Message from Jeremy in Athens #piraeus_politics_news
Only to the extent by which entities must be restricted from infringing upon it. I'd consider myself radically anti-collectivist.
I'm very much on board with that
Morally radical individualism, pragmatically eh, gotta roll with the punches
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.
I'm sure you're familiar with Ayn Rand.
Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.
I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivism, although I don't fully subscribe to it
Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.
I believe a distinction between idea and reality should be made, because survival and utopia are two different battlefields
There's the war for heaven, and there's the war against hell, which I believe is not the same thing
Why do men abandon their principles so easily when they face hell, but hold them up when they see heaven in their reach?
Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.
Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.
The common conclusion to this experiment is bunk
Never trust when science becomes dogma
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.
To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.
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.
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.
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
No suspicion by the subject that something's off
And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way
Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.
The point is
The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion
It can't be replicated
It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear
It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go
And in which circumstances exactly
Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor
So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum
I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone
Some leve of coercion would be neccessary
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.
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.