History UsefulNotes / Psychology

4th Feb '18 2:14:18 PM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Evolutionary Psychology''' takes the assumption that behaviors, like organs, are the product of natural selection, and still exist because they provide some benefit to the organism that bears them. This field attempts to justify ideas like BuxomIsBetter, looks for TruthInTelevision in DoubleStandard[=s=], wonders why SacredHospitality developed, tries to find where StageMom[=s=] came from, even ponders why we are conscious at all. It's simultaneously the oldest branch of psychology (having roots in UsefulNotes/CharlesDarwin, 20 years before Wundt) and one of the youngest (its modern era having started in 1972 at earliest.) Practically at war with more modern iterations of Cultural Psychology, [[note]]The two sub-fields are essentially extensions of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, and academics in either sub-field have a tendency to talk past each other[[/note]] making it ample fuel for a FlameWar, and that's all we'll say here.

to:

* '''Evolutionary Psychology''' takes the assumption that behaviors, like organs, are the product of natural selection, and still exist because they provide some benefit to the organism that bears them. This field attempts to justify ideas like BuxomIsBetter, looks for TruthInTelevision in DoubleStandard[=s=], wonders why SacredHospitality developed, tries to find where StageMom[=s=] came from, even ponders why we are conscious at all. It's simultaneously the oldest branch of psychology (having roots in UsefulNotes/CharlesDarwin, 20 years before Wundt) and one of the youngest (its modern era having started in 1972 at earliest.) Its results vary from incredibly profound discoveries about the human psyche to absurd generalizations with only the slightest relationship to reality. Practically at war with more modern iterations of Cultural Psychology, [[note]]The two sub-fields are essentially extensions of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, and academics in either sub-field have a tendency to talk past each other[[/note]] making it ample fuel for a FlameWar, and that's all we'll say here.



* A study showed that children who have nightlights are more likely to need vision-correcting lenses as adults. What's going on here? ([[spoiler:The obvious conclusion is that nightlights cause vision damage... But that's pretty obviously not true; our eyes are exposed to much higher amounts of light during the day and do not suffer permanent damage. The other conclusion is that... Adult-glasses-wearing causes nightlights? How is ''that'' possible? -- How could my wearing glasses at 28 cause a StableTimeLoop when I'm 6? The answer is that adults wearing glasses ''does'' cause nightlights... But the adult ''is not you''. It's your parents. They couldn't see well when you were a child [the nightlight was for them, not you], and bad vision is hereditary [which is why you need glasses today.] A does not cause B, and B does not cause A; ''C causes both''. Fun Fact: In statistics, this is known as "''common response'' caused by a ''lurking variable''."]])

to:

* A study showed that children who have nightlights are more likely to need vision-correcting lenses as adults. What's going on here? ([[spoiler:The obvious conclusion is that nightlights cause vision damage... But that's pretty obviously not true; our eyes are exposed to much higher amounts of light during the day and do not suffer permanent damage. The other conclusion is that... Adult-glasses-wearing causes nightlights? How is ''that'' possible? -- How could my wearing glasses at 28 cause a StableTimeLoop when I'm 6? The answer is that adults wearing glasses ''does'' cause nightlights... But the adult ''is not you''. It's your parents. They couldn't see well when you were a child [the nightlight was for them, not you], and bad vision is hereditary [which is why you need glasses today.] today]. A does not cause B, and B does not cause A; ''C causes both''. Fun Fact: In statistics, this is known as "''common response'' caused by a ''lurking variable''."]])



This is less a big deal in the world of the physical sciences, where they have (for instance) a world standard kilogram in a vault somewhere in Europe that you can compare your classroom plastic weight to. Psychology doesn't have that luxury; there isn't a world-standard personality tucked into a vault somewhere to test our tools against. Psychologists design tests to measure a certain thing about personality, behavior, cognition, etc, but that doesn't mean the test ''succeeds''. And even if it does, most psychology results are expressed statistically, and [[LiesDamnedLiesAndStatistics a statistic will say anything if you torture it long enough]]. Finally, because anything sounds scientific if it's got charts and figures behind it, people can make up the most egregious nonsense around and pass it off as trustworthy; the UsefulNotes/MyersBriggs in particular was formulated entirely by people in their spare time, according to what made sense to them, and did not undergo ''any'' testing against real personalities before being released into the wild. Nonsense like this is part of why people are HardOnSoftScience, and to be clear, we are saying that [[TropesAreNotBad they are right to be so]]. Don't believe everything people tell you.

to:

