Loggers 'burned Amazon tribe girl alive'

[Rahvin]

But did any of those participants actually believe that they were being ordered to kill someone? Did they actually believe that an experiment done at Yale would involve murder?

They very clearly believed that they were at a minimum performing brutal torture, and I see little ethical difference. From the Wiki entry on the experiment:

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.

...

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

[/quote]

The "victim" would pound on the wall and yell about a heart condition until, eventually, he would become silent as if dead or incapacitated. They would receive the maximum shock three times.

I see no reason to believe that the subjects believed anything other than that they were torturing a human being with electric shocks, and at the very least putting him in significant danger or potentially killing him.

Didn't the experimenter, if the participant expressed concern about actual harm, reassure the person that even if the shocks were painful, there would be no permanent damage?

No. The responses to concern or any attempt to stop the experiment were carefully scripted, as seeing whether people would continue was what they were actually testing. The only responses given were, in order:

Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.

Those sentences, spoken from a perceived authority figure, were sufficient to cause 65% of people to overcome their reluctance and proceed to torture and likely kill a person.

Consider that this is very different than a situation where a hostile authority orders you to commit frank murder, where the person really does believe that the situation involves murder and permanent harm.

The Milgram subjects did believe that harm was being caused - they were applying strong electric shocks to an individual who was screaming and pounding on the wall and yelling about a heart condition. They had every reason to believe they were putting a person;s life in immanent danger and no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

The point isn't whether the authority is hostile or friendly - obviously a person is more likely to try to resist instructions from an authority perceived to be an enemy. The point is that no coercion was required, no torture or threat, just simple stern instruction to continue against a screaming victim begging the subject to stop.

While the Milgram experiment is disturbingly informative, it is far from the last word on the subject. WWII showed many examples of people being willing to torture, starve, and kill others, yet at the same time many others risk their lives, and the lives of their families, to help others in a situation where there was absolutely no doubt that being caught doing so would mean suffering and death, and plenty of incentive to play along with authority. We need to look at how people act in reality and not just in simulations.

The circumstances surrounding such appalling or heroic behavior are extremely important - and that's specifically why the Milgram experiment tried to eliminate as many external factors as possible. I can say that I believe I would hide a family of Jews if I lived in Nazi Germany and had the means to do so; I cannot say that I would refuse to torture or kill if I myself were being tortured, starved, or threatened with death (I'd like to, but I don't know, having never been in anything remotely like that sort of situation). The low bar to torture and murder exposed by the Milgram experiment leads me to be pessimistic when considering how easily the average (or even exceptional) person can be twisted to performing acts even they regard as reprehensibly evil by using any incentive more severe than a stern command.

The unrealism of the Milgram experiment (at least as compared to the actual heroes of WWII) rested in the fact that the authority was directly aware of the subject's actions for the entire duration. There could be no secret heroes who would hide the victim or conspire with him to remove the electrodes and fake the fake screaming. The subjects could not divert the victim to slave labor in a factory instead of a death camp. The subject was simply told "you must go on" while under the watchful eye of the authority, and they ignored the screams and pleading, ignored their own anxiety and reluctance, and pressed the button. And then they did it again. Because the threat but uncertainty of being caught by the Nazis is different and allows for more freedom to act than the certain observation of the Milgram experimenters.

And curiously, people are apparently more likely to act counter to their own ethics when under the certain threat of disapproval as opposed to the uncertain threat of imprisonment and death.

How then would we expect a person to act under the certain threat of torture or death?

It really is as LaCroix said: we are all monsters if the right button is pushed.

[Terralthra]

Didn't the experimenter, if the participant expressed concern about actual harm, reassure the person that even if the shocks were painful, there would be no permanent damage?

No

Incorrect.

The experimenter also gave special prods if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on".

No voltage level was labelled "death." Voltage levels were labelled up to "severe shock" at 400, and 425/450 were labelled "XXX."

[Alyrium Denryle]

No permanent tissue damage. While the person was screaming about a heart condition. Yeah. That is different from permanent damage.

Oh, and XXX is one of those universal english signals for porn, poison, and death. Porn does not apply, no poison. The person was screaming about a heart condition and then stopped screaming while they were shocked at the XXX level three more times.

