Slashdot Mirror
Electric Shock Study Suggests We'd Rather Hurt Ourselves Than Others
sciencehabit writes: If you had the choice between hurting yourself or someone else in exchange for money, how altruistic do you think you'd be? In one infamous experiment, people were quite willing to deliver painful shocks to anonymous victims when asked by a scientist. But a new study that forced people into the dilemma of choosing between pain and profit finds that participants cared more about other people's well-being than their own. It is hailed as the first hard evidence of altruism for the young field of behavioral economics.
Shocking.
Really I am not going to shock some for fifteen cents. There's also no way I can take 15$ as worthwhile for being shocked.
My guess is these were all volunteers participating in the study "for science?"
My guess is that introduces a selection bias towards altruism. Test any of the several thousand people I've worked for, with, or very near over the past 20 years and I would guess that most of them wouldn't hesitate to shock the other person as much as was allowed, especially if they could be relatively certain the other person could not shock them back as a direct response.
I just hurts me so much to hurt you. I'd rather hurt myself. I feel so bad about hurting you first.
Oh! woe is me. You're such a jerk for being my victim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_No_Disgrace_Like_Home
Despite capitalist pop-philosophy, humans are not inherently selfish. Nor are they inherently altriustic.
They are, OTOH, pretty smart, as Earth's creatures go, capable of either deciding for themselves or doing as they're told, depending on how they're steered.
Did Peter Venkman come up with this test?
If they'd included the option to zap Bennett Haselton, I'm sure it would have swamped all the other possibilities.
Unattractive hipster girls?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Have gnu, will travel.
Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death)
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I think I saw a similar electric shock experiment on PornHub.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
Obvious to me. I work on computers so I've been shocked so many times I think I've built up an immunity.
“You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap? There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.”
Your own?
When attempting to repeat the study some very different results were observed https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
people shock themselves because they dont want to be viewed as someone who would shock someone else... its an attempt to save face and acquire resources by pretending to be nice, which can have the same results as being nice, as long as the facade is kept.
but people snap.
Men also would rather shock themselves than not shock themselves, if there's nothing else to do for 15 minutes.
1) Compose your team entirely of specialists who are focused on one small piece of the puzzle
2) Find a psychopath who will make ethical compromises in the name of efficiency that well adjusted people would consider morally reprehensible to coordinate your team
3) Keep your team from seeing the big picture so they don't revolt
4) Keep outsiders from realizing how your efficiency is achieved so they don't shun you
5) Profit!
You get bonus points for setting all this up, making yourself the recipient of the inevitable rewards, keeping yourself ignorant of the particulars and sleeping like a baby.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
A lot of lonely empty people in this world, and they are so afraid of being feeling left alone they would _anything_ to attract attention
In fact, many of those who committed suicide are did what they did, in the vain hope that their death would attract some attention
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger."
Electric Shock Study Suggests We'd Rather Hurt Ourselves Than Others
Obviously the participants weren't Muslims
The toilets in public restrooms in America are generally covered in urine and/or destroyed. Fuck over everyone else is alive and well in American culture.
The study, in case you don't want to read the article, paired people off (so they didn't see each other but knew the other person was there), then one was offered a choice of various "shock bundles" (like 10 for 7$, or 15 for 10$ or the like) along with the choice who should get the shocks while this "decider" always got the money, no matter who he dealt the shocks.
People now taking shocks for the money they take doesn't say anything about altruism. It says something about what people perceive as fair. I get the money, so I should do the "work" for it. If you want altruism, check out how many will take the shocks while giving away the money!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now if only we could win wars by blowing ourselves up.... hang on....
It will get really interesting once you figure out that the other likes a little pain.
The kick is not that you hurt your partner but how hard they get off on what you do with them.
"It is hailed as the first hard evidence of altruism for the young field of behavioral economics."
Altruism is one of those things that, according to how strongly you define it - weakly, merely something with no obvious reward, or strongly, as something that has genuinely no benefit - either MUST, or CANNOT (as a general trait), exist.
The bottom line is that man has evolved as a social species. In that word "social" is the numb of the whole thing, because it describes a type of behaviour in which individuals sometimes behave in ways that forego immediate personal benefit for the benefit of their social grouping (and what is that but altruism, in its weaker definition?). And it's also clear that such social behaviour doesn't have to take place at the reasoned, "if I do this then..." level; social behaviour is found in very many animal species, most of whom are certainly not capable of thinking through the future consequences of the choices facing them. They simply behave in the way they've evolved to behave - which includes the weak "altruistic" behaviour that benefits the group as a whole.
