is to be honest, the film is a relatively failure, a large number of experimental introductions, it seems that it is a documentary. In order to keep us from being too annoyed, a lot of life trivia was inserted, even including the protagonist's complaint to the teacher. And the protagonist's love and marriage history is like a running account, so the whole film is a bit nondescript. However, I still read it patiently and took the time to write this article, because as a science film, the value of this film is still very great.
The title "The Experimenter" is very apt. Because it is a scientific experiment, and it is a social science experiment. The reason why social science can be called science like natural science is because modern social science has introduced the method of "experiment". In the film, it should be said that the use of the "experimental" method is fully and completely demonstrated.
The protagonist of the film, Stanley Milgram, in his own words: I am a teacher, teaching social relations. He also introduced to his girlfriend (future wife): social relations, a combination. Sociology, anthropology and psychology, you know, pretty much everything. And then, his daughter, Michael, who used to say to the kids at school: "My dad was a psychologist, but not the kind of guy who made people lie down. He was an experimental psychologist and he would Do experiments." He got his Ph.D. (Philosophy) from Harvard and later served as dean of the School of Social Psychology at the City University of New York, so in the media presentation, he is a social psychologist. Therefore, the experiments we know below are all studies in this field.
1. Conformity experiment.
Although Stanley complained about his mentor, Asch (Solomon E. Asch, who read my Harvard paper for which I worked. At Princeton's research school), it is clear His experimental methods and ideas were influenced by Asch.
The film shows us Asch's "Test of Lines" in detail. They said to the test subjects: The research you are going to participate in today involves the perception of line length. As you can see, there are quite a few cards, each with a few lines, and your experimentation is simple. You look at the line on the left and say which of the three lines on the right is as long as the line on the left. But in fact, the purpose of their experiment is not this at all, and as shown in Stanley's short documentary: five of the six subjects were in a group (meaning that they realized that they accepted the arrangement of the laboratory), The real test subjects were people in white shirts. He heard the other five people's answers before answering... In the first few rounds, those gangs chose the wrong answer, the test subject denied it, and finally chose to go with the flow. According to social science, the experiment is called "The Effect of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments" (The Effect of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments).
Obviously this experiment is quite interesting, and because it is cleverly designed, it can help us discover the "hidden nature of human beings". As Stanley put it: This made Ashe famous, of course among social scientists. What bothered me was that experiment with lines, and I wanted to do something more sensational. Stanley was obviously deeply influenced by Asch. Although Stanley did make a better experiment, we can see the shadow of this experiment from some of the experiments that Stanley talked about later, even very direct. of.
For example, the "elevator experiment": the gentleman in the elevator is a frank person. The people who went in later were our employees, including the gentleman in a white shirt and the lady in a trench coat. After entering, they all stood with their backs to the camera. You see this guy in the trench coat is having a hard time keeping his personality, little by little... he looks at his watch, but he does it just to make excuses for turning around and facing the wall. In fact, it's true.
For example, the "Looking Sky Experiment": In another experiment of mine, Hank, a graduate student at New York University, stood in the crowd and stared up at the sky. In fact, there was nothing in the sky. We found a lot of people, stared at the sky together, and more and more passersby stopped to look at the sky.
Obviously, to put it bluntly, these experiments are very similar: the method conceals the real purpose, making it impossible for those participating in the test to evade or disguise; and to achieve this purpose, the test is infiltrated with "accomplices"; and ultimately both show human "herd mentality". Axi's experimental fame is very mysterious, in fact, it is also a herd mentality in essence. In other words, Stanley is simply continuing to test the conclusions in other ways.
As Stanley's key conclusion: Human nature can be studied, but never escaped, especially your own. Stanley himself, in real life, is unavoidable in practice. I call it "Jaguar Practice". The Stanleys had just applied for financial aid, and the dean of the school lived across the road. But then Stanley bought a luxury car—a Jaguar—from a graduate student. Because the graduate student couldn't bring the car back to London Gold and sold it to Stanley at a discount, the price was unexpectedly cheap, and in the end the car was actually faulty and would make a strange noise. Although the couple's rational point of view is "it's just a Jaguar, what can he (the Dean) think?" "They won't stop you from turning regular because of a car," but in the end Stanley gave up that Jaguar. It's not that Stanley doesn't like it, but that Stanley agrees with his wife in his heart, "I've never seen a tenured professor at Harvard drive a Jaguar." As a doctoral student, if you want to become a tenured professor in the future, you have to abide by the "group tradition" of tenured professors and do not drive any jaguar.