This is less a big deal in the world of the physical sciences, where they have (for instance) a world standard world-standard kilogram in a vault somewhere in Europe that you can compare your classroom plastic weight to. Psychology doesn't have that luxury; there isn't a world-standard personality tucked into a vault somewhere to test our tools against. Psychologists design tests to measure a certain thing about personality, behavior, cognition, etc, but that doesn't mean the test ''succeeds''. And even if it does, most psychology results are expressed statistically, and [[LiesDamnedLiesAndStatistics a statistic will say anything if you torture it long enough]]. Finally, because anything sounds scientific if it's got charts and figures behind it, people can make up the most egregious nonsense around and pass it off as trustworthy; the UsefulNotes/MyersBriggs in particular was formulated entirely by people in their spare time, according to what made sense to them, and did not undergo ''any'' testing against real personalities before being released into the wild. Nonsense like this is part of why people are HardOnSoftScience, and to be clear, we are saying that [[TropesAreNotBad they are right to be so]]. Don't believe everything people tell you.
30th Oct '17 7:26:25 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

-> ''Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe...The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world...But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house...We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.''
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud'''
10th Sep '17 4:14:11 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


'''Psychology''' is defined as "The study of human behavior," and more specifically "the science of behavior and mental processes." Basically, psychology seeks to understand both how and why humans do what they do. Since that is a very broad topic, expect a long article.

to:

'''Psychology''' ''Psychology'' is defined as "The study of human behavior," and more specifically "the science of behavior and mental processes." Basically, psychology processes" or as Nobel Prize winning neuroscientist Erich Kandel called it, the "science of the mind". Psychology seeks to understand both how and why humans do what they do. Since that is a very broad topic, expect a long article.
20th Jul '17 1:17:42 AM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Psychology largely branched off from philosophy, which is where most vague ruminations get their start; as far back as Creator/{{Plato}} and Creator/{{Aristotle}}, people were making suppositions on human behavior. Major boosts to physiology during the 1800's made people start to believe (not incorrectly) that fundamental aspects of consciousness -- sensation, motor control, personality, memory, etc. -- could be detected as physical phenomena in the brain. The first "true" psychologist was UsefulNotes/WilhelmWundt, who opened a laboratory for the purpose in Leipzig in 1879.

to:

If Psychology largely branched off from philosophy, which is where most vague ruminations get their start; limited to the understanding of the human mind, then a good part of its origins can be traced to philosophy. Philosophy's original questions, as far back as Creator/{{Plato}} and Creator/{{Aristotle}}, dealt with arguments about what people were making suppositions on do, why they do it, and if their behaviour is conditioned by society, by some other force (divine) or so on. However, philosophy differs from psychology in that it is concerned with the human behavior. Major boosts to physiology during mind in so far as it is capable of reasoning, and it is geared towards creating and perfecting ideas for rational ends. Philosophers may write about dreams or use dreams as examples but they always held that their dreams have rational functions or draw rational material from their dreams, whereas for a psychologist, the 1800's made human mind is the human mind, dreams are dreams and the ability of people to rationalize their dreams is a symptom of their psychological process but has nothing to do with the content and function of the dream itself.

Modern psychology like all the social sciences, really traced its roots to the nineteenth century. Interests in the human mind and the "unconscious" had both academic and popular interests. At the
start to believe (not incorrectly) of the century there was the fad of Mesmerism and "animal magnetism", and towards the middle part of the century there was growing understanding that fundamental aspects of consciousness -- sensation, motor control, personality, memory, etc. -- could be detected as physical phenomena in the brain. The first "true" psychologist was UsefulNotes/WilhelmWundt, who opened a laboratory for the purpose in Leipzig in 1879.



* Finally, a fellow we've all heard of -- UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud -- came up with an approach called '''Psychoanalysis''', which in some ways combined the two: While introspection and self-observation were a major part of the process, the client looked for actual dysfunctional behaviors they were displaying, and then asked the psychoanalyst for help in puzzling out the motivations behind those behaviors. While a fair amount of Freud's theories -- particularly his obsession with sex -- are [[DeadHorseTrope largely discredited today]], the things he got ''right'', particularly the idea of the the subconscious mind and all tropes rooted therein, are just as sacrosanct.

