Why I prefer mean people!

QueenBishOTUniverse

They won't electrocute me!

I make absolutely no claims about the validity of this article, just found it amusing.

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/07/70485/obedience-personality-behavior-study?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=post

Who knew that Cobra Starship and Leighton Meester's short-lived hit “Good Girls Go Bad” was developing breakthrough personality research? A new study published in the Journal of Personality finds that socially desirable traits may make you more likely to engage in destructive behavior — if you’re given orders to do so.

In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram’s social psychology experiments revealed how easy it is for authority figures to influence people's behaviors, as the study's subjects complied with orders to deliver potent electrical shocks to strangers. The more recent research included a Milgram-variation experiment, where researchers wanted to look at whether specific personality traits would make someone more or less likely to follow orders — even when those orders involved harming another human.

For the study, 66 participants (ranging in age from 26-54) were asked to partake in a mock TV game show. Subjects were instructed, as part of the game’s rules, to deliver an electric shock to their teammates as a penalty for answering incorrectly; the intensity of the shock would increase after each wrong answer. Then, eight months later, the participants were asked to take a survey (which they thought was unrelated to the experiment), to help the researchers assess personality traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness.

The researchers showed that participants with strongly agreeable and conscientious dispositions were most willing to follow orders — and therefore willing to deliver the highest shock intensity to their game-show teammates. Who was most likely to refuse to follow orders? Those with left-wing political ideologies, particularly women who had participated in past strikes or demonstrations.

“Many studies show that agreeableness and conscientiousness are widely related to positive outcomes such as improved mental health, longevity, academic performance, reduced aggression, and pro-social behavior,” explains lead author Laurent Bègue, professor at the University of Grenoble-Alpes. “However, in some specific contexts, they may also have darker sides, in that they can lead to destructive and immoral obedience.”

Watch out, all you Most Popular candidates: In the right context, those “desirable” interpersonal traits that may boost your favor among coworkers and friends can also contribute to destructive behavior choices. This doesn’t have to happen in such game-show conditions, either; every day, we’re faced with social norms and peer pressure that may urge us to follow the crowd — with potentially disastrous results. In the end, it seems like marching to the beat of your own, unconventional drummer is a valuable thing. So, you keep doing you.

The_Aly_Wei

I have ODD, you're safe

tristan299

They're honest and don't bullsh1t you. what you see is what you get. Got to love mean old miserable people

BinaryPulsar

Before people get too nutty. I just want to add my two cents. A person can be kind with a deep sense of empathy (especially if they have truly suffered at the hands of others before), and be honest and march to the creative beat of their own drum and not be a follower of a group. It's the people that follow a group that behave a certain way under the influence of the group (two-faced) that you need to watch out for. Also, there are plenty of people that lack empathy that would gladly inflict pain any chance they can get under the guise of being nice (and play good cop, bad cop).

nilbogger

I live in New England and everyone says people here are really rude. In fact I hear this from other New Englanders so often that I wonder who the rude ones actually are. But I digress.

I am one of the rude ones. I don't want to chat with people on the bus or in the elevator. I don't want to make small talk with cashiers. This area suits me just fine.

When I heard about the story where the little girl was supposedly asked to leave KFC because of her scars I thought that would never happen here! A Connecticut KFC employee would NEVER be so attentive to a customer's complaint!

BinaryPulsar

This just majorly sets off my slippery slope alarms. I'm also from New England, btw. But, I understand. I am a generally very joyful person to be around, but it's genuine. I am genuinely happy. However, I do think some people are fake and too far with the whole becoming best friends with every stranger. Blech!

nilbogger

This just sets of my slippery slope alarms.

As of right now my new dream is to open a slide park (not water slides, just regular slides) and have a Slippery Slope Alarm for the event that someone may pee him or herself or spill something on one of the slides.

BinaryPulsar

This just sets of my slippery slope alarms. I'm also from New England, btw.

As of right now my new dream is to open a slide park (not water slides, just regular slides) and have a Slippery Slope Alarm for the event that someone may pee him or herself or spill something on one of the slides.

