Hacker News Reader

Comment by firasd | Hacker News Reader

Interesting comments about a similarly famous study with a similar gist, the Milgram experiment:

"Many other studies, such as Soloman Asch’s famous experiment[1] demonstrating that people will ignore the evidence of their own eyes in conforming to group judgments about line lengths, illustrate the profound effect our environments can have on us. The far more methodologically sound — but still controversial[2] — Milgram experiment demonstrates how prone we are to obedience in certain settings. "

[1] https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html [2] https://psmag.com/social-justice/electric-schlock-65377

View on HN

I am a bit suspicious of the conclusions drawn from the Asch experiment. The subjects are put in a situation in which they are led to believe that one of two things is true: 1) I am unable to tell which line is longer 2) Every other person in this room is unable to tell which line is longer They are reported to have acted upset, which leads one to think they were not wanting it to be (1), but the only other option (they knew of) was (2), which is, in fact, even less plausible.

So, really, in that (very artificial) situation, concluding that they have lost the ability to tell which line is longer, while unlikely, was the least unlikely option. So, they chose to believe (1) over (2).

Their only mistake was in not thinking of the possibility that every other person, including the researcher, was trying to deceive them. That's not at all the conclusion that Asch (and others since) have drawn from it. I believe that study could replicate, but I don't think it means what they say it means.

The issue I have with the Asch experiment is that it also conflates conforming and belonging. External group pressure vs a want to be included.

It seems to me to be testing the second while being reported as the first.

Vsauce's Mind Field series replicates this experiment, in the traditional sensational way he does everything. It's still pretty interesting to actually watch the people and their facial reactions. Still, draw your own conclusions.

I've watched the whole video of the Milgram experiment. People claim those who were the teachers knew it was fake, but interviews years later have people claiming they really thought they killed the person in the other room.

Not to mention his experiment was replicated by several universities around the world[1], although due to modern ethical standards, it would be impossible to reproduce ethically at most universities today[2].

I don't think Milgram falls into the same category, especially with all the work they put in at Harvard in the controls (the learner was a tape recording; so everyone heard the exact same thing. It was the same professor in the room with him; always replicating the same dialog).

This is in direct contrast with Vsauce's trolley problem experiment, which had way too small a sample size, and who forced a response for one person by changing the conditions of the experiment (there was no one outside when he tried to get help).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...

[2]: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-mi...

There are some folks who are pretty dead set on maligning Milgram alongside Zimbardo. Namely, Gina Perry wrote a book criticizing Milgram and his experiment's validity [1]. I haven't read it, but looking at some of the reviews, it seems most likely that it's a mixture of truth and the typical schlocky scientific journalism I've come to know and revile. [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Shock-Machine-psychology-exper...

[2] Funny anecdote- when I was still in science (brain imaging) a reporter from a major news outlet interviewed another member of my lab about what brain activity would look like in a dead person's brain. The question was entirely serious.

Might [2] have been related to this?

https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

You might be giving the reporter too much credit. It's very unlikely that she was familiar with that study before asking her question.

[2] Brain activity appears to continue after people are dead, according to new study. (9 march 2017)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/what-happens-die-...

The news article you cite is a bit over dramatic- the distinction between clinical and brain death has been around for a while. None of what is in there is really news, although it might be somewhat remarkable if they found activity 10 minutes out; then again, this is research from the medical community, which as others have pointed out is often quite methodologically flawed.

You too are being slightly too generous towards scientific journalism- a typical non-scientific audience wouldn't make the distinction between clinical and brain death, and the reporter likely wasn't either.

> "People claim those who were the teachers knew it was fake, but interviews years later have people claiming they really thought they killed the person in the other room."

Some of the teachers undoubtedly thought it was fake, others did not. And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were). The "dehoaxing" most received immediately following the experiment was itself another hoax which in some cases was meant to persuade the teacher they had in fact been shocking somebody (but that the shocks were only very slight harmless shocks.) The dehoaxing was meant to introduce the teachers to the learner, to demonstrate that he was alive. Some did not even receive this dehoaxing, presumably because procedure was violated, which explains why a handful of them might believe they'd killed somebody.

And self-reporting about participation in a famous experiment, folks are known to exaggerate.

> And importantly a majority of the teachers were not properly debriefed until several months later (some never were)

No. No. No. That is entirely wrong. Watch the original video. Every one of the teachers is introduced to the learner after the experiment and they were told no actual harm came to them. At least in the original Milgram iteration, all of the teachers knew by the end.

Minor point:

>...with all the work they put in at Harvard

I think the experiments were done at Yale.

Milgram wrote a book about the experiments and I agree, (at least as described in his book), they worked hard to test the hypothesis. (Setting up experiments outside the university, using both male and female experimenters, Having the experimenter play the student, etc.)

https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Experimental-Pere...

If we're interested in improving the world -- improving things like human dignity, welfare; and minimizing human suffering -- I think this is one of the most important concepts to understand about human nature.

It's the same concept I try to illustrate by noting the NASA Challenger disaster was not a case of an unknown, but one where groupthink murdered 7 astronauts.[1] The desire people have to conform to authority is extreme.

I can even think of a remarkable personal example from growing up, when a boy in class was given the punishment of having to sit next to an often-bullied girl. The teacher was not above the bullying, he had conformed to it. That must have had a detrimental effect on a young girl's self esteem.

So if we're still murdering, toeturing, and dehumanizing people in order to conform to concepts of authority and hatred, how much have we grown from our past?

Isn't this the same concept that we're supposed to disagree with when it came to the Nazis, North Korea, etc.? That we are free and just society, and we fight to defeat those who aren't?

1-https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/weekinreview/the-natio...

I think characterizing the Challenger launch decision as murder is unfair. At worst it was manslaughter.

I believe groupthink killed those astronauts. However, I'm not really focusing this argumemt around the idea of bringing leaders at NASA up on murder charges.

It's interesting to contrast this with yanny / laurel / dress color

Reply on news.ycombinator.com