Functionalism evolved further into '''Behaviorism''' as time went on. The first step in this direction was another name you're likely to know -- UsefulNotes/IvanPavlov -- who demonstrated the link between experience and learning. Pavlov's classic "Classical Conditioning" experiment was to ring a bell every time he fed his dog, who had been outfitted with an implant that collected some of its saliva. After a while of this, Pavlov demonstrated that, when he rang the bell, the dog would start to drool; it had been "conditioned" to associate the bell with food. Another researcher, UsefulNotes/BFSkinner, expanded this to "operant conditioning" which is basically how consequences, such as rewards and benefits, determine the frequency of behavior. He rigged up a contraption where lab rats would receive food every time they hit a lever in their cages; the rats continued to do this even after the food stopped. He was also able to train rats ''not'' to do things -- even natural, logical things -- by immediately administering punishments every time they did. In doing so, Skinner gave us the most radical definition of Behaviorism: All things we do and value are trained into us by stimulus-response conditioning, the hard way, and thus do not require consciousness. We are all easily manipulated robots.

to:

* Finally, a fellow we've all heard of -- UsefulNotes/SigmundFreud -- came up with an approach called '''Psychoanalysis''', which in some ways combined the two: While introspection and self-observation were a major part of the process, the client looked for actual dysfunctional behaviors they were displaying, and then asked the psychoanalyst for help in puzzling out the motivations behind those behaviors. While It was Freud who most coherently argued that a fair amount of Freud's theories -- particularly his obsession with sex -- are [[DeadHorseTrope largely discredited today]], the things he got ''right'', particularly the idea great part of the the subconscious human mind was unconscious and all tropes rooted therein, repressed. Given that he lived and worked in late 19th Century Vienna in the decaying Habsburg era, which was coeval with the Victorian-Edwardian age, a great deal of his investigations into unconscious mechanics and repression focused on sex, which means that his works are just a perennial source for controversy especially in the Anglophone. Freud began his career as sacrosanct.

a neurologist and a number of his earlier papers in neurology became important in the development of that field, but limited by the technology of his time, he departed from hard science to a more empirical and intuitive model, that became known in PopCulturalOsmosis as "the talking cure".
*
Functionalism evolved further into '''Behaviorism''' as time went on. The first step in this direction was another name you're likely to know -- UsefulNotes/IvanPavlov -- who demonstrated the link between experience and learning. Pavlov's classic "Classical Conditioning" experiment was to ring a bell every time he fed his dog, who had been outfitted with an implant that collected some of its saliva. After a while of this, Pavlov demonstrated that, when he rang the bell, the dog would start to drool; it had been "conditioned" to associate the bell with food. Another researcher, UsefulNotes/BFSkinner, expanded this to "operant conditioning" which is basically how consequences, such as rewards and benefits, determine the frequency of behavior. He rigged up a contraption where lab rats would receive food every time they hit a lever in their cages; the rats continued to do this even after the food stopped. He was also able to train rats ''not'' to do things -- even natural, logical things -- by immediately administering punishments every time they did. In doing so, Skinner gave us the most radical definition of Behaviorism: All things we do and value are trained into us by stimulus-response conditioning, the hard way, and thus do not require consciousness. We are all easily manipulated robots.



The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly would go if ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity.punishment. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly would go if ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.



Most modern societies stilly play the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight - Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you seek out psychotherapy, something "must be" deeply wrong with you. AsYouKnow, this is an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy. In US society in particular the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.

In any case: let's get this out of the way. If you are going to or have been recommended to go to therapy, ''there is nothing wrong with you''. You would simply like some advice on how to be happier with your life. (And who the hell doesn't want that?)

to:

Most modern societies stilly still play the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight - -- Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you seek out psychotherapy, something "must be" deeply wrong with you. AsYouKnow, this is an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy. In US society in particular America, this is especially prominent thanks to the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge malign influence of psychology "ego psychology" since about TheFifties.

TheFifties. Classic Freudian psychoanalysis was famously pessimistic and critical, seeing neurosis and repression as understandable and even, in some cases, heroic responses to what Freud saw as the inevitably disappointing nature of human society. The goal for Freud was better understanding of one's own self so that the person could be more aware when choosing to do something or the other. It did not by itself involve, necessarily, being successful, being a member of respectable society and indeed avoided prescribing ''goals'' as such. Now, "Ego psychology" said that the goal was to be a functioning person in a society, and by doing so, it essentially validated the given society and its values (i.e. USA in TheFifties) as worthy striving towards and assimilating into. This made psychotherapy quite popular, and even mainstream in that time, but this changed in TheSixties and TheSeventies, where social currents from below was mirrored by changes in the academic psychological establishment (most notably its declassification of homosexuality as an illness) and this un-tethering from the values of mainstream America was reflected, not coincidentally, in a radical rollback on mental health institutes across America, chiefly under the presidency of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan.