:laugh:

MyChocolateDiet

“Many studies show that agreeableness and conscientiousness are widely related to positive outcomes such as improved mental health, longevity, academic performance, reduced aggression, and pro-social behavior,” explains lead author Laurent Bègue, professor at the University of Grenoble-Alpes. “However, in some specific contexts, they may also have darker sides, in that they can lead to destructive and immoral obedience.”

Watch out, all you Most Popular candidates: In the right context, those “desirable” interpersonal traits that may boost your favor among coworkers and friends can also contribute to destructive behavior choices. This doesn’t have to happen in such game-show conditions, either; every day, we’re faced with social norms and peer pressure that may urge us to follow the crowd — with potentially disastrous results. In the end, it seems like marching to the beat of your own, unconventional drummer is a valuable thing. So, you keep doing you.

Timely.

delicious_cocktail

TV show contestants who consent to be electrocuted for giving the wrong answers? Who are free to take the electrodes off at any time??
Is there good moral cause for people to refuse to administer what others have consented to receive?

I have pretty strong doubts about the validity of the reporter's extrapolations from the described experiment.

_John_

TV show contestants who consent to be electrocuted for giving the wrong answers? Who are free to take the electrodes off at any time??
Is there good moral cause for people to refuse to administer what others have consented to receive?

I have pretty strong doubts about the validity of the reporter's extrapolations from the described experiment.

yeah, I think that's kinda what the people who consented to this get for being wrong...

MyChocolateDiet

TL;DR...some people will do anything to feel accepted. Other people who recogize this will exploit that...with very very little effort. :flowerforyou:

BinaryPulsar

Just want the add that there is sometimes the case in which people say people were being mean, when they were not. So, that is not actually an issue of nice vs. mean. It's a matter of interpretation of what nice and mean is. I think the interpretation is skewed at times.

George_Baileys_Ghost

hAngry nudez are teh hawtest nudez.

Galatea_Stone

I like nice people. I like mean people. I'd most likely the the dummy with the electrodes on saying "Um, guys? Can I take these off now? No? Ouch! Are -ow- you -eeeee- sure? Is it supposed to hurt this much?"

MyChocolateDiet

I like nice people. I like mean people. I'd most likely the the dummy with the electrodes on saying "Um, guys? Can I take these off now? No? Ouch! Are -ow- you -eeeee- sure? Is it supposed to hurt this much?"

I'd be the one running back and forth between you and the numbnuts electrocuting you and yelling "can't you see what this IS!?!?!" and tryna push them away from the button WHILE tryna remove your electrodes.

neandermagnon

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

delicious_cocktail

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

gym_king_carlie

Before people get too nutty. I just want to add my two cents. A person can be kind with a deep sense of empathy (especially if they have truly suffered at the hands of others before), and be honest and march to the creative beat of their own drum and not be a follower of a group. It's the people that follow a group that behave a certain way under the influence of the group (two-faced) that you need to watch out for. Also, there are plenty of people that lack empathy that would gladly inflict pain any chance they can get under the guise of being nice (and play good cop, bad cop).

Completely agree

BinaryPulsar

"Good dragons can do bad things under the influence of bad people"...I just watched How to Train Your Dragon 2.

srslybritt

Now this... this is my kinda thread.

likitisplit

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

And the original research was reviewed. Nobody thought that somebody standing there saying "In order to complete the experiment, you must continue" three times was all that compelling.

The fact that we think that the participants were under extreme duress is BECAUSE of that research.

For the record, only about 30% of the participants complied with shocking the stooge at the "dangerous" level in the original experiment. The rest completely refused.

This was eye-opening because the experts predicted that the 1-2% of the population who are sadists would actually take it to that level. 2% vs. 30% was groundbreaking.

neandermagnon

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

okay I missed that bit about them redoing the study. I'll assume that if it recently got past the ethics committee of a university then it really was an ethical version of the experiment.

So what is the conclusion then.... that people are on a spectrum between lawful evil and chaotic good? :bigsmile: (sorry couldn't resist the AD&D reference...) although probably the people doing that are more lawful neutral than truly lawful evil

neandermagnon

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

And the original research was reviewed. Nobody thought that somebody standing there saying "In order to complete the experiment, you must continue" three times was all that compelling.

