The Stanley Milgram Game Show!

A French game show recreated the infamous Milgram experiments in the form of a game show. Participants and observers reacted much the same as the participants in the original experiment.

Personally I find it incredibly instructive and rather hilarious. Let's face it, this is just the (nearly) ultimate extension in the current trend in game shows. More risk, more life-threatening circumstance and/or violence. To have people shocked (pun unintended) by this is quite funny. Also, Darren Brown did a much more accurate re-creation of this experiment for one of his shows in England several years ago (a quick YouTube search will find a generous portion of clips).

Anyone paying attention to psychology over the past 50 years would have known exactly how this was going to go down. But they still pretend to be surprised. It's not unexpected that there would be cries about ethical concerns, there has been plenty of that since the first experiment by Stanley Milgram. Again, the studio must have been aware of the pitfalls so, whatever consequences befall them, they shouldn't be caught unawares.

Still, doing a variation of the experiment as a game show....brilliant. You could not hope for a more electric show (pun intended this time). Notice how I tried not to use the word shocked too much.

Free Will and Ethics [The Frontal Cortex]

Free Will and Ethics [The Frontal Cortex]: "

Earlier this week, I wondered if all of our new knowledge about the brain, which is too often presented in a lazy causal fashion - if x lights up, then we do y - might undermine our sense of self and self-control. I've since riffled through the literature and found some interesting and suggestive answers.

The first study was done by Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The experiment itself was simple: a group of undergraduates was given two excerpts from Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis. The first excerpt espoused a fiercely deterministic and reductionist view of the brain:

You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.

The second excerpt discussed consciousness but didn't mention free will. After reading these passages, the students were quizzed about their free-will beliefs, and given a seemingly unrelated activity that involved arithmetic problems. Here is Schooler describing the setup:

Participants were told that there was a glitch in the software program [that administered the test] and that after the problem was presented, they needed to press the space bar in order to prevent the computer from inadvertently giving them the answer before they had solved it themselves. Furthermore, participants were told that although the experimenter would not know whether they had pressed the space bar, they should try to solve the problems honestly on their own. In short, a failure to press the space bar enabled them to get the answer without solving it themselves, in effect, to cheat.

Clever, no? It turned out that students who had read the anti-free will quote were significantly more likely to cheat on the mental arithmetic test; their exposure to some basic scientific spin - your soul is a piece of meat - led to an increase in amorality. Of course, this is a relatively mild ethical lapse - as Schooler notes, 'None of the participants exposed to the anti-free will message assaulted the experimenter or ran off with the payment kitty' - but it still demonstrates that even seemingly banal materialist concepts can alter our ethical behavior.

Another study, led by Roy Baumeister and colleagues, looked at how a 'disbelief in free will' could increase aggression and reduce prosocial behavior. One group of students was told to read statements that were supposed to induce a feeling of determinism, such as: ''Ultimately, we are biological computers - designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.'' The second group, in contrast, was given sentences designed to bolster a belief in free will: 'I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior.' A third group - the controls - were given neutral statements.

The students were then given hypothetical scenarios in which they quizzed about their willingness to help others, such as giving money to a homeless person. You can probably guess the punchline: students who had read the anti-free will sentiments reported being significantly less likely to help out in. No differences were found on either helpfulness or belief in free will between the control and pro-free will participants, suggesting that our pre-existing views are generally pro-free will.

The second Baumeister experiment left the hypotheticals behind. The subjects were assessed for their belief in free will and then told about a fellow student whose parents had been killed in a car accident. This student was going to have to drop out of school unless she could find someone to help her out financially. The students were then given the opportunity to help her out. Sure enough, disbelief in free will was associated with a reduced willingness to help.

Lastly, students were given the opportunity to add varying amount of hot sauce to food that would be eaten by a student who didn't like spicy food. Not surprisingly, those who read the anti-free will statements added more hot sauce.

