Need some honest opinions

[Skippy 82]

I'm working on a psychological experiment for my doctoral publication requirement, and I need to gauge some internet response to previous experiments in a similar field. These two experiments are rather extreme, and some review boards have considered Milgram's to be in violation of ethics, and he almost lost his license over it.

http://cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PGnHHnRMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzYAdGl_0mA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSiMM_GIiyA&feature=related

The Stanford Prison Experiment is another, more extreme experiment on the relationship between prisoners and guards, and blind obedience to authority.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

I just need to get some opinions from non professionals on the internet at large, and would like to know what people here think of these.

Do they commit ethics violations?

Would you willingly participate?

DO you think that these are accurate?

Would you do anything different if you were conducting the experiments?

How do they make you feel about the participants (guards and prisoners; teachers)?

How do they make you view the experimenters?

[Chase 390]

Milgram's:

No one is harmed, so no they do not commit ethic violations. However, the results of the experiment are frightening. Perhaps those that chose to kill should get some sort of counseling? Especially the ones that passed the blame.

Would I willingly participate? In what? Are you asking would I willingly be an experimenter? No, probably not. Would I be a participant? Yes, but I can't see any reason for me to be in this situation.

I don't know whether these are accurate or not. I was not there. I assume they are accurate results.

I would not do anything different in the experiment.

This is an interesting study on individual morality. Those with a belief in a higher authority (God, some other god, etc) chose not to continue with the experiment. Those that chose to continue probably didn't believe in a higher authority or didn't care about their higher authority.

I like this experiment, because it harms no one, but it's very real for the "teachers" involved. I would love to be a teacher, to see how I myself would react to the situation.

Stanford Prison Experiment:

This is unethical, plain and simple. Stripping people naked, using psychological tactics, refusing proper nutrition, etc. This experiment is evil by design. You set both the guards and prisoners up for failure. Failure, as in, the prisoners are forced into rebellion and the guards are forced into a state of authority.

I would not willingly participate as a guard or a prisoner.

This is not an accurate representation of a prison. The prisoners did nothing deserving of the punishment they received, unlike most prisons, where they try to match the punishment to the crime. The guards were not trained guards. They were put into authority with no prior experience. To gain respect, or rather, fear, they had to berate, demoralize, and overall abuse the prisoners in order to maintain order.

I would not ever conduct an experiment such as this.

Ideally, the prisoners would refuse to participate, but would not "rebel" in the sense that it lead to violence or anything like that. And, Ideally, the guards would maintain control from respect and not fear. But this could not possibly happen. There's no chance for the guards to gain respect, and why shouldn't the prisoners rebel? They'd done nothing wrong. This wasn't what they'd signed up for. And they were being bossed around by green guards.

This experiment is stupid.

[Skippy 82]

Thank you, CK.

To clear up, yes, I was asking if you would participate or be a "teacher" if it were to ever come up.

Couple more questions.

Concerning the morality or immorality of Milgram's experiment, at what point does psychological stress or harm to the subject become immoral?

I only ask because Ethics reviews across the country have denied redoing this experiment for psychological harm the teachers received during the experiment, not to mention Milgram almost having his license to practice revoked afterwards. Is this decision wrong? Should the experiment as is be redone in today's society?

Concerning Stanford's prison experiment....

Did the purpose of the experiment change as it went on?

Is it a portrayal of pure machiavellian dynamics?

Does it show how a "lord of the flies" type of situation would play out (small group of people left to their own devices with no supervision)?

[Chase 390]

Milgram's:

At any time, the teachers could have refused to go on. When faced with difficult decisions in our lives, such as those when we could be put to death, torture, etc if we don't participate, people usually buckle under the pressure. This experiment proved that. The majority of the teachers would rather the students die (or be harmed) than have themselves get into trouble or be harmed. Only those that truly believe in right and wrong stood up against the authority. Those are the ideal people, and this is an excellent experiment to show the dangers of thinking that right and wrong are opinions. You'll just be a sheep, who does whatever you're told to avoid trouble and pass the blame. The ones willing to risk their own safety in order to put a stop to evil experiments...those are the ones that aren't sheep. Those are the strong. I don't think this test is immoral at any time. I think this test brings out the immorality in people. But that's the person's fault in the first place, not the test's.

I do not believe this test is wrong, simply because those teachers that chose to kill need a kick in the pants and a reality check. Their decisions have consequences, and this is an excellent way to show them that, since no one really gets hurt. If the teacher is hurt by the experiment, it means he has a heart and he is learning. It's the ones that don't express any grief or guilt that you should be careful of.

I would be fine with the test being redone today.

Stanford Prison:

The purpose of the test, originally, was to see how the college students would react and adapt to their situation. The results were unsurprising to me. Those with power became corrupt, and those without power became as slaves. Human beings have been this way since the introduction of sin. The strong dominate the weak. Some of the guards were sympathetic to the prisoners, but remember, NONE of them put a stop to it, and NONE of them quit. So that sympathy meant nothing. All of the guards were corrupt. And even the guy running the experiment said that the experiment was beginning to seem real to him. It was very real to all of them, because this sort of experiment is torture. Prisons that do this kind of negative reinforcement should be redone, in my opinion. Prisoners, especially these college students, deserve basic human rights. They deserve to be treated like humans and should be allowed to carry out their sentencing in relative comfort. Not so comfortable that they'd want to come back, but enough so that they weren't treated as animals.

The fact of the matter is, the guards lost control. And what happens when those in control start to lose control? They lash out. They do all sorts of twisted things, so that they can remain in power. I suppose it is a portrayal of Machiavellianism, because the guards were making money in the experiment, but I don't think it was entirely about personal gain. I think it was more about control. The guards were given authority, and they were willing to do whatever it took to keep the power, regardless of the fact that this was an experiment, regardless of the fact that the prisoners were innocent, and regardless of the fact that they didn't deserve the authority in the first place.

It's a little different than Lord of the Flies, but a whole of of similarities can be drawn. In the book, everyone started out on somewhat equal ground. Not so in this experiment. Immediately, the guards were given full power and the prisoners had no control. This gives them no chance for success. No one earned a right to rule, no one came up with a peaceful way to survive. This was a concentration camp. By their sick logic, the guards were always right and the prisoners wrong. There was no way for the prisoners to take the moral high rode, save refusing to do the experiment over and over until they were either beaten or released. The only way the guards could take the moral high road would be to stop the experiment, and you can see that none of them did. In fact, many were upset the experiment didn't last the full 2 weeks. It's because they didn't care about the other human beings. They couldn't have cared less about the welfare or feelings of the prisoners. Love did not play into this scenario, and this scenario became a hell on earth.

[pheonix561 2080]

Lol my bad

[Chase 390]

Pheo, answer the questions separately for each experiment. I can't tell what you think about either because you lump them together. Which is scary, to me, if you're saying they are similar experiments.