2. The experiment of obedience to authority
This experiment should be said to be the experiment that achieved Stanley's name, and it is also the most controversial experiment. Of course, with this film showing a clear process and a lot of specifics, we can fully study the social science experiment itself.
The first is the purpose of the experiment. Stanley's real purpose is clear: I was born in the Bronx in 1933. My father is from Hungary and my mother is Romanian, Jewish immigrant, and it's about the odds that they arrived in America as children and started a family in New York, not some concentration camp in Eastern Europe, like thousands of them were wiped out by the Nazis. That's the purpose behind the obedience experiment, the signs I'm looking for and the thing that bothers me, how did the educated humans get involved in destructive and inhuman activities? How was genocide carried out so systematically and so effectively? And how did the perpetrators of these murderers put up with themselves? In other words, Stanley's parents were fortunate to have come to the United States when they were children, otherwise they would have been killed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe because of their Jewish identity. Although his parents were spared, Stanley still wanted to know the reason for such a tragic tragedy. So he conceived the experiment. However, because this is to expose the "ugliness" of human nature (although we cannot use praise and criticism to characterize "human nature", we still inevitably use such words to evaluate, and we can know from the accusations received after the test).
Of course, as we have seen earlier, the key point of social science experiments is not to reveal the real purpose, otherwise the subjects participating in the experiment are likely to have "avoidance or resistance" behavior. Therefore, Stanley introduced his experimental purpose to the experimental subjects in this way: the effect of punishment on learning. In this way, the subjects focus on "how punishment affects learning", ignoring the real question of "obedience or not." It will not affect the "validity and authenticity" of the experiment.
Followed by the experimental process and steps.
The first step is to clean up the "psychological interference" of the experimental subjects to ensure that the experiment is real and effective. Because the purpose of the experiment is to test the subject's obedience to authority, the experiment should let the subject act as the punisher—the teacher. As in the previous experiments, the subjects were identified as "punishers" early on, but each subject may have other thoughts, such as "as a punisher, it may be more clear about the impact of corporal punishment on learning" , Everyone is curious, not to mention participating in scientific experiments. If he is asked to act as the punisher early in the morning, he may propose that he is willing to be the punisher. Therefore, from the beginning, let yourself and the experimental subjects mix together to participate in the experiment, and let them cast lots to decide the roles of "teacher" (punisher) and "student" (punished). Apparently, they had designed it a long time ago to let the real subjects participate in the experiment (the two paper balls both have "teacher" written on them, so the experimental subject is drawn first, and he must be the teacher. The other one doesn't need to be read). In order to clear the subject's "psychological interference", Stanley "pays first" at the beginning: before doing anything else, allow me to give you the money, from now on, no matter what happens, the money is yours. Short-handed and soft-spoken, the subjects were naturally more obedient. And this is also similar to the fact that the Nazis ate Hitler's imperial ration in the morning. And after introducing the simple process of the experiment (now one of you will play the role of a learner, if he answers a series of questions incorrectly, he will be mildly punished, and the punishment will be carried out by a teacher), Stanley emphasizes The one is "gentle punishment," and while the shock can be very painful, it doesn't produce permanent tissue damage. And let the punisher first feel the "punishment": Now, in order to let you, as a teacher, understand how harsh the electric shock students will receive, we think the only reasonable way is to try to receive an electric shock yourself, is that okay? Feeling "punishment" is actually asking the teacher to let down his guard. If they don't know whether the electric shock will hurt or not, they either think the experiment is a joke, and there is no problem with very slight electric shock, so the "obedience or not" later is unreal; Abandon the experiment, then it's a waste of time.
The second step is to make the experimental subjects strictly follow the procedures. Stanley explained to the subjects (one of whom was his own): The teacher would read the phrase first, such as "strong arm," and then he would only read the first word. "Strong" followed by a series of word choices: back, arms, branches, push. Your (student's) job is which of these words was originally paired with "strong"...if you answer wrong, you get an electric shock. Stanley's assistant also said to the teacher: Remember that every time he gives the wrong answer, you turn on a switch on the pulse generator, and it is very important that you follow the program exactly. This last sentence is very important to emphasize, just like Hitler instilled with his men that "obedience is the duty of the soldier".
In the beginning, the students always get the questions right, so that the teacher gradually becomes familiar with the technique. But the students started to get the wrong answers, and the teacher naturally started to apply electric shocks. The problem is, at this time, the teacher realizes that the reading of the electric shock is incremental, which means that the punishment for the second mistake will be stronger than the first time (I carefully read this experiment repeatedly, and Stanley's assistant just told the teacher a A button, although the voltage is marked below, but there is no word to explain this point, just emphasize to follow the procedure. Obviously, when the student makes mistakes again and again, after the teacher increases the voltage, he will look back at the assistant behind, and will try to loosen the tie, But he still insisted, because he obeyed, the person who participated in the experiment, the laboratory was the authority for him. As a result, from 90 volts to 450 volts, the false experimental subjects in the whole process, the "own person" who acted as a student, Will keep making some responses (even though he wasn't electrocuted at all). From a little shout at the beginning, to 165 volts is a retreat: "Ah, let me out, I said I have a bad heart, I'm not participating in this experiment It's gone." Then, at 180 volts, he shouted: "Damn, let me out, let me out." Until the end, deliberately made no sound and pretended to be dead. Although the experimental subjects appeared "doubt" or even " Fear", but when he turned his head to question the assistant repeatedly (from "he said he didn't continue", to "then you take all the blame?" "now? I've hit 450" "he may have died in Inside. Doesn't his health matter?" "I'm sorry, listen, I don't want to be rude, but I think you should go in and see him. You just have to look at him and look inside that door. There's no sound here. , no movement at all"), but the assistant always "please continue" "he must continue whether the student likes it or not, please continue, teacher, until all pairings are learned correctly" "yes, the responsibility is my responsibility. Please continue" "more With one last switch, please continue, the experiment requires you to continue" "We must continue").
Obviously, the experimental result was the subject of the experiment. Even though he knew that the punished person had been electrocuted badly and might even be electrocuted to death, he still obeyed the assistant's request and persisted until the end. Although there were doubts in the middle, the assistant did not adopt any coercive behavior, just said "please continue" and "must continue", and he continued. This clearly shows the "subordination to authority" aspect of human nature. This is a fact that is objectively "seen" as an "experimental test". However, Stanley still has to understand from the perspective of the experimental subject. After completing the experiment, he visited the experimental subject, and the whole process is a very cold "questioning": why don't you stop. Because it was almost pressing, the subject naturally began to find various excuses for his behavior: you saw it, and I also wanted to stop...because he (assistant) told me to continue. Because I felt that this experiment depended on me to continue, and no one told me to stop. Even when Stanley asked: Who is responsible for this person being clicked?
The subject also replied: I don't know. When the questions were completed, guilt and remorse were evident in the subjects. After the questioning, Stanley also asked the other party to complete a more complete questionnaire, because the effects of oral inquiries and filling out questionnaires are different, and the answers that can be obtained can complement each other.
The third step is to eliminate the psychological negative effects on the experimental subjects. We may have overlooked this point, but it is actually very important. Because the subjects are likely to feel guilty because of this experience, or get some kind of pleasure from hurting others without taking responsibility, which will affect their later lives. Therefore, this step is also very important.
