digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cracked.com

5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is Doomed

cracked.com — A number of psychological experiments over the years have yielded terrifying conclusions about the subjects. No, not the occasional psychopath who turns up. We're talking about you.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fitqueenb, on 05/06/2008, -8/+107Well, what can I say, kinda speechless for this minute
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+83humanity has been 'doomed' for over 150,000 years.

      aren't we still just apes looking for food and sex, avoiding predators, and collecting shiney things?
      • MiDri, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14I got this collecting shiny things down to an art, MUD BALLS!
      • jemka, on 05/06/2008, -8/+16You mean 6,000 years.
        -Genesis 1:1-5

        /Unfortunately, some won't get this.
        • supermanred, on 05/06/2008, -6/+15You seem to be confused regarding the Catholic faith, stop by your local church and ask a Priest how old the Earth is, he will probably tell you millions or billions of years old depending on how well he did in High School science.

          What you are thinking of is Christian / Catholic Fundamentalism, which is sort of like Osama Bin Laden's perverted version of Islam, Islamic Fundamentalism.

          I myself am an Athiest, but I do know that most Christians follow science, own iPhones, use computers and know that the Earth is billions of years old and not 6000 years old.
          • Jassman, on 05/06/2008, -5/+17Young earth creationism is a lot more popular than you think. This fact is one of the more surprising things that I've learned in the last few years.
          • jemka, on 05/06/2008, -7/+15"most Christians follow science"
            Except when it comes to religion.
          • bob10marley, on 05/06/2008, -10/+5hey let's not start attacking religion, guys.
          • robthom, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2"hey let's not start attacking religion, guys."
            ^^ Phoney digg liberals think it makes them cool.
          • hmunkey, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1The only problem with your assertion is that the holy books state this as a "fact" and there is a huge creationism argument in the US where stupid rednecks want it taught at school.
          • jemka, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1@ hmunkey
            Let's get one thing straight, I was being sarcastic. I tried to make it obvious enough: "/Unfortunately, some won't get this." Not sure if you knew this or not, but you're one of the people I was talking about.
        • andrewtheart, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Does anybody have a link to an article written by an AGNOSTIC scientist that attempts to prove the age of the Earth? (Not a scientist bogged down by either fundamental religion or science)
          • iamafatguy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2"bogged down" by science?

            Wait, what?
          • zolaar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly -- we have far too many scientists that are hopelessly bogged down... by SCIENCE.
            Those bastards!
          • andrewtheart, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Nice try guys, but any reasonable person would have known that I was referring to the dogmatic/fundamentalist scientists. Even an unreasonable person would have know this if they have read my post, which included the word "fundamental" - maybe that wasn't exactly the right term, but I thought you could piece two and two together. These types of scientists DO exist, whether you choose to accept it or not (indeed, I couldn't care less if you refuse to accept fact). Too many scientists have an agenda or preconceptions on the mind these days.
      • fcukthisgame, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2And the lie called cake.
      • howzitgoin88, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Get ya beady eyes off mah shiny things!
    • norman619, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14Humans haven't changed much if at all. Only difference between caveman and modern man is our knowledge. The internal wiring and plumbing is virtually the same. Many people love the believe we have "evolved" so much since our caveman/hunter-gatherer days but in reality we are the same. We humans may love to try and fix things are aren't broken but nature doesn't work that way.
      • FLarsen, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Well, with knowledge comes perception. Our internal wiring may not have changed much, but the way we look at things and think, have.

        And about the "don't fix what isn't broken" statement. I generally like to take a more optimistic approach, and say "improve what isn't perfect". Of course, by "improvement" I mean improvement, not bloat and useless features.
    • concreteclam, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10To everyone who finds this article extremely depressing (like me), this picture never fails to reassure me that some parts of humanity have some sort of backbone: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tian ...
      • Gerz1219, on 05/06/2008, -2/+12But doesn't this article explain the behavior of the people driving the tanks?

        There are a lot more people willing to drive a tank over civilians than there are people willing to stand in front of tanks.

        There is good reason to be depressed.
      • imikedaman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+26A 404 page? Way to stick the knife in further... :(
    • concreteclam, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Thanks for cutting off my link, Digg. http://tinyurl.com/5gdhn
    • kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5If that disturbs you, try looking for the video of the milgram experiment. Words cannot convey how terrifying it was. Some of these normal typical americans were giggling each time they thought they electrocuted the other subject. It was sick, and all captured in black and white video.
    • curtisag, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8I'm not really surprised. Humans are by definition selfish, self-interested creatures, just like every other lifeform on this planet. We have evolved according to survival of the fittest for millions of years. The weak perish, the strong procreate, and thereby make the next generation a little stronger. Our compassion for others is usually limited to people we know personally (close family and friends). And in instances where compassion is extended to strangers, that compassion is usually limited or doesn't cost us very much to give. Resources are usually scarce, therefore compassion could not be extended to every stranger through history. Given we cannot help everyone, people detatch their emotions from the "other", and reserve all of their emotional caring and compassion for their immediate circle. This detachment becomes even more pronounced in big cities with huge populations. The more people in a given area, the less compassion will be shown for strangers.
    • ligyron, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Thank God we have Scientologists
    • Hangly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6This idea that conformity is creepy is almost exclusively a Western thing. People are stronger in groups. If we had evolved as solitary creatures in one-man tribes we would have gone extinct a long time ago.
      • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Yeah but, we are no longer in the jungle, you are free to be yourself. Or you can just go along with the herd.
        • Hangly, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'd rather be effective than independent. Our country needs some serious reform, and we're not going to accomplish anything as a bunch of one-man armies.

          Oh, and we are still in the jungle.
      • eviltandem, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I think this explains a lot about politics (at least American). Everybody always says they want change, and yet they always vote for the safest, least different politician.

        I find it endlessly depressing that a good portion of us would rather knowingly lie and be wrong rather than question the groups consensus. That's how nonsense like Iraq happens.

        Think about gay marriage. It should be a non-issue. The government has no business with things like this. It was never meant to police individual relationships. Yet we all give it time and energy because the group is. The idea that the entire conversation has nothing to offer us never enters the conversation. We need jobs, a healthy economy, better health care, new energy sources, and all we can talk about is Obama's reverend, gay marriage, and hillary's political style...

        As though any of that is going to help me. It's a perfect example of how most of us will willingly lie and give up our own best interests rather than go against the herd.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1***** for psychology students. I would easily pass those tests. I wouldn't be afraid to give the right answer, I know my values (this one is for 2 and 3), I know when a mock is a mock and I would never harm another or do something just because authority says so. No, I'm not a non conformist, just someone who knows himself and knows about this ***** studies.
      • GabooGaboo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7I bet the people participating in these studies thought the exact same thing.
      • rigorious, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1so... Ron Paul or Obama? Lots of young people would go for obama, yet many diggers support ron paul.
        would you hurt a stranger to save yourself from being hurt? this is what it comes down to and you and I would most likely fail it. it is what has kept us alive.
    • whatisis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately I've known about these results for a long time. Having therefore had time to think about them there are a few important points that have to be made:-
      (1) Proof is a strong word. None of this "proves" anything. It provides evidence for such and such.
      (2) It certainly does not prove that "humanity is doomed".
      (3) If anything, raising awareness of our points of weakness is likely to help us prevent this scenario.
      (4) A statement such as "this proves humanity is doomed" could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    • bosssmiley, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Dugg for scientific proof that humans are, by-and-large, bastards.
      • FLarsen, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Read whatisis' post above yours.

        What this "proves" is that many humans are bastards, but there are some points of light.
  • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -27/+92I love things like this, like bystandard effect and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Just goes to show you how close we are to insects than we think.