[Terralthra]

So, rather than admit you were wrong, you're going to split tiny hairs. S'ok, everyone can see you were wrong anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

I view it as the flip side of the serial killer/complete psychopath - just as there are people who are monsters regardless of influences to restrain such impulses, there are probably folks who are just the opposite, they just won't do it, even if tortured or killed.

I'm not so sure. The Milgram experiment showed, as mentioned, that only a minority would stop torturing another human being to what appeared to be death.

But the people who did it didn't need to be tortured or threatened. They were instructed to continue in a calm, firm voice. All they had to do was refuse three scripted instructions to continue, and the experiment would be over. And almost nobody refused, nearly all of them continued.

If a stern voice is all that's required to make 65% of people administer what appears to be a lethal electric shock to a stranger, I'm not at all confident to say what people will do when threatened with actual harm or the deaths of themselves or loved ones.

As you allude later- bigger threats will create an adversarial relationship, which can actually arouse defiance in that perverse minority. And bear in mind that just as there really aren't that many giggling psychopaths who are actively looking for an excuse to torture someone, there probably aren't that many people who would never ever do it for any reason... which doesn't mean that you don't have members of the human race on both ends of the spectrum.

There's also a question of how monstrous it is to do terrible things if you actually have something at stake: we normally consider it a terrible crime to kill, but killing in self defense is accepted, and no one would really condemn, say, a parent who used excessive lethal force in defending their child. You might be able to convince an otherwise 'saintly' person to commit murder by holding a little girl hostage, but have you really 'made them a monster' by doing so? Or have you just made a monster of yourself?

At what point does duress alter the burden of ethical responsibility?

But did any of those participants actually believe that they were being ordered to kill someone? Did they actually believe that an experiment done at Yale would involve murder?

Yes. It was made very clear through labeling and the confederate actor's protestations that the shocks were lethal.

That isn't quite the question, Alyrium, there's another issue here: the gut level. Do people really think that a scientific experiment torturing people to death could operate like this? I suspect that if you went to the time of the Milgram experiment and asked, the average man in the street would say "no." At least, not casually; that a Yale researcher wouldn't be allowed to electrocute half a dozen people and just walk away scot-free.

Thus, I suspect that if we went into the minds of the subjects in the Milgram experiment, and looked at the ones who delivered a 'lethal' zap, a significant chunk of them would not walk out of the room with that "holy shit, I just killed someone" reaction you'd expect from someone who just committed a premeditated murderer, without having gotten up planning to kill anyone.

Which is arguably significant- trust in authority figures in the law-and-order environment of the lab is a little different from the "in the wild" conditions in which atrocities are committed.

That's not to say that the percentages of evil obedience are higher, or lower, just that the stimuli and responses will change around quite a bit.

Ah reality. The stanford prison experiment, the various replications that were done there... including field replication in Abu gihrab(sp) and numerous other prison environments. The Holocaust

The central theme in all of them is that dehumanizing someone is the best way to get someone to torture and kill them. It does not take much. Not being able to see their face, telling them the other person is inferior. That is all. It is the difference between someone who hides jews in their attack vs a person who helps out Mengele in his lab.

Perhaps, then, the linchpin is that there are people who are adept at dehumanizing others, and people who are not adept at it? In the extreme limiting case, the classical psychopath doesn't think anyone is "really human," and treats everyone around them accordingly. The classical saint's behavior follows logically from the firm conviction that everyone around them is human, and that they should be treated accordingly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, rather than admit you were wrong, you're going to split tiny hairs. S'ok, everyone can see you were wrong anyway.

No dumbfuck. Permanent tissue damage is different from permanent damage. Every effort was made in the experiment to make bloody well sure that the Teacher understood that they were administering dangerous and potentially lethal shocks, irrespective of the "no permanent tissue damage"

There were also different groups. One in which there was a "heart condition", and the other in which there was not. Otherwise the script was the same. The results did not change.