In this step, Stanley mainly did three things: he explained to the subjects the "electric shock device", which was actually used for small animals in the laboratory, such as mice, mice and so on. What the eyes see (referring to the shock volts prompt) actually makes everyone misunderstood. And let the "myself", the student, say to the subject: I'm fine, you know you don't need to feel embarrassed, if it were me, I might be the same. Reconcile the subject and the "punished". This apparently eliminated the subject's sense of guilt. The second explained the truth to the subject: the man in the other room was not electrocuted. The real shock is what you feel at first. We're interested in studying how you react after inflicting pain on a stranger, this experiment is about obeying orders, the guy in the other room, our own guy on the team. Why does this require a previous step? Because psychological recovery is a process, it must be a soft landing. If the truth is revealed immediately after the experiment is completed, it will only make the other party feel "rejected". The third is to let the subject understand the way and meaning of the experiment, and let him keep it secret. Let him understand that the experiment uses this "deception" because we want to get real responses from people. In order to keep the experimenter secret, Stanley also told him: After the experiment is over, you will receive a copy of the report, and before that, we hope you will not speak out. You may influence a potential participant.
Because of this step, even if the experiment has been criticized from all sides, Stanley can still come up with rebuttal evidence: after the experiment, all the subjects received a questionnaire, see for yourself, 84% of them said Very happy to participate in the experiment, nearly 15% of the people expressed neutrality, only 1.3% expressed sadness, and only 1.3%. Four-fifths believe that more experiments like this should be done, with 74% saying they have learned about the importance of the individual and how the environment shapes human behavior. A year later, to ensure that the subjects were not psychologically harmed, Professor Paul Elara was hired to talk to them.
Completing this step, in Stanley's words: each subject reconciles voluntarily with the student, we keep the subjects secret so future newcomers are not revealed and we get more objective results.
Of course, in other experiments, these processes and steps must be added, deleted, modified, and adjusted as needed. But the tasks to be accomplished at each step are indispensable.
Once again, it is the expansion and verification of the experiment. In strict terms, the above experimental process at best proves the obedience of "an experimental subject" to authority. Naturally, it wasn't just one person who was subjected to Stanley's experiment. According to Stanley in the film: Of the 780 subjects, not one got up and walked to the door to see if the shouting people were okay, not one. Explain that Stanley did his best to have enough experimental samples.
Not only that, but according to Stanley, he also changed the way and objects of the experiment: I designed a series of changes. 25 in total, and continued the experiment for the next 2 semesters. We adjusted the script so that the student knocked on the wall and said nothing... We had the teacher press the student's hand on the copper plate and force him to receive electricity (obviously, this is closer to the real Nazi persecution)... We moved the experiment To a dilapidated office in Bridgeport to avoid potential threats to Ivy League prestige, at Yale, our subjects also included women.
On the one hand, it has been concluded that human nature is highly sculptural, and human nature is neither evil nor aggressive, but rather obedient. 65% of the subjects obeyed the instructions, and the remaining 35% believed that the electric shock was inhumane, and they were firmly opposed to it and were unwilling to continue the experiment (there is a specific case of refusal to continue the experiment in the film, the subject was a person who had dealt with electricity. man, he knew that volts that high were deadly). On the other hand, the experiment was criticized from all sides, so Stanley did not continue the experiment. But other scientists and fields have conducted similar experiments and reached similar conclusions. This fully tested the "reproducibility" of the experiment and proved Stanley's experimental conclusion. Stanley points out: In 2008, a professor at Santa Clara University re-run my obedience experiment and got the same result, over 60 percent of people shocked others with maximum wattage. In 2010, a French reality show also conducted the same experiment. The audience at the recording site of "Game of Death" told the subjects that the experiment must continue, and more than 80% of them chose to continue the electric shock.
Not only did the experiment yield a similar verification, but it is clear that in reality we can also see confirmation: four days after the experiments on May 26 and 27, 1962, Adolf Ekmann was murdered in Jerusalem. Aikman, the architect involved in the Holocaust that deported and massacred millions of Jews...Israeli Mossad agents, captured him in 1960 and brought him to court. Ekman did not deny his guilt and showed no sign of remorse, saying he was merely acting for others: "I did nothing beyond the orders from above." Dr. Milgram noted that from 1933 to 1945 several Millions of people are systematically massacred, and those who die in gas chambers and concentration camps are for the same reason. Of course, we should still understand that although this experiment reveals the problem of human obedience to authority, it cannot be said that this experiment really explains the root cause of Nazi crimes. Stanley also did not stress so much, explaining that the Nazis acted only as a motive, not a conclusion. Because although they are similar and related, but the times are different and the degree of behavior is different, they still cannot be equated. With scientific emphasis: the two cannot be equated. But as Stanley said: My methods and theories are still being challenged, despised, and reviled. But whenever there are riots and organized and systematic violence in the world, people will always bring up the obedience experiment again, which brings new perspectives and new inspirations.