    I think that's the strongest arguement for evolution over anything.
    • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -39/+14This post is so ***** ignorant. Digg me down, but look at it. It is, and you know it.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -3/+44Well, reading it over a second time just to be sure, yeah, I'd have to agree with you. Your post is pretty ***** ignorant.
      • twitchr, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Dude. This whole article was taken straight from a social psychology class. How exactly is it ignorant?
        • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -2/+21Not the article - Velvolver's post that the Stanford Prison Experiment "just goes to show you how close we are to insects than we think." I also dispute that assertion's strength as an "arguement" for evolution.
        • twitchr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6ah. i see. i would have to agree with you on that one.
      • silencekit, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0plus, the "bystandard" effect...come on.
    • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -4/+14Ah, I love digg's ability to randomly tie in unrelated arguments into random articles.
      *cue Obama-Clinton remarks relating to sheeple*
      • jehan60188, on 05/06/2008, -1/+19See, it's people like you, and that puppy-shock experiment that caused global warming to make it so that Ron Paul lost the republican nomination!
      • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5I wouldn't say it's unrelated - he's got a point, these experiments do show our roots, so to speak. Granted, by mentioning evolution on digg, he's just asking for a *****, but I thought the same thing when I read the article.
      • jriggs420, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3If you have FF 3 beta 5 check this out:
        Right click then mouse-scroll through all your open tabs, pretty sweet huh?
        • IronPwnage, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Just like Opera can, and has done for ages.
    • norman619, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Can you tell us what you think evolution is? It's been my exp that most people don't really know. The media and hollywood has done a great job of misrepresenting it as well.
      • macaddct1984, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Random genetic mutations and variation in species "guided" by the non-random mechanism of natural selection.

        Just a guess.
        • norman619, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Evolution is simply change initiated on by stresses in the env. There is no guidance at all.
        • bob10marley, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1i thought evolution was gradual changes in a species over time, which eventually leads to a new species. funny how my biology teacher couldn't really tell me what evolution actually WAS, and i still am unsure about it. Also, i don't think that stresses in the environment cause favorable genetic mutations, i.e. monsoons don't cause people to breathe underwater.
          • bob10marley, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1so can anyone tell the DIgg community what evolution is, people are still obviously confused about it
        • neuromachine, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Change in allelic frequencies. At least, that's the way I learned it.
        • Morgonslak, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0It's quite simple really.

          Evolution is not a "law" or anything like it. It's simply a way of explaining what is going on in all living organisms in the world. This also mean you cannot contradict evolution by saying that "this and that is not the best choice for a spieces". Evolution only postulates that changes happen, and that it has a number of ecological and biological resuslts, such as new spieces, the flu virus getting to us every year etc. I often see creationists (and atheists as well) trying to make evolution look like a law of nature that in a fascist way tries to "prove" the non-existens of a diety, but in reality evolution is the same thing as taking an ice cream cone out in the hot sun: "I can observe that it's melting. I think the most probable explanation is the warmth coming of the sun." Weather God is to blame for the loss of the ice cream or not is irrelevant for the explanation itself.

          In all spieces with a DNA or RNA based genome (i.e all spieces) mutations happens horisontally (within a timespan of a a single organism) and more importantly vertically: from a parent organism to a child organism. These things happen i very different ways depending on what type of spieces you look upon. It might be the bacterial konjugation (bacterial "sex") where genes that code for penicillin resistance can be exchanged inbetween bacteria horisontally, the spot mutation in flu virus, or in humans the recombination of two haploid cells into a normal genoma (creatin' a baby). These mutations, can be either bad for the organism (most are) or befeficial. Wheather it's bad or good is quite often depending on the environment in which the organism is located. If the mutation is beneficial in a certain environment and if it can be transferred to the organisms offspring (this is only a prerequisite for eukaryotes, not bacteria), this will result in a larger base of the population having this mutation. In large populations and over a long period of time, this can result in adaptation, and in some cases new spieces.
      • chillypacman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1we evolved into sheeple =(
    • Ninjapope, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12I think he's saying we evolved from Insects.

      Where are my wings, bitch.
    • donaho, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9What? Psychological experiments prove evolution best? Not the commonality of our DNA, our limited number of genes, our commonality of genes compared to, say, a tiger, or interesting, useless vestiges of organs? Psychological experiments over Darwin, Mendel, the Punnet square, embryology, adaptation, genetic drift, or natural selection?
    • HoneyHamilton, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Bystander. Natural selection = fail.
    • sizbo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1The stanford prison experiment is the biggest sham in psychology. It proves nothing other than if you take a bunch of college kids and make them play dress up, they'll do their best to play the roles. Neither guards nor prisoners were permitted to use violence, so if someone really didn't want to be there, all they had to do was start swingin'. Hunger strike my ass.

      Plus Phil Zimbardo could play Lucifer on TV
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKW_MzREPp4&feature=rel ...
  • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -26/+8This just shows we need to get over our view of humanity as perfect and start improving with genetic engineering, nano-technology and similar.
    • renagadex2, on 05/06/2008, -6/+28hahahahahah thats so many kinds of ridiculous
      • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Read ray kurzweil's "the singularity is near" and you might change your mind.
        • B1663r, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Read it again, but every time you see the word "singularity" replace it with "the nerd rapture".... Same conclusion?
          • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"A rose by any other name would sound just as sweet"
            He provides fairly good evidence.
            Even if is not true then it simply sets our timescale back a few years not stop it.
          • gutistg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Yeah, roses don't make much noise.
          • Blandyman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Smell, *****. Smell.
            Since when do you listen to roses?
      • Zipko, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9That book was very interesting, but it has no context in this article. You're still ridiculous for thinking that genetic engineering or nano-technology can solve flaws in our morality.

        /edit, replied to the wrong post. oh well
        • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1These seem to be more like uncontrollable instincts that purposeful morality choices so it is quite possible that they will be solved.
        • Logicexe, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2It can though. Most basic moral constructs are hard wired into our brain and can certainly be changed through genetic engineering if we knew how to do it.
        • Zipko, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4The problem is who's the one designing these changes, and how are you going to force them on everyone? The results of the Stanford Prison experiment say that some people who have the ability to do this high of a level of genetic modification would abuse it rather than do the right thing.

          An interesting implication from two of the other experiments is that if you were a developer on some morality project that would apply universally, and your boss said if you felt like it it would ok to program in an exception that made you exempt. How many people do you think would give themselves that backdoor? To include the army experiment, if a developer knew it was the wrong thing to do, but the rest of the developers in his group went ahead and exempted themselves, the results of that experiment imply that they would go ahead with it even though they knew it to be wrong.

          Point is, even with the technology to enforce morality these experiments show that human nature will still do the wrong thing. I don't think it's realistic to think we can ever genetically program morality even if it was technically possible.
          • Logicexe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The fact that we maybe should not do it doesn't mean it's impossible (which is what a lot of people were arguing). The questions regarding who gets to decide what is moral and what is immoral is a good question to ask.

            I think where you're going wrong is that you're assuming human nature is a static unchangeable thing. Even without genetic engineering it is possible to change a human's nature. Changing the way our brain processes moral decisions through genetic manipulation will result in a change in the way we process moral decisions.
          • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't want to force it upon anyone. I am a libertarian.
            I simply believe that most people would be horrified that they could be put in a position where they would not live up to their moral standerds and voluntarily accept the augmentations.
    • W00DR0W, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5And this will improve the average person's psyche how?