The fact that we think that the participants were under extreme duress is BECAUSE of that research.

For the record, only about 30% of the participants complied with shocking the stooge at the "dangerous" level in the original experiment. The rest completely refused.

This was eye-opening because the experts predicted that the 1-2% of the population who are sadists would actually take it to that level. 2% vs. 30% was groundbreaking.

it is interesting though, in light of understanding how and why widespread human rights abuses can occur. Generally there's an offsetting of responsibility, i.e. the one giving orders doesn't feel responsible because they're not actually doing it, and the one following orders doesn't feel responsible because they're just following orders.

In terms of personality traits and obedience to authority, I think that more timid and compliant people are more easily intimidated by authority figures... it isn't just what they said in the experiment, a lot of people find any authority figure somewhat intimidating and find it harder to say no even when they're no actual threat.... many people have been conditioned for years to always obey authority (moreso in the 60s than now, because schools and parents tended to be more authoritarian), and it's easy for authority to be abused, for this reason. And that's pretty much what the experiment showed. And it's why parents need to teach their kids that obedience to authority has limits and that in a situation where someone in authority is trying to hurt them or make them do anything bad, that it's okay to be rude, to run away, to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation. Paedophiles generally choose quiet, good, compliant children for exactly this reason - they're easier to intimidate and more likely to be obedient. And with the 30% of obedient adults in the experiment... I think that what it showed was intimidation by an authority figure (even if unintentional) perhaps due to being raised by authoritarian parents or whatever, not that they were willing to be meaner.

likitisplit

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

And the original research was reviewed. Nobody thought that somebody standing there saying "In order to complete the experiment, you must continue" three times was all that compelling.

The fact that we think that the participants were under extreme duress is BECAUSE of that research.

For the record, only about 30% of the participants complied with shocking the stooge at the "dangerous" level in the original experiment. The rest completely refused.

This was eye-opening because the experts predicted that the 1-2% of the population who are sadists would actually take it to that level. 2% vs. 30% was groundbreaking.

it is interesting though, in light of understanding how and why widespread human rights abuses can occur. Generally there's an offsetting of responsibility, i.e. the one giving orders doesn't feel responsible because they're not actually doing it, and the one following orders doesn't feel responsible because they're just following orders.

In terms of personality traits and obedience to authority, I think that more timid and compliant people are more easily intimidated by authority figures... it isn't just what they said in the experiment, a lot of people find any authority figure somewhat intimidating and find it harder to say no even when they're no actual threat.... many people have been conditioned for years to always obey authority (moreso in the 60s than now, because schools and parents tended to be more authoritarian), and it's easy for authority to be abused, for this reason. And that's pretty much what the experiment showed. And it's why parents need to teach their kids that obedience to authority has limits and that in a situation where someone in authority is trying to hurt them or make them do anything bad, that it's okay to be rude, to run away, to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation. Paedophiles generally choose quiet, good, compliant children for exactly this reason - they're easier to intimidate and more likely to be obedient. And with the 30% of obedient adults in the experiment... I think that what it showed was intimidation by an authority figure (even if unintentional) perhaps due to being raised by authoritarian parents or whatever, not that they were willing to be meaner.

What the series of experiments showed what that social pressure can be intense. I've seen some of the films and a lot of the people who complied were debating and arguing the entire time. They were sweating and anxious. If you asked them, they wouldn't say that they were "compliant" even though they turned the knob and pressed the button.

We still assume that saying no is easy - look at all the responses in the "sabotaging co-worker" threads. It's not. We consistently underestimate its effects even now.. Conformity is still being studied and based on the current research you could probably get similar numbers today. It's who we are as social animals. It's not just the Germans or the people in the 40's or 60's. It's people.

One thing that's interesting - reducing perceived authority had an effect (the guy took off his lab coat and identified himself as Mr., not Doctor) - but what REALLY had an effect was anybody else in the room saying, "No. That's not right." Compliance rates dropped to the predicted 1-2%. Seriously, ANYBODY, even another participant.

neandermagnon

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

And the original research was reviewed. Nobody thought that somebody standing there saying "In order to complete the experiment, you must continue" three times was all that compelling.