Since then, mental health and representations of mental health, have faced all kinds of stigma, both mocking and serious.
In any case: let's get this out of the way. If you are going to or have been recommended to go to therapy, ''there is nothing wrong with you''. You would simply like some advice on how to be happier with your life. (And who the hell doesn't want that?)
that?) However, you might change your opinions and feelings about some of the things you take for granted. And there are always consequences for any change made by a person.
19th Jul '17 5:59:08 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


American society plays the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight. It's CommonKnowledge that if you need psychotherapy, something is inherently wrong with you. The reality is the opposite. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time; so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve them? ...Besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations; self-awareness isn't always a value Americans embrace. And that probably feeds into the stigma against therapy, which is ironic because American researchers have been the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.

to:

American society plays
Most modern societies stilly play
the "TherapyIsForTheWeak" trope totally straight. It's CommonKnowledge straight - Japan has more sex therapists than regular ones. In most of these it's "CommonKnowledge" (HA) that if you need seek out psychotherapy, something is inherently "must be" deeply wrong with you. The reality AsYouKnow, this is the opposite. an incredibly counterproductive misconception. Psychology is "the study of human behavior," and like most humans you are behaving most of the time; time - so what harm could result from examining your own behaviors and trying to improve them? ...Besides it? ...besides the fact that most of us are probably in denial about some of our behaviors and motivations; self-awareness isn't always a value Americans embrace. And motivations. A clear majority of us ''believe'' that probably we are self-aware, but actually self-aware people are very much in the minority [[AndThatsTerrible since actually examining our flaws makes us feel bad]]. The desire to avoid admitting our flaws is pretty deeply ingrained since that keeps us feeling good about ourselves, and it feeds into the stigma against therapy, which therapy. In US society in particular the general refusal to engage in self-reflection is ironic because American researchers have pretty ironic, since they've been at the bleeding edge of psychology since about TheFifties.
19th Jul '17 5:38:56 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis to oppose Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Eichmann was quite obviously a highly intelligent and creatively fanatical racist (something [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil often missed by those who merely skim the case]]), rather than a genuine case of JustFollowingOrders, but Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' would go if ordered.ordered by people like Eichmann. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.
19th Jul '17 5:31:01 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', ('''''R'''eichs'''S'''icherheits'''H'''aupt'''A'''mt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would to oppose Communism) Communism]]) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.
19th Jul '17 5:27:28 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after Israel's trial of ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', (''{{ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt}}'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.
19th Jul '17 5:26:50 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who used the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse, implicitly allowing almost every German citizen alive to use it as well. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people ''would'' go if given that excuse. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: you can now set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.

to:

The experiment dictates that past a certain point (in the original case, 375 volts), the confederate will stop yelling, stop banging on the wall... [[NothingIsScarier stop making any responses at all]]. The participant is told to construe these silences as failed responses and continue administering the shocks, ignoring that something is quite obviously wrong with the Learner. This is why the Milgram experiments are probably too unethical to reproduce today: the participant is made to believe, or to fear, that [[MoralEventHorizon s/he has just killed a fellow human being for the sake of an experiment]]. It was staged just after the Israel's trial of Nazi war criminal ex-Lieutenant-Colonel Adolf Eichmann, who used Eichmann of the ''RSHA'' (''ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt'', lit. "Reich Main Security Office"). Eichmann had copied the "JustFollowingOrders" excuse, implicitly allowing almost every German citizen alive excuse used by defendants in the IMT and other postwar military court trials, possibly believing that its validity (rather than Anglo-American desire to use free Nazis so they would oppose Communism) had helped the vast majority of its users avoid conviction or punishment, and some observers such as the philosopher Hannah Arendt viewed it as well. their duty (as journalists) to relay this flimsy justification verbatim without voicing their serious doubts about its validity. Milgram wanted to find out just how far people truly ''would'' go if given that excuse. ordered. This is why the control panel has the series of buttons: you can now to set a quantity, in voltage, on the perils of blind obedience.
8th Jul '17 9:16:38 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


There's two basic branches of psychology: "Basic" and "Applied." The former is more about making discoveries and figuring out fundamental things about human braining; the latter is about using them in other areas. Examples of these "other areas" on TheOtherWiki include education, medicine and health care, product design and law; but psychology is "the study of human behavior" and those are all places where humans behave, you could make the argument that those fields are all just either extensions of psychology or hybrids of it with other disciplines. That's kind of the problem with psychology: Aside from the hard sciences, there's very little it doesn't have its fingers in.

to:

There's two basic branches of psychology: "Basic" and "Applied." The former is more about making discoveries and figuring out fundamental things about human braining; the latter is about using them in other areas. Examples of these "other areas" on TheOtherWiki Wiki/TheOtherWiki include education, medicine and health care, product design and law; but psychology is "the study of human behavior" and those are all places where humans behave, you could make the argument that those fields are all just either extensions of psychology or hybrids of it with other disciplines. That's kind of the problem with psychology: Aside from the hard sciences, there's very little it doesn't have its fingers in.
This list shows the last 10 events of 71. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Psychology