What are the famous experiments of human nature in history?

Experiment 1, milgram experiment (1961)

Experimental steps: When Nazi followers who slaughtered Jews were prosecuted in the Nuremberg trial, many defendants' defense seemed to revolve around the argument that "I am not the real murderer" and thought that "in fact, I simply obeyed orders".

Therefore, Myhrgren, a psychologist at Yale University, wants to test the subjects' willingness to obey orders given by authoritative figures.

maybe you would think that he just asked the subjects? Oh, that won't do; That's not cruel enough.

Unlike what you think, in the experiment organized by Myhrgren, the subject was told that he would play the role of "teacher", and all he had to do was to give another subject a memory test in the next room.

In fact, the "other subject" was faked by the experimenter, and all this was just a setup by Myhrgren.

The subject was told that as long as the other party gave the wrong answer, he would press a button and the controller would shock the "student" next door.

in addition, a staff member wearing a lab uniform will be there to give guidance and supervision (it must be pointed out that there was no real electric shock, of course, the subjects did not know about it).

the subjects were also told that the initial electric shock in the experiment was 45 volts, and the voltage value would increase every time the answer was wrong.

every time the subject presses the button, the "student" will scream in the next room and ask the subject to stop the test.

So, can you predict how the experiment will go on?

experimental results: when the experiment reaches a certain level (such as electric shock of 33 volts), many subjects feel uncomfortable at first and question whether to continue the experiment.

However, the staff wearing lab uniforms encouraged them to continue with every request for suspension.

After being assured that they would not bear any responsibility, most of the subjects chose to continue, raise the electric shock voltage and give the victims electric shocks again and again.

Some subjects laughed nervously after hearing the screams of "students"; Because when the current is transmitted to another person's body but there is nothing to do, I am afraid that laughter is the best medicine.

Eventually, the "students" next door will begin to beat on the wall in pain, begging to have their heart checked.

After the electric shock continues to ascend, the sound from the "student" room will suddenly disappear, suggesting that he is dead or unconscious.

if you have to give a guess, what percentage of the subjects will continue to give electric shocks afterwards?

In the case that "students" may have fallen into coma or died, about 61% to 66% of the subjects choose to continue the experiment until the maximum voltage of electric shock reaches 45 volts.

Repeated experimental studies show the same result: as long as the staff in the laboratory thinks there is no problem, the subjects will unconsciously inflict pain on an innocent stranger.

Most of the subjects did not question or object before the electric shock reached 3 volts, and % of the subjects asked to stop the experiment before (please note that in some cases, 1 volts is enough to kill people).

Result analysis: You may prefer to think of yourself as a defender of free thinking, but in the final analysis, the key is whether the idea of "that person" is enough to make you persist, because the "that person" behind you will always make you persist in those ideas, even if it is only a person wearing a lab uniform-imagine what would happen if he wore a uniform or badge.

Charles Xie Lidan and Richard King made a further experiment on this, but the requirement for the subjects became that a puppy should be given electric shock once it misbehaves.

Unlike milgram experiment, this electric shock is real.

The experimental results show that 2 of the 26 subjects have reached the highest voltage.

almost as high as 8%.

Imagine walking in a shopping mall-8% of people around you are willing to torture a puppy to the extreme, as long as a person wearing a lab uniform asks them to do so.

Experiment 2, Stanford Prison (1971)

Experimental steps: Psychologist Philip Zimbardo wants to study how prison life affects the police and prisoners.

that sounds stupid enough; The question is, will that be a problem?

zimbardo transformed the basement of the psychology department of Stanford University into a mock prison.

All the volunteers who came only through newspaper advertisements passed the physical health and psychological stability tests, which are crucial factors in screening the subjects in prison experiments.

These subjects were all male college students, and were randomly assigned to 12 prison guards and 12 prisoners.

zimbardo himself wants to participate in the experiment and appoint himself as the prison director.

This simulated prison experiment lasted only two weeks.

yes, there will never be any problem about this.

experimental results: it took each subject about a day to adapt to this life and began to become crazy.

Only the next day, the prisoners rioted in this man-made prison, using beds to set up obstacles in the cell and laughing at the prison guards.

Seeing this situation, the prison guard seems to have found an excellent excuse to fire at the prisoner (in fact, using a fire extinguisher instead). Hey, why the hell not?

Since then, Stanford Prison has really gone to hell, and riots have been staged day after day in this hell.

Some prison guards began to force prisoners to sleep naked on the concrete floor and threatened to restrict the use of the bathroom as a privilege (a privilege that is often deprived).

They forced prisoners to do humiliating training and clean toilets with their hands.

Incredibly, when the "prisoners" were told that they had a chance to be released on parole, but their application for parole was rejected, they didn't simply ask to stop the damn experiment.

please remember that they are definitely not imprisoned for legal reasons. This is just a role-playing experiment.

This means that they will continue to sit naked on their own excrement with a bag over their heads.

More than 5 non-experimental personnel participated in observing and paying attention to this prison, but the moral trial was never questioned until zimbardo's girlfriend Christina Maslach proposed a strong * * *.

Only six days later, zimbardo terminated the experiment (several "prison guards" expressed disappointment).

If you want to praise Masella for being the only rational person in this damn experiment, you should also know that she later married zimbardo who planned this experiment.

Analysis of results: This result shows that playing the role of a prisoner premeditated rebellion, while playing the role of a prison guard began to become violent.

