Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 7-8

Chapter 7

I'm unsurprised that rats in a nice environment were less addicted to drugs than those in a bad one; who wouldn't want to escape a bad environment? The various experiments had very interesting results--even with sugar, the happy rats didn't want the drugs.

Computer scientists can use this information to help develop technologies to assists addicts in ending their addictions (like quitting smoking). These technologies could include reward systems for avoiding the substance or simply a tracker for how long they have gone without the substance. Additionally, computer scientists could also use this poChapter 8wer for evil (a poetic exaggeration): they can make their products addictive by providing an escape from the current environment or situation. Many Second Life users used it as an alternate reality as opposed to a game because their Second Lives were better than their real ones.

Chapter 8

The whole memory implantation thing is scary to me. It makes me wonder how much of my childhood is fabricated or dream fragments, and it makes it seem like the entire movie Inception was unnecessary (they could have just mentioned the idea to the target, but I suppose the dream thing was more dramatic. And more awesome). How interesting that people fabricated details of their "memories", like a blue flannel shirt. I know that I am prone to remembering small details if I am told, but am often so belligerent about my own memories that I'm sometimes wrong.

I'm not sure how computer scientists could use this information. It seems a little...evil. Maybe memory recording? Repressed memory depository? I really don't know.

Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 5-6

Chapter 5

Well, that's a bummer of a chapter. I feel horribly sad for Linda and Audrey, and I'm surprised by the definition of dissonance and how common it really is; how fascinating that East Asians feel this less (allegedly). It's almost sad that religion is described here as merely dissonance, but I understand the meaning behind it. More and more, I think Lauren Slater may be a little off, but I suppose delving into the details of various psychological experiments might cause a little...off-ness. I wish I had more to say, but in a few words: this chapter made me sad and I didn't like it. So there.

Chapter 6
Wow, Harlow seems cruel. An interesting research topic, yes, and it seems to have made a large contribution to present-day psychology, but it seems so harsh. Poor, poor monkeys. Moreover, I don't appreciate his opinion of women ("...they knew a man was more important than anything else.") At any rate, I am once again fascinated but not surprised by the preliminary results of this experiment. I know I am more attached to the stuffed animal I received when I was a baby than to anything else I received as a child, like music boxes; a poor example, perhaps, but my point stands.

Yikes, it gets worse. A rape rack? Really? Mothers killing their infants, monkeys eating their fingers off, and he continues? Sounds like a sadist to me. This chapter has me very close to becoming a card-carrying member of PETA. Let's think--how do I find products that aren't tested on animals first...?

Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 3-4

Chapter 3
To me, Rosenhan's experiment did not reveal problems with psychiatry itself, but rather problems with preconception; almost everything that (apparently) happened to him was based entirely on the assumption that he was, in fact, mentally ill. It does not surprise me that the patients recognized him as "normal". After all, "It takes one to know one," is a common expression for a reason. It's tragic that the alleged caretakers of the mentally ill at that time were completely indifferent, and I certainly hope care has drastically increased in quality since then.

"The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition", while a very interesting and worthwhile experiment, makes me sad for the poor children that weren't given solid opportunities to succeed. 

I don't know if I'd have the courage to repeat Rosenhan's experiment, but kudos to Slater. Again, though, I'm not surprised about the results--as time has marched on, we've distanced ourselves from mental institutions. How sweet that she wanted to share her results with him.

Chapter 4
Darley and Latane's experiment is just as fascinating as Milgram's. Though it's not a study in obedience, it's an interesting view of human tendencies when others are in danger. Quite frankly, the results of this study and Milgram's study are seriously affecting my belief in the inherent good of humanity. It's no secret that we doubt ourselves, yet I wonder: at what point are we okay with making a fool of ourselves in case the situation isn't serious?

This entire chapter (and, I'm sure, a vast number of experiments like the one described) makes me consider exactly how intelligent we are as a species--we certainly act like pack animals, disregarding our own instincts for the behavior of the group. Odd and terrifying. 

Assignment 10: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 1-2

Chapter 1
One page in and I'm cringing at Skinner--how could he torture his own daughter like that? On the other hand, though, we must consider the time he lived in and the "appropriate" treatments of the day. However, the contributions he made to the field of psychology are apparently vast. When we consider Skinner, we cannot only consider his scientific contributions, but the moral implications of his experiments as well, which undoubtedly will turn this whole book into various shades of gray. (difficult to process for someone as binary as I am)

After reading the author's exchange with Julie, the "unboxed" daughter, I find myself more sympathetic to Skinner. His book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (or at least Slater's summary of it) makes sense and makes me wonder about the stigma attached to Skinner. As a side note: I think it's odd that she took a bite of the really old chocolate.