Here are the actual methods:

Each vocal response of the victim was coordinated to a particular voltage level on the shock generator.
It is difficult to convey on the printed page the full tenor of the victim’s responses, for we have no
adequate notation for vocal intensity, timing, and general qualities of delivery. In general, however, the
victim indicated no discomfort until the: 75-volt shock was administered, at which time there was a little
grunt. Similar reactions followed the 90- and IO5-volt shocks, and at 120 volts the victim shouted to the
experimenter that the shocks were becoming painful. Painful groans were heard on administration of the
135 volt shock, and at 150 volts the victim cried out, “Experimenter, get me out of here! I won’t be in
the experiment any more! I refuse to go on!” Cries of this type continue with generally rising intensity, so
that at 180 volts the victim cried out, “I can’t stand the pain,” and by 270 volts his response to the shock
was definitely an agonized scream. Throughout, from 150 volts on, he insisted that he be let out of the
experiment. At 300 volts the victim shouted in desperation that he would no longer provide answers to
the memory test.
At this juncture, it was found, subjects would usually turn to the experimenter for guidance. The
experimenter would instruct the subject to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer, and to
shock the subject according to the usual schedule. He advised the subjects to allow 5 to 10 seconds
before considering no response as a wrong answer, and to increase the shock level one step each time
the learner failed to respond correctly. At 315 volts, after a violent scream, the victim reaffirmed vehemently
that he was no longer a participant. He provided no answers, but shrieked in agony whenever a shock
was administered. After 330 volts he was not heard from, nor did his answers reappear on the four-way
signal box.

Going up through an additional 120 volts after the person stopped screaming, shocking them three times at max voltage? Really? And you dont think that this would be perceived as lethal?

[Broomstick]

But did any of those participants actually believe that they were being ordered to kill someone? Did they actually believe that an experiment done at Yale would involve murder?

They very clearly believed that they were at a minimum performing brutal torture, and I see little ethical difference.

That may be YOUR ethical position, but there are plenty of people who will allow torture but still oppose outright murder. I don't agree with that, either, but there you go. Not everyone has the same ethical system. I may firmly believe that violence in order to defend myself is justifiable, but I live down the road from people who maintain there is absolutely no justification for violence, ever, not even in self-defense or to save a life. I'm not even talking about killing here, I'm talking about any physical violence, and their culture group has centuries of dying rather than using violence to defend themselves. They see raising a hand to ward off a blow as something ethically monstrous. I don't. There are people who don't believe killing is ever justified. I feel that, if self-defense is involved, it can be. Different cultures.

Perhaps a more informative experiment would be something like the Milgram experiment, but one where the study subject can act to deceive the controller in order to circumvent orders to cause harm - that would be interesting, wouldn't it? How many people would lie and deceive in order to prevent harm to another? The Milgram experiment removed a lot of variables, but that's why it doesn't resemble real life. In real life people have options that don't exist in the experiment.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That isn't quite the question, Alyrium, there's another issue here: the gut level. Do people really think that a scientific experiment torturing people to death could operate like this? I suspect that if you went to the time of the Milgram experiment and asked, the average man in the street would say "no." At least, not casually; that a Yale researcher wouldn't be allowed to electrocute half a dozen people and just walk away scot-free.

That was actually dealt with in the experiment. As part of it, people were surveyed how far they would be willing to go... the results were WAY the fuck different. Almost no one said they would administer lethal shocks. In the actual test, 65% did. What people say they will do, or say they believe, is a far cry from what they actually do.

Thus, I suspect that if we went into the minds of the subjects in the Milgram experiment, and looked at the ones who delivered a 'lethal' zap, a significant chunk of them would not walk out of the room with that "holy shit, I just killed someone" reaction you'd expect from someone who just committed a premeditated murderer, without having gotten up planning to kill anyone.

You suspect. However, most participants did in fact have to be extensively debriefed to avoid psychological trauma.

[Terralthra]

I admire your ability to selectively quote the description of the experiment, highlighting your point, while pretending that the original questioner (Broomstick) wasn't absolutely correct:

In this very first experiment, the procedure continued as the ‘remote victim’ experiment, whereby no vocal response or other sign of protest was heard from the learner until the shock level of 300 volts was reached. At this point the learner (Mr Wallace) pounded on the wall of the room and could be heard by the participant (teacher). From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appeared on the panel, and many participants usually began to turn to the experimenter for guidance. The participant (teacher) was instructed to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer and to shock the learner according to the usual schedule, allowing 5 to 10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer. The pounding on the wall was repeated after the 315 volt shock but subsequently the learner was not heard from, and his answers did not reappear on the panel.

If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, whether it be; ‘should I continue administering shocks’, or some other indication that he did not wish to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’:

Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’;

Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’;

Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’;

Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.

The prods were always made in sequence. Only if Prod 1 was unsuccessful could Prod 2 be used, etc. If the participant continued to disobey after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was always firm, but not impolite.

If the participant asked if the learner could suffer permanent physical injury, a special prod was used; ‘although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. If the participant said that the learner did not want to go on, another special prod was used; ‘whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. The experiment would end either when the 450 volt shock had been administered, or when the participant walked out.

(emphasis mine)

To remind you, the original question:

Didn't the experimenter, if the participant expressed concern about actual harm, reassure the person that even if the shocks were painful, there would be no permanent damage?

The answer to this question is very obviously "yes," but I'm sure you'll equivocate some more to avoid looking like you answered using incorrect information. I admire the cover-up technique. Ever consider politics?

[Broomstick]

So, rather than admit you were wrong, you're going to split tiny hairs. S'ok, everyone can see you were wrong anyway.

No dumbfuck. Permanent tissue damage is different from permanent damage. Every effort was made in the experiment to make bloody well sure that the Teacher understood that they were administering dangerous and potentially lethal shocks, irrespective of the "no permanent tissue damage"

And how was that done? Did the "controller" say "now give him a lethal shock"? What makes you think the average person answering an add for such an experiment has any fucking clue about electricity, electrical shocks, or medical problems?

Going up through an additional 120 volts after the person stopped screaming, shocking them three times at max voltage? Really? And you dont think that this would be perceived as lethal?

No, I think the average human being is dumb as fuck and doesn't know that 120 volts is lethal. Which, by the way, it isn't automatically - people do get shocks and survive, people get hit by lightning and survive, the average person isn't going to know this shit and will look to authority for information. Any ER will give you stories about average dumbfucks electrocuting themselves (fatally or not) doing stupid shit with electricity because the average person just doesn't know.

A better test might be ordering someone to shoot someone else in the head - THAT the average person understands will probably cause death (even if we get occasional exceptions like Gabriel Giffords). One of the problems with the Milgram experiment that there was a deliberate disconnect between what the "controller" was saying and how the "learner" was reacting. This was different from what was going down in WWII where no one was saying that shooting people wasn't causing "permanent tissue damage" or whatever. The Nazis would say "kill those people" and if you didn't they'd kill you, no disconnect there. You don't think that's an important difference? I do.

[Broomstick]

That isn't quite the question, Alyrium, there's another issue here: the gut level. Do people really think that a scientific experiment torturing people to death could operate like this? I suspect that if you went to the time of the Milgram experiment and asked, the average man in the street would say "no." At least, not casually; that a Yale researcher wouldn't be allowed to electrocute half a dozen people and just walk away scot-free.

That was actually dealt with in the experiment. As part of it, people were surveyed how far they would be willing to go... the results were WAY the fuck different. Almost no one said they would administer lethal shocks. In the actual test, 65% did. What people say they will do, or say they believe, is a far cry from what they actually do.

And how language is used is important here. As noted, the words "lethal shock" were never used. You're expecting people who answered an add, who essentially walked in off the street, and given it was a college town were probably young and relatively inexperienced, to simply know what did and did not constitute a lethal shock, all the while being reassured no "permanent tissue damage" would be done. If the switches had been labeled not with voltage numbers but with "quarter lethal", "half lethal" and "certain death" would that have affected response?

The Milgram experiment allowed the study subject to self-deceive that no permanent harm was done. That is VERY different than a circumstances like in the OP where a human being is tied to a tree and set on fire, where even if the person survives they will be horribly maimed.

If I recall, one of the test subjects who did NOT administer the higher shocks was an electrician, a person who actually knew the effect of various voltages and thus had the knowledge to tell the person controlling the experiment to go fuck himself. The average 18 year old (as a counter-example) isn't going to have that level of confident knowledge. The electrician had a level of confidence that the experiment could kill that the average person might not, which is why I don't view the Milgram experiment as the last word on the subject. For all the variables they controlled they couldn't control the knowledge their subjects did or did not bring to the experiment.

[madd0ct0r]

The thing I like most about the Milogram experiment is it's so easy to put yourself in that position. A death camp orderly or guard is something much harder for me to imagine being, and thus is safely distanced into the "I'd never do that" box.