      Cure mental illnesses sure, but no one's found a social intelligence gene yet.
      • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Well of course we aren't quite there yet but we're getting closer.
    • Intangible360, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1You don't say something like that without backing it up, you are assuming far too much about the readers of your comment.
    • Scottamus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4"our view of humanity as perfect"
      Who the ***** thinks this?
      If anyone starts to mistakenly believe this then merely read the news for a while.
      • blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well the people arguing against human augmentation whether because it is "against god" or "against nature" often think this.
    • bob10marley, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Oh so you would have us turn into a society like Gattaca? and jobs will start discriminating against "god-children" because they don't have a perfect genome? that's no good, blast flame.
    • Brad324, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'll gladly donate a dna sample of the big penis gene
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
  • ogmak, on 05/06/2008, -2/+41Man, i just finished a social psychcology, and all 5 of these experiments were on it... (sigh, the things we do to gain acceptance in the world...)
    • ogmak, on 05/06/2008, -3/+27...social psychology FINAL...sry bout that.
      • Ninjapope, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11Got one tomorrow. I think it's interesting. I've learned how better to manipulate people though social pressure.
        • DarkLaughingMan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1consistency (people like to be consistent with their actions, which is why things like foot in the door techniques work) , justification, and reciprocation (even concessions will work). All you need to use to manipulate people. =D

          Edit: Though once people learn about these techniques and how they work, it won't be effective to use them on them due to innoculation.
        • neuromachine, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Sometimes, a little more knowledge or incomplete knowledge, can be more dangerous than ignorance.
          • FLarsen, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Only if you have a situation where one or a few person(s) has a lot more knowledge than the other(s).
    • J3EBS, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yea I took a course about this kind of thing in high school, and the teacher could not stress enough to us how stupid Zimbardo is. Something about how experiments should be controlled and the like. After watching the video, I felt the same way.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0Nx31yicY
    • Scaryclouds, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I just had social psychology last term as well and we talked about all these experiments. Psychology is an incredibly interesting field.
    • h4mx0r, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1What about this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
      The way the mind works... there are many terrible possibilities...
  • bc289, on 05/06/2008, -0/+74I walk by the room that the milgram study was performed in every once in awhile. It's a little creepy.
    • TheShadowKnows, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1So I take it you eventually got used to the screaming? ;-)

      (Scary thought - did you mean you walk by *because you dig the creepy thrill*? Yikes...looks like there may be another experiment to do!)
    • htan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1i remember seeing the video of the experiment in psyc 1200, and it was hilarious
      • cbittle, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Where does one achieve such an intellectual class as "psyc 1200"???
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1At such a level you would be teaching Freud psychology. Not to say Freud (anymore) knows psychology as virtually all his theories are no longer accepted. How about Maslow?
    • GeyserShitdick, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1The fact that you're stalking the Milgram Experiment room is pretty creepy.
    • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2lots of kids walk by the room. Classes are held in that building still.
    • danconia, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Interesting tidbit about the Sheridan and King follow-up to Milgram's Experiment with the puppy:
      "Intriguingly, the six students who refused to go on were all men. All thirteen women who participated in the experiment obeyed right up until the end."
  • jakash, on 05/06/2008, -8/+112Brilliant article, finished nicely and really made me think... we on Digg are no different...
    Why does every XKCD comic or cracked.com article get so many Diggs (even the bad comics)?
    Its the same principle as The Asch Conformity Experiment... we see people like XKCD and we Digg aswell, even if that particular day it was crap
    • renagadex2, on 05/06/2008, -14/+3No i pretty consistently hate the xkcd comics
    • dunnylovehun, on 05/06/2008, -5/+24Replace "cracked.com article" with Pro Obama /Anti-Clinton story and you've sold me.
      • BestJaxx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I have started to ignore the politcal articles.
      • kdamp, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2RONNN PAAAUUUULLLLLL !!!!!!!!
    • duke3k, on 05/06/2008, -5/+110Digg is probably the best contemporary example of groupthink at work that I can think of
      • aenima987, on 05/06/2008, -0/+36i agree
      • HueytheFreeman, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Hivemind?
      • Scottamus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+26me too!
      • EricSchC1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Of course! What holds true across the internet is definitely true here on Digg as well: "If enough people agree with it, it must be true." Sad how truth has never been about facts, rather facts pointing to a universally appealing conclusion.
      • Phyraxus, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I disagree.
      • sk11, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The highest levels of conformity, on the internet, are at myspace and facebook. Digg's more on the slightly odd side of the conformity spectrum.
      • bmcnally, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Absolutely.
      • neuromachine, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1It doesn't help that it's demographic is the group most likely to commit this bias.
      • lolmax, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1even better than grupthink.com?
    • dazparkour, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6That's just because people have different tastes and some people are genuinely only digging the ones they like.
      No need to cross the two over.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+34Now I'm conflicted over whether or not to digg your comment.
    • jakash, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12I'm probably gonna get Dugg down now, because if my initial comment is disliked by some people, then because of social conformity, everybody else will dislike it...Either that or it was a crappy comment after all...
      (You could add MrBabyMan submissions to that list...)
      • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13I have been wondering if MrBabyMan has a job. If he does have a job, does his employer know that he submits stories to Digg 24 hours a day? I have had comments dugg down too. But I noticed, like you, that once the downward spiral starts, it keeps going and going and going...
        • WallnutBoy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I agree.. I mean, I rarely digg down comments.. A comment I disagree with will get no action, unless I'm actually offended or have something to say against it or if they're just plain wrong. But I have found myself being tempted to digg up a comment I barely understand, just because everyone else is digging it.. It's like I restrict how many thumbs-down I give, but I give out thumbs-up like cookies..

          Bleh, I'm just a sad conformist I guess... -_-
        • Ikulus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I digg in the opposite direction of the hoard, on purpose, to spite everyone.

          Just kidding. I actually digg according to what I believe or feel is right.
      • Tyrghast, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Okay, while we're on the topic of Digg itself, stop saying 'dugg down'. The term is 'bury, 'buried', or 'to bury'.
        • Linzee82, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Who cares? The point is still made.
    • kingUssop, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8That's pretty much how web 2.0 works though. "Social' and "networking" is just a veiled term for hey let's get everyone hyping the same things at once, most important of all our website. It's basically a clever way to convert people's gullibility into big business.
      • EricSchC1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1See my above comment: "If enough people agree with/like it, it must be true/the best." And this mentality certainly did NOT originate w/Digg or even the internet for that matter.
    • Logicexe, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11There are bad xkcd comics?

      :p
    • Dubie556, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2While thats a pretty funny idea, its not really that true. Social conformity and the degree to which it affects human behavior is based more on the response deviation from standard behavior will yield. You've got to take into account a person's perception of the response, which will be based on factors such as proximity, degree of importance and medium of response. The experiment that proved this theory utilized a close proximity verbal interaction system which indicates that the response to deviate behavior would be immediate and from those in a close proximity.
      Not digging XKCD doesn't call for nearly the same degree of possible social response, causing the pressure to engage in the conformist behavior to be minimal. The distance and ambiguous nature of a digg user's identity causes the power of conformity to become minimized.

      Yeah, its been a while since a social psych class, but its not often I can get long winded about stuff.....
    • exomni, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12I adore XKCD, read every comic. I've never dugg a single XKCD Digg submission.
      • OverlyCritical, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11Yet you were weak enough to boast about your nonconformity on Digg due to a subconsious desire to be praised by random strangers. ... only to be cut down by some ***** who is trying to look smart by pointing that out (that's me).
        • exomni, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If you see stating mere facts as "boasting", I'm rather worried about you.
    • guille1719, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1bad comics?????
    • esteskid, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well, you have to take into account that theres way too many new stories being submitted to sift through, so people look for things that are familiar.
    • TheKarmaPolice, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4you already have 41 thumbs up, so what you said must have been good. i guess i'll make it 42.
  • rubberbrush, on 05/06/2008, -5/+45The best way to protect people from their more base instincts is education. Now that you know about these things, you will be less likely to fall victim to them.
    • PhantomRogue, on 05/06/2008, -2/+16They are instincts for a reason. They tend to let you live longer. You attempt to help someone getting beat down by someone else... chances are you are thinking, "That guy is going to come after me next if i try to step in..." Instinct to stay alive is what all of these experiments show. We want to sustain our lives as long as possible. Even if we don't morally agree with the norm, people will keep adhering to it in the hopes that they can just run fast enough to outrun the slowest.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12That's only part of the explanation. The other is that we have to process so much information that our brains would be completely overloaded if we didn't take shortcuts. Unfortunately, sometimes those shortcuts lead to the wrong answer, but most of the time, they work well enough that the loss of accuracy is made up for by higher efficiency. I mean, take optical illusions - the reason they trick us is because our brain is using shortcuts that don't always work.
      • JustLoren, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12I think survival instinct was what made the prison guards take away the prisoner's bathroom rights.
        /sarcasm
      • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0How does saying the wrong answer or torturing someone because authority say so helps your survival? Think a little.
        • Gizza, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Because in our caveman days, if you didn't get along with your group and were kicked out by yourself or attacked by the group chances are you weren't in for a very long life. And even if you did survive, chances are you weren't going to be producing offspring by yourself.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14Will we? Didn't you read the Good Samaritan experiment?
      • Peko, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1And for plusdoublegoodirony, the guy was talking about knowing about these things as a way to not 'fall victim', and he didn't even RTFA. Case in point against.
    • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9You are a kind and caring person or you are not. It has nothing to do with the amount of education a person has. I believe that being brought up as a child in a kind and caring environment is the real key. The sad part is seeing the statistics from these tests and to realize that these test subjects have probably had children and grandchildren by now. And they have promoted an uncaring and unkind behavior with each generation. However, even though how we are raised as children makes a difference, there are exceptions in both directions. The bottom line is that each one of us is completely responsible for our own actions regardless of childhood or any other experience. Most of the time we don't accept this responsibility and humanity unravels. I want to be better than what humanity expects and I work hard each day to be different. I have good days and bad days. It is up to me.
      • EricSchC1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That's probably the most astute observation on the topic. Lets face it, once you're capable of abstract reasoning and determining right from wrong, you have no one to hold accountable for your actions (or lack thereof) except yourself. When a society deteriorates on a moral or ethical level, the only responsible parties are that society's inhabitants...maybe sometimes hostile, militaristic takeovers or shifts in morality within a society's "ruling class" influence this or speed up a society's decline, but typically maintenance of a society's moral fiber rests squarely on its own people's shoulders.
      • coolsam, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I cant help but agree with both you and 2012 but there is something I wish to comment on your point "Lets face it, once you're capable of abstract reasoning and determining right from wrong, you have no one to hold accountable for your actions (or lack thereof) except yourself." If men's actions were predominantly decided by rational thinking, your point would be cent percent accurate. However most of the time we respond to emotions, habits, fear, greed, etc. Consider a drug addict who has got all the"reasoning and rational understanding" on why he should stop taking drugs. That however, does not help him overcome his habit. Similarly we, as part of our brought-up, may have developed habits, emotional-response-patterns, etc, due to the environment provided by our homes, schools, etc. As grown ups in spite of our understanding to the contrary we would be unable to stop these behavioral patterns though as adults we are not responsible for our actions. So the really key thing in 2012's statement is the "I want to be better than what humanity expects and I work hard each day to be different." It is that "need to improve myself as a human-being" which makes us put effort everyday to correct our actions, behavior, attitude towards others. It does not matter from which point we start on improving ourselves so long we have the attitude and zeal to be introspective, and to learn and improve ourselves as human beings.
        • coolsam, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0just correcting the typo I meant "though as adults we are now responsible for our actions" instead of "though as adults we are not responsible for our actions"
    • eximious, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3You'd think so, but sadly it's not necessarily so. For example, the rose-colored mirror (where you think that you're essentially better than everyone) seems to have equal effect on people before and after they learn about it.
    • The_Dude, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I thought it was Jesus.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0You are totally right. People should learn about this experiments so they are above it. I for one do not fear to say the right answer or to help someone or stand up to authority asking me something against my values, but I don't expect everyone to be as smart as me.
    • Cofaloaf, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1How many times do you look back at a situation and say "***** why didn't I do this, that would have made much more sense."

      When I space out I sometimes go through the scenario of how I would kung-fu kick the ***** out of someone breaking into my house but in reality I would probably ***** my pants and call the cops.
  • thereisnostate, on 05/06/2008, -2/+277Spending a few minutes chatting with people online is enough to tell you that humanity is doomed.
    • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Yep. I wish hypocrisy was the most punished of all social sins, but sadly it's not. If you like the hypocrite, apparently it's not that big of a deal.
      • Rage67, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It's funny that you say that, because nobody likes a hypocrite...
    • theshizzler, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13a/s/l?
    • toconnor, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Why don't you take a seat right over there?
    • known, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Lack of compassion for the fellow human beings is the root of all evil.
      • Tyrghast, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Corporations are the root of all evil.
      • EricSchC1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Inability to take a stand against or influence a social group away from a decreasing lack of compassion is the root of plenty of evils too!
    • johnfn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Sir Winston Churchill
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+24chan
    • iiBeLiEvE, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Just read Youtube comments.
    • MasterPlayer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1lol, de fuk u talkin bout losah???
    • xDynaBlade, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5If you ever go to www.golivewire.com and read a few of the threads, you'll know there's no hope for humanity. Someone once thought there was something wrong with their girlfriend who was 6 months pregnant and hadn't had her period the entire time and worried that the baby was drinking all the blood.
    • wutimatang, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry to say that the internet only really stands as a means to show how ignorant and heartless a lot of people can be. Before the internet those type of people still existed sadly.
  • 6shot, on 05/06/2008, -7/+7We are doomed!
    • MrJagil, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Can i take my pants on now?
    • KingGorilla, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Time to sing the doom song now
      • eviljolly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2doom dee doom doom doom

        Ivader Zim ftw
    • Stevethegreat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Don't you worry we'll engineer our "malfunctions" away. In the future we'll be half cyborg, half man, half bear, half pig......
    • eviljolly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1This doesn't prove that we're doomed hough...

      It just means we have some obstacles to overcome because of our basic mentality. The only way to overcome these is to know what the problems are, and that's precisely what these studies accomplish.

      -------CREATIONISTS STOP READING HERE---------
      If you believe in evolution, you know that we're not perfect beings. We have something like 20 useless body parts. Our brain is no exception. No I don't mean our brain is useless, but there are things about it which we don't understand, and a lot of that has to do with how we evolved. Maybe one day we will be able to improve upon our race in this respect. We already have in many ways as far as preventing genetic defects, but reprogramming our mental "code" is probably not going to be on the agenda for quote some time. Maybe organic computing will teach us more about this one day...
      -------CREATIONISTS START READING HERE---------
    • AlexanderZero, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1DOOMED!
  • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -2/+39Eh, doomed? These phenomena have been part of what it's meant to be human since ever, since humans existed - but look at us now, with our extended life expectancies, our ridiculously low infant mortality rates (relative to historical rates), and a significant portion of the globe having essentially "solved" famine and starvation. I'd be more interested in a follow-up list, "5 Ways Humans Have Overcome Their Crippling Flaws."
    • CarStan, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3yeah, because when you know that 70 percent of all humans are hypocritical douches without an own mind, what better to do for the future of humanity than increase the total number of these humans
    • WallnutBoy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I think the biggest thing is most of the examples given in the article are really only morality issues. The way humans have evolved have made us paint a perfect picture of human society, where things like these are plainly seen as 'wrong', yet we could all be subject to performing them when the time came... It's just human instinct.

      Your points are still valid, though.. I don't think the human race is 'doomed' as they say in this article, I just think as humans we have evolved to a level of control in our actions, to try to diminish 'instinct' - which could be impossible, who knows - through teaching morality at a young age.
      What I've just said is entirely culturally subjective, though, because in different cultures over the globe 'morality' is seen completely differently..
      • EricSchC1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Or, instincts rooted solely in self preservation w/no regard for the well-being of the group could be done away with, if and only if everyone simultaneously got on board. As long as there are people w/a predatory nature, the rest of us, at some point, will have to make a value judgment where the optimal resolution is at best, the lesser of all evils. Morality would almost have to be "programmed" at birth or early in infancy and a global standard of morality would have to be adopted.
    • chicken59, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Give it time.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0"part of what it's meant to be human"
      What a gross generalization. I know myself and none of the bs in those tests applies to me.
  • rationalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+164So much is written about, and so much research is conducted about, those who behaved badly in these experiments. I've always wondered why we don't spend more time studying those who refused to shock the "subjects" in the Milgram Experiment and refused to harm others in the other experiments, who did stop for those in need, etc.

    We could, and should, learn more about what makes some of us behave best even under the most trying circumstances - rather than obsess about what makes us behave worst. Perhaps these best behaviors are learnable. We should certainly find out.
    • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7I think that's what motivated Maslow after the Freudian school, and its derivatives, dominated the field for so long.
    • kubien, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure of any studies on that in particular, but I know the same principles can be applied to good. Can't remember the name of the guy who did the study, but there was one involving helping someone stuck on the side of the road. If someone was stuck on the side of the road alone, people wouldn't help much. But, if just before that, someone saw a different person stuck on the side of the road being helped, they were much more likely to stop when they got to the next person who was stuck.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11When they conducted many of these experiments, they had no idea. Take the Milgram experiment, for instance - they were trying to understand what happened in Nazi Germany, trying to determine whether it was something specific to German people or a trait that most people have. Seriously, they expected maybe 10% at most would go to the top level of electrocution. And I mean, look at the Stanford prison experiment - they had no idea how horrible things would get.

      I get what you're saying, but you've got to have a starting point. You need to know why most people do horrible things if you ever hope to figure out how a small percentage don't fall into those traps.
      • Rage67, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1so where are the experiments to see what make people do good things?
    • Ninjapope, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5There's actually a lot of experiments on the topic of altruism. The ones I've read about find that people help those who are either genetically related or share similar characteristics, are young as opposed to old, whether it is the social norm to help, whether we emphasize with the person, or whether we find it in our benefit to help out.
    • glasnostic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1maybe its just hard to be up-beat and positive about the results. sure it's nice to think positive about things, but isn't what you asking kind of like saying; "hey, some people were rescued from Katrina, so rather then focus on what went wrong there, we should focus on what went right".

      then again, it would be nice if we found out that eating more vegetables or having a half glass orange juice was what produced the positive outcomes in those experiments.

    • nikipedia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2There's your PhD thesis.
  • drinkdrankdrunk, on 05/06/2008, -1/+16This was the first month of my social psych class. After finishing the class I can honestly say that 90 percent of our behavior has been broken down by experiments like these....and i still don't feel doomed as a species, but better understood.
    • JessicaSarahS, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I was going to say, someone paid attention in social psych!
    • travis1982, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Same here, I took social psych, group processes and many other social psychology classes. They should be mandatory at highschools...maybe at least stop jocks from becoming that collective brainless cesspool. Could be useful in religion class as well? Obedience to authority and what not. yep.
      • adrenaline33, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Or stop nerds from becoming that collective brainless cesspool that refers to anyone who plays a sport as a jock
        • travis1982, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I am not nerd nor jock, but I think its obvious enough the collective hive of the high school football players, hockey players etc. If you are unaware of the conformity involving high school cliques, then I would have to say you have been home schooled. I am not bashing either or, but youths need more independent venues in that crucial time in their lives...not non-stop conformity.
        • brian1625, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Though some students excel is conformity. They know what's expected of them to continue to be in that clique. Interestingly enough, it does have an evolutionary purpose, that's probably why it's there.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Understanding it is the first step in overcoming it.
  • Mexrocker, on 05/06/2008, -17/+15As a Psy major, I find these experiments very fascinating... I don't know about anyone else, but there are some experiments I would like to perform that might get me in a ***** of trouble because of ethics. I don't really oppose to the idea of pushing the human brain to it's limits to learn more about our naturalistic instincts. However, I don't say anything because I don't want to feel like I am in the minority, so I am conforming....
    • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -6/+22How is this getting dugg up? It's an admission from a psych student that he wants to conduct unethical human experimentation, but keeps it a secret, except to the Internet? WTF?
      • travis1982, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Wasn't that the point of the experiments in article? That behind closed door/controlled environments...people will gladly and willingly be cruel? If that article says anything...it says that you're most likely thinking the same thing as Mexrocker.
      • theprogrammer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4You're overreacting. This isn't an "admission" of anything wrong. He's just saying that he can think of experiments that he believes would yield knowledge, but that he can't actually conduct because of ethical concerns. Sounds like a relevant problem to me.
        • bitbytebit, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1and you can't read .. but there are some experiments I would like to perform that might get me in a ***** of trouble because of ethics.
    • kubien, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Wait till you get to the studies by Elizabeth Loftus and see just how much you can ***** with people's memory.
      • WallnutBoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2After studying that last year, I've always wanted to find a life situation where I could do that to someone - without the burden of ethics and *****. It would be really fascinating.
    • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10You missed your calling when the Nazi's died out. Join the CIA, they might be able to hook you up.
      • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I avoided this because I didn't want Godwin's Law to step all over my point.
      • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1great point, but I think the comparison is within context of this thread, Godwin or no Godwin.
      • theWrkncacnter, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I just can't digg that up, even though it's sarcasm
    • pyro789x, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4You're a psychology major and this is the first you've heard of these experiments? I call BS. I heard about 3 of these in my high school psychology class.
    • DarkLaughingMan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Sadly the great age of social psychology experments that make everyone go "WTF" is over. We now have the IRB (Internal Review Board) that won't let us do whatever we want. =(
  • jakash, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14Sweet! I have to get myself a lab coat so I can brainwash people to do stuff... and not get the blame...
    • DarkLaughingMan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Any symbol of authority will work. Be sure to apply trappings as well (if your going dress like a police officer, talk like one, etc..). It's how that whole thing with the guy calling fast food resturants posing as an officer worked. Clothing, titles, and trappings.
    • Rage67, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1wouldn't you feel guilty for pushing someone to do something that YOU know is unacceptable?
  • AngelDragon, on 05/06/2008, -2/+32Loved the V for Vendetta punch image .
  • kindrobot, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5I think the writers of the article missed the point on a couple of those. To a certain extent.
  • kerguelen72, on 05/06/2008, -0/+52The picture of the little white dog made me laugh for some reason. I think it is the way it just suddenly showed up unexpectedly in that pedo bear ascii kinda way.
    • Scira, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11I was really expecting a pedobear ASCII to be replied with, strange how things work.
    • Arcanis, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3... doomed.
    • tidu, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2It's the cutest dog ever
  • elint6, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9What they didn't mention: real teachers were more willing to continue shocking in the Milgram experiment than others.
  • GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8The thing is, if a guy in a lab coat ordered me to shock a person, i would likely continue for fear of ketting beat the ***** out of. But if I was told I was shocking a puppy, i would probably stop. I don't know what this says about me, probably that I would rather electrocute my own species that another. Or that I'm mildly sadistic.
    • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14You are aware most people in lab coats would have some difficulty and a distinct disinclination to beat the ***** out of you? I'd be more afraid if it was a military setting and there was an abrasive roid monster Sargent giving me the orders.
      • frazw, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I think he meant the other subject would get angry at being shocked and want to beat the ***** out of you.
      • Pixelante, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Oppenheimer would have beaten the crap out of anyone at Digg. Seriously, he would have. General Grover was afraid of him.
      • GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Good point
      • fuzzybeard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I wonder what would happen if you said "How's about I shock *YOU* first?"
    • WallnutBoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1In that situation, I honestly think I'd find it easier to shock another human rather than a puppy/other animal... So I'm with you. And I really would like someone to tell me what that says about us.. I find it hard to watch animals dying in movies and *****, but I have no problems with humans dying.. It's weird.
      • GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I guess we've become accustomed to people dying constantly through things like the media, whereas animals dying is rarely shown.
      • DubBucket, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I'd say it's more the fact that most people are bastards. Animals have the innocence of ignorance, and therefore don't deserve it.
      • kjd84, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Social Engineering..

