Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
Is this experiment/game show ethical? > define "ethical"
date
newest »
newest »
"It doesn't matter what they just did, or what you filmed, yeah, they love being on television," says Burger.Very disturbing.
It is the mob/fame seeking mentality. Interesting as a psychological/sociological experiment, since that is what it was. I would not want to see an actual game show like this. The article made me think of the movie The Stoning of Soraya M. I always tell my daughter it is harder to do the right thing, than to just go along with the crowd - it is also more important. In today's world however, it seems more important to be popular/famous than to do what is right. Sad really.
Do you remember when The Truman Show came out and everyone thought that movie was such a weird idea?
remember in 1987 when running man came out and we were like "wow, in the future they are going to have some jacked up game shows". well, the future is now. people are not satisfied with paul lynde on hollywood squares anymore. every time an over the top reality game show deal comes out someone else is already devising a more shocking one. think this is a new thing? remember a little game show called "The Coliseum"
RandomAnthony wrote: "Do you remember when The Truman Show came out and everyone thought that movie was such a weird idea?"I loved Jim Carrey in that movie!
this experiment has been done before. nothing new.
janine wrote: "this experiment has been done before. nothing new."Yes, it says so in the article. I think the point is that a faux-game show was made of the experiment and the audience, who did not know it was fake, actively encouraged the contestants to shock one another. Horrible.
I believe the ethical question RA is asking is whether, to quote the article, "subjects were manipulated into behaving badly, and were traumatized as a result." I think this experiment WAS unethical. The guy who originally did this experiment in the 60s and 70s did 19 variations of it, and there have been a number of replications as well. So I think we've got the data. If this experiment didn't reveal anything new, it was just pulling the wings off flies.
So - its unethical to subject people to the opportunity to behave badly? Because it might be traumatic to discover that you aren't quite as nice a person as you believed that you were? This is a fascinating question. Or two questions. I guess a summarizing question, maybe, would be "is it unethical to put people in theoretical positions without their knowledge you think from which they might learn for what you think is their own good?"
RandomAnthony wrote: "I guess a summarizing question, maybe, would be "is it unethical to put people in theoretical positions without their knowledge you think from which they might learn for what you think is their own good?"Anytime you interact with people under false pretenses, inevitably you raise ethical questions. Here, the deception was educational in purpose and the knowledge gained through the experiment may well have justified deceiving the participants. Still, I'm not sure if it passes the "do unto others" rule.
Barb (Lady of the Glass Box) wrote: "Well, it's clearly manipulation ... and I doubt their reasons for doing so are to have those people learn important lessons about themselves."Well said.
It reminds me of college professors who abuse the Socratic method: "I'm going to hector, belittle, and scoff at you--but it's for your own good!"
A question, I guess, emerges around what's the difference between what Buns calls the "Daddy knows best psychodrama" and what's broadly enough considered "good" to get across to a aubject. I don't have a good answer. I get what Buns is saying in her last paragraph, too, and I don't have a good answer for that issue, either.
This basic idea that we would do things that we would not expect to do, simply when put into the right situation or the right authority figure, I think is a pretty darn important thing for us to know about," he says.Right, because history has not proven anything about human behavior. It's up to psychologists and reality TV to show us just how revolting and amoral--excuse me, unethical--we can be as a species.
I'm not surprised that this "experiment" was performed or that it was presented as a "game show" or that the audience reacted as it did. What I am surprised, or rather, saddened, by, is the lack of responsibility the participants want to accept. "Wait, what just happened? Wahhh! You manipulated me into making myself look bad!" So, my feeling is that if it was unethical of the experimenters to conduct the experiment, it was just as "unethical" of the participants to participate. People have to start taking responsinsibility for their own actions and emotions one of these days. The most sickening aspect of the experiment, to me, is the fact that the people were even more anxious to do it because it was on TV. The whole thing would never have happened if everyone had just said, "No, thanks, not my thing."
These are all good points, and I think the people who devised this experiment would likewise say that they had advanced the cause of science, broadened our understanding of psychology, etc. I guess what I find interesting about this experiment is that because the participants ended up behaving badly, their complaints about having been manipulated seem like sour grapes and so can be easily dismissed.
What if the experiment consisted instead of testing people's reactions to a boy in the woods, screaming that he was being attacked by a wolf? When the study participants, in a state of panic, rushed forward to help the boy only to discover that there was no wolf and that the whole thing was a setup, would they have been justified in expressing annoyance? Their intentions were pure, but I could understand them being upset at the manipulation.
What about another case of people behaving badly: the movie Borat. I found it very, very funny, but there was part of me that felt sorry for all the people who made fools of themselves in it.
I understand what you're saying, but don't we all already know this? This experiment has been conducted before. History shows us that we're more influenced by authority/peer groups than we like to think. Hell, my own day-to-day life shows me, in lots of small ways, and occassionally to my sorrow. I would love to be able to say, I would never turn over my neighbors to the Secret Police or whatever, but sadly I can't because I just don't know, there are certainly influences under which I would cave. What I guess I object to is the redundancy of the experiment and the fact that it was filmed before a live audience, which just seems like mass titillation to me and not really an attempt to prove anything scientifically.
Mary wrote: "I understand what you're saying, but don't we all already know this? This experiment has been conducted before.... What I guess I object to is the redundancy of the experiment and the fact that it was filmed before a live audience, which just seems like mass titillation to me and not really an attempt to prove anything scientifically. ..."This is the way I see it exactly. Thanks for clarifying, Mary. This particular experiment struck me as a sort of unnecessary vivisection, is all.
What do you think?