But the Milogram experiment, it's chilling easy. And as such it acts as a check on my behavior now. I know that even if I'm being instructed to continue in a calm, measured voice, and even if I'm told "There's no other option, you must continue" that that voice might be lying, and if the orders feel wrong, then I should stop.

I like to think it'll give me a better chance of behaving correctly should the situation arise, but you don't know until you're tested, do you?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What part of No permanent tissue Damage =! No permanent damage do you not understand?

Might it be giving them enough rope to deceive themselves? Sure. But that is not the same as telling them that the person will not be permanently harmed. Just that they wont be roasted like a thanksgiving turkey.

And how was that done? Did the "controller" say "now give him a lethal shock"? What makes you think the average person answering an add for such an experiment has any fucking clue about electricity, electrical shocks, or medical problems?

It is a combination. The shocks were labeled numerically, but also by a qualitative scale of how painful or dangerous the shock was.
15-60 volts=slight shock
75-120 volts=moderate shock
135-180 volts=strong shock
195-240 volts=very strong shock
255-300 volts=intense shock
315-360 volts=extreme intense shock
375-420 volts=Danger: severe shock
435-450 volts=XXX, the last of these to be repeated three times.

Combined with this was a sequence of pre-scripted protestations from the "learner"

The Learner’s Schedule of Protests
75 volts Ugh!
90 volts Ugh!
105 volts Ugh! (louder)
120 volts Ugh! Hey this really hurts.
135 volts Ugh! 150 volts Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart
trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother
me. I refuse to go on. Let me out. 165 volts Ugh! Let me out! (shouting)
180 volts Ugh! I can’t stand the pain. Let me out of here! (shouting)
195 volts Ugh! Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out of here!
You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! My
heart’s bothering me. Let me out! Let me out!
210 volts Ugh! Experimenter! Get me out of here. I’ve had enough. I won’t be in the experiment any
more.
225 volts Ugh!
240 volts Ugh!
255 volts Ugh! Get me out of here.
270 volts (Agonized scream.) Let me out of here. Let me out of here.
285 volts (Agonized scream.)
300 volts (Agonized scream.) I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t
hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here.
315 volts (Intensely agonized scream.) I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this
experiment.
330 volts (Intense end prolonged agonized scream.) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My
heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you. (Hysterically) Let me out of hem. Let me out of here. You
have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let
me out!

After 330 volts, the "learner" stopped screaming, and the "teacher" was instructed to consider a non-response as an incorrect answer and continue with shocks. There were two variations of this. One with a heart condition, and one without. The results were unchanged

You dont have to be an electrical engineer to infer that the complete non-response of the "learner" indicates problems. Especially when there are warning signs over the labels, including XXX...

No, I think the average human being is dumb as fuck and doesn't know that 120 volts is lethal.

120 volts, after the person stopped screaming. Not 120 volts total. What do you infer when you are subjecting someone to a dangerous stimulus, they are screaming in agony, and then they stop... while you keep escalating the stimulus? Again, people are dumbfucks, but it was designed to be rather clear.

[Broomstick]

What part of No permanent tissue Damage =! No permanent damage do you not understand?

Well, I might be capable of deciding the controller is full of shit, but then, I am smarter than average (as are the majority of people on this forum). Why do you have trouble understanding that the average person might not have knowledge you or I have, or that they aren't confident enough so they are more easily swayed?

I understand it just fine - I'm not convinced the average person would.

Might it be giving them enough rope to deceive themselves? Sure.

Yes, that is exactly my point. People don't want to believe they're the bad guys. Hell, they often don't want to believe the bad guys are bad guys.

As I said, having the capacity to self-deceive, having a person in authority saying "it's not as bad as it looks" is VERY different than circumstances where there is absolutely no chance to self-deceive, such as setting someone on fire or someone holding a gun to your head and saying "either you or him take the bullet".

And how was that done? Did the "controller" say "now give him a lethal shock"? What makes you think the average person answering an add for such an experiment has any fucking clue about electricity, electrical shocks, or medical problems?

It is a combination. The shocks were labeled numerically, but also by a qualitative scale of how painful or dangerous the shock was.
15-60 volts=slight shock
75-120 volts=moderate shock
135-180 volts=strong shock
195-240 volts=very strong shock
255-300 volts=intense shock
315-360 volts=extreme intense shock
375-420 volts=Danger: severe shock
435-450 volts=XXX, the last of these to be repeated three times.

