| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (12)

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 7:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've always wished someone would have me participate in this experiment. I'd crank the voltage up to maximum and, when they asked if I did it under the order of the proctor I'd reply "No, I did it because I'm a mean, spiteful bastard!"
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 7:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You mean, spiteful bastard!
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 8:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
6/23 is about 25%. With a sample that small, this is not a finding. This is a statistical fart. This means less than nothing. In a psychology experiment, no less, where numerical data is fluffy anyway.

Move along. Nothing to see here.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 11:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I also would like to electrocute someone :-)
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 9:57AM kip said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Murder simulators were bad enough, now we have torture simulators too?! This is an outrage! I predict this game will lead to an Auschwitz times ten! thousand!
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 9:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The conclusion considers that you can't go on torturing because you can't distinguish between human and virtual beings. What if it's not about the victim but about yourself as a torturer? I mean, torturing an insect as a kid or as a grownup is different because of the conscious you have of your action­. Torturing a virtual counterpart is still expressing something about your inner self.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 11:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This misses the point of why these experiments are unethical. Milgrams experiment wasn't unethical because someone is being tortured, no one was tortured, it was an actor. It was unethical because of the stress placed on the person administering the shocks. If people empathize with the virtual victim the experiments are still unethical. If they don't the experiments are merely pointless.

Now, knowing to what extent people empathize with a virtual person is in itself an interesting experiment, but I fail to understand how the experiment will facilitate ethical work-arounds.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 12:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay, I'd probably zap the hell out of a virtual victim, but, if I thought that the recipient of the shocks was a real human being I would react differently.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 2:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is that psylocke on the screen?
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2007 4:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Interesting...doesn't seem like they found much but the fact they are looking at this stuff makes me hope my UK Psych application gets accepted.....
Reply

Posted: Jan 24th 2007 5:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"This misses the point of why these experiments are unethical. Milgrams experiment wasn't unethical because someone is being tortured, no one was tortured, it was an actor. It was unethical because of the stress placed on the person administering the shocks. If people empathize with the virtual victim the experiments are still unethical. If they don't the experiments are merely pointless.

Now, knowing to what extent people empathize with a virtual person is in itself an interesting experiment, but I fail to understand how the experiment will facilitate ethical work-arounds."

Michael Foody, it's simple. Milgram didn't disclose to his participants what his study was about. Had he done so, they might not have chosen to particpate. Then as they tried to quit the study they were (by design) pressured to continue. Consequently, the study was unethical not because it placed "stress" on the participants, it's because Milgram did not obtain informed consent.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2007 12:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am a A level psychology student and have just learnt about this study. Both of you are right. The experiment was unethical both because it caused stress and because Milgram didn't obtain informed consent :D
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW