The Gaming Den

You can read what Inflicted Insight is here.

That said, why are experiments that do this are considered unethical and illegal? They sound rad to the max, we should do a lot more of them. I am literally a better person for knowing about the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments, who knows what other gold we have?

Because hurting someone's feelings is wrong.

But... If people spend time reflecting on themselves, they might not be so easily manipulated by hate and fear-mongering! We can't have that!

They aren't considered unethical (and true legality rarely enters the issue). However, "mental health" is not at all the same thing as 'perfect self-knowledge'. There has to be a good reason if you're going to inflict mental anguish, even on willing and semi-informed participants.

There is a word for people who go around pointing out everyone's flaws.

Catharz, well, that's sort of complicated. These experiments weren't about inflicting anguish, they were about discovering underlying flaws in human behavior. Understanding the consequences of the Milgram experiment forces us to completely rethink the way we handle authority - it is dangerous to put bad people in charge of good people. And it's important to understand, as someone who has ever taken orders, the Milgram experiment. To understand you can't trust yourself. These experiments did offer self-knowledge, and social knowledge.

It's called inflicted insight for a reason - it offers insight, the insight is just painful. It isn't 'inflicted mental anguish.'

But even more importantly, why is it bad to point out people's flaws? Sure, you can do it in a very rude, offensive way. But on the otherhand, you're offering this person knowledge that they can use to better themself.

Some people think very stupid things, and you could make them less stupid by telling them why the things they think are stupid. Though, you probably shouldn't use the word stupid to them. And people do tend to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (Deriving opinions from facts instead of choosing the facts that support my opinion? Blasphemy!) So yeah, that might be a lost cause. Maybe we need an 'Inflicted Insight' experiment where we convince participants to believe something obviously false, and then test their ability to ignore contradictory evidence and select supporting evidence.

The trouble is that a substantial number of people would still believe the lies after you told them it was all lies to begin with.

Lago, you obviously are not understanding the Milgram experiments:

Inflicted Insight is bad because the American Psychological Association says it is, and we should trust the experts.

we should trust the experts.

Just like when they say that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Lago, you obviously are not understanding the Milgram experiments:

Inflicted Insight is bad because the American Psychological Association says it is, and we should trust the experts.

Sigged for being hilarious.

Psychic Robot wrote:

we should trust the experts.

Just like when they say that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder.

At risk of feeding the trolls, the reason that they are moving away from labeling transgender identification as a disorder is the same reason they started moving away from labeling people who are gay as having a disorder. Labelling people who are perfectly functional as crazy because they want to bang other boys or be a real boy or both doesn't serve much purpose.

I don't see why transsexuals complain so much. After all, gender is just a social construct, so there's no reason they can't just re-educate themselves to be men with a good program. I mean saying that they should actually get surgery and that sort of thing is unconscionable unless you think there are aspects of gender innate to the brain/mind.

People made the exact same comments about gay people.

Almaz wrote:At risk of feeding the trolls

You do realize that PR spoilered a troll face pic in that very post, right?

Although, with Vnonymous, I'm not so sure.

Psychic Robot wrote:Just like when they say that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder.

If you say that wearing non conforming clothes (for your station) is a mental disorder, where do you draw the line? What is next? Ascots?

Bow ties (sequin no less)

Where does it stop? Where it began?

Yes, I suppose posting on TGD is a mental disorder after all.

I don't think anybody was expecting THAT.

Hey, Tzor catches onto Mardi Gras well.

Nice vest. Or would that be a waistcoat?

Maxus wrote:Hey, Tzor catches onto Mardi Gras well.

Nice vest. Or would that be a waistcoat?

I think it all depends on which side of the pond you are at the time.

I do realize that, but after some personal experience with using it myself, I interpret the trollface as less "ha ha, just kidding" and more "I am a raging asshat." So I realize that I was basically taking the bait, but I felt it necessary to point out what I did, because raging asshats should not be the only voice on a subject.

Anyways, after that.... intriguing... detour, I would suspect that there is a feeling that when you conduct those kinds of experiments that result in inflicted insight, you take a low level of responsibility for the mental well-being of the people who participate. Essentially from the point of the experiment, for up to years afterwards, you can be blamed for them going off on a crazy episode, even if you managed to handle the entire experiment just fine. So even if you don't necessarily have any ethical opposition to it, you still have to be very careful. It can easily turn into a logistical nightmare. But that is almost purely speculation.

I suppose one issue is that, if people start to get worried about whether or not an experiment might involve Inflicted Insight, the experiment might get tainted. People might start second guessing stuff all the time, which could throw off their normal reaction. For that matter, people might simply be less willing to participate.

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.

Almaz wrote:I do realize that, but after some personal experience with using it myself, I interpret the trollface as less "ha ha, just kidding" and more "I am a raging asshat." So I realize that I was basically taking the bait, but I felt it necessary to point out what I did, because raging asshats should not be the only voice on a subject.

Makes sense.

So, it's because it might compromise the data?

RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, it's because it might compromise the data?

I'm just curious if anyone knows more. I don't really know that it would.

That was a trollface? I thought is was Gabe Newell. I though PR had breaking news on Valve.
edit - actually, now that I check the image location, it is gabe newell.

A Valve guy looks like trollface.jpg? I'd believe it.

It's a trollface of Gabe Newell. Yes, it was being tongue-in-cheek because I was agreeing that the APA is mostly full of shit while saying something politically inflammatory.

DSMatticus wrote:Catharz, well, that's sort of complicated. These experiments weren't about inflicting anguish, they were about discovering underlying flaws in human behavior. Understanding the consequences of the Milgram experiment forces us to completely rethink the way we handle authority - it is dangerous to put bad people in charge of good people. And it's important to understand, as someone who has ever taken orders, the Milgram experiment. To understand you can't trust yourself. These experiments did offer self-knowledge, and social knowledge.

It's called inflicted insight for a reason - it offers insight, the insight is just painful. It isn't 'inflicted mental anguish.'

But even more importantly, why is it bad to point out people's flaws? Sure, you can do it in a very rude, offensive way. But on the otherhand, you're offering this person knowledge that they can use to better themself.

Some people think very stupid things, and you could make them less stupid by telling them why the things they think are stupid. Though, you probably shouldn't use the word stupid to them. And people do tend to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (Deriving opinions from facts instead of choosing the facts that support my opinion? Blasphemy!) So yeah, that might be a lost cause. Maybe we need an 'Inflicted Insight' experiment where we convince participants to believe something obviously false, and then test their ability to ignore contradictory evidence and select supporting evidence.

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.


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.

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.