Why We Make Mistakes
Chapter five of "Why We Make Mistakes" investigates the concept of multitasking and the effects of multitasking on the human brain. Joseph Hallinan does a great job driving the importance of this idea home early in the chapter by telling a story about a commercial airplane that crashes because its pilot was distracted. Upon descent, the pilot noticed that the landing gear light was not lit even though he lowered the landing gear. The pilot asked for the copilot's help and even contacted a passenger that was a Boeing aircraft mechanic. While the pilot and company were investigating this strange occurrence, the plane had continued its descent and had crashed into the Florida Everglades killing everyone on board, nearly 100 poor souls. The point is that while distraction seems like a minor inconvenience and a nuisance at most, it actually can lead to a major accident.
Hallinan wastes no time relating this event to countless other similar occurrences, establishing that this was not an isolated incident. His explanation for this behavior is that while multitasking seems like a benefit, it can really be a curse, causing overwhelming amounts of distraction. Most people imagine that our brains multitasking is similar to a computer downloading a file while simultaneously playing music. However, computers actually switch back and forth between processes at a super fast rate. So fast in fact, that the users perceive no noticeable gaps in performance. The human brain does not work this same way. Every time that we focus on a new task, we lose the short term memory associated with the previous task.
This idea is evident in the example of the bus driver that took the roof off of his coach bus with a group of students on board. He was supposed to follow the lead bus, but its driver did not include him in the trip planning process and was not answering his phone. As he was driving, he called his sister to vent and while he was ranting his bus approached an arched bridge with severe height restriction in the right-hand lane. The lead bus changed lanes into the center lane to avoid an overhead collision, but he did not. The top two feet of the bus was sheered off and a passenger was severely injured. Luckily no one was killed. When interviewed, the bus driver told officials that not only did he not see the warning sign, he did not even see the bridge at all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box (Chapters 9 & 10)
Chapter 9:
In chapter nine, Slater investigates some hard, biological proof that memory has cellular mechanisms that can be measured and monitored. Slater recalls a story of a man called Henry, who was having severe, lifestyle-limiting seizures. Henry has a procedure done by Dr. Scoville, in which his entire hippocampus was excised. As a result of the procedure, Henry lost all capabilities of forming new memories, suggesting that the Hippocampus is at a minimum a part of the path to creating new memories. Eric Kandel, an Austrian survivor of Kristallnacht, is a psychoanalyst and neurological scientist that graduated from Harvard. Kendal performed some seriously cool experiments on sea slugs that physically proved that there are biological memory mechanisms.
Kandel removed aplysia neurons and preserved them in a broth, allowing him to manipulate them into communicating with each other. As Kandel observed the neurons communicating, he witnessed the two neurons physically growing synaptic connections, creating a pathway for communication and establishing the most primitive proof of memory mechanisms. What is even more interesting, is that the more that Kandel made these neurons communicate with each other, the larger and stronger the synaptic connection became. This allowed Kandel to move beyond simple, short-term memory to long-term memory. This also helped enforce the old adage: “use it or lose it.”
Chapter 10:
Chapter ten is devoted to Lobotomies, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Antonio Moniz is a Portuguese doctor that won the Nobel Prize in 1949 for his role in psychosurgery, specifically the Lobotomy. One interesting fact about Moniz, is that he suffers from a severe case of gout and therefore is highly dependent upon helpers during surgery, where he normally advises from a managerial role. Before Moniz actually performed a psychosurgical procedure, he first had to find a way to visualize the brain in its entirety, which is something that was not previously possible. He was able to do this by injecting a dye into the patients neck and then perform X-rays on the head of the patient. Through this technique, Moniz was able to more accurately visualize the inner workings of the brain.
The first patient that Moniz performed a lobotomy on was Mrs. M., who was severely depressed and suffered from acute anxiety attacks. Instead of using a blade to cut away the brain synapses, Moniz injected small amounts of alcohol, which killed the surrounding tissue, including the synapses. Post-procedure interviews with Mrs. M. showed that the procedure was successful in suppressing her depression and anxiety attacks. However, due to lack of future follow up and recording, little is known of how the patient reacted to the lobotomy long term.Another scientist, Dr. Freeman from the United States, created a different form of lobotomy in which a sharp punch-like tool was forced through the soft spots of the skull located in the ocular cavity. This is the form of the lobotomy that I have heard the most about and envision when someone mentions a lobotomy.
In chapter nine, Slater investigates some hard, biological proof that memory has cellular mechanisms that can be measured and monitored. Slater recalls a story of a man called Henry, who was having severe, lifestyle-limiting seizures. Henry has a procedure done by Dr. Scoville, in which his entire hippocampus was excised. As a result of the procedure, Henry lost all capabilities of forming new memories, suggesting that the Hippocampus is at a minimum a part of the path to creating new memories. Eric Kandel, an Austrian survivor of Kristallnacht, is a psychoanalyst and neurological scientist that graduated from Harvard. Kendal performed some seriously cool experiments on sea slugs that physically proved that there are biological memory mechanisms.
Kandel removed aplysia neurons and preserved them in a broth, allowing him to manipulate them into communicating with each other. As Kandel observed the neurons communicating, he witnessed the two neurons physically growing synaptic connections, creating a pathway for communication and establishing the most primitive proof of memory mechanisms. What is even more interesting, is that the more that Kandel made these neurons communicate with each other, the larger and stronger the synaptic connection became. This allowed Kandel to move beyond simple, short-term memory to long-term memory. This also helped enforce the old adage: “use it or lose it.”
Chapter 10:
Chapter ten is devoted to Lobotomies, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Antonio Moniz is a Portuguese doctor that won the Nobel Prize in 1949 for his role in psychosurgery, specifically the Lobotomy. One interesting fact about Moniz, is that he suffers from a severe case of gout and therefore is highly dependent upon helpers during surgery, where he normally advises from a managerial role. Before Moniz actually performed a psychosurgical procedure, he first had to find a way to visualize the brain in its entirety, which is something that was not previously possible. He was able to do this by injecting a dye into the patients neck and then perform X-rays on the head of the patient. Through this technique, Moniz was able to more accurately visualize the inner workings of the brain.
The first patient that Moniz performed a lobotomy on was Mrs. M., who was severely depressed and suffered from acute anxiety attacks. Instead of using a blade to cut away the brain synapses, Moniz injected small amounts of alcohol, which killed the surrounding tissue, including the synapses. Post-procedure interviews with Mrs. M. showed that the procedure was successful in suppressing her depression and anxiety attacks. However, due to lack of future follow up and recording, little is known of how the patient reacted to the lobotomy long term.Another scientist, Dr. Freeman from the United States, created a different form of lobotomy in which a sharp punch-like tool was forced through the soft spots of the skull located in the ocular cavity. This is the form of the lobotomy that I have heard the most about and envision when someone mentions a lobotomy.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box (Chapters 7 & 8)
Chapter 7:
Chapter 7, which seems to be one of my favorite chapters so far, focuses on addiction and substance abuse. During the 1960’s and 1970’s there were a lot of studies conducted in the area of substance abuse and addiction. Most of the popular theories at the time stressed a physical dependency as the main source and contributing factor to extreme addiction. These theories also stress that the brain is capable of producing most of the chemicals found in drugs such as cocaine and opiates. When these substances are abused, the brain takes a break from producing these chemicals, so that when the person stops using the substances, the body lacks these chemicals because the brain is on break.
Bruce Alexander and his research partners challenged the very basis of these theories in their Rat Park experiments. Bruce Alexander earned his undergraduate degree at Miami (Ohio) University and, intrigued by Harry Harlow’s studies of love, decided to earn a mentorship under Harlow. When the Vietnam war broke out, Alexander moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and after teaching a course on heroin addiction, decided to devise his own study to test substance abuse. His study, known as Rat Park, seeked to challenge conventional wisdom regarding substance addiction. Alexander studied rats and morphine, but focused his studies on the situation and the environment that the rats are subject to. Some of Alexander’s rats were kept in cramped, cold, and small cages similar to traditional studies, while others were kept in a wide-open cage, complete with ample food, friendship, mating opportunities, and safety. The remarkable difference is that the Rat Park rats would actively reject any drugs introduced, while the caged, depressed rats would toke up like crazy. While this study did not get much national scientific attention, I believe that these results better explain substance abuse. Although, I can also see that critics have ample footholds from which to launch an attack on Alexander’s theory.
Chapter 8:
Chapter 8 is a very interesting, but very frustrating chapter. In chapter 8, Slater spends time investigating memory and an experiment that challenges the basis of our understanding of memory. Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist that focuses on false memories. Loftus believes that the human mind hates holes in memories and seeks to fill those holes by either accepting false information provided by an external resource or fabricating its own details to fill the gaps. She studies this by having her students conduct experiments on their siblings over a Thanksgiving break. Each student went home and casually brought up a fake story about their sibling getting lost at a mall, but providing only the slightest and vague details surrounding the event. Over the next few days the students observed their siblings filling in the gaps with the most interesting and small details. For example, some of the subjects remembered large amounts of fear and conversations with their mother after being found. Other subjects remembered strangers interacting with them during the time that they were lost.
I find this chapter quite difficult to read, because I do not want to stomach the idea of false memories. One of the most cherished things in my life is my memories and one of my biggest fears is not being able to trust my memories. I like to think of memories as concrete items, that are perhaps stored in a tricky filing system, that cannot always be retrieved easily, but that are there in their entirety. I do not like the idea that some of my memories could be fabrications of my imagination, in an attempt to fill voids. This does sound like a real possibility, but it is one that I would rather be blissfully ignorant about.
Chapter 7, which seems to be one of my favorite chapters so far, focuses on addiction and substance abuse. During the 1960’s and 1970’s there were a lot of studies conducted in the area of substance abuse and addiction. Most of the popular theories at the time stressed a physical dependency as the main source and contributing factor to extreme addiction. These theories also stress that the brain is capable of producing most of the chemicals found in drugs such as cocaine and opiates. When these substances are abused, the brain takes a break from producing these chemicals, so that when the person stops using the substances, the body lacks these chemicals because the brain is on break.
Bruce Alexander and his research partners challenged the very basis of these theories in their Rat Park experiments. Bruce Alexander earned his undergraduate degree at Miami (Ohio) University and, intrigued by Harry Harlow’s studies of love, decided to earn a mentorship under Harlow. When the Vietnam war broke out, Alexander moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and after teaching a course on heroin addiction, decided to devise his own study to test substance abuse. His study, known as Rat Park, seeked to challenge conventional wisdom regarding substance addiction. Alexander studied rats and morphine, but focused his studies on the situation and the environment that the rats are subject to. Some of Alexander’s rats were kept in cramped, cold, and small cages similar to traditional studies, while others were kept in a wide-open cage, complete with ample food, friendship, mating opportunities, and safety. The remarkable difference is that the Rat Park rats would actively reject any drugs introduced, while the caged, depressed rats would toke up like crazy. While this study did not get much national scientific attention, I believe that these results better explain substance abuse. Although, I can also see that critics have ample footholds from which to launch an attack on Alexander’s theory.
Chapter 8:
Chapter 8 is a very interesting, but very frustrating chapter. In chapter 8, Slater spends time investigating memory and an experiment that challenges the basis of our understanding of memory. Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist that focuses on false memories. Loftus believes that the human mind hates holes in memories and seeks to fill those holes by either accepting false information provided by an external resource or fabricating its own details to fill the gaps. She studies this by having her students conduct experiments on their siblings over a Thanksgiving break. Each student went home and casually brought up a fake story about their sibling getting lost at a mall, but providing only the slightest and vague details surrounding the event. Over the next few days the students observed their siblings filling in the gaps with the most interesting and small details. For example, some of the subjects remembered large amounts of fear and conversations with their mother after being found. Other subjects remembered strangers interacting with them during the time that they were lost.
I find this chapter quite difficult to read, because I do not want to stomach the idea of false memories. One of the most cherished things in my life is my memories and one of my biggest fears is not being able to trust my memories. I like to think of memories as concrete items, that are perhaps stored in a tricky filing system, that cannot always be retrieved easily, but that are there in their entirety. I do not like the idea that some of my memories could be fabrications of my imagination, in an attempt to fill voids. This does sound like a real possibility, but it is one that I would rather be blissfully ignorant about.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box (Chapters 5 & 6)
Chapter 5:
In chapter 5 we we hear about an interesting study and a very interesting woman. Leon Festinger is a psychologist from City College of New York and the University of Iowa, but whose primary contributions to the field of psychology were research studies done at MIT. Festinger infiltrated a cult that believed that the world was going to end on December 21 (sounds vaguely familiar), 1954, in a massive flood meant to cleanse the world and start anew. The cult leader, Marion Keech, had supposedly received messages from a god named Sananda, who would save anyone who believed in him and transport them to a planet far off to live after the cleansing of the earth. Marion was so convincing that she had followers selling their homes, leaving their jobs, and even abandoning loved ones. Festinger acted like a believer and infiltrated the group to see how they would react when the world indeed did not end. Festinger was surprised to find that the group would shape their beliefs around the events, instead of admitted they were wrong and questioning their beliefs.
The second half of chapter 5 is spent discussing this woman, Linda Santo, who believes that her brain-dead child is a saint with a direct line of communication to God. Her child, Audrey, was found floating in a pool when she was three years old, and while they were able to revive her, she was brain dead. Linda kept her daughter alive through the use of machines in order to take pain away from others who are suffering. People flock from all around the world to have Audrey heal them. Personally, based off of very limited information, I believe that Audrey was merely a placebo for all of the people who experienced medical recoveries. That is not to say that it was a bad thing. I have all different types of rituals that I partake in when it comes to competing in sporting events and training. I do not necessarily believe that I am 100% right about these things, but they give me a mental edge, which helps me perform better. I believe that a similar situation occurs with placebo effects, but that does not take away from the results. In my opinion, it is really all about what works for someone in their situation. If it works for you, so be it.
Chapter 6:
In chapter 6, Lauren spends time investigating Harry Harlow's experiments with primates. Harlow investigated the idea of love in primates. His experiment involved taking baby monkeys away from their parents in order to examine how they react to an artificial mother. Two artificial mothers are introduced to the monkey's cage, and the monkeys are observed and their behaviors are recorded. The first artificial monkey is a cold, hard metal monkey that has one breast capable of delivering milk to the baby. The second artificial monkey is a soft, terry-cloth covered monkey, that has no milk delivering capabilities. The monkey babies were expected to be more drawn towards the cold metal, but life-supplying artificial monkey. This would have supported the fact that babies are attached to supporting life. However, the monkeys all grew attached to the terry-cloth artificial monkeys. They would separate long enough to get milk from the metal one, but only to return to the soft artificial monkeys.
Overall, I believe that this guy may have hid behind a virtuous goal, but he did some sick stuff. The Iron Maiden experiments were repulsive. I feel like a lot of of the experiments were viable and helpful, but some of the experiments were off the deep end and excessive.
In chapter 5 we we hear about an interesting study and a very interesting woman. Leon Festinger is a psychologist from City College of New York and the University of Iowa, but whose primary contributions to the field of psychology were research studies done at MIT. Festinger infiltrated a cult that believed that the world was going to end on December 21 (sounds vaguely familiar), 1954, in a massive flood meant to cleanse the world and start anew. The cult leader, Marion Keech, had supposedly received messages from a god named Sananda, who would save anyone who believed in him and transport them to a planet far off to live after the cleansing of the earth. Marion was so convincing that she had followers selling their homes, leaving their jobs, and even abandoning loved ones. Festinger acted like a believer and infiltrated the group to see how they would react when the world indeed did not end. Festinger was surprised to find that the group would shape their beliefs around the events, instead of admitted they were wrong and questioning their beliefs.
The second half of chapter 5 is spent discussing this woman, Linda Santo, who believes that her brain-dead child is a saint with a direct line of communication to God. Her child, Audrey, was found floating in a pool when she was three years old, and while they were able to revive her, she was brain dead. Linda kept her daughter alive through the use of machines in order to take pain away from others who are suffering. People flock from all around the world to have Audrey heal them. Personally, based off of very limited information, I believe that Audrey was merely a placebo for all of the people who experienced medical recoveries. That is not to say that it was a bad thing. I have all different types of rituals that I partake in when it comes to competing in sporting events and training. I do not necessarily believe that I am 100% right about these things, but they give me a mental edge, which helps me perform better. I believe that a similar situation occurs with placebo effects, but that does not take away from the results. In my opinion, it is really all about what works for someone in their situation. If it works for you, so be it.
Chapter 6:
In chapter 6, Lauren spends time investigating Harry Harlow's experiments with primates. Harlow investigated the idea of love in primates. His experiment involved taking baby monkeys away from their parents in order to examine how they react to an artificial mother. Two artificial mothers are introduced to the monkey's cage, and the monkeys are observed and their behaviors are recorded. The first artificial monkey is a cold, hard metal monkey that has one breast capable of delivering milk to the baby. The second artificial monkey is a soft, terry-cloth covered monkey, that has no milk delivering capabilities. The monkey babies were expected to be more drawn towards the cold metal, but life-supplying artificial monkey. This would have supported the fact that babies are attached to supporting life. However, the monkeys all grew attached to the terry-cloth artificial monkeys. They would separate long enough to get milk from the metal one, but only to return to the soft artificial monkeys.
Overall, I believe that this guy may have hid behind a virtuous goal, but he did some sick stuff. The Iron Maiden experiments were repulsive. I feel like a lot of of the experiments were viable and helpful, but some of the experiments were off the deep end and excessive.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box (Chapters 3 & 4)
Chapter 3:
Chapter 3 presents evidence proving that Lauren Slater really is a little bit crazy. Slater presents a study, performed by David Rosenhan in the early 1970s, in which sane people infiltrated insane asylums by feigning insanity and then test how long until the doctors realized that they were actually sane. Rosenhan recruits eight buddies and has each of them fake the same symptoms, which are hearing a voice say “thud,” hopefully leading to being admitted as a psych patient. The pseudopatients are instructed to be truthful about every other aspect of their life and once they are admitted, they are supposed to act as if they are completely fine. Rosenhan and the other participants reported back that they were treated with disdain and witnessed verbal and physical abuse of other patients. One of the most interesting things that the pseudopatients said was that the other patients seemed to always know that the pseudopatients were not really insane.
Before Rosenhan conducted his research experiment, two scientists had conducted a related experiment. R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson did an experiment where a fake IQ and aptitude test was administered to students. Some students were labeled as students that were on the verge of a large increase in intelligence, while other students were labeled as normal students. After one year, the students who were labeled as growth students had indeed significantly improved. This result could be attributed to having extra attention and situational context from the teacher who expected them to do well. This result could also be attributed to the students thinking that they were smarter than they are so they might have tried significantly harder.
We also hear tales of how Lauren Slater was herself a depressed psychiatric patient when she was younger. This information explains some things about her odd writing style. Slater attempts to reproduce Rosenhan’s experiment in the present day which yielded interesting results. Slater visited eight different psychiatric emergency rooms over an eight day period explaining the exact same symptoms as the pseudopatients in Rosenhan’s experiment. While she was diagnosed as depressed, she was not admitted and was not treated poorly. In fact, she seems to have felt extremely guilty because of how well she was treated and how genuinely concerned the doctors appeared to be.
Chapter 4:
Chapter 4 is dedicated to telling the story of a strange New York City crime, where a woman is savagely raped and murdered over a 35 minute period. The strangest part of the event is that thirty-eight witnesses heard or saw the assault taking place and none of them helped in any way. John Darley and Bibb Latane are two psychologists who study people in emergencies and the reasons why they might deny the existence of the emergencies. John Darley is from New York University and Bibb Latane is from Columbia University. They devise an experiment where an innocent subject participates in a group therapy session where two to six people are in separate rooms and are given turns to talk to the group through a microphone. The other participants are actually recordings and one has a severe form of epilepsy, which they casually and nonchalantly announced to the group during an earlier rotation. Eventually, the epileptic subject announces that they are having a seizure and then repeatedly ask for help over a six minute period. Less than thirty-five percent of the subjects seeked help when they believed that there were four or more participants in the group. If the subjects believe that they are the only ones in the group with the epileptic subject, then eighty-five percent of the subjects seek help immediately.
This result is very interesting, because it suggests that the same amount of responsibility can be shared across a group, instead of being amplified as some people might think it would be. Personally, I would think that people would be more likely to help if they were in a larger group, but these reports and studies prove that it is exactly the opposite. Now that I have read about these situations, I can think of times when I have been faced with a situation where I have been shamed into inactivity by the social cues of a crowd. The main example that comes to mind is last week when an armed suspect was seen on campus with a gun in his waistband. The Code Maroon alert said that the suspect was near the University Central Garage (UCG), which is right by Kyle Field, the MSC, Rudder Tower, and Koldus. I was in the MSC, among hundreds of other students, and I noticed that other people were getting the same Code Maroon notifications that I was. However, people kept on going on like normal. Sometimes you would notice people looking around and observing what other people were doing. In this situation, I think that the primary factor influencing our lack of activity was the idea of not knowing what to do. Do you leave and potentially run into the armed suspect? Or do you stay put, in a large group, where you think you will be safe? Do you hide? Well, all of us were stuck in a state of inactivity and did absolutely nothing. How peculiar.
Chapter 3 presents evidence proving that Lauren Slater really is a little bit crazy. Slater presents a study, performed by David Rosenhan in the early 1970s, in which sane people infiltrated insane asylums by feigning insanity and then test how long until the doctors realized that they were actually sane. Rosenhan recruits eight buddies and has each of them fake the same symptoms, which are hearing a voice say “thud,” hopefully leading to being admitted as a psych patient. The pseudopatients are instructed to be truthful about every other aspect of their life and once they are admitted, they are supposed to act as if they are completely fine. Rosenhan and the other participants reported back that they were treated with disdain and witnessed verbal and physical abuse of other patients. One of the most interesting things that the pseudopatients said was that the other patients seemed to always know that the pseudopatients were not really insane.
Before Rosenhan conducted his research experiment, two scientists had conducted a related experiment. R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson did an experiment where a fake IQ and aptitude test was administered to students. Some students were labeled as students that were on the verge of a large increase in intelligence, while other students were labeled as normal students. After one year, the students who were labeled as growth students had indeed significantly improved. This result could be attributed to having extra attention and situational context from the teacher who expected them to do well. This result could also be attributed to the students thinking that they were smarter than they are so they might have tried significantly harder.
We also hear tales of how Lauren Slater was herself a depressed psychiatric patient when she was younger. This information explains some things about her odd writing style. Slater attempts to reproduce Rosenhan’s experiment in the present day which yielded interesting results. Slater visited eight different psychiatric emergency rooms over an eight day period explaining the exact same symptoms as the pseudopatients in Rosenhan’s experiment. While she was diagnosed as depressed, she was not admitted and was not treated poorly. In fact, she seems to have felt extremely guilty because of how well she was treated and how genuinely concerned the doctors appeared to be.
Chapter 4:
Chapter 4 is dedicated to telling the story of a strange New York City crime, where a woman is savagely raped and murdered over a 35 minute period. The strangest part of the event is that thirty-eight witnesses heard or saw the assault taking place and none of them helped in any way. John Darley and Bibb Latane are two psychologists who study people in emergencies and the reasons why they might deny the existence of the emergencies. John Darley is from New York University and Bibb Latane is from Columbia University. They devise an experiment where an innocent subject participates in a group therapy session where two to six people are in separate rooms and are given turns to talk to the group through a microphone. The other participants are actually recordings and one has a severe form of epilepsy, which they casually and nonchalantly announced to the group during an earlier rotation. Eventually, the epileptic subject announces that they are having a seizure and then repeatedly ask for help over a six minute period. Less than thirty-five percent of the subjects seeked help when they believed that there were four or more participants in the group. If the subjects believe that they are the only ones in the group with the epileptic subject, then eighty-five percent of the subjects seek help immediately.
This result is very interesting, because it suggests that the same amount of responsibility can be shared across a group, instead of being amplified as some people might think it would be. Personally, I would think that people would be more likely to help if they were in a larger group, but these reports and studies prove that it is exactly the opposite. Now that I have read about these situations, I can think of times when I have been faced with a situation where I have been shamed into inactivity by the social cues of a crowd. The main example that comes to mind is last week when an armed suspect was seen on campus with a gun in his waistband. The Code Maroon alert said that the suspect was near the University Central Garage (UCG), which is right by Kyle Field, the MSC, Rudder Tower, and Koldus. I was in the MSC, among hundreds of other students, and I noticed that other people were getting the same Code Maroon notifications that I was. However, people kept on going on like normal. Sometimes you would notice people looking around and observing what other people were doing. In this situation, I think that the primary factor influencing our lack of activity was the idea of not knowing what to do. Do you leave and potentially run into the armed suspect? Or do you stay put, in a large group, where you think you will be safe? Do you hide? Well, all of us were stuck in a state of inactivity and did absolutely nothing. How peculiar.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box (Chapters 1 & 2)
Chapter 1:
“Opening Skinner’s Box” is a brief look into the studies done by B. F. Skinner, arguably the most influential American psychologist. The book is written by Lauren Slater, who is a psychologist and a writer. Chapter one introduces the relevant background studies that paved the way for Skinner. This mainly includes a glimpse into the works of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian Physiologist who was able to train a dog to drool as a response to the ringing of a bell. Chapter one also includes a short introduction to Skinner’s studies, which included training a dog to play hide and seek and raising his daughter Deborah in a sealed box (which isn’t as bad as it sounds) for the first two years of her life.
Also, Lauren visits Julie, B. F. Skinner’s other daughter, and learns more about Skinner’s goals and ideals. This trip culminates in a visit to Skinner’s study room, which has been preserved in the exact state that he left it in before he was rushed to the hospital and passed away in 1990. One of the most interesting parts of the trip is the perspective that is gained by talking with one of Skinner's daughter; someone who can truly debunk most of the myths surrounding the life and studies of B. F. Skinner.
Chapter 2:
In chapter 2, Lauren Slater summarizes Milgram’s obedience experiments. This part of the book is a bit boring because we have read Milgram’s book, but noting Slater’s opinions of the obedience experiments is interesting. Most of this part of the chapter is devoted to summarizing the obedience experiments, including the multiple variations, but it is interesting to hear it from a different perspective. Slater does not seem to be completely sold on the point that Milgram is trying to make about obedience, but does not discount the enormity of the results of Milgram's obedience experiments.
In the second part of chapter 2, Slater interviews two of the participants of the obedience experiment. First, Joshua Chaffin tells Slater about how he disobeyed at 150 volts and that he would need a psychiatrists if he had gone any further. What is interesting is that upon further inspection, he seems to have lived the life of a person that would have been associated with the obedient subjects. Joshua also divulges that the main reason that he disobeyed was out of self interest, because he felt that he was going to have a heart attack. Another subject participant, code named Jacob Plumfield in order to protect his identity, explained that he obeyed completely, but learned a lot from the experiment. Jacob changed his whole life based on the things that he learned from the obedience experiments. Also of note, one of the main detractors of Milgram was Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who taught at Harvard and specializes in World War II war crimes.
“Opening Skinner’s Box” is a brief look into the studies done by B. F. Skinner, arguably the most influential American psychologist. The book is written by Lauren Slater, who is a psychologist and a writer. Chapter one introduces the relevant background studies that paved the way for Skinner. This mainly includes a glimpse into the works of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian Physiologist who was able to train a dog to drool as a response to the ringing of a bell. Chapter one also includes a short introduction to Skinner’s studies, which included training a dog to play hide and seek and raising his daughter Deborah in a sealed box (which isn’t as bad as it sounds) for the first two years of her life.
Also, Lauren visits Julie, B. F. Skinner’s other daughter, and learns more about Skinner’s goals and ideals. This trip culminates in a visit to Skinner’s study room, which has been preserved in the exact state that he left it in before he was rushed to the hospital and passed away in 1990. One of the most interesting parts of the trip is the perspective that is gained by talking with one of Skinner's daughter; someone who can truly debunk most of the myths surrounding the life and studies of B. F. Skinner.
Chapter 2:
In chapter 2, Lauren Slater summarizes Milgram’s obedience experiments. This part of the book is a bit boring because we have read Milgram’s book, but noting Slater’s opinions of the obedience experiments is interesting. Most of this part of the chapter is devoted to summarizing the obedience experiments, including the multiple variations, but it is interesting to hear it from a different perspective. Slater does not seem to be completely sold on the point that Milgram is trying to make about obedience, but does not discount the enormity of the results of Milgram's obedience experiments.
In the second part of chapter 2, Slater interviews two of the participants of the obedience experiment. First, Joshua Chaffin tells Slater about how he disobeyed at 150 volts and that he would need a psychiatrists if he had gone any further. What is interesting is that upon further inspection, he seems to have lived the life of a person that would have been associated with the obedient subjects. Joshua also divulges that the main reason that he disobeyed was out of self interest, because he felt that he was going to have a heart attack. Another subject participant, code named Jacob Plumfield in order to protect his identity, explained that he obeyed completely, but learned a lot from the experiment. Jacob changed his whole life based on the things that he learned from the obedience experiments. Also of note, one of the main detractors of Milgram was Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who taught at Harvard and specializes in World War II war crimes.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Book Reading: Obedience to Authority
Obedience to Authority: Stanley Milgram
Chapter 1:
In chapter one, Stanley Milgram introduces the research experiment that this book studies. The research study uses a random participant to ask questions to another participant and shock them when they get answers wrong. For each additional wrong answer, the voltage is increased. The participant getting shocked is actually a paid actor, who is faking the shocking. The purpose of the study is to see how far the random participants will go, if they have an authoritative figure to transfer the moral responsibility to. Also, Milgram elaborates on the differences between a personal act and an act done under the shield of responsibility.
Chapter 2:
The two main conflicting ideas investigated in this research study are “One should not inflict suffering on a helpless person who is neither harmful nor threatening to oneself” vs “Obedience to authority.” All participants in the study were males, between 20 and 50 years old. The first 40% of the participants were workers, skilled and unskilled. The next 40% were white-collar, sales, and business related men. The final 20% of the participants were professionals. The victim, or learner, of the experiment was a 47-year-old accountant and the experimenter, or authority figure, was a 31-year-old teacher. The teacher normally turned to the experimenter for guidance around 300V, the learner stopped responding after 330V+. The study measured the teacher on a scale of 0-30, with 0 being no shocks were administered and 30 being all shock levels were administered.
Chapter 3:
Chapter 3 describes survey results where the study officials survey 110 people, who are all psychiatrists, college students, and mostly middle-class adults of various occupations. Most of them agree that study participants will not proceed shocking the learner past 150V, with only 2-4% expected to reach the end of the board.
Chapter 4:
First variation of experiment involved the teacher shocking the learner from a different room, not being able to see the learner or hear them protest. The second variation provided the teacher with voice feedback from the learner. The third variation had the learner and the teacher located in the same room, mere feet between them. The final variation required the learner to submit to the shock by placing their hand on the shocking plate. After 150V, the learner refused to put his hand on the shocking plate and the teacher/subject was told to physically force the learners hand on to the plate. The results differed extremely fromt the predictions. Nearly half of the participants proceeded all of the way to the end of the switchboard, but still claiming that they were acting against their own morals.
Chapter 5:
Chapter five is devoted to telling stories of subjects and their individual, unique reactions to the experiment. Bruno Betta, a welder, held down learner’s hand and seemed fine with it. He even said to the learner that he “...better answer and get it over with. We can’t stay here all night.” Next, a professor of Old Testament disobeyed and when told that he has “no other choice but to go on,” he responds “If this were Russia maybe, but not in America.” Then, Jan Rensaleer, an Industrial Engineer, blamed himself completely and ended up helping out with the experiment long term. I really liked the Industrial Engineer, because I like to think that I would behave like him if I were a subject in this experiment.
Chapter 6:
Chapter six introduces a new twist to the experiment, by having the learner claim to have a heart condition and bring it up repeatedly when demanding to be released from the experiment. The idea was to give subjects more reason to consider being disobedient, but 26 out of 40 still obeyed through level 30. The next variation included a weaker, less imposing experimenter and more intimidating learner. In this situation, a small drop in obedience was noted, but 50% still obey through level 30. They even introduced women as subjects and saw virtually the same results. The only difference was that during the post-study interviews, the women said that they were much more conflicted. Another interesting variation is removing the Yale influence from the studies credibility by moving the study away from the university. The only variation that produced significant changes in results was when the subjects were allowed to choose the shock level. In this situation all but one of the subjects stopped before 150 volts.
Chapter 7:
Chapter seven discusses individual examples of the variations from chapter six. Fred Prozi, who is unemployed, seemed to feel a ton of conflict, but after transferring all responsibility to the experimenter, was able to push on all of the way to level 30. Karen Dontz, a nurse and housewife, was a basketcase of a subject. She seemed like two different people, one that she really is and one that she wants people to think that she is like. One of the most interesting things about Karen Dontz is that during the interview, she guessed that most men would not comply, even though that is far from the truth. Gretchen Brandt might be my favorite subject so far. Gretchen is a recent German immigrant who works as a medical technician. She stops the experiment early and has no problem disobeying the experimenter. She even says that she was never stressed or conflicted, she just stopped when she felt that the learner was in pain and had no problem telling the experimenter to shove it.
Chapter 8:
Chapter eight investigates the possibilities of changing the authority figure’s role in the experiment. In some of the variations, the learner demands to be shocked and the experimenter says no. In this case, almost all of the subjects stop when the experimenter says to. Another variation is where another “ordinary” man gives the orders to the subject, because the experimenter took a phone call. My favorite variation is where the experimenter comes up with an excuse to be the learner.
Chapter 9:
In chapter 9, Milgram clarifies a very important distinction between conformity and obedience. Conformity describes the action of a subject when he goes along with the actions of his peers. Obedience describes when a subject complies with the orders of authority. These two definitions highlight the idea of a hierarchy, which is a social structure in which there is a clear distinction between levels. People conform to ideals and actions of peers, or people from the same hierarchy level. People obey, or carry out orders from authority figures, or people from higher hierarchical levels. I really like this idea, because it makes a lot of sense in my life. I relate this situation, and the idea of obedience, to working out. When I have an authority figure ordering me to perform a particular exercise, I am able to do it better, faster, and with less regard to my exhaustion level. If I were to try the same exercises on my own, without that authority figure, I would be much more likely to quit. I believe this has to do with not wanting to break the chain of authority and being able to separate my actions (exercising) from the consequences (tired and soreness) because an authority figure is instructing me to continue, regardless of if I want to or not.
Chapter 10:
It was obvious to early humans that obedience and the existence of a hierarchy allows for an increased chance of survival. Milgram illustrates this point by comparing a militia to a mob. The structure of the militia, with a clear hierarchy, will not only provide a higher level of organization, but also allow the militia soldiers a greater level of confidence and lack of fear, because they fear disappointing their own leader more than potentially getting injured by the mob. This provides the militia with an obvious advantage. Milgram also explains this idea in more detail by explaining the Agentic Shift, which describes when a person separates their own feelings, fears, and opinions from the situation and executes commands from an authority figure in a way that is methodical and almost robotic.
Chapter 11:
Chapter 11 investigates obedience from the beginning, looking back all of the way to early childhood. At a very young age, parents teach their kids to obey them and respect elders. This sets the stage for obedience. To further concrete these ideas of obedience, kids are sent to school, where a clear hierarchy exists. First, the students are under the teachers, which are under the principal. Once a person switches into the Agentic State, there occurs a dramatic loss in responsibility. The obedience experiment is very interesting because the subject is caught in this conflicted position where they want to obey and gain accolades from the experimenter, but they also feel conflicted and want to stop. However, if they were to stop they would have to admit that what they had done so far was wrong. Since the tasks are inherently repetitive in nature, while the subject is battling this conflict, until they actually take the leap and disobey, they are left with no choice but to continue.
Chapter 12:
In chapter 12, Milgram explains different coping mechanisms employed by the subjects to reduce stress, strain, and anxiety. Strain is a conflicting feeling experienced by the subjects, where they are battling with internal beliefs. The first, immediate source of strain comes from the physical and psychological response to the learner’s screams. Next, strain occurs as the subject continues to battle with the moral beliefs and social constraints regarding causing pain and harm to the learner. Then, some subjects felt that they were angering the learner to the point that they might physically retaliate after the experiment is over. After that, strain occurs because the subjects are receiving instructions from both the learner and the experimenter. Finally, the subjects have a certain ideal image of themselves, and shocking an innocent victim past their protests usually does not align with this image. The gap between these two ideas causes further strain.
Chapter 13:
In chapter 13, Milgram humors one of the alternative explanations for the behaviors observed, specifically the idea that human beings are inherently sadistic and enjoy causing others pain. The main counter-argument to this idea is that in experiment 11, the subject is given freedom over which level of shock to administer to the learner. The experimenter also pushes for the use of all of the levers, but almost all of the subjects do not exceed the very lower levels of shocks. While there appeared to be one or two outliers who exhibit an eagerness to harm others, Milgram successfully convinces me that a tendency towards obedience is a more likely answer to the question at hand.
