Stephen Black writes in regard to my misreading of his posting on the Milgram-like experiment: >m, no, all I can blame Chris for is spotting the news >iem in the first place. Blame me for the speculation.
Checking again, I see it was clear enough in your posting Stephen! My only excuse is that I had to attend a "focus group" seminar this morning and rushed to reply to the Digest before having to leave for Hampton Court. (That's what comes with answering a questionnaire in Kew Gardens last year. I get an invite to discuss the initial stages of the planning of an exhibition at Hampton Court next year. Still the remuneration for the time spent on it was handsome . :-)) So apologies, and anyway, I fully concur with what you wrote, even if it didn't originat with Chris Green. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------ Re: [tips] Shocking study (for cash) sblack Sat, 09 Apr 2011 05:32:45 -0700 On 9 Apr 2011 at 3:31, Allen Esterson wrote: > In response to the suggestion (by Chris Green, if I understand Stephen > aright) that the results of a Milgram-like study may be vitiated by > the subjects realizing they were enrolled in a similar experiment to > the well-publicised Milgram study, Joan Warmberg wrote: > Um, no, all I can blame Chris for is spotting the news item in the first place. Blame me for the speculation. As for Joan asking about data, my response is that I don't have to. My job, as self-appointed critic of all things psychological, is merely to raise a plausible alternative explanation of results. If the alternative seems as likely as the one advanced by the experimenters, I win. It's the job of the experimenters in discussing the results to consider all plausible alternatives and rule them out, or argue that they're less likely for various reasons. If they ignore reasonable alternatives or advance only weak arguments against them, too bad for their hypothesis. (I belive this was Allen's response as well). However, I did think (briefly) of how to distinguish my interpretation from that of the experimenters, which I assume is that a little money goes a long way in making people do despicable things. It wouldn't be easy. I'd suggest that they carry out a much more than perfunctory post-experiment interview with each of the subjects, and try to bully them into admitting that they were pretty sure all along that it was a big fake. Ask them point-blank, for example. We may not want to believe such testimony, because it too would be tainted by the interview process. But it would generate more doubt about the money makes people do bad things hypothesis (which I do believe in general, but not in this case). And actually, if the subjects thought it was all a big fake, well, they were right. Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=9909 or send a blank email to leave-9909-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