The last part is the summary and analysis of the experiment.
Stanley's experiments were done in the United States, so they point out that the kind of character developed in American society cannot be expected to make its citizens free from tyranny and against dictatorship. (Su translation. They suggest that the kind of character produced in American society can't be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment in response to a malevolent authority. Original translation: They suggest that the kind of character produced in American society can't be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment in response to a malevolent authority. isolates its citizens from cruelty and treats inhumanity as a response to malevolent authority).
But, oddly enough, as the reporter who interviewed Stanley in the film said: The experiment was done in the early 1960s, right? It's 1974 and your book has just been published ("Experimental Perspectives on Authority Obedience" by Harper & Rowe).
Obviously, because such a conclusion is in deep conflict with the inherent beliefs of scientists and the public, everyone believes more in "human nature is inherently good". In Stanley's words: All the psychiatrists and psychologists I've consulted are convinced that we can't find one who's going to push all the way through. Even Stanley himself thought at first that there are differences in human nature and that the Germans who make the massacres will be more murderous than the Americans: my original plan was to do this experiment in New Haven first, and the result of the experiment should be low obedience; Going to Berlin to do it once, the compliance should be much higher, at least save the airfare, right?
Stanley's research seems to open up the scars of human nature, and it is difficult for people to accept their own scars, even though that is the truth. Science is all about breaking our inherent cognition and revealing the truth. Of course, Stanley's experiment did not point out that "human nature is inherently evil", as he said: human nature is highly sculptural, and human nature is not inherently evil or aggressive, but rather obedient. And he has a sentence at the end of the film that is worth our thinking: You can say that we are all puppets. But I think we are puppets with thinking and consciousness. Now that we realize that we are in control, perhaps the ability to think independently is our first step toward freedom. In other words, we know the flaws of human nature, and we can actively change it. This is the greatness of human beings.
Especially in reality, although we are lucky not to live in the era of war that destroys humanity, we will also fall into the "state of agency" shown in the Stanley experiment (the labor force is distributed, and people have their own jobs and professions. We can't work without the above directive, I call this a state of agency, individuals obey authority, and the result of this is that they can separate themselves from their actions. The state of agency is equivalent to "corporate system", I'm just doing it well It's my job, that's none of my business. We choose to be in agency, and once you're in it, it's hard to get out. Stanley himself falls into this "substance", and Stanley has a fifth heart attack. Now, Stanley went to see Dr. Heisen Bartel, who treated Stanley last time. So Stanley will absolutely obey the doctor and go into a state of agency. So, Stanley said: No one knows they are in a particular situation will do, or will not do). Therefore, by clearly understanding these concepts, we can be a more active and free person.
3. There are other experiments done by Stanley in the social relationship experimental
film. These experiments should be said to be significantly different from the previous experiments. The previous experiments explored the inner "human nature", and these experiments were more experiments to explore the relationship between "people". We can also see Stanley's "imagination" in these experiments. Of course, there are many "experiments" that have far-reaching influence on the real world in these experiments, which not only proves that social sciences can get rid of "guessing" and truly enter the palace of science by using experiments, but also prove that the results of social sciences can also guide reality. Practical significance.
1 The specific process of the social network experiment (also known as the "small world" experiment)
experiment is as follows: we ask a group of people in Kansas and Omaha to send a package to Sharon, Massachusetts, the process is very simple, the package The ultimate recipient was Jacob, a stockbroker who lives in Sharon, and the person who sent the package didn't know Jacob, and they just had to send the package to someone they thought might know Jacob, it could be them Friends, relatives, or acquaintances, the most critical point is that they have to know the person, they have to register on the form, and then send the postcard back to Harvard to track the logistics.
