The Stanford Daily

Opinions





Comments about "Nat-ural Philosophy: A homily on humility"


<< Back to Nat-ural Philosophy: A homily on humility

7 Comments on this article:

Report as: spam offensive Marvin L Foushee on 1/18/08 at 10am

"After repeated humbling, students could perhaps become people who might legitimately be called experts."

Hey, you moronic piece of idiotic puke, "humbling" is an adjective, not a f*cking [pardon the Nixon French] noun.

Report as: spam offensive Marvin L Foushee on 1/18/08 at 10am

"After repeated humbling, students could perhaps become people who might legitimately be called experts."

Hey, you moronic piece of idiotic puke, "humbling" is an adjective, not a f*cking [pardon the Nixon French] noun.

Report as: spam offensive Harsh much? on 1/18/08 at 11am

"moronic piece of idiotic puke"?
I was unaware one could speak of "pieces" of a noun which usually refers to a mass of liquid or a semi-solid.

Report as: spam offensive kate on 1/18/08 at 11am

great piece.

Report as: spam offensive a parent on 1/19/08 at 1pm

Nat: a very good piece.

Life after college will in general provide all the means for arrogant Andys to become experts, a part of human development.

Report as: spam offensive Dan H. on 1/19/08 at 4pm

Nat,
on this campus, a bastion pre-professionalism and corpora
Certainly, it's aggravating when one individual hogs class time preventing others from sharing their opinions or contributing to class discussion. However, far too often on this campus, a bastion of pre-professionalism and corporate ambitions, people like yourself belittle and label those who enthusiastically engage in intellectual discourse. Sure, people can get shut out of class discussion, but perhaps that's for fear of getting labeled "the IHUM kid." Maybe your "Modest Mandies" would speak up more if they didn't have to worry about being judged by their peers as "that kid."
Thanks,
Dan

Report as: spam offensive Marvin L Foushee on 1/20/08 at 7am

Social Psychology 101
.....................

OBEDIENCE [TO IMMORAL AUTHORITY]; The Furhrer Complex

Obedience is a very similar phenomenon to conformity. It can be distinguished by an emphasis on the impact of legitimacy (as opposed to other social pressures), and by the fact that it usually involves a single person -- the authority.

The most famous study concerning obedience is Stanley Milgram's. Picture yourself in this situation: You have volunteered for a psychology experiment, so you find yourself at Dr. Milgram's office one evening. Another student is already there with Dr. Milgram. Dr. Milgram thanks you both for volunteering and explains that this is a study of the effects of punishment on learning. One of you will be the teacher and the other the learner. To decide, he asks each of you to pick a slip of paper out of a hat: Your slip says teacher, the other volunteer's slip says learner.

So you and Dr. Milgram take the learner to a small room next door, where you help the good doctor strap the learner into what looks like an electric chair. You then paste electrodes to various parts of his body.

You and Dr. Milgram return to his office, where he puts you in front of a microphone, speaker, and a rather dangerous looking piece of electronic machinery with 30 toggle switches in a row along the bottom front, labeled from 30 volts to 450 volts. (The ones toward the end have a little sign above them that says "Danger: High Voltage!")

You are to read a list of nonsense syllables into the microphone to the learner in the next room, and he is to repeat them in the correct order back to you. If he makes a mistake, you are to pull the first switch. This switch will then lock in place, requiring you to use the next higher voltage if the learner makes a mistake the next time.

You read the list, and of course the learner makes a couple of mistakes, so you flick the first switch. You read the list again, but he makes a mistake again, so you flick the next switch. As you move up the line, the learner begins to complain. At 75 volts, he moans a bit. At 150 volts, he's begging to be let out of the experiment. Perhaps you turn to Dr. Milgram, who is sitting nearby correcting test papers, and ask him if it would be alright to stop. He explains that you both volunteered for this and he expects you both to complete the experiment.

At 180 volts, the learner is screaming that he can't stand the pain. You are shaking and sweating bullets. At 300 volts, you flick the switch and you hear the beginning of another scream form in the learner's throat, but it never quite comes out. When you read him the list again, he doesn't even attempt a response. He's unconscious! Perhaps he's even dead! You turn to Dr. Milgram for guidance, and he tells you: "No response is an incorrect response. Don't be concerned: There will be no permanent neurological damage. Please continue."

You continue to shock your fellow-volunteer all the way up to the maximum voltage of 450 volts, unaware, of course, that this was all a set-up and that the learner was a confederate of Dr. Milgram!

Before Milgram did this experiment, he asked several psychiatrists' opinions on what percentage of people would go how far. The psychiatrists (who we suppose would know about crazy behavior) suggested that most people would stop at 150 (when the learner asks to be let out), that only four percent would go up to 300, and that a mere one percent would go all the way to 450 volts.

In Milgram's study, 62 % went all the way.




(Comments are meant to provide a constructive way for users to interact online. Please keep discussion civil, and refrain from using profanity, personal attacks, potentially libelous language, or hate speech. The Stanford Daily is not responsible for any content that appears in the comment section of its Web site. The Daily is not responsible for monitoring the board or removing comments that could be in violation of the policy. The editors of the non-profit newspaper support a free exchange of ideas, even if beliefs expressed are controversial, but The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation claims all rights and sole discretion to delete or not delete any post for any reason at any time. If something is posted in the comment section of the Web site, the expressed view should not be understood as an endorsement by The Daily or any of its agents. All comments must comply with the “Terms and Conditions For Use” as set out in the “About us” section of the Web site, or they may be removed. By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted and that you are fully relinquishing all rights of ownership to said content exclusively to The Daily while maintaining full responsibility for what you write.)