So why DIDN'T they label the last one as "extreme danger: fatal shock"? Why all the pretense to avoid words like "lethal" and "death"? Everything was done to reassure the subject that it wasn't as bad as it appeared to be, and while historically such reassurances have been used to get people to do horrible things that's quite different than circumstances where you are putting bullets in people, setting them on fire, or chucking them into poison showers and you get to see the dead bodies afterwards.

The law does distinguish between unintentional killing, including circumstances where the killer was deceived or could not know at the time that were killing someone, and circumstances where there is no doubt whatsoever that killing is being done.

You dont have to be an electrical engineer to infer that the complete non-response of the "learner" indicates problems. Especially when there are warning signs over the labels, including XXX...

You're expecting the average person to think logically in an emotionally charged situation. "XXX" is NOT the same as labeling something "lethal" or "this will kill the other person".

120 volts, after the person stopped screaming. Not 120 volts total. What do you infer when you are subjecting someone to a dangerous stimulus, they are screaming in agony, and then they stop... while you keep escalating the stimulus? Again, people are dumbfucks, but it was designed to be rather clear.

Clear to someone highly educated and literate. Did they do any controls for that? What you or I would do, what a college professor or electrician would do in these circumstances may or may not reflect what the general population would do. I have to work with the general public, and they don't read shit and don't pay attention to warning signs.

I agree that a LOT of people can be induced to hurt others. I also think there are things to criticize in the Milgram experiment. Isn't part of science questioning things? Did the design of this experiment make it more likely that the average person would go along with causing harm or not? Would being more explicit that you are harming/killing someone have changed the outcome? How does it compare to what has happened in the real world? These are all legitimate questions for the experiment. Or do you prefer I simply accept what authority tells me and not use my own brain?

[LaCroix]

You're expecting the average person to think logically in an emotionally charged situation. "XXX" is NOT the same as labeling something "lethal" or "this will kill the other person".
*snip*
Clear to someone highly educated and literate.

Sorry, but I'm with AD on this. If you have a labelling going

15-60 volts=slight shock
75-120 volts=moderate shock
135-180 volts=strong shock
195-240 volts=very strong shock
255-300 volts=intense shock
315-360 volts=extreme intense shock
375-420 volts=Danger: severe shock
435-450 volts=XXX, the last of these to be repeated three times.

(emphasis mine),
you don't have to be anything more than slightly literate and educated to know what XXX means -> Highly Dangerous, as in "worse than the settings labelled "DANGER!"

Also, someone screams and yells all the way to 330 volts, when he suddenly goes silent instead of screaming. And then you zap him
345,360,375,390,405,420,435,450,450,450 -> 11 more times, with even higher settings, and no reaction at all, although he was in severe pain before.

Just to make it clear what they had seen on the switches they flipped:
extreme intense shock
extreme intense shock
Danger: severe shock
Danger: severe shock
Danger: severe shock
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

It is very plain obvious. People choose to ignore it and hoped that their gut feeling was wrong, but 95% (there the occasional complete moron in every group) of them would have caught on.

[Spoonist]

Aly, you are making a big bruha out of nothing. You are both correct, but your contexts are different.
The literal interpretation was that the authority figure in parts of the experiment did give reassurance.
The implications of the actor, the gauge etc was to not give a similar reassurance.
So trying to fake a controversy over this is unecessary since exactly that point was part of what the experiment was there for.


@ the rest
The ethical set for these types of experiments have changed.
So nowadays only showbiz does this type of deal.




Here is some BBC for you

[Bright]

To go back to the original topic, am I correct in assuming there will likely be NO legal repercussions to this incident whatsoever? The article mentioned dead tribespeople in the hundreds over the last decade, so what gives? I understand that policing the vast jungle based on second-hand accounts must be extremely difficult, but is the Brazilian government even trying to do something? Do the corporate structures of the logging companies encourage this sort of disgusting fuckery?

[evilsoup]

There probably isn't a memo from corporate HQ going 'your native murder is below quota this month', but of course the top people must know about this sort of shit going on. Also, all of the potential witnesses are either the natives (who are probably not willing to take part in a trial, even if they would understand the concept); or loggers, who are all implicit in these crimes, or at least don't want to screw over their friends for the sake of some dead [derogatory phrase]. And that assumes that the brazilian government would want to investigate particularly closely.