Chapter 2
Ah, a familiar subject! Back to Milgram. I didn't really need this second-person rehash; I was already made uncomfortable by imagining myself in the subjects' shoes while reading Obedience to Authority. His mentor's work (tendency to conform) factors into his experiments well, especially in one of the variations discussed in Milgram's book. However, Milgram's desire to do something more socially significant led to his experiment, and the results are still relevant and shocking forty years later. His minor experiments are interesting as well; funny how little people in general change in forty or fifty years. His later personality analyses, though inconclusive, do shed more light on the subject: anyone can be obedient, and anyone can be defiant.

Finding Joshua Chaffin must have been an accomplishment for Slater--how many people would really talk to her about the experiment? Interesting that he broke it off for his own reasons, not because he was hurting another man. Slater describes him as complex, but who isn't complex? Who doesn't have a hard time finding the right moral ground?

How sad that Jacob felt compelled to shock all the way to the end, how his shame converted into obedience. It's good, though, and it solidifies my opinion that the experiment was not immoral; he used the information about himself to become a stronger, better person. Comparing Joshua (the defiant one who led a more obedient life) and Jacob (the obedient one who used that information to become defiant) is fascinating. It makes me wonder about the human mind, but I suppose that's a mystery we've yet to solve.

Book Reading: Obedience to Authority

Chapter 1
The first chapter is merely a description of the experiment and its motivation, preparing the reader for the tough chapters ahead.

Chapter 2
Further explanation of the experiment is necessary--the coming chapters rely on a reasonably thorough understanding of the procedure. The victim looks like a very friendly fellow. I would not want to shock him.

Chapter 3
Unsurprisingly, 100% of people surveyed believed that they would break off the experiment if they were participating. I'd like to think I would, but upon further reflection, I'm not so sure (scary!). Obviously, these predictions were wrong.

Chapter 4
Also unsurprising is the effect of the proximity of the victim to the subject. Shocking what could, in theory, be a completely empty room, is far removed from perceived morality, but shoving a man's hand down onto a shock plate is far more aggressive.

Chapter 5
The descriptions of individuals and their reactions to the experiment are astonishing. The brutal man who barely acknowledged the victim and the Old Testament professor are polar opposites and show the variety of subjects involved.

Chapter 6
Changing small parameters in the experiment (for example, showing that the victim had a heart problem) yielded interesting but not always significantly different results. Women, for example, acted very similarly to men.

Chapter 7
The descriptions of some individuals in the variations of the test are not vastly different from the original descriptions, though there are some slight differences. For example, there is one holier-than-thou woman who rambles incessantly about how "good" she is.

Chapter 8
The transfer of authority had surprisingly little effect on the subjects, except when two authorities disagreed. Perhaps the most surprising result from this set of experiments is that subjects were more likely to break off the experiment if the authority told them to while the victim encouraged further shocks.

Chapter 9
Changing the group dynamics in the experiment resulted in interesting results. Subjects wanted to conform to a group's activity (thus breaking off the experiment sooner if their "peers" did), and were more likely to continue if they were further removed from the actual punishment.

Chapter 10
An analysis of societal hierarchy allows for clearer interpretation of the experiment's results. Understanding how agents (especially humans) work in a hierarchy is vital to understanding why people tended to obey authority with only some resistance.

Chapter 11
This analysis of authority and societal expectations is quite interesting. It never occurred to me that the expectation of the presence of authority is engrained in us from an early age, but it certainly has now. Additionally, I do understand that defying authority can be embarrassing, adding to the hesitance to disobey.

Chapter 12
The analysis of the effect of strain on obedience is unsurprising to me; of course, strain must outweigh the pull of authority to break off the experiment! The effects of buffers on emotional strain are well-known as well. The difficulty in breaking the experiment is understandable.

Chapter 13
Aggression seems to have little effect on obedience in this case. Very few subjects seemed to enjoy their task. (which is, quite frankly, an unpleasant thought)

Chapter 14
Milgram responds to the various criticisms of his work with eloquence and a good amount of data to back up his conclusions. He acknowledges that the comparisons of his work to the actions of Nazis is similar to likening a lawn sprinkler to a monsoon, but he defends his work appropriately nonetheless.

Chapter 15
Milgram's application of his conclusions to the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam is valuable; Nazis were not the only ones capable of destruction. The summary of obedience and its apparent dangers is effective.

Summary
This book is unsettling. I know that I am prone to following authority--I do not like breaking rules, I do not like being in trouble, and I do not like being scolded. Apparently, this is a common thing amongst humans, so I fully understand the hesitance of subjects to break off the experiment. However, I sincerely hope that I would have the fortitude to end the experiment and the suffering of another person. It makes me fear authority and question my own beliefs. I've long been a staunch believer in the good of humanity, so seeing the human willingness to merely give over to authority is disturbing.