Chapter 14:
Milgram devotes chapter 14 to discussing critiques of his obedience experiment. The first major concern he addresses is whether or not the group of people studied were representative of the general population. His main argument in contrast of this claim is that this experiment has been repeated at Princeton, in Munich, in Rome, in South Africa, and in Australia, and yielded similar, if not higher results of obedience to authority. Another big critique was whether or not the subjects actually believed that they were administering painful shocks. Milgram says that only 2 to 4 subjects did not believe that they were causing pain to the learner, but claims that he left their data samples in the data pool because he did not want to appear to be shaping the results and that the 2 to 4 samples would not change the overall results much anyway. I believe that Milgram defended his points quite well and did not appear childish and hostile, like John Searle when he was defending his Chinese Room argument.
Chapter 15:
One of the most interesting things about chapter 15, is that Milgram relates the theories and ideas from this book to the explanation of US soldiers’ actions in Vietnam. He explains the process that soldiers go through from the beginning of basic training to deployment in battle. Drilling hour after hour is not just so that soldiers look good when marching, but more for the establishment of obedience and the loss of individualism. The oath taken by soldiers helps reinforce their duty as an obedient member of the military. The separation of the enemy from the realm of humans, reducing them to something lower than man so that they can be killed easier. All of these ideas prepare the soldiers for extreme levels of obedience, including little to no personal guilt or responsibility.
Book Response:
While Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments raise a lot of concerns, I believe that a lot of very interesting information can be gained from this book. While reading this book, I find myself reevaluating my decision making process. I believe that in a lot of situations I am a victim of authority, led to make a certain choice whether or not that is what I truly want. This is true of parents, popular groups of kids in school, sports teams, law enforcement, etc. I can take any one of these examples and reevaluate my thought process and trace each part to explanations made in this book. I believe that it all comes down to conflicting sources of authority and who will win someones obedience.
I even wonder if similar connections could be made to spending habits, because I tend to be an irresponsible and impulsive shopper. The ultimate authority should be my long term goals and savings plans, but sometimes I end up doing things that directly work against my goals with little to no regard for the negative side effects. I think that large corporations and groups of friends are positions of authority and push their ideas onto consumers. My friends want to go out and grab drinks or go to a concert and I want to go because I want to conform to behaviors exhibited by others in my social hierarchical level, and even though I should not spend the money, I end up doing it anyway.
Overall, I enjoyed this book because it makes me reevaluate my own decision processes. It was not as interesting as “Gang Leader for a Day,” but that is mostly because it is not a first-person narrative, but rather a documentation of a scientific study.
Chapter 1:
In chapter one, Stanley Milgram introduces the research experiment that this book studies. The research study uses a random participant to ask questions to another participant and shock them when they get answers wrong. For each additional wrong answer, the voltage is increased. The participant getting shocked is actually a paid actor, who is faking the shocking. The purpose of the study is to see how far the random participants will go, if they have an authoritative figure to transfer the moral responsibility to. Also, Milgram elaborates on the differences between a personal act and an act done under the shield of responsibility.
Chapter 2:
The two main conflicting ideas investigated in this research study are “One should not inflict suffering on a helpless person who is neither harmful nor threatening to oneself” vs “Obedience to authority.” All participants in the study were males, between 20 and 50 years old. The first 40% of the participants were workers, skilled and unskilled. The next 40% were white-collar, sales, and business related men. The final 20% of the participants were professionals. The victim, or learner, of the experiment was a 47-year-old accountant and the experimenter, or authority figure, was a 31-year-old teacher. The teacher normally turned to the experimenter for guidance around 300V, the learner stopped responding after 330V+. The study measured the teacher on a scale of 0-30, with 0 being no shocks were administered and 30 being all shock levels were administered.
Chapter 3:
Chapter 3 describes survey results where the study officials survey 110 people, who are all psychiatrists, college students, and mostly middle-class adults of various occupations. Most of them agree that study participants will not proceed shocking the learner past 150V, with only 2-4% expected to reach the end of the board.
Chapter 4:
First variation of experiment involved the teacher shocking the learner from a different room, not being able to see the learner or hear them protest. The second variation provided the teacher with voice feedback from the learner. The third variation had the learner and the teacher located in the same room, mere feet between them. The final variation required the learner to submit to the shock by placing their hand on the shocking plate. After 150V, the learner refused to put his hand on the shocking plate and the teacher/subject was told to physically force the learners hand on to the plate. The results differed extremely fromt the predictions. Nearly half of the participants proceeded all of the way to the end of the switchboard, but still claiming that they were acting against their own morals.
Chapter 5:
Chapter five is devoted to telling stories of subjects and their individual, unique reactions to the experiment. Bruno Betta, a welder, held down learner’s hand and seemed fine with it. He even said to the learner that he “...better answer and get it over with. We can’t stay here all night.” Next, a professor of Old Testament disobeyed and when told that he has “no other choice but to go on,” he responds “If this were Russia maybe, but not in America.” Then, Jan Rensaleer, an Industrial Engineer, blamed himself completely and ended up helping out with the experiment long term. I really liked the Industrial Engineer, because I like to think that I would behave like him if I were a subject in this experiment.
Chapter 6:
Chapter six introduces a new twist to the experiment, by having the learner claim to have a heart condition and bring it up repeatedly when demanding to be released from the experiment. The idea was to give subjects more reason to consider being disobedient, but 26 out of 40 still obeyed through level 30. The next variation included a weaker, less imposing experimenter and more intimidating learner. In this situation, a small drop in obedience was noted, but 50% still obey through level 30. They even introduced women as subjects and saw virtually the same results. The only difference was that during the post-study interviews, the women said that they were much more conflicted. Another interesting variation is removing the Yale influence from the studies credibility by moving the study away from the university. The only variation that produced significant changes in results was when the subjects were allowed to choose the shock level. In this situation all but one of the subjects stopped before 150 volts.
Chapter 7:
Chapter seven discusses individual examples of the variations from chapter six. Fred Prozi, who is unemployed, seemed to feel a ton of conflict, but after transferring all responsibility to the experimenter, was able to push on all of the way to level 30. Karen Dontz, a nurse and housewife, was a basketcase of a subject. She seemed like two different people, one that she really is and one that she wants people to think that she is like. One of the most interesting things about Karen Dontz is that during the interview, she guessed that most men would not comply, even though that is far from the truth. Gretchen Brandt might be my favorite subject so far. Gretchen is a recent German immigrant who works as a medical technician. She stops the experiment early and has no problem disobeying the experimenter. She even says that she was never stressed or conflicted, she just stopped when she felt that the learner was in pain and had no problem telling the experimenter to shove it.
