There’s an interesting article about a French game show that replicates the Milgram experiment. Basically, both conclude that a majority of people will willingly torture another human being if being urged to do so by an authority figure. The results are more than terrifying.
If you combine this with the Solomon Asch conformity experiments, and also the SPE, one gets a chilling picture of certain human tendencies.
Except that it’s an artificial environment, and as such has nothing to do with reality of human nature (unless, obviously the fact that individuals are able to be corrupted by these artificial systems).
Not everyone is a potential psychopath in waiting.
People Behave Differently When Observed
The Experiment (BBC)
Well, I wouldn’t say it has nothing to do with human nature. The experiments don’t tell me everything, they tell me something though. And ofcourse, it’s impossible to extrapolate experimental results into one for one inferences about real world situations. But still, these experiments tell me something.
Keep up the denial!
Denial of what exactly? I honestly don’t understand what you are talking about.
It doesn’t matter how “wicked” is the human nature. Anarchy is still the best system, no mater how devilish are people. That being said, people get a gun, there no other certainty with such a**oles around [6]
Well it may not matter to you, but it’s a central premise to the way I see the world. Anarchy may be the best system, I have no idea. Nor do I really care.
Uh, why are you here?
I don’t have to be into anarchy to post on this forum.
God forbid, of course not! What I believe Ryan is asking is how could any intelligent person on earth not care about which social system is better. Are you really indifferent toward that knowledge? Are you not curious to know whether there could be any better way to do things? I myself am dying to know!
I don’t really just think about things in terms of “better or worse” when it comes to socio-political systems. It’s more of a “which would I prefer?” kinda thing. Because everything involves trade offs. Anarchy may be the most logical and rational and consistent system out there but it would still involve trade offs. Getting rid of things that exist now, creating things that don’t, this sort of thing.
In other words, I don’t believe in single bullet solutions. This is totally off topic though.
Which I understand & is why I made the comment I did.
@ Merlin: nihilists, amoralists, libertines, psychopaths, narcissists etc. (fairly broad strokes) but from what I have experienced and gleaned from conversions with them is that they tend to believe everyone in the world is just as sick as they are - but just won’t admit it.
Hence why bloom appears to gain solace from the OP mentioned study, which confirms, for him - the “chilling picture of certain human tendencies.”
That’s right guys, if you think that humans aren’t perfect and look for evidence of such things, there’s probably something really wrong with you. Come on Conza.
That’s not what was said.
No empathy, what so ever. Which just harks back too what I mentioned earlier.
This is the same approach another troll (nihilist / amoralist) at RPF adopted. The only degree he was “against the state” was because he believed it could potentially harm him. That being said he had no problem with keeping it around if he thought he benefited from it, he had no qualms about joining the rulers and oppressing others. To him it was: “which would I prefer?”
From the looks of things, I’d say you’re trolling me bro. Just saying. This is all character assassination.
I’d say I’ve made an accurate assessment. It all ties into the OP discussion btw. Other than that, what have I said that was inaccurate?
Mate, you do that yourself nearly every time you post… lol. You don’t need any help from me.
bloomj31:
I would…get…ready to…willing kill anyone and everyone that got in my way, man woman and child
bloomj31:
I support doing what is necessary. If that involves murdering people, so be it.
Now you’re taking things out of context.
More importantly, if I don’t need any help from you, why do you keep hounding me about this?
O, and even if I were a psychopath, it wouldn’t mean anything in regards to my interpretation of these experiments. You’re saying somehow my personal bias is to find evil in others so I don’t feel alone. Well, that’s fine. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that the results of these experiments means something. I personally think your bias of wanting to think everyone is rational and good is getting in YOUR way of interpreting these experiments. You want to dismiss them as if they’re irrelevant. But they seem very relevant to me. O but I’m a psychopath so it doesn’t matter.
What’s inaccurate is this idea that somehow I don’t have empathy because I don’t immediately jump to supporting anarchy. Or that I’m a psychopath because I don’t believe in better or worse systems.
I don’t think it makes much sense to deny that some institutional arrangements are better than others, but this strikes me as eminently reasonable. This is the problem I have with a lot of defences of anarcho-capitalism, for example those that deny the problem of public goods. I think it’s far more reasonable to accept the problem of public goods, accept the fact the they would be underprovided in anarchy and simply make the case that the benefits outweight the costs.