Slashdot Mirror
Computer Characters Tortured for Science
Rob Carr writes "Considered unethical to ever perform again with humans, researcher Mel Slater recreated the Milgram experiment in a immersive virtual environment. Subjects (some of whom could see and hear the computerized woman, others who were only able to read text messages from her) were told that they were interacting with a computer character and told to give increasingly powerful electric shocks when wrong answers were given or the 'woman' took too long to respond. The computer program would correspondingly complain and beg as the 'shocks' were ramped up, falling apparently unconscious before the last shock. The skin conductance and electrocardiograms of the subjects were monitored. Even though the subjects knew they were only 'shocking' a computer program, their bodies reacted with increased stress responses. Several of the ones who could see and hear the woman stopped before reaching the 'lethal' voltage, and about half considered stopping the study. The full results of the experimental report can be read online at PLoS One. Already, some (like William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute) are asking whether even this sanitized experiment is ethical."
I can't think of how many games I have played JUST TO DESTROY THE CHARACTER.
Yes, killing badguys is fun but when it comes to physics and the good guy, it can be A LOT OF FUN to just inflict pain on the protaginist.
I don't see anything in the study that says that they made any attempt to find out whether or not the subjects had ever heard about the original Milgram experiment.
The Milgram subjects almost certainly had no knowledge of whether the situation was real or what the purpose of the experiment was, and probably believed that they were "supposed" to follow orders.
Today's subjects may well have heard something. Even if they couldn't have named "Milgram" as the investigator, they may have had more than an inkling that the purpose of the experiment was to see whether they were virtual sadists, and may have suspected that, despite their instructions, the "approved" behavior was to not to follow orders.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I wonder how different the study would be if the subject of the, um, shocks wasn't an average woman but some burly dude like the Gears of War soldiers or maybe Daniel Craig as Bond, or on the other end of the spectrum a child? Assuming the responses of the virtual subjects were exactly the same (or deemed close enough) regardless of appearance, how they were "treated" by folks taking the study would show a lot.
Also.. the woman in the experiment was really unrealistic-looking. I can imagine level or realism being a major factor in treatment as well.
I like basketball!!1!
I consider myself as having more ethics than the average. I am a Christian (yeah, hold your slams, that's not the point). I try to live consistent with what Christianity teaches. More than once I have said what I felt needed to be said, even though there was some chance that it might cost me my job. Once I have done what I felt needed done, even though there was some chance that it might cost me my life.
I don't see what's morally or ethically wrong with the experiment, even with a real human subject. I mean, the "victim" isn't actually being shocked, whether the "victim" is human or virtual.
Is the fear that the experiment desensitizes the subject to situations where they are asked to obey a command that they should refuse? But the results indicate that the subject is likely to already be in that state. If properly debriefed at the end of the experiment, the subject is more likely to refuse such a command in the future, rather than less.
So can someone explain to me what's unethical about this?
John Dean (former aide to Nixon) treats this, and more, in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience", where he helps explain the reasons so many people blindly follow authority (and why some people so like to be blindly followed). Milgram's work was seminal in the study of authoritarian followers, and you do it no justice by blatantly misrepresenting it.
At any ate, the point of this study is that some people do not emotionally differentiate between virtual actions and real actions.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Probably because of the stress put upon the participants. In the original experiment, the participants weren't "debriefed" after the experiment. "Forced" torture, actual or believed, can do things within a person who is incapable of handling, or doesn't know how to handle, stress or conflicts with their beliefs.
Ask any current or former soldier and see how they felt when they went to war the first time. Some handle it, some handle it well, some handle it very poorly, but it makes an indellible impression on all of them.
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
There's a big difference: Since the participants were well aware that the subject was a computer character this experiment seems to be basically about psychological/physiological responses from the participants, while the original experiment was much more interesting as people really believed they were hurting human beings.
That's why the original experiment, IMHO, is so important: because it exposed the risks of "obedience-without-thinking".
But then again, I have little knowledge about the whole thing, so these are just my impressions.
Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
Of course, in the original experiment the people were eventually told "it's okay, it was just a simulation"... but they may still have felt a deep guilt for a short time, and were probably very emotionall conflicted during the experiment. I've watched some of the footage of the experiment, and it is quite interesting and somewhat scary at times. Some subjects end up begging to the "research authority" to let the experiment end, because they are worried about killing the actor. The anguish and concern in the subjects is quite obvious. (It is also quite scary how many of them continued zapping the actor, even after all their protests, simply because someone in a lab coat kept repeating "please continue with the experiment protocol".)