The criticisms of this experiment (namely, the "unethical" nature of it) could be considered well-founded; however, I disagree with them. Yes, the subjects may have sustained emotional trauma, but it is vital information about themselves. As with any trauma, it can enhance your life or destroy it. Because no actual harm was inflicted upon the victim, it seems to me that most of the subjects would be able to take this information and use it at a time when it is more critical to question authority.

The results of the various versions of this experiment are fascinating yet expected. The closer the subject is to his/her victim, the more likely s/he is to break off the experiment. It is like talking behind someone's back: it's a lot easier to abuse someone when they cannot easily defend themselves. Additionally, the further removed the authority is, the more likely subjects were to end the experiment. I have observed this in various situations; I'm far more likely to pay attention to a professor if s/he is in front of me than I am to pay attention to a video I was instructed to watch.

Milgram's mention of American soldiers in Vietnam is appropriate but uncomfortable. We abhor the Nazis, yet some similar actions were carried out. I wonder who decides what sort of inhumane actions are to be carried out, and how s/he sleeps at night. It raises an interesting question: is military action honorable? My personal opinions say yes, and I firmly believe in them, but the skepticism is warranted. How can a kind person carry out violent acts under authority and still be praised? It's horrible to think that authority makes good people go bad. However, it must be that an evil person is giving evil instructions....food for thought.

Overall, Milgram's book is enlightening and thought-provoking. Without authority, society would cease to exist, yet to have some semblance of humanity, we must (at times) defy it. It is a conundrum, and we must be aware of our tendencies to blindly follow authority and develop a personal morality system.

Gang Leader for a Day

Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day was an excellent read; I enjoyed following Sudhir through his six-year study and the development of his relationships with the Robert Taylor residents and the Black Kings gang members. Through the whole book, he seems impossibly naive. How could he not understand the gravity of his actions, like when he discussed the hustlers' incomes with JT and Ms. Bailey? I understand how he got involved--it was almost chance. All he wanted to do was ask a few questions and get out, and he ended up an observer for six years because JT saw that he meant no harm.

As many people have said in class, his naivete seems ridiculous, almost comical, and I'm sure that at least part of it was exaggerated. At first, it was understandable because he had been raised in a middle-class, white neighborhood in California, and gang life in Chicago is obviously vastly different. Even after a few months, one would expect him to learn to shut up for the most part while around gang members and residents. Sure, questions need to be asked, but blabbering to and about everyone in the projects and dropping n-words in conversation is a bad choice (common sense). In all honesty, this is the aspect of the book I found most surprising.

What I did not find surprising was the structure and community involvement of the gang. It's like any enterprise, requiring leadership, organization, and scheduling; why is anyone surprised? In addition, they are the largest and most powerful group in the community, so it's no surprise the gang acts as police, government, and economy in the area. I was also expecting what Sudhir found so unfathomable: the police and ambulances don't go to the projects unless absolutely necessary. Though I have no personal experience with gangs or the projects, I would not expect EMTs to take the apparent risk of entering a gang-controlled area to help residents, especially at the apparent frequency of beat-downs. I appreciate that Sudhir's first response is to contact authorities for help, but certainly he couldn't have expected a prompt response.

The community in the projects was fascinating to me. These people exist almost entirely on their own, working together to survive, and yet, Sudhir thought that they would be very different from any other community. Yes, there are stark differences, like living conditions and enforcers, but the similarities between the community in the projects and any other community are also striking. There are greedy landlords and corrupt politicians (like Ms. Bailey), strong family values, and strong (albeit unwritten) rules of behavior. There is hardly anarchy in this society, and in some ways, it's almost better than other societies. Men still take care of their mothers and provide for their children and offer protection to the vulnerable. The powerful are well-paid because they have demonstrated skill and intelligence, just like in the "legitimate" society, and people must work their way up the ladder. The largest difference I see is reliance on the community, which is a little sad. In our society, we are generally significantly separated from others, only offering or asking for help when the situation is dire. This group, on the other hand, took care of itself.

Ethnography ideas

I've had two main ideas for my ethnography: Texas Aggie Conservatives and Cepheid Variable. After a discussion spurred by a passing comment, a Cepheid Variable member suggested studying his group; they would likely be far more willing to be observed than the Conservatives. I am unfamiliar with both groups. Cepheid Variable has a wide variety of members and could provide very interesting subjects for an ethnography. Because I am politically moderate (leaning towards slightly liberal), it would be a very different and interesting experience to observe the Texas Aggie Conservatives (people on the more extreme end of the political spectrum).