks anyway. I don’t think putting yourself in someone else’s shoes would have helped much
13:00 The dude's right. They caused a little discomfort in order to get the results. That shouldn't be a problem.
This was absolutely traumatic for some of the “teachers”. Finding out that a series of events was scripted does not negate the impact of being in what felt like a very real situation. I can’t say I entirely disagree with you bc I think what we learned from this experiment was important, but I will push back on the idea that it caused “a little discomfort” across the board. Im sure some (maybe even most) of the subjects were fine and were able to shake it off, but depending on an individual’s life history and circumstances, this could’ve been really harmful for their mental health.
Maybe the teachers that didn’t protest and stop the experiment should choose to be better people from now on. Maybe the discomfort now from the experience will help them realize their mistakes and choose the better thing next time, if/when reality presents them with a new scenario.
😡 You refer to ‘a little discomfort’ in your comment. May I suggest you enquire as to the lethal voltage necessary to kill a human being? Is it the same as in your home? If not, why? By the tone of your comment I assume you would be one of those who took the task to 450 volts without any question. I would not want to spend any time in your company.
Voltage isn't what's deadly, it's amperage. 10000 volts is no more dangerous than 10 volts.
@@SociallyDistantnow I partly agree as it would be slightly traumatic to think that you shocked a random person to 250 volts which can easily kill someone but they did this somewhat willingly and I think they must have been more relieved then traumatised to find out that they didn't almost kill someone and that the 250 volts had no effect on the confederate
It’s honestly quite terrifying that people would do that. I also think there’s another side; the effect on the one committing the acts. Many veterans and first responders commit suicide or turn to substance abuse to cope with what they did or saw. If they have no ill effects or feel no remorse, there’s a significant problem with said person
we watched a video about this experiment in school once. It was fascinating to see how far someone would go to follow authority. A man even committed suicide a few years after the study, they were never told the man the were shocking (not actually) was alive and just acting. But that afterward so many people felt guilt about it or wouldn't do the experiment at all is interesting. I would love to see the way people would react if it was real. Or a different situation of authority, how many would complete it, and how many would not even try?
I dont believe they should have stopped when the distress was spotted. You dont get first hand experience like that often, the reflection after the fact is more valuable than anything a lecture could articulate.
Whilst being an interesting plunge into our relationship with authority, I don't think it can be accurately described as a determiner of human nature, as it is inherently not able to be separated from learned behaviours of authoratorial respect. The school system, especially at the time, aims to drill a respect and blind obedience towards authority figures into children, so that they do not question their bosses when they enter the working world. In recent years pushback against authority and questioning of the morality of people in higher positions has become much more common now that children are encouraged to ask more questions than they were before. I think if the experiment were repeated today the results would vary quite a bit, and even moreso in the future if respect towards authority becomes less prominent in "child training". Though, I do not think an experiment of this nature can ever be truly controlled to produce a result that shows human nature, as it is basically impossible to separate the natural values a human is born with from those they are forced and trained to exhibit throughout their years of life.
I agree. I don’t see how this experiment could accurately bring light into human nature’s capacity of evil. Was evil defined in that context? What is actually considered evil? We ought not to draw such simple conclusions from such experiments, but rather reflect upon in detail about the experiment itself. Question the experiment and consider possible confounding variables.
You made a great point here. Human nature is defined by a priori fundaments/derivations, not a posteriori knowledge/experimentation, hence the silliness of some people in the comment section trying to imply that this experiment (a posteriori) is compelling evidence of such evil nature....its not...its a evidence of what a human being can be capable of, from blindly following orders from supposed authority to just a great lack of empathy towards other people, amongst other possible conclusions...
Quite refreshing seeing people that understands a experiment limitations...kudos to you guys =)
This study was sourced in one of my favorite books, "Influencer." The book is about the way any of us can influence the masses using personal, social, and societal elements. It cites this study to explain the effectiveness of social pressures as a tool to make people do things they otherwise wouldn't want to do.
Thanks for covering this. I've heard several other people explain this experiment, and, in retrospect, none of them explained it correctly.
I imagine that many of the participants were upset over their own behavior in hindsight. That's where the ethics of the experiment become questionable. I would certainly be distressed after participating. Even if I quickly refused to continue.
What would be equally interesting to learn about is how many refused to participate once they learned about the details of the experiment.
When we discussed this during an ethics lesson in high school philosophy, I remember focusing on the ethics the experiment was trying to test. It only now occurs to me that the ethics *of* the experiment were probably what the teacher was pointing at.
This leads me to believe the perceived authority of a scientist and it being "in the name of science" would have put me at ease enough to do it, at least when I was a teen.
Maybe I should revisit some other stuff I haven't thought about in a while.
