background preloader

Milgram experiment

Milgram experiment
The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being 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.[1] The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. The experiment[edit] Milgram Experiment advertisement Three individuals were involved: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment (a volunteer), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. Results[edit] Criticism[edit] Ethics[edit] Related:  Wiki: Philosophy & Psychology

John Stonehouse John Thomson Stonehouse (28 July 1925 – 14 April 1988) was a British Labour Party politician and junior minister under Harold Wilson. Stonehouse is perhaps best remembered for his unsuccessful attempt at faking his own death in 1974. More than twenty years after his death, it was publicly revealed that he had been an agent for the communist Czechoslovak Socialist Republic military intelligence. In 1979 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and top cabinet members learned from a Czech defector that Stonehouse had been a paid Czech spy since 1962. He had provided secrets about government plans as well as technical information about aircraft, and received about £5,000. He was already in prison for fraud and the government decided there was insufficient evidence to bring to trial, so no announcement or prosecution was made.[1] Education and early career[edit] Political career[edit] Stonehouse allegedly began spying for Czechoslovakia in 1962. Business interests[edit] Faking his own death[edit]

Synesthesia How someone with synesthesia might perceive (not "see") certain letters and numbers. Synesthetes see characters just as others do (in whichever color actually displayed), yet simultaneously perceive colors as associated to each one. Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia; from the Ancient Greek σύν syn, "together", and αἴσθησις aisthēsis, "sensation") is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes. Difficulties have been recognized in adequately defining synesthesia:[5][6] many different phenomena have been included in the term synesthesia ("union of the senses"), and in many cases the terminology seems to be inaccurate. A more accurate term may be ideasthesia. Characteristics[edit] There are two overall forms of synesthesia: projecting synesthesia and associative synesthesia.

Stanford prison experiment The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14–20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.[1] It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. Goals and methods[edit] Zimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall (Stanford's psychology building). The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners. [edit]

Operation Babylift Operation Babylift was the name given to the mass evacuation of children from South Vietnam to the United States and other countries (including Australia, France, and Canada) at the end of the Vietnam War (see also the Fall of Saigon), from April 3–26, 1975. By the final American flight out of South Vietnam, over 3,300 infants and children had been evacuated, although the actual number has been variously reported.[1][2][3][4] Along with Operation New Life, over 110,000 refugees were evacuated from South Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War. Thousands of children were airlifted from Vietnam and adopted by families around the world. Overview[edit] A pair of well-worn baby shoes worn by an orphan evacuated from Vietnam during Operation Babylift With the central Vietnamese city of Da Nang having fallen in March, and with Saigon under attack and being shelled, on April 3, 1975, U.S. Plane crash[edit] Legacy[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Further reading[edit] Media references[edit]

Prisoner's dilemma The prisoners' dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. It's implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision won't affect their reputation in future. There is also an extended "iterative" version of the game, where the classic game is played over and over between the same prisoners, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. The prisoner's dilemma game can be used as a model for many real world situations involving cooperative behaviour. Strategy for the classic prisoners' dilemma[edit] The normal game is shown below: Nice

Sense of agency The "sense of agency" (SA) refers to the subjective awareness that one is initiating, executing, and controlling one's own volitional actions in the world.[1] It is the pre-reflective awareness or implicit sense that it is I who is executing bodily movement(s) or thinking thoughts. In normal, non-pathological experience, the SA is tightly integrated with one's "sense of ownership" (SO), which is the pre-reflective awareness or implicit sense that one is the owner of an action, movement or thought. If someone else were to move your arm (while you remained passive) you would certainly have sensed that it were your arm that moved and thus a sense of ownership (SO) for that movement. However, you would not have felt that you were the author of the movement; you would not have a sense of agency (SA).[2] Definition[edit] Neuroscience of the sense of agency[edit] Agency and psychopathology[edit] Marc Jeannerod proposed that the process of self-recognition operates covertly and effortlessly.

The Rumble in the Jungle Kinshasa The Rumble in the Jungle was a historic boxing event in 1974 in Kinshasa, Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo). Held at the 20th of May Stadium on the morning of October 30, 1974, it pitted the undefeated world heavyweight champion George Foreman against challenger Muhammad Ali, a former heavyweight champion. Ali won by knockout, putting Foreman down just before the end of the eighth round. It has been called "arguably the greatest sporting event of the 20th century".[3] Build-up[edit] In 1967, Ali had been suspended from boxing for 3½ years for his refusal to comply with the draft and enter the U.S. Meanwhile, the heavily-muscled Foreman had quickly risen from a gold medal victory at the 1968 Olympics to the top ranks of professional heavyweights. Foreman and Ali spent much of the summer of 1974 training in Zaire, getting acclimatised to its tropical African weather. The fight[edit] After several rounds of this, Foreman began to tire. [edit] Legacy[edit] References[edit]

Blind men and an elephant The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives. It is a parable that has crossed between many religious traditions and is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi and Hindu lore. The blind men and the elephant (wall relief in Northeast Thailand) The story[edit] In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Jain[edit] A king explains to them:

The Missing Shade of Blue The Missing Shade of Blue is an example introduced by the Scottish philosopher David Hume to show that it is at least conceivable that the mind can generate an idea without first being exposed to the relevant sensory experience. It is regarded as a problem by philosophers because it appears to stand in direct contradiction to what Hume had just written. The source of the problem[edit] In both A Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, philosopher David Hume argues that all perceptions of the mind can be classed as either 'Impressions' or 'Ideas'. "We shall always find, that every idea which we examine is copied from a similar impression. The problem of the missing shade of blue arises because just two paragraphs later Hume seems to provide just such an idea. The Missing Shade of Blue "There is, however, one contradictory phenomenon, which may prove, that it is not absolutely impossible for ideas to arise, independent of their correspondent impressions.

Fall of Saigon The Fall of Saigon was the capture of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, by the People's Army of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (also known as the Viet Cong) on April 30, 1975. The event marked the end of the Vietnam War and the start of a transition period leading to the formal reunification of Vietnam into a Socialist Republic governed by the Communist Party. North Vietnamese forces under the command of the General Văn Tiến Dũng began their final attack on Saigon, with South Vietnamese forces commanded by General Nguyễn Văn Toàn, on April 29, suffering heavy artillery bombardment. This bombardment at the Tân Sơn Nhứt Airport killed the last two American servicemen to die in Vietnam, Charles McMahon and Darwin Judge.[1] By the afternoon of the next day, North Vietnamese troops had occupied the important points of the city and raised their flag over the South Vietnamese presidential palace. Terminology[edit] Various names have been applied to these events.

Priming (psychology) Priming can occur following perceptual, semantic, or conceptual stimulus repetition. For example, if a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to complete a word starting with tab, the probability that he or she will answer table is greater than if they are not primed. Another example is if people see an incomplete sketch they are unable to identify and they are shown more of the sketch until they recognize the picture, later they will identify the sketch at an earlier stage than was possible for them the first time.[4] The terms positive and negative priming refer to when priming affects the speed of processing. Negative priming is more difficult to explain. The difference between perceptual and conceptual primes is whether items with a similar form or items with a similar meaning are primed. Perceptual priming is based on the form of the stimulus and is enhanced by the match between the early and later stimuli.

Solipsism Solipsism ( i/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. Varieties[edit] There are varying degrees of solipsism that parallel the varying degrees of serious skepticism. [edit] Epistemological solipsism[edit] Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. Epistemological solipsists claim that realism requires the question: assuming that there is a universe independent of an agent's mind and knowable only through the agent's senses, how is the existence of this independent universe to be scientifically studied? Methodological solipsism[edit] Main points[edit] History[edit]

Related: