= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on [Link] Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (7)
So, design a better test. What prompt would activate the System 1 you describe as 'keep your head down, do what you're told, they must know what they're doing' and not activate System 2, like the "You have no other choice" statement?
I think nigerweiss is asserting that "The experiment requires that you continue" activates System 1 but not System 2.
The claim made by the OP is "if people believe in what they're doing, they will hurt people;" the claim made by nigerweiss is "if people use system 1 thinking, they will hurt people." To differentiate between them, we need a statement intended to make people use system 1 thinking without relying on them believing what they are doing.
It's not clear to me that nigerweiss's division is more precise than the OP's division, or has significant predictive accuracy. I would have expected "you have no other choice" to evoke 'keep your head down, do what you're told, they must know what they're doing'; that is, the system 1 thinking that nigerweiss claims would lead people to push the button, when it led to less people pushing the button. Why is it a status attack that awakens system 2 (huh?), except because we know what we need to predict?