what one says and what one does

[bernie14]

this is an interesting study i saw in the news earlier today, basically, it states that a majority of people would not hurt another for personal gain, but in a real world situation 96% of people were wiling to administer electrical shocks to others of a little more than dollar!!!

(PhysOrg.com) -- At the April 4, 2011 annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society the subject of moral dilemmas and what people would really do was addressed. In a study presented by Oriel FeldmanHall of Cambridge University shows that when it comes to moral studies, hypothetical scenarios do not work to determine the complexities of what people’s real decisions would be.

FeldmanHall’s study showed that what people say they will do in a given situation and what they really do are two very different things. If given a hypothetical situation of a choice of giving someone an electrical shock for money or walking away, most people answered they would never be able to inflict pain on another person.

However, in a real-life scenario, with real money and real electric shocks, the actions were much different. In FeldmanHall’s study, subjects were placed in an MRI scanner and then given the choice to either administer an electrical shock to a person located in another room and make money (one British pound) or not inflict pain and receive no money. They also broke down that one pound into percentages based on the severity of the shock, so they would receive the full pound for administering a severe shock and less for more mild shocks.

The subject in the MRI was shown a video of the person receiving the shock and would either see just the person’s hand jerk or be shown both the hand jerk and the person’s face. Each participant was given the choice to shock another person 20 times, with the opportunity to make 20 pounds.

In the hypothetical scenario, 64 percent of participants said they would never administer a shock to someone else for money. However, in the real world that number changed, and in a big way. When faced with real money, 96 percent chose to shock the person in the other room for money.
What seemed to make the difference in how many of those 20 chances the participants took was what video they were watching. On average, those watching just the hands jerk walked away with 15.77 pounds, but those watching the faces as well, left with only 11.55 pounds.

The study also showed that when these individuals were presented with a moral dilemma, they showed heightened activity in the insula, a part of the brain believed to be attached to emotion. It is this lack of emotion and real dilemma that FeldmanHall believes is what is missing in traditional hypothetical dilemmas.

The hope of using these types of studies is to determine how the brain dictates compassion and moral behavior in individuals.
More information:

i question the size of the study, what types of subjects were used?, all whites, all blacks, who were the victims?...did that have to do with why they decided to shock or not" what was the distribution of males and females and did that make a difference?....so the study so far is lacking quite a bit of information, but poses interesting questions....

is this as simple as saying that humans are predominantly selfish, psychopathic even? what does this sort of information make you think of possible ways for humans to actually be able to "get along" in a civilization? what does this say about the feasability of an anarchist system, or other ideology?....defend your ideology, taking into account that it seems people think of themselves first, second, third....etc., etc...at least in this perliminary study...

 

[cardgame]

My reaction?

water is wet.

One cannot accurately judge a hypothetical without going through the real thing, something similar, or if the hypothetical is just ridiculous.

e.g. hypothetical question, "would you shoot someone if they pointed a gun at you" you just don't know until it happens. You can answer one way or another but you really don't know.

 

[bernie14]

My reaction?

water is wet.

One cannot accurately judge a hypothetical without going through the real thing, something similar, or if the hypothetical is just ridiculous.

e.g. hypothetical question, "would you shoot someone if they pointed a gun at you" you just don't know until it happens. You can answer one way or another but you really don't know.

true, but in this instance, they gave them the REAL opportunity to actually hurt someone for money and 96% took it!

 

[Miles Teg]

You honestly just heard of the Milgram experiment? That's cool, but hardly a revelation for the rest of us.

 

[bernie14]

You honestly just heard of the Miller test? That's cool, but hardly a revelation for the rest of us.

r u referring to the Stanley Milgram's 1960s obedience experiments, or some other test? please enlighten me


iirc, the "miller" test u mistakenly alluded to involved social pressure and actors pretending to be shocked...this is just a little different, these people were not pressured or told it was "totally ok" in any way, they were simply offered money...and the victims, from my understanding recieved real shocks....the milgram experiment perhaps questioned pushing unconscious buttons to make people comply with what perhaps they would not consciously agree to do.....this experiment simply asks a hypothetical and then, well puts the money were your mouth is, a totally conscious decision....

still think we are talking about the same thing? or should u add a little blushing face to your edit?

 

[metatron]

One cannot accurately judge a hypothetical without going through the real thing, something similar, or if the hypothetical is just ridiculous.

e.g. hypothetical question, "would you shoot someone if they pointed a gun at you" you just don't know until it happens.

Apples and oranges.
It's really not that hard, not to shock someone for change. 96% of people are gullible, moronic, spineless, compulsive, lying worms.

No news, though.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

this is an interesting study i saw in the news earlier today, basically, it states that a majority of people would not hurt another for personal gain, but in a real world situation 96% of people were wiling to administer electrical shocks to others of a little more than dollar!!!

Got any other studies confirming the obvious?

 

[innonimatu]

Apples and oranges.
It's really not that hard, not to shock someone for change. 96% of people are gullible, moronic, spineless, compulsive, lying worms.

No news, though.

Even having just read the quoted piece, I find any conclusions drawn from this study extremely suspicious: we're expected to believe that on payment of one pound the subject's moral choices were significantly changed.

