i've heard of this experiment. & don't recall a conclusion as to why the being "anonymous" to the victim prompted humans to increase the pain to others.
And a specific, highly relevant meaning in the context of psychological experiments like the Milgram study.
General Definition of "Confederate":
In its broadest sense, a confederate (noun) is an ally or an accomplice. It refers to someone who is united with others in a league, alliance, or conspiracy to achieve a common goal. This goal can be anything from a cooperative effort to a secret or even illegal plan.
Historically, "Confederate" (capitalized) also refers specifically to a supporter of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, but this is clearly not the context here.
Specifically, in the Milgram experiment, a confederate was:
An actor: The person pretending to be "receiving shocks" was not a genuine participant in the experiment. They were working with the experimenter.
An accomplice of the experimenter: Their role was to carry out a pre-scripted part of the experiment to create a specific scenario for the true participants.
Designed to deceive the true participants: The participants in the Milgram study believed the confederate was another real participant who, by chance, had been assigned the role of the "learner." This deception was vital to the experiment's design, as it allowed Milgram to study how far real people would go in obeying authority when they believed they were causing harm to another person.
Behaving according to a script: The confederate's cries of pain, protests, and eventual silence were all pre-recorded or rehearsed actions designed to elicit a reaction from the actual participants.
So, when the text states "Milgram's original study involved 40 participants who were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, who pretended to be receiving shocks," it means that the "learner" was secretly working with Milgram and was not actually being harmed. This allowed Milgram to observe the genuine obedience (or disobedience) of the true participants without actually harming anyone.
> the ptsd from the civil war confederates & what they did & represented & imo still do, is in no way acceptable. the hate, the want to keep enslaved ppl for their way of life using slavery, which appears to be where we are headed currently. is a trigger for so many.
>i was unable to complete listening to Prof Sapolsky's lecture, at least w any coherence at this moment.
>i will finish listening tomorrow. hopefully to hear what he concludes, his premise.
>with out re-reviewing Milgram's experiment rn i am wondering if it was merely the era in which the experiment was done & with that the possibility that Milgram was merely unaware therefore insensitive to the implications for modern use of the word.
>thank you for sharing this my friend. i have little doubt Prof Sapolsky is unaware of that which i am speaking.
i've heard of this experiment. & don't recall a conclusion as to why the being "anonymous" to the victim prompted humans to increase the pain to others.
WHY?!
wtf is so deeply wrong w humans?
https://exhibits.stanford.edu/spe
have you heard of the prison experiment?
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRYcSuyLiJk
Robert Sapolsky: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
https://www.structural-learning.com/post/stanley-milgram-experiment
having trouble processing this article. the use of the word "confederate" is a loaded word.
The word "confederate" has a general meaning
And a specific, highly relevant meaning in the context of psychological experiments like the Milgram study.
General Definition of "Confederate":
In its broadest sense, a confederate (noun) is an ally or an accomplice. It refers to someone who is united with others in a league, alliance, or conspiracy to achieve a common goal. This goal can be anything from a cooperative effort to a secret or even illegal plan.
Historically, "Confederate" (capitalized) also refers specifically to a supporter of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, but this is clearly not the context here.
Specifically, in the Milgram experiment, a confederate was:
An actor: The person pretending to be "receiving shocks" was not a genuine participant in the experiment. They were working with the experimenter.
An accomplice of the experimenter: Their role was to carry out a pre-scripted part of the experiment to create a specific scenario for the true participants.
Designed to deceive the true participants: The participants in the Milgram study believed the confederate was another real participant who, by chance, had been assigned the role of the "learner." This deception was vital to the experiment's design, as it allowed Milgram to study how far real people would go in obeying authority when they believed they were causing harm to another person.
Behaving according to a script: The confederate's cries of pain, protests, and eventual silence were all pre-recorded or rehearsed actions designed to elicit a reaction from the actual participants.
So, when the text states "Milgram's original study involved 40 participants who were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, who pretended to be receiving shocks," it means that the "learner" was secretly working with Milgram and was not actually being harmed. This allowed Milgram to observe the genuine obedience (or disobedience) of the true participants without actually harming anyone.
Prof Sapolsky is very good. used to listen to his lectures on occasion.
started to fall asleep half way thru this time tho.
couple mentions: triggers, "the amygdala knows your looking at a rattlesnake". view, reflexive info,
inaccurate info,
"insular cortex activates, morally disgusting, norm violations & perfectly acceptable behavior.
> the ptsd from the civil war confederates & what they did & represented & imo still do, is in no way acceptable. the hate, the want to keep enslaved ppl for their way of life using slavery, which appears to be where we are headed currently. is a trigger for so many.
>i was unable to complete listening to Prof Sapolsky's lecture, at least w any coherence at this moment.
>i will finish listening tomorrow. hopefully to hear what he concludes, his premise.
>with out re-reviewing Milgram's experiment rn i am wondering if it was merely the era in which the experiment was done & with that the possibility that Milgram was merely unaware therefore insensitive to the implications for modern use of the word.
>thank you for sharing this my friend. i have little doubt Prof Sapolsky is unaware of that which i am speaking.
peace!