Conformity Experiment
TruthSlave
Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up
for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and
seven others whom you think are also participants arrive and
are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at
the time, but the others are actually associates of the
experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted.
You're the only real participant.
The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which
you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments.
She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains
one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines
of varying length.
The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which
of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the
line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with
different cards. On some occasions the other "participants"
unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they
are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.
What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion,
or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes?
If you where involved in this experiment how do you think you
would behave? Would you conform to the majority’s viewpoint?
'Solomon Asch (1951) – Line Judgement Experiment'
http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/asch-conformity.html
Now imagine the irony as this experiment found its application
in real life settings. As ways to convince you of a particular
behavior, as ways to influence and then thwart judgment.
Monkey see, monkey do, until monkey can't help himself. It couldn't
happen really happen, could it?
Giga2
Very interesting films of this experiment, the subject often looks
around with astonishment as people answer 'incorrectly' and still
they agree, often very half-heartedly!?
ck
Links to films of this famous experiment...
http://www.betterdaystv.net/play.php?vid=19441
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw&feature=related
Giga2
I think the YT one is not an actual experiment but a reconstruction.
As is the first film, but this is much better. Note in only 37% of
critical trials did the subject conform to the group, IOW 73% of the
time they did trust their own judgement. If there was just one other
person in the group supporting them this went to 95%. In a 'secret
ballot' type situation, even without support, they stuck to then guns
around 90% of the time. Some people were very conforming and others
were very determined to to say their own opinion. Some people were so
conforming that they actually saw the lines as the group seemed to. If
anything this experiement shows that there is quite a high degree of
independence from the group-think in many people, and nearly all
people sometimes.
zur...@yahoo.com
TruthSlave
One has to see this experiment as the benign end of social
coercion. It show what can happen in the most well tempered of
circumstance, which is quite removed from the real world which
has its stressesors and its prods to adopt the group's think.
What these stats would look like when you are being prodded to
conform is quite another story. A climate of unemployment, is
also one of those factors to be weary of, the ideal catalyst
for these kinds of conformity experiments.
To my way of thinking, Psychology and experiments of this kind,
amounts to a science of 'misdirection'. We see the study and
what it proclaims, while at its heart is the experiment and
the situations which it codifies. We see the findings with no
thought for these subtle relationships, or how that 'science'
might be reapplied in life.
In this case, the idea is one of stooges, whatever form they
take, and the hapless recruit seduced by their behavior.. They
appear to get away with the 'wrong answer', and so he apes the
same behavior, saying the wrong thing, believing there to be
no cost.
Akira Bergman
>
> I think the YT one is not an actual experiment but a reconstruction.
> As is the first film, but this is much better. Note in only 37% of
> critical trials did the subject conform to the group, IOW 73% of the
> time they did trust their own judgement. If there was just one other
> person in the group supporting them this went to 95%. In a 'secret
> ballot' type situation, even without support, they stuck to then guns
> around 90% of the time. Some people were very conforming and others
> were very determined to to say their own opinion. Some people were so
> conforming that they actually saw the lines as the group seemed to. If
> anything this experiement shows that there is quite a high degree of
> independence from the group-think in many people, and nearly all
> people sometimes.
Yes, humans show a well filled statistical distribution in terms of
conformity and non-conformity. Some people are so perverse that they
will oppose regardless of the truth, reverse-reflecting the utter
conformers.
This is in line with the fact that we fill the range between hunters
and grazers. This ensures our amazing adaptivity and success.
Zerkon
> Monkey see, monkey do, until monkey can't help himself.
Monkey innately social. Monkey think social before think reason. Social
good, make monkey survive. Liar monkeys bad, make social weak.
Throw fecal matter on liar monkeys, then monkey scientists, then monkey
department head and then dean, then toss biggest on monkey grant writer.
All Monkeys now conform.
Giga2
Which is a good thing probably. Vive le difference!
Giga2
> Giga2wrote:
That is true. At stake there is only a little social embarassment
perhaps, I wonder if he did any variants with a bit more incentive to
'fit in'? I bet someone has anyway.
>
> To my way of thinking, Psychology and experiments of this kind,
> amounts to a science of 'misdirection'. We see the study and
> what it proclaims, while at its heart is the experiment and
> the situations which it codifies. We see the findings with no
> thought for these subtle relationships, or how that 'science'
> might be reapplied in life.
>
> In this case, the idea is one of stooges, whatever form they
> take, and the hapless recruit seduced by their behavior.. They
> appear to get away with the 'wrong answer', and so he apes the
> same behavior, saying the wrong thing, believing there to be
> no cost.
Another interesting thing is that it shows there can be a kind of
positive feedback in social conformity, like a virtuous or vicious
circle. The more people who agree with the proposition the more are
likely to agree, and then even more could be drawn in etc etc. Which I
suppose is almost a good definition of Groupthink. This is why the
Contrarians are so valuable perhaps, even if they are a bit
disagreeable sometimes, at others they are going to be the only people
not 'under the spell'.
TruthSlave
>>> independence from the group-think in many people, and nearly all
>>> people sometimes.
>>
>> One has to see this experiment as the benign end of social
>> coercion. It show what can happen in the most well tempered of
>> circumstance, which is quite removed from the real world which
>> has its stressesors and its prods to adopt the group's think.
>>
>> What these stats would look like when you are being prodded to
>> conform is quite another story. A climate of unemployment, is
>> also one of those factors to be weary of, the ideal catalyst
>> for these kinds of conformity experiments.
>
> perhaps, I wonder if he did any variants with a bit more incentive to
> 'fit in'? I bet someone has anyway.
At this point you might as well be talking of 'game theory',
where both parties have a sense for what is at stake, and
then play by the rules of mutual benefits.
No, this is about something altogether different, you could
call this a 'science of deception' before its about any
meaningful study. Whether the point is explicit or implied,
this is about the advantage and the disadvantaged, and how
one achieves that end. Its one thing to study, but what do
you do that knowledge, except to apply its most powerful
precepts. Then its about how you persuade the individual,
and thus the group, to accept a given thought or a particular
situation.
The real trick is to recognize those situations where these
'studies' are applied. what kinds of people can one trust
with this knowledge? It seems the most selfish or the most
dispassionate graduate to this role. The wisest and most
compassionate have better thing to do than mess with the
minds of other people.
>
>> To my way of thinking, Psychology and experiments of this kind,
>> amounts to a science of 'misdirection'. We see the study and
>> what it proclaims, while at its heart is the experiment and
>> the situations which it codifies. We see the findings with no
>> thought for these subtle relationships, or how that 'science'
>> might be reapplied in life.
>>
>> In this case, the idea is one of stooges, whatever form they
>> take, and the hapless recruit seduced by their behavior.. They
>> appear to get away with the 'wrong answer', and so he apes the
>> same behavior, saying the wrong thing, believing there to be
>> no cost.
>
> Another interesting thing is that it shows there can be a kind of
> positive feedback in social conformity, like a virtuous or vicious
> circle. The more people who agree with the proposition the more are
> likely to agree, and then even more could be drawn in etc etc. Which
> I suppose is almost a good definition of Groupthink. This is why the
> Contrarians are so valuable perhaps, even if they are a bit
> disagreeable sometimes, at others they are going to be the only people
> not 'under the spell'.
>
Not 'under the spell' -- i like that. And yet the system is such
that those 'contrarians' are feared for all the wrong reasons.
They are feared for what they might say, rather than for what
they actually contribute to the balance of reason. We should
all just comply, with no sense for the consequences, as the
liars and the 'lied to' grow in numbers.
Giga2
So you would say that perhaps these kinds of techniques are being
misused in modern western society? Any examples? I've recently been
noticing, with the world cup going on, the Big Lie theory apparently
being used. Like McDs 'I'm Loving Shit' (or something like that). I
actually find myself sometimes wanting to eat some of that rubbish but
then I remember how tasteless it is and how lethargic it makes me feel
afterwards, compared to proper food. I wonder how much this is due to
the power of advertising.
Immortalist
Only if you could see the behavior from an evolutionary viewpoint. The
proper question to ask is how such behavior would profit hunter
gatherers 50,000 years ago. If this type of decision is easier to make
than other decisions there may be a reason why natural selection put
in place such a good feeling when choosing against your own reasoning.
There is another example; Reconstructive Memory. My conclusion about
it is that human concepts of history are means to the end of social
harmony. History is better a lie if it creates social harmony, when
you are a caveman.
Reconstructive Memory
Our memory plays an important role in all our social interactions.
Because of this, it is vital to grasp this one thing about memory:
Human memory is re-constructive in nature. By this I mean that we
cannot tap into a literal translation of past events.
It is not like playing back a tape recorder or a VCR; instead, we re-
create our memories from bits and pieces of actual events filtered
through and modified by our notions of what might have been and what
should have been.
Our memories are also profoundly influenced
by what people might have told us about the
specific events— long after they occurred.
As Anthony Greenwald has noted, if historians revised and distorted
history to the same extent that we do in trying to recall events from
our own lives, they'd lose their jobs! Of course, most of us would
like to believe that our memories contain only the truth about the
past. To most people, the idea that their memory is fallible is
somewhat frightening.
...Elizabeth Loftus ...conducted a fascinating program of research on
re-constructive memory—investigating how ... "suggestive" questioning
can influence memory and subsequent eyewitness testimony.