Though the pain was simulated, the emotional repercussions to the subjects were real. Some may have felt a guilt that continued well after the experiment. ("I know it was just an experiment... but if it had have been real I would have acted the same way... does that make me a bad person?")
This new twist on the experiment (where the subject can very easily tell that the pain they are 'inflicting' is virtual) is interesting. One would naturally assume that the emotional repercussions would be non-existant in such a case, yet this research shows that people nevertheless feel some amount of stress.
Also, "ouch" and "touché."
But it's not mentioned in the "methodology" section, and I think the paragraph you mention does cast some doubt on the validity of the results:
"For those 12 in the VC who wanted to stop before the end, 5 claimed to be well-acquainted with the original Milgram study, and therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that this influenced their behaviour. However, if we treat 'wanting to stop' as a binary response variable in order to test for differences between the proportions (using binary logistic regression) then the VC was significantly different from the HC (?2 = 6.691 on 1 d.f., P = 0.0097) whereas knowledge of Milgram did not have a significant impact (?2 = 1.525 on 1 d.f., P = 0.22) and there was no interaction effect between group and knowledge of Milgram."
In the first place, this seems a little bit like throwing in a statistical fudge factor, since it does not say in their methodology that they planned to ask about knowledge of Milgram after the experiment, and they seem to have applied this statistical test a posteriori, whereas statistical tests are only valid if the test to be performed is stated in advance.
In the second place, it's all very well to say that five of the subjects "claimed to be well-acquainted" with the Milgram experiment, but that does not take into account the number of subjects that, while not well-acquainted with it, might nevertheless have had some vague or even subconscious knowledge of it. The Milgram study has been around a long time and is practically in the folkways.
There are probably millions of people who would say they knew nothing about John B. Watson's experiments with rats, who nevertheless would be extremely familiar with the idea of running rats through a maze.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
In something like "GTA," killing the other characters is just another expected part of the game. In "Manhunt," it's damn near the whole point of the game. But it doesn't have the same appeal as when you think you just might be experimenting with aspects of a game that its mainstream players don't, or that the programmers might not have even been prepared for.
It's right up there with "Hot Coffee." The mod wasn't necessarily popular because the crude polygonal dry-humping was all that appealing in itself, but because it was a way to get soemthing out of your copy of "San Andreas" that the next guy wasn't, and see more of your game than the company expected.
If they released an official "47 new ways to kill your Sims Torture Pack," where it really was the focus of the game, it just might not be as appealing as it was.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Whether your "volunteer" has actually harmed someone or not, the psychological trauma is very real. That's the part where they describe the very real stress indicators. For those that don't know, the Nazi's kept free liquor flowing to the guards in the concentration camps. Why did they need liquor? Because of the emotional trauma associated with performing such vile acts on another human being.
It makes me wonder if the human subjects of this experiment truly trusted the statements of those in authority that they were NOT shocking real humans. Was something clicking in the backs of their heads warning them that they may be torturing real humans instead of electronic simulations?
Too bad Philip K. Dick is dead.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
I must say the moment I launched my first nuke at a city in Defcon, I felt really bad about it, and seeing "MOSCOW HIT 3.2 MILLIONS DEAD" really got me thinking. But now I launch dozens of nukes at capitol city of my country without remorse.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
I'd mod you up if I had points, as this is a very good question. How many people reading of the Milgram experiment have wondered how they would have performed? One hopes one would have been the exception, refusing to be a tool of authority used to harm others. Given the opportunity to participate in a recreation of the experiment, one knows how to perform in order to maintain one's self image as a decent human being.
Loose lips lose spit.
The subjects might feel guilty for "hurting" someone else, but that's about it.
Spoken like a man who is incapable of the empathy to understand how believing for a moment that you've killed a man through electroshock might make someone else feel. The Milgram experiment made many of the participants believe for a short time that they were guilty of murder due to peer pressure. That's not something that leaves you to be forgotten for the rest of your life.
Neither is having the self-delusion in one's inherent morality stripped away by being pressured into committing an atrocity merely by being told "the experiment must continue" by a man in a lab coat. Finding out that you're essentially a sheep who will harm others just to avoid the disapproval of an authority figure would be a scarring experience for those involved. The damage done to the subjects' worldviews is a large part of what makes it unethical.