The fact that we think that the participants were under extreme duress is BECAUSE of that research.

For the record, only about 30% of the participants complied with shocking the stooge at the "dangerous" level in the original experiment. The rest completely refused.

This was eye-opening because the experts predicted that the 1-2% of the population who are sadists would actually take it to that level. 2% vs. 30% was groundbreaking.

it is interesting though, in light of understanding how and why widespread human rights abuses can occur. Generally there's an offsetting of responsibility, i.e. the one giving orders doesn't feel responsible because they're not actually doing it, and the one following orders doesn't feel responsible because they're just following orders.

In terms of personality traits and obedience to authority, I think that more timid and compliant people are more easily intimidated by authority figures... it isn't just what they said in the experiment, a lot of people find any authority figure somewhat intimidating and find it harder to say no even when they're no actual threat.... many people have been conditioned for years to always obey authority (moreso in the 60s than now, because schools and parents tended to be more authoritarian), and it's easy for authority to be abused, for this reason. And that's pretty much what the experiment showed. And it's why parents need to teach their kids that obedience to authority has limits and that in a situation where someone in authority is trying to hurt them or make them do anything bad, that it's okay to be rude, to run away, to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation. Paedophiles generally choose quiet, good, compliant children for exactly this reason - they're easier to intimidate and more likely to be obedient. And with the 30% of obedient adults in the experiment... I think that what it showed was intimidation by an authority figure (even if unintentional) perhaps due to being raised by authoritarian parents or whatever, not that they were willing to be meaner.

What the series of experiments showed what that social pressure can be intense. I've seen some of the films and a lot of the people who complied were debating and arguing the entire time. They were sweating and anxious. If you asked them, they wouldn't say that they were "compliant" even though they turned the knob and pressed the button.

We still assume that saying no is easy - look at all the responses in the "sabotaging co-worker" threads. It's not. We consistently underestimate its effects even now.. Conformity is still being studied and based on the current research you could probably get similar numbers today. It's who we are as social animals. It's not just the Germans or the people in the 40's or 60's. It's people.

One thing that's interesting - reducing perceived authority had an effect (the guy took off his lab coat and identified himself as Mr., not Doctor) - but what REALLY had an effect was anybody else in the room saying, "No. That's not right." Compliance rates dropped to the predicted 1-2%. Seriously, ANYBODY, even another participant.

The thing of one person objecting making it easier for others to say no can be explained purely in terms of primate behaviour*... i.e. forming alliances to be able to challenge higher ranking individuals. chimps and bonobos do that. a lone, low-ranking primate won't challenge a high ranking (alpha or beta) troop member. But two or three banded together might well do that. So when one human challenges the alpha (the authority figure) the one who is feeling stressed because they don't want to do what the alpha wants them to do immediately jumps on the chance to form an alliance and challenge the alpha together.

*note I said can be - there are likely to be other factors at play, but this really is a very typical primate behaviour

It's sometimes quite disturbing just how much we're kind of stuck in our primate social system brain wiring...

I'd be interested in comparing the two groups - those that complied even though they didn't want to - and those who spoke out even when they were the only one there speaking out - and see what their rank is in their usual social group, i.e. alpha, beta or low ranking, and whether this makes a difference to whether they comply or not.

likitisplit

I studied that study at university.... it was presented as an example of an extremely unethical study that shouldn't have been allowed.

The people participating it were put under duress to administer the electric shocks... not extreme duress, but still they were under pressure to follow orders. More timid and compliant people would be expected to cave in sooner in those circumstances.

Just thought I'd mention that, because it doesn't really support the idea that nice people are more likely to be mean when following orders... it means they're more susceptible to pressure to follow authority.

The original '60s experiment, yes. They base the assertions on newer research which is absent a lot of the compelling circumstances of the original.

And the original research was reviewed. Nobody thought that somebody standing there saying "In order to complete the experiment, you must continue" three times was all that compelling.

