We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Why I prefer mean people!
Replies
-
The Stanford prison experiment is another good "people off the rails" unethical research example.
Zimbardo is kind of a lunatic anyway.0 -
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.
It's true. I learned to take care of and defend myself, and others.0 -
Lord of the flys...0
-
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.
You mean where their rank is in the social group before the speaking out or after?0 -
So basically liberals (especially women) don't follow orders, and make up their own morality code as excuses for not?
These people have seriously never been married if they wasted money to figure this out.0 -
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.
You mean where their rank is in the social group before the speaking out or after?
in their usual social group(s), i.e. outside of the experiment, as in who they usually hang out with. In particular, whether those who are more dominant in their social group feel more confident in challenging an alpha/authority figure when in a new situation with different people (i.e. the one giving orders being the alpha and them being a low ranking newcomer) compared to those who are less dominant in their own social group(s).0 -
LOL, this is what I get for posting a thread like this on an evening when I don't actually have much time to participate! Ok, so I admitted I didn't read the source article in my OP, but I am familiar with the original experiment as well as the prison experiments etc. but that's not exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article. What struck me about the scenario was that it seemed familiar. To my mind we see a version of this game show on this site every day.
OP: Hi, I'm trying to lose weight and so I'm going to take a gamble and try this extreme diet strategy (I've agreed to participate in the game even though it might get me electrocuted).
General respondents: Great idea! Go for it! Good luck! You can do it! (i.e. giving the socially encouraged supportive responses that are in fact encouraging the OP to do something that is potentially harmful)
Mean person: That's actually kind of stupid and you might hurt yourself.
General respondents: Don't be mean! Why do you have to be rude? If OP wants to do it it's their business! (it's a game show, no one's really going to get hurt)
Mean person: I'm not being mean, just honest, OP could hurt themselves.
Damn, out of time. If you get what I'm trying to say and can express it better than I have go for it. I have a date with Indiana Jones so I won't be back for a while! :laugh:0 -
LOL, this is what I get for posting a thread like this on an evening when I don't actually have much time to participate! Ok, so I admitted I didn't read the source article in my OP, but I am familiar with the original experiment as well as the prison experiments etc. but that's not exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article. What struck me about the scenario was that it seemed familiar. To my mind we see a version of this game show on this site every day.
OP: Hi, I'm trying to lose weight and so I'm going to take a gamble and try this extreme diet strategy (I've agreed to participate in the game even though it might get me electrocuted).
General respondents: Great idea! Go for it! Good luck! You can do it! (i.e. giving the socially encouraged supportive responses that are in fact encouraging the OP to do something that is potentially harmful)
Mean person: That's actually kind of stupid and you might hurt yourself.
General respondents: Don't be mean! Why do you have to be rude? If OP wants to do it it's their business! (it's a game show, no one's really going to get hurt)
Mean person: I'm not being mean, just honest, OP could hurt themselves.
Damn, out of time. If you get what I'm trying to say and can express it better than I have go for it. I have a date with Indiana Jones so I won't be back for a while! :laugh:
Yeah, you royally ****ed up your context..0 -
It makes sense to me. I also studied bonobos a bit in college, mostly because I was studying sexuality. And, on mfp, I have become distasteful of this alpha concept because I have seen it in a different light than before. But, in my own social grouping I was the alpha female. My own social grouping being outside of whatever mainstream social grouping was going on. I was never interested in popularity and following the crowd. I found my own social grouping, and we often actually joked (from our interest in science) that I was the alpha. Which is funny considering how soft spoken and gentle I am. But, I was very shy as a child from my own childhood. I outgrew that.0
-
LOL, this is what I get for posting a thread like this on an evening when I don't actually have much time to participate! Ok, so I admitted I didn't read the source article in my OP, but I am familiar with the original experiment as well as the prison experiments etc. but that's not exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article. What struck me about the scenario was that it seemed familiar. To my mind we see a version of this game show on this site every day.
OP: Hi, I'm trying to lose weight and so I'm going to take a gamble and try this extreme diet strategy (I've agreed to participate in the game even though it might get me electrocuted).
General respondents: Great idea! Go for it! Good luck! You can do it! (i.e. giving the socially encouraged supportive responses that are in fact encouraging the OP to do something that is potentially harmful)
Mean person: That's actually kind of stupid and you might hurt yourself.
General respondents: Don't be mean! Why do you have to be rude? If OP wants to do it it's their business! (it's a game show, no one's really going to get hurt)
Mean person: I'm not being mean, just honest, OP could hurt themselves.
Damn, out of time. If you get what I'm trying to say and can express it better than I have go for it. I have a date with Indiana Jones so I won't be back for a while! :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I see!
:flowerforyou: 0 -
LOL, this is what I get for posting a thread like this on an evening when I don't actually have much time to participate! Ok, so I admitted I didn't read the source article in my OP, but I am familiar with the original experiment as well as the prison experiments etc. but that's not exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article. What struck me about the scenario was that it seemed familiar. To my mind we see a version of this game show on this site every day.
OP: Hi, I'm trying to lose weight and so I'm going to take a gamble and try this extreme diet strategy (I've agreed to participate in the game even though it might get me electrocuted).
General respondents: Great idea! Go for it! Good luck! You can do it! (i.e. giving the socially encouraged supportive responses that are in fact encouraging the OP to do something that is potentially harmful)
Mean person: That's actually kind of stupid and you might hurt yourself.
General respondents: Don't be mean! Why do you have to be rude? If OP wants to do it it's their business! (it's a game show, no one's really going to get hurt)
Mean person: I'm not being mean, just honest, OP could hurt themselves.
Damn, out of time. If you get what I'm trying to say and can express it better than I have go for it. I have a date with Indiana Jones so I won't be back for a while! :laugh:
Gotcha.
The mean person is actually the second participant saying "this is wrong" providing social support to help the OP stop shocking themselves.0 -
It makes sense to me. I also studied bonobos a bit in college, mostly because I was studying sexuality. And, on mfp, I have become distasteful of this alpha concept because I have seen it in a different light than before. But, in my own social grouping I was the alpha female. My own social grouping being outside of whatever mainstream social grouping was going on. I was never interested in popularity and following the crowd. I found my own social grouping, and we often actually joked (from our interest in science) that I was the alpha. Which is funny considering how soft spoken and gentle I am. But, I was very shy as a child from my own childhood. I outgrew that.
Alpha female = mom0 -
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.
You mean where their rank is in the social group before the speaking out or after?
in their usual social group(s), i.e. outside of the experiment, as in who they usually hang out with. In particular, whether those who are more dominant in their social group feel more confident in challenging an alpha/authority figure when in a new situation with different people (i.e. the one giving orders being the alpha and them being a low ranking newcomer) compared to those who are less dominant in their own social group(s).
interesting angle. this does seem like it might make a difference.0 -
So basically liberals (especially women) don't follow orders, and make up their own morality code as excuses for not?
These people have seriously never been married if they wasted money to figure this out.
Haylair.0 -
I can't find my book of seminal Social Psychology research
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions