Message from Jeremy in Athens #piraeus_politics_news


2019-09-10 09:38:16 UTC  

Of course.

2019-09-10 09:38:21 UTC  

Radical?

2019-09-10 09:39:37 UTC  

Only to the extent by which entities must be restricted from infringing upon it. I'd consider myself radically anti-collectivist.

2019-09-10 09:40:50 UTC  

I'm very much on board with that

2019-09-10 09:41:08 UTC  

Morally radical individualism, pragmatically eh, gotta roll with the punches

2019-09-10 09:42:12 UTC  

I thought you would be, given your past remarks. You seemed to advocate for individualism in our previous discussion, which my reflections are modeled to serve that model. So, I'd consider myself a Classical Liberal, who has adopted Objectivist philosophy along my journey.

2019-09-10 09:42:21 UTC  

I'm sure you're familiar with Ayn Rand.

2019-09-10 09:43:22 UTC  

Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.

2019-09-10 09:44:26 UTC  

I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivism, although I don't fully subscribe to it

2019-09-10 09:44:27 UTC  

Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.

2019-09-10 09:45:04 UTC  

I believe a distinction between idea and reality should be made, because survival and utopia are two different battlefields

2019-09-10 09:45:24 UTC  

Correct.

2019-09-10 09:45:38 UTC  

There's the war for heaven, and there's the war against hell, which I believe is not the same thing

2019-09-10 09:46:25 UTC  

Why do men abandon their principles so easily when they face hell, but hold them up when they see heaven in their reach?

2019-09-10 09:47:07 UTC  

Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.

2019-09-10 09:47:41 UTC  

Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.

2019-09-10 09:50:07 UTC  

Never trust when science becomes dogma

2019-09-10 09:53:39 UTC  

It is true that perceived authority does make people push others or themselves too far, or not act even when their moral code or their emotional state tells them to act. However, this experiment doesn't prove that, because it's far too unscientific.

2019-09-10 09:54:23 UTC  

To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.

2019-09-10 10:04:03 UTC  

It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.

2019-09-10 10:04:10 UTC  
2019-09-10 10:07:18 UTC  

Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.

2019-09-10 10:07:37 UTC  

The point of the experiment is claimed to be the matter of simple perceived authority, not threats, not intimidation, no danger to the subject, nothing at all

2019-09-10 10:07:55 UTC  

No suspicion by the subject that something's off

2019-09-10 10:07:57 UTC  

etc. etc.

2019-09-10 10:08:13 UTC  

And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way

2019-09-10 10:08:31 UTC  

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

2019-09-10 10:08:44 UTC  

The point is

2019-09-10 10:08:54 UTC  

The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion

2019-09-10 10:09:09 UTC  

It can't be replicated

2019-09-10 10:09:51 UTC  

It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear

2019-09-10 10:10:11 UTC  

It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go

2019-09-10 10:10:21 UTC  

And in which circumstances exactly

2019-09-10 10:10:50 UTC  

Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor

2019-09-10 10:11:11 UTC  

So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum

2019-09-10 10:12:19 UTC  

I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone

2019-09-10 10:12:43 UTC  

Some leve of coercion would be neccessary

2019-09-10 10:14:57 UTC  

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

2019-09-10 10:15:30 UTC  

Right

2019-09-10 10:15:39 UTC  

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.