As Stanley said, they didn't know what the results would be at first (what will the experimental results be? We don't know either), some scientific experiments are hypothetical first, and some are just creative attempts. Of course, the results were really revealing: One woman sent the document to a bank clerk in Council Bluffs, Iowa, who then sent it to the publication in Belmont, Massachusetts The publisher sent it to a tanner who lived in Sharon, and the worker sent it to his brother-in-law, who also lived in Sharon, a tin worker, who sent it to a dentist, and the dentist sent it to a printer, The printer eventually sent it to Mr. Jacob, and it went through the hands of a total of seven people. The survey results averaged 5.5. That is, there are only six people between you and millions of strangers. When we understand this, we have a deeper understanding of social networks. That is, people usually complain that they are alone and helpless, and this is not scientific.
It is clear that this creative experiment has found a very instructive and instructive result. Not only can it be applied in various fields, but it can also give us a clearer understanding of social relations.
2 "Social Attitudes" Experiment.
The experiment was relatively narrow, drawing on American attitudes toward the Nazis and the Communist Party. But it also provides an idea of "polls".
You can see what is literally not there, and that's what I did at Yale and Harvard, leaving a stamped, but unstamped letter, intentionally for people to discover. Put it on the sidewalk, in a store, or in a phone booth, under the windshield wipers of parked cars, and leave a note that says "Find a car near you." All letters should be addressed to the same PO Box. But evenly distribute the letters to four different recipients: a friend of the Communist Party, a friend of the Nazi Party, a medical researcher and Mr. Walter Canap, all fictitious names, the content of the letter is irrelevant, if anyone is curious to open it, There will be only a simple "Max Greetings Walter", and the letter mentions a meeting. Of the 100 intentionally lost letters in each of the two weeks, 72 were sent to the Institute for Medical Research, 71 to Mr. Walter Canap, but only 25 to a party signed by a friend of the Communist Party, 25 were also sent to the Nazis. From this, we can infer that the American people hate the Nazis and the Communist Party, which is reasonable.
Then, Stanley and the others also tried some "changes": another student, Murata, drove to Charlotte, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to handle a new batch of letters, and when the results came out, it proved that our previous results were the same. Letters in white envelopes are more likely to be mailed in white communities; letters in darker envelopes are more likely to be mailed in black communities. Then came the mutation, and I hired a helicopter to fly low over Worcester, Massachusetts, and drop those letters, which were scattered in various places.
3 "Familiar Strangers"
Experiment It was reproduced in many copies and tested by students a week later. They interviewed the people in those photos one by one, asking if they knew anyone else in the photos. Because the people waiting in one place are basically those people every day. As a result, most people can recognize an average of 4 people who see each other every day, but never speak. Among these people, there are also "popular lovers" (Sociometric stars, the original translation is "social flower". But obviously this is not the meaning, referring to the beautiful and handsome guys we often meet and then pay attention to) These people are not only recognized, And it's very popular, people are very interested in the lives of these "mass lovers", what kind of jobs do they do? If they met in another place, or were bound together in an unexpected situation, they might chat and get to know each other. But it's clear that most of us don't, because society always seems to allow us to have a certain "safe distance" and "psychological space" between us and strangers. Therefore, this experiment is also interesting and inspiring. At least we can try to chat with beautiful and handsome guys in the future. After all, everyone else thinks this way, but there is no action.
4 "Public Singing" Experiment
This experiment is not discussed in this film. But at least it's also creative and fun. Stanley gave the students this assignment: Sing a favorite song aloud while riding the bus. Make sure people in the car can hear you. Sing the song you remember the lyrics, sing it clearly and loudly. In groups of three, the non-singer recorded the passenger's reaction and then switched roles.
If you are interested, you can try it yourself. It is believed that Stanley's experiments can help us better understand social science experiments, understand ourselves better, and understand our society better. And had a lot of fun, even though the movie was still pretty boring. 16.10.10
Welcome to collect WeChat: absolutely rational
View more about Experimenter reviews
