Monday, January 12, 2015
Very interesting but wrong
Some "social" "scientists" have been running through the raw data of the famous Milgram experiment. Milgram's binary division of Obedient vs Disobedient, though practically valid, didn't capture what was really happening between the disembodied Command Voice and the Operator. In fact there was a wide range of responses and considerably more resistance than the binary categories have led us to believe.
Actually LOOKING at the fucking DATA? What a novel concept. It's GOOD SCIENCE, extremely rare in the "social" "sciences", and worthy of intense praise.
Unfortunately the "social" "scientists" return to standard form when suggesting how this insight can be used.
Pilot and copilot? Nope. That's one situation where you don't want negotiation or discussion. If the pilot is competent, he has absolute power. If the pilot is steering the plane into a mountain, the copilot needs to knock him out and grab the controls.
School principal? Negotiation is appropriate, but Maynard is predictably delusional. "Principal telling a teacher to discipline a student" is NEVER the problem. I will GUARAN-FUCKING-TEE YOU that it has NEVER happened. NOT FUCKING ONCE. This disagreement ALWAYS involves a student who needs discipline and a principal who tells the teacher NOT to discipline.
Ethics? We know what Ethics means. Total genocide, total tyranny, floods of blood. Ethics always requires slaughtering the innocent and deifying the criminal.
Social justice? Nuff said.
Some "social" "scientists" have been running through the raw data of the famous Milgram experiment. Milgram's binary division of Obedient vs Disobedient, though practically valid, didn't capture what was really happening between the disembodied Command Voice and the Operator. In fact there was a wide range of responses and considerably more resistance than the binary categories have led us to believe.
Actually LOOKING at the fucking DATA? What a novel concept. It's GOOD SCIENCE, extremely rare in the "social" "sciences", and worthy of intense praise.
Unfortunately the "social" "scientists" return to standard form when suggesting how this insight can be used.
If people could be trained to tap practices for resistance like those outlined in Hollander's analysis, they may be better equipped to stand up to an illegal, unethical or inappropriate order from a superior. And not just in extreme situations, according to Maynard.The first quoted sentence tells you exactly where Maynard is coming from. Situations with a Republican in charge automatically require resistance. The same actions are ANGELIC AND MANDATORY when a Democrat orders them. When a Democrat gives the order, YOU SHALL OBEY UNQUESTIONINGLY.
"It doesn't have to be the Nazis or torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or in the CIA interrogations described in the recent U.S. Senate report," he says. "Think of the pilot and copilot in a plane experiencing an emergency or a school principal telling a teacher to discipline a student, and the difference it could make if the subordinate could be respectfully, effectively resistive and even disobedient when ethically necessary or for purposes of social justice."
Pilot and copilot? Nope. That's one situation where you don't want negotiation or discussion. If the pilot is competent, he has absolute power. If the pilot is steering the plane into a mountain, the copilot needs to knock him out and grab the controls.
School principal? Negotiation is appropriate, but Maynard is predictably delusional. "Principal telling a teacher to discipline a student" is NEVER the problem. I will GUARAN-FUCKING-TEE YOU that it has NEVER happened. NOT FUCKING ONCE. This disagreement ALWAYS involves a student who needs discipline and a principal who tells the teacher NOT to discipline.
Ethics? We know what Ethics means. Total genocide, total tyranny, floods of blood. Ethics always requires slaughtering the innocent and deifying the criminal.
Social justice? Nuff said.
Labels: Ethics
¶ 3:54 AM
