Nice coverage. Feels pretty fair. Milgrim's work after his eponymous experiment was pretty interesting and not all compliance based and I'd encourage people to look into it. Though I'm annoyed to learn about his slightly squiffy data ethics.
I'm curious if this experiment could be continued by pure observation of existing situations. Like what about gathering data about insurance agents that deny claims for life-threatening illness? Or government social workers that deny services to people with limited resources? Or judges sending children back to other countries because of immigration rules, where the children aren't going to survive if they return home. There are plenty of examples of people working jobs where the decisions they make follow policies that are harmful, but the worker has to do their job or lose their job, so it puts the welfare of the worker in direct conflict with the welfare of another person. The shape of the event is different, but delayed fatal consequences are still fatal. Though there is a factor of precise awareness to be measured, I think people know that what they're doing is not great for the people whose fate they are deciding.
I think there probably are quite a few identifiable human universal traits that could add some truth to the explanation of how people can commit atrocities, but those are probably found in the evolutionary/social/game theoretic interplays in addition to the subjective psychological aspects involved in decision making.
![Disability in Newsies [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OKBRAA_3JwQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Disability in Newsies [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![Revisiting the "Solitary Forager Hypothesis" [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yH4D1vvfVHs/mqdefault.jpg)
Nice coverage. Feels pretty fair. Milgrim's work after his eponymous experiment was pretty interesting and not all compliance based and I'd encourage people to look into it. Though I'm annoyed to learn about his slightly squiffy data ethics.
a video under half an hour? thats something new, can't wait! :))) (for real I'm glad you're also doing "smaller projects")
I'm curious if this experiment could be continued by pure observation of existing situations. Like what about gathering data about insurance agents that deny claims for life-threatening illness? Or government social workers that deny services to people with limited resources? Or judges sending children back to other countries because of immigration rules, where the children aren't going to survive if they return home. There are plenty of examples of people working jobs where the decisions they make follow policies that are harmful, but the worker has to do their job or lose their job, so it puts the welfare of the worker in direct conflict with the welfare of another person. The shape of the event is different, but delayed fatal consequences are still fatal. Though there is a factor of precise awareness to be measured, I think people know that what they're doing is not great for the people whose fate they are deciding.
Did you do a video on the 2020 Yale research controversy with autistic toddlers?
> fascination in psychology of tipping point political moments
Any recommendations?
I think there probably are quite a few identifiable human universal traits that could add some truth to the explanation of how people can commit atrocities, but those are probably found in the evolutionary/social/game theoretic interplays in addition to the subjective psychological aspects involved in decision making.
My source? I saw it in a dream.
This was interesting! One of those things you learn at school and never revisit; glad I’ve learned more! 🫡