In one of her experiments, Loftus showed subjects a film depicting a
multiple-car accident.
After the film;
some of the subjects were asked,
"About how fast were the cars going
when they smashed into each other?"
Other subjects were asked the same
question, but the word smashed was
replaced by the word hit.
Subjects who were asked about smashing cars, as opposed to hitting
cars, estimated that the cars were going significantly faster;
moreover, a week after seeing the film, they were more likely to state
(erroneously) that there was broken glass at the accident scene.
Leading questions can not only influence the judgment of facts (as in
the case above), but also can affect the memory of what has happened.
In one of her early studies, Loftus showed subjects a series of slides
depicting an auto-pedestrian accident. In a critical slide, a green
car drove past the accident. Immediately after viewing the slides,
half of the subjects were asked, "Did the blue car that drove past the
accident have a ski rack on the roof ?" The remaining subjects were
asked this same question but with the word blue deleted. Those
subjects who were asked about the "blue" car were more likely to claim
incorrectly that they had seen a blue car. A simple question had
changed their memory.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reconstructive+memory%22
Monsieur Turtoni
(snip)
> Monkey see, monkey do, until monkey can't help himself. It couldn't
> happen really happen, could it?
There's probably a good reason we do this sort of behaviour. So the
irony might be that the time you try to go against the conformity of a
situation aka experiment; you wont be doing yourself a favour. Perhaps
you'll try and stand up for some strangers rights and get shot in the
head by a drunken teenager, etc.
HTHelps..
Jerry
> 'Solomon Asch (1951) – Line Judgement Experiment'
>
> http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/asch-conformity.html
>
> Now imagine the irony as this experiment found its application
> in real life settings.
Anyone who does not conform is regarded as a kook. That's why I am
regarded as a kook.
Most people don't understand the idea of forming one's own
conclusions. As proof of this, most people who know anything about me
believe that I am different just to be different. They absolutely
can't understand that I am not trying to be different. Even when it is
explained to them repeatedly, they can't get it. This proves that they
can't comprehend the idea of thinking for oneself. They see 2
possiblilities: conform in order to conform or be different in order
to be different. They do not see a 3rd possibility.
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> I think the YT one is not an actual experiment but a reconstruction.
> As is the first film, but this is much better. Note in only 37% of
> critical trials did the subject conform to the group, IOW 73% of the
> time they did trust their own judgement. If there was just one other
> person in the group supporting them this went to 95%. In a 'secret
> ballot' type situation, even without support, they stuck to then guns
> around 90% of the time. Some people were very conforming and others
> were very determined to to say their own opinion. Some people were so
> conforming that they actually saw the lines as the group seemed to. If
> anything this experiement shows that there is quite a high degree of
> independence from the group-think in many people, and nearly all
>
> - Show quoted text -
"You Are All Individuals" (some of the time to most of the
time...except me of course :-)
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
In that sense , we are like bees in a hive. The group consciousness
fills every void perfectly.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Did you type that while eating a bananna ?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no one more contrarie than someone who agrees with
disagreeable people...and few who are less popular.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you ever witnessed Derren Brown in ful flight? A great eye opener
on how the masses can and do get manipulated.
The power of the 'mind benders' have managed to overrule even the most
basic of our 'natural selection'instincts, where people drink Coke and
eat their chips, to the point of self destruction.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
One of the best movies of the late 20th century was Midnight Express,
where the main character went to the lowest rung on the ladder of
incarceration because of his non conforming nature, in an Istanbul
prison. He then 'individualised' himself into freedom.
When he went against the tide, the followers became most upset !
BOfL
BOfL
Akira Bergman
wrote:
Anti-hiving is not hiving. While it is true that some hive around
pseudo anti-hiving, the true anti-hivers do not hive; they are free
and solitary. I am afraid you do not qualify. You have already
expressed your admiration of a clown like Hitchens, who is a hypocrite
errand boy of the neocons. Your belief in a spiritual pyramid scheme
also betrays your claim to be a free man.
Giga2
Giga2
wrote:
I've always assumed that it all actors and set-up.
Monsieur Turtoni
(snip whatever)
UTTER PHONEY FUCKER..
Suck any cocks on the beach Brian?
Watch the cock(heh)roaches in your brain scatter.
UTTER PHONEY FUCKER..
HTH.
Zurab57
> happen really happen, could it?
Monkeys may also bear pure eyesight, but it is not science, as could
not be verified by table.
So the Freudian unconsciuos could not be as well verified, but still
it is the kind of science, as it is of men. Thouugh locked in themself
they could not escape any criticism.
Monsieur Turtoni
pick a weak spot, and dig.. There's all the shit.