Is it because the prison guards who are tortured by riots are all bastards, and they push people around at will without asking for reasons? Scientific research shows that if roles were reversed, you would do the same.

as it is verified, it is usually because of the fear of the other side's counterattack that we torture our fellow human beings in various ways.

When we have absolute power over some people or a bad check from our superiors, the bare "pyramid" of Abu Ghraib Prison (editor's note: prisoner abuse scandal, some prisoners were forced to stack naked in a pyramid) will abide by it.

hehe, if this is a group of hippie college students during the Vietnam War, it will definitely happen to you.

Experiment 3: The bystander's indifference experiment (1968)

Experimental steps: In a woman's murder in 1964, the news reported that 38 people at the scene witnessed or heard the case but did not take any action.

John Darley and Bibb Latane hope to verify whether people are unwilling to help when they are in a group environment through research.

The two psychologists invited some volunteers to take part in the experiment.

they told the subjects that since the talks might involve extremely personal content (such as discussing the size of genitals), everyone would be separated in different rooms and only used walkie-talkies to communicate with each other.

during the interview, one participant will pretend to have a sudden illness, which can of course be heard by other subjects.

We are not completely sure that the message conveyed to them by this call is that the other party is ill, but we are sure that words such as "Oh, I have a seizure" will be heard by the subjects.

experimental results: when the subjects think that they are the only one who participates in the discussion except the patient, 85% of them will voluntarily leave the room to ask for help when the other person pretends to be ill.

it's not easy to have a very personal talk with another person (again, it's likely to mention the size of reproductive organs, etc.). In contrast, it's just sad to be forced to talk to myself for the rest of the time.

But in any case, 85% people are willing to help; This result is not bad, isn't it?

but the experiment is not over yet.

When the experimental environment changed and the subjects thought that there were four other people participating in the discussion, only 31% of them sought help after the other person's illness, and the remaining subjects guessed who else would take care of this person.

So to some extent, the word "the more the better" has lost its true meaning, and the more correct expression should be "the more people die" (the more people there are, the higher the probability of dying from illness).

Result analysis: It follows that in an emergency, if you are the only person around the client, your motivation to participate in assistance will be greatly increased, and you will feel 1% responsible for this matter.

However, when you are only one of 1 people, you will only feel 1% responsible; The problem is that everyone else only feels 1% responsible.

this explains our previous example.

If the injured woman is lying on the deserted highway, the driver who turned a blind eye may be more willing to stop and help.

beside the point, of course, they may be more willing to ignore it because they know that no one is watching (this is different from the subjects in this experiment, because at least the subjects know that someone is recording and analyzing their behavior).

or perhaps, this problem can be attributed to the rationality that we can find excuses for ourselves.

we will say, "obviously, there will always be someone on this road to save her."

or, "obviously, someone will do something to protect the environment" or "obviously, sharks will always be full, so they won't eat them to a certain extent".

We just need to find a little excuse for our inaction.

Experiment 4, Good Samaritan Experiment (1973)

Experimental steps: If you haven't heard the Bible story "the Good Samaritan", you can briefly introduce it here as follows: A Jew was seriously injured by a robber and was lying on the side of the road, and priests and Levites passed by but ignored it, but only a passing Samaritan ignored the barrier.

therefore, psychologists John Darley and C. Daniel Batson hope to test the influence of religious beliefs on helping others.

Their subjects were a group of seminary students, half of whom told the story of "Good Samaritan" and asked them to preach in another seminary, while the other half asked them to preach about employment opportunities in the same place.

As an additional variable reference, the subjects are required to arrive at the preaching place at different times, so some of them may appear to be in a hurry on the road.

At the same time, on the way to the designated place, the subject will pass a passer-by who collapsed in an alley and looks in urgent need of help.

We may think that Dali and batson are only testing some random phenomena that help others, but the research data show that the poor passerby was arranged in advance and showed very realistic performance.

Experimental results: Compared with those students who are prepared to give a speech on employment opportunities, the students who were given the story of "Good Samaritan" did not lend more help because of the educational significance of the fable.

What really matters is how hurried they are on the road.

In fact, if time is short, only 1% of students will stop to offer assistance, even though the topic they are about to preach is how important it is to stop to give assistance.

However, to be fair, if you are late for class, will the professor believe the excuse that "I had to stop to help an injured passenger on the way"? Probably not, unless you can show the man's bloody shirt as evidence.

result analysis: as we like to joke, an anti-gay male congressman may be found to be in love with a man, and Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States who called for environmental protection, may own a mansion with high energy consumption ...

... but in fact, we ordinary people are as hypocritical as politicians.

after all, it's obviously easier to help strangers by talking in front of a large audience than to face a tramp who stinks and even bleeds.

Therefore, even if we point out their hypocrisy, it is hard to hide their own hypocrisy.

If you think these findings are limited to hypocritical seminary students, please read the news.

Do you remember the scene that at least 12 cars refused to pick up the injured woman lying on the side of the road several years ago?

Just like these students, they always feel compelled.

The driver may feel lucky, because he just turned a detour and passed her, instead of squashing her like in the car accident tragedy.

experiment 5. ASHI's conformity experiment (1953)

Experimental steps: The psychologist Solomon Asch has made a series of studies to verify the conformity effect, and the experimental results can make everyone who reads it frustrated.

the subjects were told that they would take an eye test with another group of people, and then they would show some pictures and ask them to answer some very easy and obvious questions.

this test's