Fake torture TV 'game show' reveals willingness to obey

[aduidarnenye]

http://www.france24.com/en/20100317-...-game-of-death

Just how far can TV go in the name of entertainment?

To answer this question, scientists carried out an experiment filmed and broadcast by French TV channel France 2 in a blood-chilling documentary about the seemingly limitless power of the small screen.

“Le jeu de la mort”, or “The Game of Death”, by director Christophe Nick, blends reality TV with a game show to give a psychological experiment from the past an unsettling 21st-century makeover. In the 1960s at Yale University, Stanley Milgram measured the willingness of participants to obey authority figures in an attempt to understand how accomplices in the Holocaust could have submitted so fully to Nazi orders. The new French documentary recruited volunteers who were told that they were going to shoot a pilot for a new show called “La Zone Xtrême”, or “The Xtreme Zone”. What lay in store for them, however, was a sort of pop-culture recreation of Milgram’s project.

A game becomes a torture session

With no financial incentive on the table, the point of the game was to ask one “candidate” – played by an actor – a series of questions. If he gave a wrong answer, the punishment would be an electric shock, with the voltage increasing by increments from 80 to 460 volts with each incorrect response.

The fake “candidate”, Jean-Paul, who remained out of the sight of the interrogators, communicated his pain progressively: first through whimpers, then pleas to stop the electrocutions and, finally, by total silence.

The startling outcome was that 64 of the 80 interrogators carried on with the game until it became something akin to a torture session. One might be tempted to assume that the players were crazy or sadistic. But the psychological conclusion, at once both facile and unimaginable, is that they were simply following orders: they hated making Jean-Paul suffer and expressed their desire to stop the game -- but, apart from 16 of the participants, never managed to resist orders from an authority figure to carry on.

‘The grip of TV’s power’

The main conceptual difference between the French documentary and the original experiment by Milgram is that the authority in question in the new version is not a scientist, but rather the TV setting: the host, Tania Young, and an audience watching intently.

"The interrogators are not dominated by a hierarchical stucture, but rather by the grip of TV’s power,” Jean-Léon Beauvois, a researcher in social psychology, explained.

In other words, they did’t dare contradict the demands of the TV host – an iconic figure in which they place their trust. “An individual faced with a power greater than himself becomes the most obedient being imaginable,” Beauvois observed.

But the makers of the “docu-game” could face criticism for manipulating the participants with the very methods the film aims to denounce. To minimise fallout, as soon as production ended, volunteers were notified that they had in fact participated in an experiment, and were asked for their permission to be shown on the programme. Only three refused.

Those who agreed were informed that they were normal, and that the context of the experiment was responsible for their behaviour.

“Most of them are thrilled to have participated in an experiment that could be useful for something,” director Nick noted. “And some of them are ready to do it all over again.”

[Moss]

I remember hearing about the original experiment in HS, interesting and disturbing.

[Mayareira]

This reminds me of 2006 summer, Psychology class and the girl I fell in love there.

[Zilong]

I was expecting a story about a japanese game show

[Drex]

I was expecting something original

I mean this whole "experiment" could have just been a wikipedia link to the last time it was done

[scrockstar]

I saw something like this from a UK TV show about a year ago on youtube.

[Kwijiboe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiments

This TV show did not reveal willingness to obey.. it's a fucking ripoff of a 1961 controversial experiment [although they give credit.. but they by no means 'discover' human willingness to obey]. Why replicate it for a TV show.. the original video is much more interesting and eye opening.. with the magic of TV editing, I'm sure they are overexaggerating the reactions of the subjects in this 'show'. Watch the original video... [trying to find it]... Youtube is crap. This kind of research was deemed unethical.. but for TV reality shows, why the hell not, eh?

Original video removed for copyright issues.. but found some Audio. http://learningat.ke7.org.uk/socials...13/Milgram.htm If you can find it on a torrent, definitely recommend downloading it. Not on a good connection to try downloading it.. but it's amazing.

