The Gaming Den

RobbyPants wrote:On a related note, is there any way to gage how often people behave in a way that's not normal or natural because they're trying to predict what the experimenters are looking for? Is this currently a problem? I only took one psych class in college.

I don't have exact numbers here, but I know that this problem is mentioned casually in a lot of the books I read. It just came up in Superfreakonomics on the subject of altruism - apparently, people who knew they were part of an experiment were more likely to donate money to people for fear of looking cheap. That social pressure alters a person's behavior (be it a lab experiment or something like the SPE) isn't really news.

The real challenge is how to discern a person's actual behavior/beliefs.

Catharz wrote:If you go around inflicting insight by telling fat people that they're fat, ugly people that they're ugly, and stupid people that they're stupid, you're not performing a great service to humanity. You're being an ass.

I would argue that calling any of that inflicting "insight" is a horrible lie.

Maj wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:On a related note, is there any way to gage how often people behave in a way that's not normal or natural because they're trying to predict what the experimenters are looking for? Is this currently a problem? I only took one psych class in college.

I don't have exact numbers here, but I know that this problem is mentioned casually in a lot of the books I read. It just came up in Superfreakonomics on the subject of altruism - apparently, people who knew they were part of an experiment were more likely to donate money to people for fear of looking cheap. That social pressure alters a person's behavior (be it a lab experiment or something like the SPE) isn't really news.

The real challenge is how to discern a person's actual behavior/beliefs.

That's what I wondered. It'd seem like you'd constantly have to mislead them as to what it is you're looking for. I guess the simple fact that they know they're being observed might make them act differently, even if they don't know what it is you're looking for.

I guess the more anonymous a person feels, the more likely they might be to act normally.

Maj wrote:

Catharz wrote:If you go around inflicting insight by telling fat people that they're fat, ugly people that they're ugly, and stupid people that they're stupid, you're not performing a great service to humanity. You're being an ass.

I would argue that calling any of that inflicting "insight" is a horrible lie.

Because it's whiny.

I'd consider it a great service. One of the most annoying things about ugly and stupid people is that they don't realise that they're ugly and stupid half the time. Sure, you'll offend them, but in the process you'll stop them from offending everyone else.

By making them not ugly? Or are you talking about how they dress?

Vnonymous wrote:I'd consider it a great service. One of the most annoying things about ugly and stupid people is that they don't realise that they're ugly and stupid half the time. Sure, you'll offend them, but in the process you'll stop them from offending everyone else.

Pointing it out doesn't mean shit, now telling them how not to be that is actually helpful.

Vnonymous wrote:I'd consider it a great service. One of the most annoying things about ugly and stupid people is that they don't realise that they're ugly and stupid half the time. Sure, you'll offend them, but in the process you'll stop them from offending everyone else.

You're stupid. Probably ugly, but I haven't seen any proof. But definitely stupid.

Do you feel either a) serviced or b) that I'm correct and you will change any of your behaviours whatsoever in light of this new information?

CatharzGodfoot wrote: The Milgram experiment didn't just provide people with insight. It caused real mental anguish as peoples' respect for authority and empathy came into direct conflict. The insight (which may have also resulted in mental anguish) came afterwards.

Yes, so?

The only reason that an experiment which only provides self-knowledge to participants would have trouble passing a review board is because that self-knowledge could result in mental anguish which is disproportionate to the value of the study.

What do you mean by 'disproportionate'? Making people aware that when it comes down to it, we're not much different from Nazi Germany or abusive prison prison guards is extremely valuable knowledge.

If you go around inflicting insight by telling fat people that they're fat, ugly people that they're ugly, and stupid people that they're stupid, you're not performing a great service to humanity. You're being an ass.

What if they genuinely don't know about it, like what happened with the Stanford and Milgram experiments? Moreover, is it okay for people to waltz around with their underdeveloped educations and inaccurate self-image if the truth hurts? I agree that there's not much point in telling an obese Type 2 Diabetes patient that they're fat, but, say making a parent aware of the fact that they're creating an environment (intentionally or not) that promotes the kind of non-interference indirect violence that Kitty Genovese went under is something different.

By "disproportionate", I mean that the gain in insight will make the participant's life worse rather than better; that is, have a disproportionately negative effect. A disproportionately positive effect, on the other hand, validates the insight. If learning that you're no different from a Nazi has improved (or will improve) your quality of life and/or your interactions with others, then the "infliction" of insight was good.

Since I doubt that you learned that you're no different from a Nazi in a traumatic fashion, the infliction of insight was most likely a good thing despite the most likely negligible effect that it's had on your life.


If they already know what you're going to tell them, the only value of the insight is that it comes from a (hopefully) trusted professional. If you are offering a novel piece of information, the value is presumably greater.

the entire bullshit reasoning behind "feelings" is why psychology is such a joke these days

read this. apparently the truth should be concealed unless it is politically correct

CG wrote:By "disproportionate", I mean that the gain in insight will make the participant's life worse rather than better; that is, have a disproportionately negative effect.

Psychology experiments aren't done for the sake of the experimentees; that'd be therapy. Would you have thrown out the later iterations of the (the puppies, the change in locale, the gender changes) Milgram experiment if the original crew said that they were 'very upset' by the experiment?

Secondly, the other half of it is that it's still preferable to letting someone go out and walk around in ignorance. If a group of people, like say, middle managers are going around praising themselves for their racial and gender inequality but are (unknowingly) rather racist and sexist how is it disproportionately 'good' for them to be unaware of their attitudes?

CG wrote:Since I doubt that you learned that you're no different from a Nazi in a traumatic fashion, the infliction of insight was most likely a good thing despite the most likely negligible effect that it's had on your life.

Maybe it's because I learned it because someone else learned it in a more traumatic fashion? How are you supposed to get the benefits of the research without actually doing the research?

CG wrote:]If they already know what you're going to tell them, the only value of the insight is that it comes from a (hopefully) trusted professional.

I admit, I put off responding to this post for about four months because I didn't really have an answer to this, but several new pieces of information that came to me--specifically, the Dunning Krueger effect--has led me to think that it's pretty much rarely the case. Unless it's blatantly obvious, like an ugly/overweight person being those things, many people don't know what you're going to tell them or show them.

As unscientific and free-wheeling as Cracked is, that website has like twenty articles pointing out problems with human self-evaluation and common sense. They did yet another one last week even. Sure, experimenters can just obtain their results about social and psychological problems and not really tell them what went on, but again who does that benefit in the long run?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:. Sure, experimenters can just obtain their results about social and psychological problems and not really tell them what went on, but again who does that benefit in the long run?

People who read the published results of such studies.

Now of course, that does run into problems with the academic firewalls most journals are hidden behind currently and the disturbing tendency for the subject-contact members of social experiment teams to have little to no information about eventual publication goals of the projects they work on. Those two factors frequently combine with the inherent time frames of social research to make it difficult if not impossible for even curious subjects to find what the outcome of an experiment they volunteered for was.

the fact that we stopped tests like the milgram experiments is why psychology is so useless.