Altruism in its stronger definition, by contrast, has to be behaviour that not only doesn't benefit the individual but doesn't benefit the larger social grouping either (because benefits to the group are likely to benefit to the individual too, if only indirectly - an obvious example would be a sterile bee stinging, and dying, to defend the hive that is its own, indirect genetic future). Such acts may occur from time to time in individuals, but the tendency to perform them is unlikely to hang around, let alone spread, as general behaviour within the group, because (by definition) it has no benefit to either the group or the individual - they serve no purpose. Other, more profitable modes of behaviour will win out instead.
The sort of behaviour in the experiment described is social behaviour. If it's suggested that it's also evidence of altruism if the weaker type - well, well done for finding an example, but no big deal. It had to be there to find.
How about fear of consequences? People don't want to hurt someone else because they're accustomed to retaliation.
As to how exactly in the test the testee's welfare is being threatened vesrus someone elses.
What exactly do they do that has any real meaning ??? Burning them with cigarettes versus having someone else burned with cigarettes??
Not getting the gummy bear rather than have the other person get burned by the cigarette ???
Like computer games where there are no real consequneces for the 'players' doing the right or wrong thing (versus getting neater stuff in-game) this tests conclusion may be a distortion.
In both the Millgram study and the Zambarano Prison Experiment.
But the other thing that comes out of both studies is that the vast majority of us will follow those we believe are in authority. Then there are people like me who think authority is stupid.
Bad people include but are not limited to Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Persians, Mexicans, Illegal Pete's.
Because I would shock the hell out of a stranger for money. And laugh all the way to the bank.
A better experiment would be to have participants choose to shock themselves or shock other people "for the greater good".
People are primed for all kinds of oppressive behavior as long as it doesn't hit them and if it makes them feel morally superior: true or false? Let's find out.
Obviously the study didn't include cops.
... to study if the results might be affected by characterizing the third person, to the subject, as holding different views than the subject. Say, for instance, portraying the third party as a liberal when the subject has identified themself as a conservative.
Attach the wires to congress critters or other elected or appointed government officials and I'd be willing to bet the results would be "shock" the government to it's knees.
Altruism has nothing to do with hurting oneself needlessly. It has to do with putting another's needs above one's own. In this study people were more willing to hurt themselves for money than they are willing to hurt other people for money. If money were not involved, there would not necessarily be any motivation to do either.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why most of you drive like complete assholes ricking others lives by tailgating or generally driving as if you own the road?
The research needs to be done two ways for reality. 1 - face to face where you have to face the person you are wronging, 2- secret. Bet that people will knowingly hurt others for trivial gains if they can get away with it anonymously.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
https://sites.google.com/site/... https://sites.google.com/site/...
So many Enlightening Experiments: * Get 10 people * Attach 5 of them up to electrodes. * Attach the other 5 up to electrodes, with 6 buttons - 5 will deliver shocks to each of the people without buttons, 1 will deliver a shock to themselves. * Apply financial incentives * Observe result. Variant 1: * Make sure participants have no way of knowing who shocked them - use some kind of automated system to pay them. * Observe Result Variant 2: * Use 10 people with 10 buttons * Observe Result Hypothesis: People are a lot less altruistic when they think they are not being watched / can get away with it!
In that case the choice should be to either shock someone and get money for it or refuse to do it and let the other person get the money instead (while nobody gets a shock). THAT would be a test of altruism vs. selfishness. What's easier for you, cause someone pain to get money or letting the money go, knowing that the person you didn't put into pain gets it instead.
Also an interesting tidbit that isn't quite clear is whether the person had only the choice to give himself or the other person the shocks, or to refuse it altogether.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've read several articles about people that have hacked off their own limbs with pocket knives after being trapped for several days after a car accident.
This better equates to a trapped animal you refer to, as it removes the trapper from the equation. I doubt animals would be able to determine there is a trapper involved, so it wouldn't play into the animals decision.
Mine was kind enough to help me punch myself before giving him my lunch money.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
This famous test has long been shown to be highly flawed with the observers going off script, the participants not believing it was real, errors in the setup which meant the claimed reason was obviously wrong, etc. Any study which references it should be viewed with doubt.
A guy delivers a box with a button to your home. Then he will give you 10 million dollars if you press the button. The previous person that pressed the dies.
*Message sent from Amosu Call of Diamond iPhone 6*
They clearly missed the early Simpson's episode in the family counselor's office...
I participated in the original experiment,
I was CONVINCED that there was no one on the other end.
No one getting shocked.
Thus, I went for the money.
Just gimme a cattle prod and an opportunity to shock the fuck out of people without legal consequences!
-- 29A the number of the Beast