At the very least, free will is a useful illusion, leading us to be more prosocial and ethical. Because even if we are just 'a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,' we're a vast assembly that feels like so much more. William James, as usual, said it best: 'My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.'

Read the comments on this post..."

Are religious people more ethical in their conduct?

Are religious people more ethical in their conduct?: "

Members of a religion are obliged to comply with its ethical principles. How good are religious people at living up to what is expected of them? Are they more ethical than atheists, for example? Let's review the evidence.

World history
Students of world history recognize that when there are real conflicts of interest, religion, however pacifist in principle, does not restrain warlike impulses and there are many so-called religious wars. These generally have little to do with theological differences and are mostly sparked by friction over vital resources, like land, oil, or employment opportunities. The religious war in Northern Ireland revolved around jobs and houses held by Protestants and desired by Catholics, for instance.

Bad people
There is a high level of religious faith in jails, even among the most violent and depraved offenders. Criminal convictions and long prison terms (or even the death penalty) may encourage prisoners to reflect on the error of their ways. Religious conversion in such cases is a sort of 'plea bargain' according to which more lenient treatment is anticipated from parole boards, prison officials, and even in the next life. The fact that some of the worst people can be so religious implies that religiosity is no guarantee of ethical behavior.

Research
Despite a widespread perception that religious people should behave more ethically in general, researchers find little evidence that religious people either think or behave more ethically (1). One study, found that atheists were significantly less likely than religious students to cheat on an exam (2).

Psychologists find that religious belief stunts moral development, because it commits people to a dogma, or formula, rather than working out ethical solutions for themselves (the highest stage of moral development known as post-conventional morality).

Fundamentalist religions may undermine moral reasoning. People who 'know' that they are saved, may be relatively unconcerned about who is hurt by their actions in this world. A Roper survey found that after being 'born again,' people are more likely to drive drunk, use illegal drugs, and engage in illicit sex (3).

Religious texts exhort people to behave charitably and with compassion but social scientists over the decades find little evidence of this affecting actions. Among the research findings assembled by sociologist Alfie Kohn (4), were the following:

A 1950 study of Episcopalians found no relationship between involvement in religious activities and charitable acts.

A 1960 questionnaire study found that belief in God was only slightly related to altruism. Attendance at religious services was completely unrelated to altruism.

In 1984, interviews with 700 residents of a medium-sized city found that religious people were not particularly good citizens, as determined by involvement with neighbors and participation in local organizations.

People who rescued Jews in Nazi Germany were not any more religious than non rescuers.

Religious people are more intolerant of ethnic minorities.

A 1992 Gallup study (5) showed, however, that church members are more likely to claim they make charitable donations than non members are (78 percent vs. 66 percent).

A 2006 study found that among developed countries, those with a higher proportion of religious believers had more homicides, more teen births, and more venereal disease (5).

A 2008 study of ethics in high schools (6) found little difference between religious and secular independent schools in self-reported stealing (19 vs. 21 percent, respectively), or lying to parents (83 vs. 78 percent), but cheating was more common in religious schools (63 vs. 47 percent).

If indeed there are ethical differences between religious believers and atheists, a galloping horse wouldn't notice the difference. Neither can a catholic priest. According to the late Rev Richard John Neuhaus:

One would like to think that people who think of themselves as devout Christians would also behave in a manner that is in accord with Christian ethics. But pastorally and existentially, I know that that is not the case - and never has been the case.

1. Barber, N. (2004). Kindness in a cruel world: The evolution of altruism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
2. Clark, B. (1994). How religion impedes moral development. Free Inquiry, 14(3), 23-25
3. Freethought Today, September 1991, p. 12.
4. Kohn, A. (1990) The brighter side of human nature: Altruism and empathy in everyday life. New York: Basic.
5. Wuthnow, R (1994). God and mammon in America. New York: The Free Press.
6. Josephson Institute (2008). Report card on the ethics of American youth.

"