        I work in a cinema and I often have people ask me if there are any sex scenes in the movie I go no, however there is lots and lots of violence and the parents reply "that's fine as long as there are no sex scenes".
        It really really baffles me Sex is an act of love and peace and it is forbidden and taboo but Violence is OK even though it is "bad".
        People are really ***** up.
        I know that my example comes down to the fact that parents don't want to explain sex and its easy to say violence is bad mmmmkay but what ***** arseholes out of their own awkwardness and insecurities over sex that they can't be bothered to explain they go and let their kids watch violent movies but if its got sex in it thats not good! What assholes!
      • ChristianMagic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I don't know, I think it's more a sense of responsibility. Like you would probably find it at least as hard to electrocute a baby as a puppy, because they both are helpless and we feel responsible for them.
    • Xennie, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I think allot of us feel this way do to the fact that weather we know it or not, this world is being over populated with humans. It sucks to see an animal die because most of our animals are being killed by humans every day. That's what I've been told anyway. I guess it really is weird.
    • Demener, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It might be that your rationalizing that the person probably deserves it. They should be answering/behaving properly but they aren't and punishing them should help fix the problem.

      The same would apply to the animal, except that the animal is not likely to understand, so punishing it won't bring about the desired result.
    • Apocolypse007, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0the fact that anyone would knowingly shock a puppy is just beyond belief for me. I've just lost a lot of faith for humanity.
      • kjd84, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"the fact that anyone would knowingly shock a PERSON is just beyond belief for me. I've just lost a lot of faith for humanity."
        There you go fixed it for you!
  • arjie, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Wow, when they mentioned the death in 1964, my mind instantly went Kitty Genovese. Who would have thought I would learn a little bit of history from reading the Watchmen comic.

    That apathetic bystander experiment was recently done in a different way, and apparently people don't help in accident situations because they think another would be better qualified or would do it better. Of course that doesn't explain them not running for help. Weird.
    • duke3k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that explanation sounds like a cop-out(from them, not you)
    • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Reminds me of the story a few years ago of a guy being dead on a New York subway car for over twelve hours before anyone noticed.
    • SwedishNinja, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Heard about Kitty Genovese in the Boondock Saints, and the subway guy in Collateral... both good movies that I should watch again soon :D
    • PamalaLauren, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Or they might get sued.
    • DarkLaughingMan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Tis also why when you get CPR certified and take the required course they actually tell you to pick someone out from the crowd (either say their name, or if you don't know, say guy in red shirt and black jeans, or whatever) and tell them to call 911. If you just yell call 911 and then start CPR, most of the time nobody would call.
    • Namaha, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Now, we must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of evil which we must fear most. And that, is the indifference of good men."
  • Evermin7, on 05/06/2008, -5/+23Solution: Think for yourself and realize that you are free. Do not submit to a rule that you think is unjust.
    • duke3k, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2So you think everything is just? Judging by your lack of incarceration I'd say it's either that or you're submitting nicely.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5The problem is, almost everyone already subscribes to this belief, or at least they profess to. Yet, when put in the right circumstances, all that goes out the window.
    • JustLoren, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2What about sociopaths who think that killing babies is justified? Should they think for themselves, as well?
      • stinkingfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0NO JustLoren the goverment should control your thoughts, there too strong for you.
        • Jassman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Even a sociopath should be able to apply the golden rule in spite of their anti-emotional shortcomings.
    • frazw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7No the solution to these circumstances is to be aware of them. Now you have read about these experiments are you less likely to act in these ways given these circumstances? I'd say yes.
    • DarkLaughingMan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0True that would fix most problems, however throughout evolution and even today our brains like to take shortcuts when it comes to consistency and authority.
  • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2Cracked.com has the same people digg their stories every single time. They're power jacking their storys to the front page.

    Kevin Rose, for the love of everything that is good like puppies that lick your face and fresh chocolate chip cookies, give us the ability to block certain websites from appearing on our front page. Please.
    • Abomonog, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7So? If they're good stories and Cracked.com stories that make it usually are. If they are jacking up their stuff they're not doing it to much of it. Very few Cracked articles even get posted on digg comparatively.
    • roho76, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I have an experiment that you would be perfect for. Interested?
    • br0ck, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Try this greasemonkey script. It claims to remove articles from the front of Digg based on keyword or site. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25791
      • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I have been running this script for quite a while, not noticing I could block sites. I have just been blocking Ron Paul stories. So long, Prisonplanet and infowars!
      • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That's crazy, thanks br0ck. :]
  • UknowWho97, on 05/06/2008, -11/+6Being a social psych major I have to say I'm already convinced, with the relatively small amount of psychological and sociological knowledge I've acquired, that humanity is far beyond doomed and all lofty goals like equality and peace are nearly unattainable. It's depressing but hey, would you rather be blissfully ignorant or know the truth?

    Live life to the fullest while you can cause the ***** will eventually hit the fan...
    • arduenn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6And why only after 3 million years of existence of mankind are we doomed now?
      • duke3k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Maybe he means doomed to stagnation.
        • UknowWho97, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Exactly, that social paragon that everyone is expecting to come is a looooooong ways away (if it's in our future at all). Things like -ism's are inherent to the human condition because mankind is a categorizing creature. We have positive and negative connotations for everything, and that includes impressions about other members of the population. Don't get me wrong, -ism's are socially created phenomena, but the basis for them is our basic nature to categorize. That's what I'm talking about.
    • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5You clearly picked the wrong major...
      • UknowWho97, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3No, I've always wanted to be a zoologist. I just study the most dominant animal on earth.
        • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4And with that, you verify my claim...
  • molotov, on 05/06/2008, -13/+1"The more, the higher probability that you will die if you have a seizure."

    If one person. probability of being rescued: 1 x 85% = 0.85.
    If four people in conversation: 4 x 31% = 1.24

    1.24 > 0.85

    The more people, the higher probability of being rescued. Cracked.com staff prove yet again that they are on crack.
    • UknowWho97, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3This is not a matter of math buddy, it's a matter of social patterns, and there's a ***** load of experiments to tell us that the greater the number of people, the less chance of being rescued. Just look at cities compared to suburbs and such things, there's so much going on that people have to act like they don't care just to get through the day. How do you decide who to help when on your way to work you pass 6 homeless people?