This is like dr. Evil calling for one million dollars for not blowing up the world. Pathetic. If the experiment really took place (I question whether this isn't just a hoax or an experiment on the reader's credulity of anything presented as "science") there must have been other incentives at work to change the behavior.

 

[bernie14]

as mentioned in the OP, i agree that not enough demographic information is provided, which makes me critical of the study, but the few responses offered so far ar interesting to say the least, in that they are diametrically opposed...

is it an OBVIOUS truth? "96% of people are gullible, moronic, spineless, compulsive, lying worms."

or is it OBVIOUSLY incredulous? "there must have been other incentives at work to change the behavior."

cant be both no?

 

[innonimatu]

or is it OBVIOUSLY incredulous? "there must have been other incentives at work to change the behavior."

cant be both no?

Try getting strangers on the street to collaborate with you for a scientific experiment by offering them one pound. I bet that most won't even deign to stop and listen to you.
When you offer an amount which is clearly insufficient to buy the attention of most people, you must conclude that other motivations are at play when they do collaborate. Or that your sample was selected from a statistical outlier of "those willing to do anything for one pound".

 

[Birdjaguar]

r u referring to the Stanley Milgram's 1960s obedience experiments, or some other test? please enlighten me


iirc, the "miller" test u mistakenly alluded to involved social pressure and actors pretending to be shocked...this is just a little different, these people were not pressured or told it was "totally ok" in any way, they were simply offered money...and the victims, from my understanding recieved real shocks....the milgram experiment perhaps questioned pushing unconscious buttons to make people comply with what perhaps they would not consciously agree to do.....this experiment simply asks a hypothetical and then, well puts the money were your mouth is, a totally conscious decision....

still think we are talking about the same thing? or should u add a little blushing face to your edit?

I do not believe that this would be allowed, for liability issues alone, let alone moral ones. "Victims" are always in other rooms so that thy can be made to appear to have suffered consequences. There is insufficient information in the link to make a judgment about what this might mean.

 

[Kozmos]

We must be getting old to rail so on newbies discovering warm water.

 

[bernie14]

Try getting strangers on the street to collaborate with you for a scientific experiment by offering them one pound. I bet that most won't even deign to stop and listen to you.
When you offer an amount which is clearly insufficient to buy the attention of most people, you must conclude that other motivations are at play when they do collaborate. Or that your sample was selected from a statistical outlier of "those willing to do anything for one pound".

these studies usually are not done by seeking volunteers in the middle of the street, although i have NO idea how or whom these subjects are/ were selected, these studies are usually part of the required curriculum to sudents taking psychology and/or other social/ science courses in university undergrad and grad programs......as for the source, it seems to be ligit, cambridge dept of neuroscience and the study was presented at the 18th annual Cognitive Neuroscience Society meeting in SanFran....neither sound like bogus groups.....

I do not believe that this would be allowed, for liability issues alone, let alone moral ones. "Victims" are always in other rooms so that thy can be made to appear to have suffered consequences. There is insufficient information in the link to make a judgment about what this might mean.

read the "more info" in OP.....

here is excerpt of how they did it

.....“There are real shocks and real money on the table,” she said. Subjects lying in an MRI scanner were given a choice: Either administer a painful electric shock to a person in another room and make one British pound (a little over a dollar and a half), or spare the other person the shock and forgo the money. Shocks were priced in a graded manner, so that the subject would earn less money for a light shock, and earn the whole pound for a severe shock. This same choice was given 20 times, and the person in the brain scanner could see a video of either the shockee’s hand jerk or both the hand jerk and the face grimace. (Although these shocks were real, they were pre-recorded.)

 

[Hygro]

My guess is, since everyone who would sign up for an experiment knows about the fake shock experiment they were willing to pretend in order to get the money, not knowing that the shocks may have been real (seems dubious, but hey it's what the article says).

 

[Glassfan]

I would happily hypothetically shock anyone on this forum - but it would have to be Euros, none of that Limey funny money.

 

[bernie14]

My guess is, since everyone who would sign up for an experiment knows about the fake shock experiment they were willing to pretend in order to get the money, not knowing that the shocks may have been real (seems dubious, but hey it's what the article says).

well, yes, could be that most psychology sudents/majors would be aware of millers (oops) milgrams' experiment and thus intoduced massive bias?

 

[Hygro]

If they got psych students then yeah, definitely.

 

[woody60707]

I would shock people for money. Hell I've done worst to my friends...for free.

 

[Camikaze]

My guess is, since everyone who would sign up for an experiment knows about the fake shock experiment they were willing to pretend in order to get the money, not knowing that the shocks may have been real (seems dubious, but hey it's what the article says).

well, yes, could be that most psychology sudents/majors would be aware of millers (oops) milgrams' experiment and thus intoduced massive bias?

If they got psych students then yeah, definitely.

Everyone knows about that experiment. Not just psych students. Even if they didn't know, it would be reasonable to assume that you wouldn't be able to conduct a study in which you hurt someone without their consent (in one form of the other), in which case making a profit makes complete sense.

 

[Dachs]

I've always wondered about how much it's even possible to conduct a decent social/psychological experiment with meaningful, falsifiable, and reproducible results because of stuff like that.