Plus, even if the effects weren't long lasting, causing undue stress on a subject and heavy use of deception are generally considered unethical in psychology experiments. I mean, one of the subjects did get so stressed out that they had a seizure.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In fact I'm not sure how this study ever received Institutional Review Board approval for human subjects research.
First I don't see what this study achieves. It recreates an immensely harmful and unethical study with some slight tweaks to make it less harmful. The Miligram study already exists, we don't need to re-try it to ensure that people will follow orders.
Second just because someone is consented to a study does not mean that it is acceptable to harm them. Just to discover how much harm a study does to the subjects does not justify doing that study.
This sounds like a training aid for torturers. Attorney General Gonzales ("Mr. Torture Memo") would love this.
What do you think all the pressure from above on "getting results" and all the memos supporting more "aggressive interrogation methods" served to accomplish?
Quite frankly, anyone who's seem the Milgram Obedience and the Standford Prison experiments shouldn't have been surprised in the slightest when rumors of torture coming out of Guantanimo started and when the reports about Abu Ghraib and Bagram started coming out. It's human nature. It's the natural, expected outcome of this kind of environment, and the unconscionable lack of oversight oriented towards preventing this sort of thing and, worse, the active encouragement of aggressive methods makes the administration directly culpable for torture of captives.
At worst, it's malice; at best, it's utter incompetence or callousness.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It achieves the same as the original; it tells us that we are all potential tools of evil unless we consciously choose not to be.
The Miligram[sic] study already exists, we don't need to re-try it to ensure that people will follow orders.
The point of the original study was not to ensure that orders were followed, but to investigate how such orders came to be followed. I think it should be repeated by a respected academic institution at least once every decade and the results published as widely as possible - pour encourager les autres.
Second just because someone is consented to a study does not mean that it is acceptable to harm them. Just to discover how much harm a study does to the subjects does not justify doing that study.
Nobody was harmed by this experiment or the original. A few eyes were opened to see the real world. That's help, not harm.
Milgram ran at least 20 experiments along this theme. The end result of variations in the base experiment revealed the emotional distance between the "teacher" and the "learner" had a very strong effect on the likeliness to continue. The more dehumanized the learner was, the more readily the teacher went further and further. Conversely, the more empathy the teacher was encouraged to have (say by seeing or directly hearing the learner through an open door instead of a speaker), the less likely they continued.
By demonizing the subject as a criminal, you would definitely observe a higher incidence of going too far. Demonizing your enemies is a central tactic in all societies committing to war for a reason -- it makes it easier to kill the other guy when you don't see him as being the same as you.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Yes, killing badguys is fun but when it comes to physics and the good guy, it can be A LOT OF FUN to just inflict pain on the protaginist.
The scientists in Half-Life instantly come to mind.
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
You're saying that it's ethical to encourage somebody to do something they'll regret. That's a very poor point to defend. You're implying that people should have to live with the worst they are capable of, regardless of whether they would naturally do it.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Already, some (like William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute) are asking whether even this sanitized experiment is ethical.
The ethical concerns in both the real and virutal experiments appear quite close, as the goal, whether the "victim" is an animated charicature or a human actor screaming as if in pain (or not, as if dead), is to manipulate the emotions of the test volunteer while seeing how far he or she will go in hurting others "in the name of science."
Outside of scientific tests, emotional manipulation of course has a long history, and advertising has always been full of it (no pun intended, but if the shoe fits...). Interesting examples of such strong emotional manipulation are in several of the stories in the book "The Mind's I" by Dennett and Hoftsadter, and there's a controversial example in the UN anti-landmine video at http://stoplandmines.org.
Tag lost or not installed.
1. The Milgram experiment was interesting because it placed people in a situation where they know they have a certain moral obligation, then effortlessly overrode that obligation simply by playing with authority figures, the authority of science, and the like. Similarly Zimbardo showed us how people in suitable groups may sometimes do things any single man would be horrified at the mere prospect of. Wonderful, stimulating experiments. Now tell me what it is meant to show, the fact that you might get someone to torture a virtual image, without that moral sanction. That already exists - it's called Grand Theft Auto. Some people play it, some don't.
2. I am definitely not astonished that people react emotionally to virtual images of suffering. People also react emotionally to love stories and are scared by halloween slashers. At best you might demonstrate - as this seems to - that many people are quite able to impose agency upon non-agents. Again, we already know that. People often react with distress to someone kicking an Aibo dog.
3. In any case, I don't see how social scientists or philosophers would be fascinated by any results that might emerge from such simulated research. Certainly the next Hannah Arendt isn't going to be dazzled.