Chapter 8:
Chapter eight investigates the possibilities of changing the authority figure’s role in the experiment. In some of the variations, the learner demands to be shocked and the experimenter says no. In this case, almost all of the subjects stop when the experimenter says to. Another variation is where another “ordinary” man gives the orders to the subject, because the experimenter took a phone call. My favorite variation is where the experimenter comes up with an excuse to be the learner.
Chapter 9:
In chapter 9, Milgram clarifies a very important distinction between conformity and obedience. Conformity describes the action of a subject when he goes along with the actions of his peers. Obedience describes when a subject complies with the orders of authority. These two definitions highlight the idea of a hierarchy, which is a social structure in which there is a clear distinction between levels. People conform to ideals and actions of peers, or people from the same hierarchy level. People obey, or carry out orders from authority figures, or people from higher hierarchical levels. I really like this idea, because it makes a lot of sense in my life. I relate this situation, and the idea of obedience, to working out. When I have an authority figure ordering me to perform a particular exercise, I am able to do it better, faster, and with less regard to my exhaustion level. If I were to try the same exercises on my own, without that authority figure, I would be much more likely to quit. I believe this has to do with not wanting to break the chain of authority and being able to separate my actions (exercising) from the consequences (tired and soreness) because an authority figure is instructing me to continue, regardless of if I want to or not.
Chapter 10:
It was obvious to early humans that obedience and the existence of a hierarchy allows for an increased chance of survival. Milgram illustrates this point by comparing a militia to a mob. The structure of the militia, with a clear hierarchy, will not only provide a higher level of organization, but also allow the militia soldiers a greater level of confidence and lack of fear, because they fear disappointing their own leader more than potentially getting injured by the mob. This provides the militia with an obvious advantage. Milgram also explains this idea in more detail by explaining the Agentic Shift, which describes when a person separates their own feelings, fears, and opinions from the situation and executes commands from an authority figure in a way that is methodical and almost robotic.
Chapter 11:
Chapter 11 investigates obedience from the beginning, looking back all of the way to early childhood. At a very young age, parents teach their kids to obey them and respect elders. This sets the stage for obedience. To further concrete these ideas of obedience, kids are sent to school, where a clear hierarchy exists. First, the students are under the teachers, which are under the principal. Once a person switches into the Agentic State, there occurs a dramatic loss in responsibility. The obedience experiment is very interesting because the subject is caught in this conflicted position where they want to obey and gain accolades from the experimenter, but they also feel conflicted and want to stop. However, if they were to stop they would have to admit that what they had done so far was wrong. Since the tasks are inherently repetitive in nature, while the subject is battling this conflict, until they actually take the leap and disobey, they are left with no choice but to continue.
Chapter 12:
In chapter 12, Milgram explains different coping mechanisms employed by the subjects to reduce stress, strain, and anxiety. Strain is a conflicting feeling experienced by the subjects, where they are battling with internal beliefs. The first, immediate source of strain comes from the physical and psychological response to the learner’s screams. Next, strain occurs as the subject continues to battle with the moral beliefs and social constraints regarding causing pain and harm to the learner. Then, some subjects felt that they were angering the learner to the point that they might physically retaliate after the experiment is over. After that, strain occurs because the subjects are receiving instructions from both the learner and the experimenter. Finally, the subjects have a certain ideal image of themselves, and shocking an innocent victim past their protests usually does not align with this image. The gap between these two ideas causes further strain.
Chapter 13:
In chapter 13, Milgram humors one of the alternative explanations for the behaviors observed, specifically the idea that human beings are inherently sadistic and enjoy causing others pain. The main counter-argument to this idea is that in experiment 11, the subject is given freedom over which level of shock to administer to the learner. The experimenter also pushes for the use of all of the levers, but almost all of the subjects do not exceed the very lower levels of shocks. While there appeared to be one or two outliers who exhibit an eagerness to harm others, Milgram successfully convinces me that a tendency towards obedience is a more likely answer to the question at hand.
Chapter 14:
Milgram devotes chapter 14 to discussing critiques of his obedience experiment. The first major concern he addresses is whether or not the group of people studied were representative of the general population. His main argument in contrast of this claim is that this experiment has been repeated at Princeton, in Munich, in Rome, in South Africa, and in Australia, and yielded similar, if not higher results of obedience to authority. Another big critique was whether or not the subjects actually believed that they were administering painful shocks. Milgram says that only 2 to 4 subjects did not believe that they were causing pain to the learner, but claims that he left their data samples in the data pool because he did not want to appear to be shaping the results and that the 2 to 4 samples would not change the overall results much anyway. I believe that Milgram defended his points quite well and did not appear childish and hostile, like John Searle when he was defending his Chinese Room argument.
Chapter 15:
One of the most interesting things about chapter 15, is that Milgram relates the theories and ideas from this book to the explanation of US soldiers’ actions in Vietnam. He explains the process that soldiers go through from the beginning of basic training to deployment in battle. Drilling hour after hour is not just so that soldiers look good when marching, but more for the establishment of obedience and the loss of individualism. The oath taken by soldiers helps reinforce their duty as an obedient member of the military. The separation of the enemy from the realm of humans, reducing them to something lower than man so that they can be killed easier. All of these ideas prepare the soldiers for extreme levels of obedience, including little to no personal guilt or responsibility.
Book Response:
While Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments raise a lot of concerns, I believe that a lot of very interesting information can be gained from this book. While reading this book, I find myself reevaluating my decision making process. I believe that in a lot of situations I am a victim of authority, led to make a certain choice whether or not that is what I truly want. This is true of parents, popular groups of kids in school, sports teams, law enforcement, etc. I can take any one of these examples and reevaluate my thought process and trace each part to explanations made in this book. I believe that it all comes down to conflicting sources of authority and who will win someones obedience.
I even wonder if similar connections could be made to spending habits, because I tend to be an irresponsible and impulsive shopper. The ultimate authority should be my long term goals and savings plans, but sometimes I end up doing things that directly work against my goals with little to no regard for the negative side effects. I think that large corporations and groups of friends are positions of authority and push their ideas onto consumers. My friends want to go out and grab drinks or go to a concert and I want to go because I want to conform to behaviors exhibited by others in my social hierarchical level, and even though I should not spend the money, I end up doing it anyway.
Overall, I enjoyed this book because it makes me reevaluate my own decision processes. It was not as interesting as “Gang Leader for a Day,” but that is mostly because it is not a first-person narrative, but rather a documentation of a scientific study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)