[Priran]

Silly liberal european elitists. Law and Order: SVU did more with this experiment in one episode 2 years ago.

[Elesirdur]

Also sounds like a variation on the Stanford Prison Experiment.

[Alleya]

Everyone seems indignant, but in my view the more people are exposed to the fact that this is a real phenomenon the better (yes it's annoying that they are pretending that this is a new finding but still). People are, as a rule, extremely complacent and confident in their independence and don't realize just how little it takes to persuade someone to do something against their moral fiber. Doesn't matter what your background or level of education.

[Uzor]

Everyone seems indignant, but in my view the more people are exposed to the fact that this is a real phenomenon the better (yes it's annoying that they are pretending that this is a new finding but still). People are, as a rule, extremely complacent and confident in their independence and don't realize just how little it takes to persuade someone to do something against their moral fiber. Doesn't matter what your background or level of education.

This. I don't know what's more disturbing - it being so easy to get people to follow orders, or people blaming others for following said orders, as is the case during the holocaust.

[alt]

If you think the Milgram and/or this experiment was messed up....

Look up one of the variation experiments conducted by Sheridan and King where people were asked to give real electric shocks to a puppy in close proximity.

Other, more believable research has also supported Milgram’s findings. In a study by Sheridan & King (1972), participants had to train a puppy by giving it electric shocks (they were real this time, but small). Participants were led to believe they were increasing the shocks with each error. They could see the puppy and hear its squeals. Unbeknown to the participants, an anaesthetic was released in the puppy’s cage, which caused it to fall asleep.The participants were told that the puppy’s failure to respond was a punishable error and they should continue. The participants were distressed, and some cried, but 75% gave the maximum shock.

From this site: http://alevelpsychology.co.uk/social...ram-study.html

Everyone seems indignant, but in my view the more people are exposed to the fact that this is a real phenomenon the better (yes it's annoying that they are pretending that this is a new finding but still). People are, as a rule, extremely complacent and confident in their independence and don't realize just how little it takes to persuade someone to do something against their moral fiber. Doesn't matter what your background or level of education.

Sorry to nitpick here. The Milgram experiment and variations of it showed a complacency and willingness to obey, yes, but to those who they felt were in positions of authority and/or prestige. Variations of this experiment showed a significant drop in willingness to obey when the experiments was moved to a random basement and not on the campus of Yale (in the case of the Milgram experiment), and also when the people running the experiment were wearing normal civilian clothes instead of uniforms or lab coats. The proximity of the person in authority also had a great effect on the willingness of the subject.

[Plow]

Not only is this an incredibly interesting unique experiment, the results are absolutely shocking.

[guartz]

I wanna say olde, but.. the article admits it.

[guartz]

I wonder what would happened if they tried this with a specific group, say like, Anarchists.

(the philosophy ones, not the punk rock ones)

[Alleya]

The original study showed that it pretty didn't much matter who you got. Age, income, education, background, none of it made a difference.

[Blitzrahl]

I think it just serves to underline the need to understand just these sort of human frailties and failures in clear thinking that are systemic to our species, and use that as information to better our cultural/financial/political institutions. But that sounds like social engineering, I hear you say! But consider it, our laws and norms being based on statistical human behaviors rather than preconceived ideological or moral grounds.

[Priran]

I think it just serves to underline the need to understand just these sort of human frailties and failures in clear thinking that are systemic to our species, and use that as information to better our cultural/financial/political institutions. But that sounds like social engineering, I hear you say! But consider it, our laws and norms being based on statistical human behaviors rather than preconceived ideological or moral grounds.

[Alleya]

I think it just serves to underline the need to understand just these sort of human frailties and failures in clear thinking that are systemic to our species, and use that as information to better our cultural/financial/political institutions. But that sounds like social engineering, I hear you say! But consider it, our laws and norms being based on statistical human behaviors rather than preconceived ideological or moral grounds.

http://danliterature.files.wordpress...us_huxley2.jpg

Oh hello. I didn't hear you come in.