      This is not complaining, but "I'm just sayin," which should be every psych student's tag line
    • cryforfiji, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8You're doing it wrong.
    • kubien, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You fail at reading.
    • bgrah449, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6You fail at math.
    • frazw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It's the chance of being rescued.
      Your probability of being rescued by anyone are either 85% or 31%. It isn't 31% per person.
      Oh and probabilities don't work like that. For a start 1 is the maximum probability you can have...
    • hinchb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5you have a 124% chance of getting rescued, meaning you'll be rescued for things you didn't even do!

      PS. You fail
    • vanimal, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Assuming in the 4 person case that each person has a 31% chance of going for help if you have a seizure, then there's about a 77.33% chance that at least 1 person goes for help. [ 1 - (1 - 0.31)^4 ]
    • ratarun, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Where did you grab those numbers from?
  • Fallout911, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2for the lulz
  • siktath, on 05/06/2008, -16/+2Of course the leftist underclass would come up with a conclusion like this. No, it can't be that these human properties are what make us a successful species.
    You morons should practice what you preach. Can you even spell N-A-T-U-R-A-L S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?
    • akilleen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8*Sigh*
      Another reason we are doomed.
      • siktath, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1At least I'll be fine. Enjoy the rest of your mediocre life, loser.
    • BertRussell, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8people who use "natural selection" as a way to promote social darwinism fail to properly realize that humans aren't just passive actors in reality but are actually able to manipulate it, like all beings. Human conception of nature is predicated on sense-perception, and through our actions our reality changes which allows us to continue to evolve. It's recursive.
      • siktath, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1You are pathetic! Do you really think you can outsmart a, what is it now, 15B year universe? No, you know what's best, Stalin.
    • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3non-conformist are usually killed, marginalized, ridiculed and/or hurt in some way. Ironically, most of the innovators, saviors, scientist,s founders and saints that created our religions, arts and sciences have been (and still are) non-conformists. Conformist are sheeple. There are only a few people with the balls, brains and morality to step outside the pack and take the Human species to the next level.
      • sek52, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Buried for the use of the word "Sheeple"
      • siktath, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1No, you're not a special butterfly. Most likely, you are a nothing. The great do break out. That's what makes them great and you a no one.
  • WarMachineWCLH, on 05/06/2008, -1/+25Completely random thought, did the picture of the puppy remind anyone else of the flying dragon thing from The Neverending Story?
  • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -13/+3Christianity, Judiasm, and islam? Comes to mind when I think of failed psychological experiments.
    • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Actually they can be considered successful. Not always efficient but certainly effective control of the masses. That is what religion does.
  • Herostratos, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11In a novel, Aksel Sandemose (you've probably not heard of him if you live outside of Scandinavia) writes that the devil is most certainly not evil... The devil is stupid. Mindnumbingly stupid. And experiments like this prove him true. It is when people cease thinking, when people stop reflecting over what they are actually doing and just go along with authority/the flock that horrible crimes are committed.
    • spidoman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Do you have a link to the book, or the line, or a translation, or anything. Seems very interesting.
    • Rage67, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1mob mentality, good point
  • Shiftgood, on 05/06/2008, -10/+12832% conformed to the rest of the group even when the answer was wrong...

    *checks bush's approval rating
    • Bologner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1......so they are conforming to the minorty?
      • Shiftgood, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1MSM buddy... the MSM...
        • Bologner, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Other than Faux Noise, who else in the MSM has decided that the war is a good thing?
    • tommq, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Maybe the 32% are the ones who know. Ever think that perhaps the "right answers" aren't really right? I mean, who are professors, with their elitist liberal rulers, to tell us which two lines are the same size?
  • IphtashuFitz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I remember watching some of the Milgram Experiment films in my psych class in college. It absolutely blew my mind how some people could turn incredibly sadistic if an authority figure told them to. Amazing that 80% of the test subjects went all the way when they thought they were seriously hurting the fake test subjects.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That is why we need a limited government.
    • lacunatech, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Milgram is a really interesting dude, I've read a bit about him, and his experiments after this, while nowhere near as shocking, are equally cool.

      Holy crap I didn't intend that pun but I'm going to leave it in there.
  • Abomonog, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3Now you all know the truth. Psychopathic, sadistic, murderous behavior is the human norm.

    So lets go grab some tasers and zap the world for fun!!! BUWAHAHAHAHA!!!! *ZZZZT!*
  • TheShad0w, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14Its hard to place ones self into any of these situations and clearly and accurately describe what any of us would do. Until you're placed into such a situation all anyone can do is speculate. But it is also important to remember that the world is split up into leaders and followers. The unfortunate truth is that a vast majority of the human population are followers. These tests highlighted the worst of human nature and only reinforced that many of these people aren't leaders. But lets not forget that 5-15%. Those people who are willing to stand up for themselves and be the leaders that the rest need. Those are usually the individuals that represent the potential of greatness that exists within humanity. So yes this article and those tests do shine quite a grim and disparaging view of humanity but its not the nail in the coffin. Humanity can improve so long as we work to improve it.
    • spidoman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's not an unfortunate truth most are followers, it's required. Leaders need something/someone to lead.
    • daveheinzel, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Your comment got me to wondering about what kinds of people these studies were able to recruit in the first place. Seems to me that followers would be more receptive to taking part, partially because leaders always seem busy and would probably not want to donate their time. So you always have to take experiments like these for what they are, and it's dangerous and not realistic to project their results on an entire population.
    • mrsharpoblunto, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Read brave new world, Not everyone can be an alpha, you need the gammas and epsilons to even things out :)
      Society as a whole can't function if the majority aren't willing to conform to some extent. Having norms and patterns of expected behaviour makes everyday existance easier and makes us more productive as a species. If you think about it, most of the great discoveries and inventions we've come up with are attributable to a tiny fraction of the population, however it took a large amount of people who were willing to cooperate, listen, and follow those thought leaders in order to bring their ideas to fruition. In some cases this can cause terrible events like the holocaust, but on the other side of the coin its also bought us the democratic process, and technological marvels like the moon landings and the internet.

      Perhaps humanities greates asset is not our creativity, but our ability to cooperate
  • ajkrik, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I find it interesting that none of us want to be in the group that conforms ( in the first example.) Why is conformity so bad? And as it implies, isn't "non-conformity" just another example of conforming to someone else's expectations . . . "Be DIFFERENT man!"
    • legacy5k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I think the idea with nonconforming is not to nonconform for the sake of nonconforming but rather to be WILLING to go against conformity when it is the more rational option in that situation.

      But yeah, people do tend to conform to nonconformity.... like goths, lolz
    • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1non-conformist are usually killed, marginalized, ridiculed and/or hurt in some way. Ironically, most of the innovators, saviors, scientist, founders and saints that created our religions, arts and sciences have been (and still are) non-conformists. Conformist are sheeple.
    • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It is interesting. How many times have I said, " I would never do that!" and turn right around and do precisely the opposite. It is a daily job to make sure I stay on track. Following is fine as long as you question what you are following every step of the way.
    • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Women are the big conformers, it's in their nature. Men will do anything to get women. And there you have it.
  • jehan60188, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8I love the way the guys at cracked word their articles!
    • xceptionaly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Yes. That is the phenomenon called 'writing.'
      • thenewkasanova, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Wow. That comment made my day, xceptionaly. I just cracked up at that.
    • MonkCanatella, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Yes, I too love the words they put in their articles.
      • MrSkills, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I like not only the words, but the order in which they are written, and the clever way they use capitalisation and punctuation to form entirely new sentences. Genius.
  • wissler, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2Notice how the author sneers and growls every time he starts talking about the possibility of truly independent individuals. That is why he wrote the article: he is a sheep, he knows it, but rather than face the fact and correct it, he spits on those who aren't.

