In “Great to Watch”, Maggie Nelson discusses examples of poor amounts of reinforcement. Specifically, she talks about Abu Ghraib and the horrors that occurred during the Afghan and Iraq war. Furthermore, Sherry Turkle, in “Selections from Alone Together”, examines the relationship between children and artificially intelligent toys and the possible negative reactions that children can have when playing with certain toys. Additionally, Azar Nafisi explains the torment of her students receives from her brother due to lack of reinforcement in “Selections from Reading Lolita in Tehran”. The proper amount of reinforcement is a difficult thing to measure. In many cases, reinforcement can lead to negative outcomes, which is not what reinforcement is trying to accomplish. Therefore, the real question is how should reinforcement be handled? In an experiment done by Stanley Milgram, individuals were told, by “a taciturn guy in a lab coat”, to punish others for getting difficult questions wrong by shocking them (Nelson, 302). Although no one was actually getting shocked, the individuals in the experiment truly believed that they were giving deadly amounts of electric shocks to others. In spite of the fact that the individuals were delivering the electric shocks, it is not truly their fault. The guy in the lab coat continuously told the participants to unjustly punish the other individuals for getting questions wrong, “[urging] the behavior on” (Nelson, 302). Therefore, the guy in the
Everytime they flip a switch, giving the shock, the learner shouts with growing intensity as the voltage increases. Many subjects wanted to stop, but when they said they wanted to stop or that they felt it was wrong, an authority figure told them to continue, which they did. After a certain point, the learner was instructed to stop responding, as if they had been killed or rendered unconscious. While some subjects stood up and quit, others continued and administered the highest possible voltage. When looking for reassurance that this was okay, the authority figure nodded. If someone else takes responsibility for the subject’s actions, it is easier for them to do things they perceive as morally unjust because they don’t feel responsible for their decisions. They are willing to let an authority figure make decisions for them because they don’t feel accountable for the outcome. This experiment has been conducted in many different societies and the outcomes have been
The Milgram experiment was conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram in order to focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and to personal conscience. The experiment consisted of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, and who’s jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. The roles of this experiment included a learner, teacher, and researcher. The participant was deemed the teacher and was in the same room as the researcher. The learner, who was also a paid actor, was put into the next room and strapped into an electric chair. The teacher administered a test to the learner, and for each question that was incorrect, the learner was to receive an electric shock by the teacher, increasing the level of shock each time. The shock generator ranged from
In the book “Opening Skinner’s Box,” written by Lauren Slater, there is a chapter dedicated to the social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, and his obedience to authority experiments. Milgram assembled one of the most malicious deceptions in the psychiatric field. He crafted what basically turned out to be an electric chair. To test his theory that obedience wasn’t in one’s personality but rather in the situation of the matter, Milgram gathered willing test subjects and instructed them to administer what they assumed were deadly shocks of electricity to another person who faked, pain and perhaps death (31). The experiment was set up with one test subject being a teacher and the actor being the learner, the “teacher’s” job was to administer shocks when the learner made a mistake in the pair of words read to him, increasing the voltage with every wrong answer.
Stanley Milgram experiment bought forth the ultimate question in social psychology. How far away is someone go to confirm with society and be obedient to an authority to figure? It has been discovered though such experiments that people will obey orders, even if it inflicts harm on another individual. However, the same individuals were unwilling to inflict harm if it involved personal contact with the individual being harmed or even the sounds of pain and please from the individual being harmed.
The subjects of the experiment believed that they were taking part in a study on the relationship of learning and punishment. The subject would sit in a room and ask questions to an actor in another room, who was supposed to be another subject. In front of the questioner was a box that had a series of buttons labeled from 15 volts to 450 volts. The subject was told to shock the person every time they answered incorrectly, increasing the voltage each time. As the shocks got worse, the actor would make noise, bang on the wall, yell for help, etc. but the researcher would tell the subject to keep going. Milgrim found, contrary to many psychologists predictions, that sixty-five percent of the subjects delivered the shocks all the way up to 450 volts (Slater).