I'm halucinating with this channel, 💯% 👏🏼👏🏼! Thank you very much 😍🌻
I love your videos. I have learned so much and can actually retain it by watching your content.
Awesome! Thank you!
This was made into a great movie called The Experiment. One of Hoffman's best performances imho.
Next time someone tells you "even if someone tells you to do it, you still did it on your own accord!" Show them this video
It's always someone else's fault, right?
@@garmancathotmailcom if you were forced to do it, then yes.
@@ms.pirate Forced? Please. Give your head a shake.
@@garmancathotmailcom why? I didn't say anything wrong
Another great episode of DSoS P.D. Please, continue to make these videos.... "The experiment must continue" ;)
As a side thought, perhaps a variation of this is being performed today
I love the little black and white advertisement indicator! I forgot they even existed till I saw that
Love the Dark side of science ones :D
According to Gina Perry, Milgram manipulated his experiment in 1961, for "narcisstic" reasons. She writes that he concealed that about 50% of the participants stated afterwards that they didn't believe the setting was realistic and they have given real electro shocks... Also he behave d like a director in the film, telling participants what to say - according to Perry.
i can see that being true. at any rate the ""test" didn't prove anything
I've heard of the Stanford Prison experiment, but this one is so much more interesting. Great video!
This will come in handy when I get tested on obedience to authority soon, Im an audiovisual learner so background information helps me remember these experiments' purposes better
In regards to this study, I always wondered if the participants asked beforehand what the ramifications of quitting the experiment in the middle of the process would have been? Also, what would the results be should this experiment be undertaken today? I believe the self-centered nature of today’s society would result in a higher percentage of participants carrying it through to the end.
Nah it'd probably be the same we haven't evolved that much
@@DustyForgotten the current gen follow authority even more ! the protest is all part of government plan
I learnt about this in psychology
I never got my head around little hans study tho
With Freud
Yep, this was a topic in psych class at college as well.
Reading about this experiment made me much more mindful about my choices' impacts on others. Learning about it made me a better person.
The book "Ordinary Men" discusses this exact experiment in real life recollections.
Now add in the ever present threat of you and your family being executed if you refuse, which was always a factor in these genocidal regimes. And the fact that your refusal would have no impact anyway as someone else will simply take your place. It's not surprising to me at all that so many go along.
No, this wasn´t a factor. Maybe you faced a transfer to fighting troops or degradation at worst but that´s about it.
Ayyy new vid!
I hope you enjoy it!!
People who don’t have empathy are the ones you gotta watch out for
I was watching your other dark side of science videos and I was just thinking about this experiment but I could not think of the name of it for the life of me, thank you for reading my mind
If the experimenter just told the teachers after the interview that "it's just a prank bro", there prolly wouldn't have been this ethics issue. It's a goddamn great experiment
Did they not explain the test once the test was over(?) I think the ethical issue comes into play because the test ALSO proved... when a person is confronted with the reality of knowing they could follow orders to a "fault" some people have problems discovering that about themselves.
Know your enemy and know yourself, but I repeat myself. Human nature is a bit of a bastard.
I was about to comment this looks related to the idea behind the stanford prison experiment. Read my mind. Awesome video as always!
It absolutely shows how vulnerable human beings are to fear of punishment, and, how uncomfortable we are when presented with these findings that pushed just enough to show this weak and often abused side of humanity. How else do dictators and terrorists gain power and followers? It’s not likely much different than intimidation and knowing that humans are so easily swayed to do another’s bidding. It’s not at all surprising to see this these days.
Milgram suppressed data that didn't support his hypothesis. Many of the subjects willing to continue "torturing" the assistant saw through the game and knew or suspected that they were doing no actual harm.
"Many"
Very exact.
@@naoiwatani8402 it wasn't very exact, that was the issue.
Source?
Reminds me of the SVU episode, where Robin Williams plays a person who, at the end, tries to force Stabler to shock Benson, but he couldn't.
It is all about this... at the beginning, he talks a manager into strip-searching a worker, telling him to do it, and wait for "Detective Milgram". Whole episode. This idea.
Epic movie! Keep this up :D
James has a great way of making the best of his ability to work with me. There are things that we can do that you want to talk about. However, if it turns out that the majority of people are not able to make it through, there won't be any other way to do it. Have faith in the morning and then turn around and shake it all about. Yes, thank you please.
Time to wear a lab coat everywhere I go.
It will work wonders! That or a Hi Viz!
I'd probably crank the voltage all the way up from the get go. No use in dilly dallying around. Get it right the 1st time.
Don't even wait for him to answer the question first. Show him who's boss right up front!
We going competitive
@Natasha word
Are you a psychopath or sadist? :/
@@androgynylunacy realist