    Quite an ironic piece of work: in an article discussing the evils of collective thinking, the author spits on individualist thinking, while trying very hard to pretend it doesn't exist. He engages in the exact same form of herd mentality he is exposing. He hides behind statistics which indicate only that most human beings are sheep, not that all are, but that satisfies him enough to skulk with the herd, and skewer those who aren't in the herd with him.
    • twitchr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I think the author is just making a point that even though we all feel like independent individuals, statistically, most of us aren't. The tone of the article is typically jaded which is common of a cracked article.
      • wissler, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1No, his point was that even those who believe they aren't part of the herd, are. The irony is that he is only talking about himself: his notion that everyone is part of the herd has to include him, which invalidates his point as it is only an expression of the herd, not of truth.
        • 171ContriteArc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I think Alexandra is a girl's name, sparky.
    • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Or he is a cracked writer and that is their typical humor be it about an experiment or the top 10 useless info comericails.
    • sek52, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Or shut up.
    • wissler, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Now the digg herd is digging me down. Even more irony.
      • 171ContriteArc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Two legs baaaaaaaaaaahddd!!!!!!
      • SpencerMc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The majority isn't always wrong in and of itself. Sometimes, idiocy is easy enough to spot that the majority of people will see it. Sometimes, yoour idiosyncratic opinion really is stupid.
    • teambosun, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Or, you know, it's called satirical writing.
  • Chunken, on 05/06/2008, -0/+19#5 supports my theory that when it comes to voting many people vote for who they think is going to win instead of who they want to win.
    • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I know what you're hinting at, but either way, I always see the voting process not as a vote to secure a candidate but a vote against the other candidates. More often than not voting becomes a game of trying to keep certain people out of office than supporting one person who is just subscribing to their parties' ideals with a few adjustments. It would be nice if the election process was an elmination process instead of a one time vote for a candidate.
      • Chunken, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1That actually wouldn't be a bad way to do it.
    • ajadoniz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1then why is everyone against hillary?
  • gametavern, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1what about the one where a doctor orders the participant to electrocute the "patient" (though he is just acting) until the patient actually "dies". Something about just following orders... anyone know which one I mean? Migram?
    • JustLoren, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Did you even read the article?
      • gametavern, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1lol...not really, :-(
        • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Don't feel alone. There are many people who comment on things they know nothing about. So I sort of thank you for admitting it. Many people don't. But it's not really funny. Next time read the information and THEN comment.
  • DeFex, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3That first test, they could use that on the license application to be allowed to breed.
  • snagra, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10For some reason I just feel the urge to agree with all of you.
    • ronaldinho, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1or go beat up some homeless people at your command
  • Zoshchenko, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7I'm not surprised by any of this. Mob and sheep mentality is the human norm, not an exception. We do what we're told, act the way society says we should and obey the instructions of authorities without question. 9/11 has only made it worse. If a TSA moron says to drop your pants, you'll do it. If a cop impersonator calls a fast-food restaurant and tells the manager to strip-search a 16-year-old girl, he'll do it. If throughout history any soldier actually stopped to think about what his commander is telling him to do, there's no way a war would ever be fought. But we are conditioned to obey, and we do. Which is why we are probably doomed. And don't even start me up on how religion plays into this scenario!
    • Ellipsys, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Well, lets be a little bit realistic here. Its not the blatant kowtow to authority in all cases, so much as it is the promise of punishment if you don't obey. People don't typically do what police say just because they think the officer is right - but rather because in this country especially, if you don't, your ass is going to get tazed or worse. Don't get me wrong, i think a large percentage of people go along with the herd because its easier, but when it comes down to authority figures, they're not doing it to conform so much as they are trying to avoid (often physical) punishment.
    • Demener, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Oh religion, is there anything you can't convince the sheep to do? I submit that there is not. Humans have gone to great lengths to do what religious doctrine tells them to. Be it Paganism, Christianity, Scientology, or anything in between humans will follow the will of religious leaders.
      • tchynerd, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Or Atheism. Power is power Be it the idea of Science or God
  • zadadka, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5You only have to watch daily human behaviour from your window (particularly your car window) to realise that we are increasingly a "me, me, me" society....ready to bay at the moon for a perceived transgression, but doing nothing to actually contribute to solutions.


    • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If everyone did one small thing today, like make the cashier smile when you check out, or say thank you when someone holds the elevator for you or hold the door open for someone or .... Just one little thing each day. Next thing you know, it's a habit and you are doing more than one little thing and the depression starts to lift and go away and you feel better. Many times you feel better longer by doing these kind little things than the person receiving them.

      Your right to complain reserves your right to help do something about it.
  • lead2thehead, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8The Asch Conformity Experiment plays out every day on Digg.
  • Ionworm, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Not that shocking. After all we are just animals.

    Or worse.
    • jimminy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0We are animals indeed. I guess only the sophistication of our brain creates the illusion of something different.
    • TheKeithD, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals...
    • freqk, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Remove the "Or Worse." and your good.
  • vwvan, on 05/06/2008, -7/+6We are still bystanding. A holocaust of people die every year to preventable diseases while big pharma and oil rake in record profits.
    To be specific, 10 million die of malnutrition, malaria and HIV. I'd say more, but its time for GTA4.
    • mordero, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7I don't understand why people get so upset at these "record profits." For the oil industry, the profits come after huge amounts of expenses so that the net profit margin (which is what is important) is usually equal to or less than 10% (often the minimum return for investors' demands). The only oil companies that make "huge" profit margins are those providing equipment to oil companies or exploration companies. The high price you pay at the pump has little to due with oil companies trying to price gouge, its more from taxes and various other factors.

      For the pharmaceutical industry, major manufacturers have a net profit margin around 15%. That's not too excessive considering the huge risks they incur when researching and developing new drugs and the resources that go into getting a new drug to market. Health care may be expensive, but that's a different topic.

      The gist of the story is the absolute dollar amount is irrelevant, its the profit margin that matters and neither of these industries are earning too much. I'm not disagreeing with the fact people die of preventable diseases and such, but there is no point in bring up an industry's profits to make that point, especially when its not even a good argument.
  • Kenzan, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7The moral of the story:
    Step up or shut up.
  • futureisours, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15The good thing is that some people can change their inbuilt programming (sorry if I'm sounding like a nutso scientologist, I'm not), by reading these and then deciding to do the right thing if they're put in a similar situation. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe you can make yourself be a better person.
  • twertyto, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Personal story similar to the Asch Conformity. I'm a teacher and I've noticed that when I pass out papers to students individuality that if one student says thank you then every other student afterwards will say thank you when I pass papers to them. It's very annoying.
    • 2012, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8And you would be less annoyed if they said FU?
      That is sad. A teacher complains when students say "Thank You" in a Pavlovian sort of way.
      • TheKeithD, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Well, them saying "thank you" in such a manner completely removes any meaning from the phrase. Some people have a problem with others saying things they don't mean.
      • Jones82, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Plus hearing "thank you" 20+ times in a few minutes could get irritating
    • twertyto, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's completely insincere. What value does that have? As a teacher I'm trying to affect the way my students think. That kind of behavior is what I abhor as a teacher.
      • logicet, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1As a teacher your job isn't to affect the way students think, that's what I abhor about teachers.
    • Ellipsys, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9Could it be that, by one student saying thank you, other students remember to be polite as well? Its not some sort of strange conformity issue so much as