Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

It is by definition that those experiments can't "survive in the wild". An experiment is a methodical controlled procedure. If it gets out of control the setting either collapses or becomes part of society, both of which end it as an experiment.

What? That's a weird argument. If it "becomes part of society" then it logically is "surviving in the wild". "The wild" is the area outside the experiment. I was clearly talking about the semantic content of the experiment, not the experimental framework itself magically spreading. If the blue eye/brown eye thing had persisted afterwards as a cultural artifact, that's the type of thing I meant as "surviving in the wild". I'm honestly amazed that this is something needing clarification.

Now, can you answer the actual question and give examples where that's happened - it "becomes part of society" as you phrased it AKA "surviving in the wild" the way I phrased it.

And if you are arguing that this is not because the tests themselves are biased

Woah, woah! nobodies arguing that! you're heading straight into pure strawman territory when you create your own scenario and then say "if you are arguing XYZ" without giving anyone a chance to even comment on the topic you raised in that post. This also seems unnecessarily argumentative in tone, since nobody was discussing IQ tests at all.

I'd argue that IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram, Stanford prison experiment, the blue eye/brown eye thing, and so forth.  IQ testing has more in common with standardized school testing than with any sort of sociological experiment. You might as well talk about the biasing effect of the S.A.T tests on minority students (the issues are the same as with I.Q. tests, and S.A.T's are widely used whilst I.Q tests are not widely used anymore). I can make the exact same argument you made for IQ tests related to those.

[lorb]

It is by definition that those experiments can't "survive in the wild". An experiment is a methodical controlled procedure. If it gets out of control the setting either collapses or becomes part of society, both of which end it as an experiment.

What? That's a weird argument. If it "becomes part of society" then it logically is "surviving in the wild". "The wild" is the area outside the experiment. I was clearly talking about the semantic content of the experiment, not the experimental framework itself magically spreading. If the blue eye/brown eye thing had persisted afterwards as a cultural artifact, that's the type of thing I meant as "surviving in the wild". I'm honestly amazed that this is something needing clarification.

Now, can you answer the actual question and give examples where that's happened - it "becomes part of society" as you phrased it AKA "surviving in the wild" the way I phrased it.

Sorry. I did not express myself well enough. You are correct: "becomes part of society" and "surviving in the wild" are in my eyes the same thing, but if that happens it ceases to be an experiment, not just on the semantic level, but people will stop to recognize it as an experiment. If the blue-eyes thing had spread you wouldn't be thinking about it in terms of an experiment gone wild but as just something that happens to exist as it is.

And if you are arguing that this is not because the tests themselves are biased

Woah, woah! nobodies arguing that! you're heading straight into pure strawman territory when you create your own scenario and then say "if you are arguing XYZ" without giving anyone a chance to even comment on the topic you raised in that post. This also seems unnecessarily argumentative in tone, since nobody was discussing IQ tests at all.

Sorry. It's just not the first time I am having this discussion (work related) and people _always_ argue that. In part because it actually is true. It just does not mean that the tests are culture-free.

I'd argue that IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram, Stanford prison experiment, the blue eye/brown eye thing, and so forth.  IQ testing has more in common with standardized school testing than with any sort of sociological experiment. You might as well talk about the biasing effect of the S.A.T tests on minority students (the issues are the same as with I.Q. tests, and S.A.T's are widely used whilst I.Q tests are not widely used anymore). I can make the exact same argument you made for IQ tests related to those.

Yes. You are correct. IQ tests don't construe sociological experiments in the same sense as Milligram etc. do. My point is that any such experiment that "survives in the world" stops to be discernible as such, so there are none we can point a finger at, but there are things that might be thought of as such experiments if they had no foothold in society, like standardised testing. If standardised testing did not exist it would be very experimental to do such a thing in a school/a class and afterwards continue in the manner that jane elliot did with the kids segregating the high scoring ones from the others and so on, which is what actually happens ... but because it happens on a society wide scale we don't see it as an experiment.

Again, I am sorry if I expressed my thoughts badly. I am after all not a native speaker to english. The basic concept underlying my argument is explained way better than I can here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism

[GlyphGryph]

Anyways, I wanted an example from the same class of experiment. i.e. experiments with the goal of providing understanding and education to the participants.

IQ tests certainly don't qualify, if they ever could have been considered experiments at all. And you're surviving in the wild interpretation thing is just really weird and pointless sounding, so... yeah. It's perfectly possible for the effects of an experiment to continue on with it being abundantly clear to everyone that there's some fucked up shit right here as the result of that damned experiment, including the participants.

[lorb]

It's perfectly possible for the effects of an experiment to continue on with it being abundantly clear to everyone that there's some fucked up shit right here as the result of that damned experiment, including the participants.

Yes? Example?

edit: Obviously cases like the one of Tony Lamadrid are going to fit that description, but I think we are looking for cases where the effects of the experiment had an impact on people not directly involved?

[GlyphGryph]

No, directly involved would be fine. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what people were asking for.

Anyways, since I wanted in class examples, but don't have any, the most I can provide is out-of-class examples. Medical studies, obviously - experimental psychological treatments like, say, electroshock, can have all sorts of negative long-term consequences.

The La Trobe replication of the Milligram Shock Experiments ended... quite poorly, for many of the participants. Milligram's volunteers did pretty well, but the La Trobe replication sort of forget to do that part where you tell the person after the experiment that they didn't really kill a guy. It... did not end well.

[ChairmanPoo]

Electroshock's experimental?

Anyways, I was going to argue that any sort of activity, experimental or not, can have unforeseen consequences. Even when you do your best to take precautions. Yet sometimes nonetheless it turns out that the antiemetic drug you were testing turns out to make children be born with missing limbs, or maybe the technical staff at your brand new nuclear plant decides to ignore the operational manual you provided and manage to circumveit every safety measure you installed and blow it up. The takehome message is that sometimes shit happens, and that you should try to prevent it insofar as it's possible, but not to the extent to walk out of your home covered in bubblewrap.


What I find disturbing about these "psychosocial experiments" is that they either walk the line of informed consent, when they don't ignore it altogether.

[GlyphGryph]

Electroshock's experimental?

Well obviously not so much NOW, but it was! I mean it's still bad now, but I am pretty sure it used to be even worse.

[Euld]

Apparently corporations want to control the world's water?  And even get into recursive activities where they pollute the oceans then get paid to clean it up again?  Dunno how true that's supposed to be, but sharing anyway.

[SalmonGod]

If there were some way to limit access to air or sunlight, someone would do it.  I know there have been cases in South America where corporations have claimed ownership of the water supply that local villages depend on to survive, and demanded people pay for the right to walk down to the bank of a river for a drink.

[penguinofhonor]

Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month.

[Scoops Novel]

Hurray! Though it should only be a stopgap, not a solution.

[Jervill]

I would put this in the American Politics Thread, but it's currently closed.

Rethinking Red states and Blue states.

Based on polling of the states on how many self identify as "Liberal", "Moderate", and "Conservative" mapped by state.  It's interesting, if not all that surprising overall.

[Euld]

Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month.

Why is there no White History Month?  Because we have 11 months of White History Months and have to remind ourselves at least once a year that people who are slightly different from the White Aged Bald Conservative Religious Males have been useful now and then.

i'm being sarcastic or something i dunno don't hurt me

[Reelya]

Welcome to Black History Month, also known as White People Ask About White History Month Month.

Why is there no White History Month?  Because we have 11 months of White History Months and have to remind ourselves at least once a year that people who are slightly different from the White Aged Bald Straight Conservative Religious Country-Music-Loving Males have been useful now and then.

FTFY

i'm being sarcastic or something i dunno don't hurt me

*Beats Euld for under-use of adjectives*

[Heron TSG]

Hey now, that sort of person can be many things, but it's a little harsh to say that all of them like country music.