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.