The fact that we think that the participants were under extreme duress is BECAUSE of that research.

For the record, only about 30% of the participants complied with shocking the stooge at the "dangerous" level in the original experiment. The rest completely refused.

This was eye-opening because the experts predicted that the 1-2% of the population who are sadists would actually take it to that level. 2% vs. 30% was groundbreaking.

it is interesting though, in light of understanding how and why widespread human rights abuses can occur. Generally there's an offsetting of responsibility, i.e. the one giving orders doesn't feel responsible because they're not actually doing it, and the one following orders doesn't feel responsible because they're just following orders.

In terms of personality traits and obedience to authority, I think that more timid and compliant people are more easily intimidated by authority figures... it isn't just what they said in the experiment, a lot of people find any authority figure somewhat intimidating and find it harder to say no even when they're no actual threat.... many people have been conditioned for years to always obey authority (moreso in the 60s than now, because schools and parents tended to be more authoritarian), and it's easy for authority to be abused, for this reason. And that's pretty much what the experiment showed. And it's why parents need to teach their kids that obedience to authority has limits and that in a situation where someone in authority is trying to hurt them or make them do anything bad, that it's okay to be rude, to run away, to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation. Paedophiles generally choose quiet, good, compliant children for exactly this reason - they're easier to intimidate and more likely to be obedient. And with the 30% of obedient adults in the experiment... I think that what it showed was intimidation by an authority figure (even if unintentional) perhaps due to being raised by authoritarian parents or whatever, not that they were willing to be meaner.

What the series of experiments showed what that social pressure can be intense. I've seen some of the films and a lot of the people who complied were debating and arguing the entire time. They were sweating and anxious. If you asked them, they wouldn't say that they were "compliant" even though they turned the knob and pressed the button.

We still assume that saying no is easy - look at all the responses in the "sabotaging co-worker" threads. It's not. We consistently underestimate its effects even now.. Conformity is still being studied and based on the current research you could probably get similar numbers today. It's who we are as social animals. It's not just the Germans or the people in the 40's or 60's. It's people.

One thing that's interesting - reducing perceived authority had an effect (the guy took off his lab coat and identified himself as Mr., not Doctor) - but what REALLY had an effect was anybody else in the room saying, "No. That's not right." Compliance rates dropped to the predicted 1-2%. Seriously, ANYBODY, even another participant.

The thing of one person objecting making it easier for others to say no can be explained purely in terms of primate behaviour*... i.e. forming alliances to be able to challenge higher ranking individuals. chimps and bonobos do that. a lone, low-ranking primate won't challenge a high ranking (alpha or beta) troop member. But two or three banded together might well do that. So when one human challenges the alpha (the authority figure) the one who is feeling stressed because they don't want to do what the alpha wants them to do immediately jumps on the chance to form an alliance and challenge the alpha together.

*note I said can be - there are likely to be other factors at play, but this really is a very typical primate behaviour

It's sometimes quite disturbing just how much we're kind of stuck in our primate social system brain wiring...

I'd be interested in comparing the two groups - those that complied even though they didn't want to - and those who spoke out even when they were the only one there speaking out - and see what their rank is in their usual social group, i.e. alpha, beta or low ranking, and whether this makes a difference to whether they comply or not.

I don't know if that was ever examined. My gut reaction is that it didn't stand out to the researchers - these weren't college students but adults from all walks of life who volunteered as test subjects.

I'll take a look at the study tonight if I can find the book.

MinMin97

Wait...is this spam?

BinaryPulsar

I'm not obedient. But, I come across as very gentle and soft spoken at times. But, when I sense things such as deception, lack of trustworthiness, manipulation, and you cross my path...oh you will feel my strength.

likitisplit

I'm not obedient. But, I come across as very gentle and soft spoken at times. But, when I sense things such as deception, lack of trustworthiness, manipulation, and you cross my path...oh you will feel my strength.

I'm sure your life circumstances have taught you the dangers of blind compliance.

delicious_cocktail

The Stanford prison experiment is another good "people off the rails" unethical research example.