The Milgram Obedience Study was an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1963 to observe how far people would obey instructions that resulted in harming another individual. The experiment consisted of a “learner” engaging in a memory task and a “teacher” testing the “learner” on the task, administering electrical shocks to the “learner” each time an incorrect answer was given; the electric shocks started out small from 15 volts, labeled as “SLIGHT SHOCK”, all the way to 450 volts, labeled as “X X X”—of course, that was what the participant was told. The true purpose of the experiment was not disclosed until after the experiment and the “random selection” of who would be the “teacher” or “learner” was rigged so that the participant was always the “teacher” and the “learner” was always an actor. The shocks, naturally, were never given to the “learner”, and the “learner” gave responses that were scripted, both in answers to the questions and in responses to the shocks.
A classic experiment on the natural obedience of individuals was designed and tested by a Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The test forced participants to either go against their morals or violate authority. For the experiment, two people would come into the lab after being told they were testing memory loss, though only one of them was actually being tested. The unaware individual, called the “teacher” would sit in a separate room, administering memory related questions. If the individual in the other room, the “learner,” gave a wrong answer, the teacher would administer a shock in a series of increasingly painful shocks correlating with the more answers given incorrectly. Milgram set up a recorder
Those subjects either played the role of a student or a teacher. The Teachers were told to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the learner when questions were answered incorrectly. The shock levels were from 15 to 450 volts. In the Milgram Obedience Study Video, it states that” Many if not most subjects were troubled by it and found it a highly conflicted experience... Some were laughing hysterically after inflicting damage upon them,” meaning that this quote not only presents how the experiment gave too much power to the experimenters but also shows the misuse in power (Milgram, 6:40-7:00).
Stanley Milgram writes about his shocking experiment in “Perils of Obedience.” Milgram writes on the behaviors that the people had during the experiment. Milgram had an experiment that involves two people. One person was a student and the other a teacher. The student was strapped into an electric chair and was required to answer certain questions. The teacher asked a certain word, and the student must know the pair that goes with it. If the student answered the question incorrectly, the teacher must shock the student. Each time the student answered a question incorrectly, the volts increase. Milgram was expecting the teachers to back out of the experiment once they saw the student in pain for the first time, but surprisingly enough, more than sixty percent of the teachers obeyed the experimenter and continued on with the experiment, reaching up to four-hundred-fifty volts. After three times of the four-hundred-fifty volt shock, the experiment was called to halt.
The shockers were told they could walk out at and time and still get paid for their time. The viewer can see that the effect of orders from authority can control what people do. It is also shown that even if the test subjects can walk away from the experiment at any time, the influence of authority draws them away from doing so. In a nutshell, The Milgram Experiment Revisited delineates that authoritative figures can manipulate people to do things that they wouldn’t generally do, such as inflict pain on
Milgram conducts an experiment to examine the act of obeying, and shows concrete instances. He pressures the subjects to behave in a way conflicting with morality. In the experiment, the experimenter orders the subject to give increasing electro shocks to an accomplice, when he makes an error in a learning session. The situation makes the subject
In social experiment titled the “Milgram experiment” a group of scientists gathered people to gather other “participants”, those participants were actually an audio recording playing. The people electrocuting the others believed that the participants we strapped in and could not move. The more questions the people on the other side would get wring the higher and more painful the electrocutions would get.Even when the “people” on the other side would yell out to stop and were begging for mercy they would continue to shock them because the scientist said it was okay. This relates to how in the “Lord of the Flies” by William Goldings when all the littluns began to beat and hurt simon just because jack was saying it was okay and didn't stop them. This proves that humans are born good but are taught to be evil.
The Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment applies to morally right behaviors. The man sending the electric shocks knew it wasn’t right to torture the other one by getting the questions incorrect. So he wanted to call it quits, due to him knowing he was causing unreasonable pain to others, not knowing that the other person was an actor. The man suggested to stop but professor Milgram who is the authority figure encouraged him to continue, making him ignore the feeling of the wrong he was doing.
Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”
The purpose of Milgram’s experiment was to see how far people would go to obey authority. His scientific methods followed the scientific procedure and produced external validity. There were 20 variations of Stanley Milgram’s experiment some factors remained consistent throughout all variations, while some remained the same, while some changed. The four experimental conditions grew in intensity. In the first condition, also known as remote feedback, the learner was isolated from the subject and could not be seen or heard except at three hundred volts when he pounded on the wall. At three hundred and fifteen volts he was no longer heard from until the end of the experiment. The naive subject was required to keep administering shocks with an unresponsive human at the other end. Put yourself in the teacher’s shoes. In the second condition (voice feedback) the learner was placed in an adjacent room, when he started to shout and protest at lower shock levels he could be heard through the crack in the door. In the third