
How People Can Get You To Do What They Want - askorkin
http://www.skorks.com/2009/08/how-people-can-get-you-to-do-what-they-want/
======
TallGuyShort
I completely agree - starting dialog about differences between your instinct
and your instructions is very healthy. The trick is to create an environment
where that can happen. I'm sure a lot of managers don't appreciate employees
that do things like that, even if it's not done in an argumentative way.
Anyone have any thoughts on how to create such an environment?

~~~
sgoraya
Having done the managerial thing in a few companies, I would say that a lot of
employees are reluctant to question managers, even if they are encouraged to
do so.

I've got several anecdotes of trying to press my team to question
technical/design/administrative decisions but for the most part, they were
quite. Yes, there would be one or two people who would do so (to my
appreciation), but they were the exception.

To generalize, I would say that _most_ people would rather take instruction,
follow the rules and not question authority - Its easier.

As far as creating an environment to encourage constructive feedback -
Possibly creating a system that provides anonymity _might_ increase the level
of feedback.

Though in my opinion, the idea of questioning issues of instinct vs.
instruction have to be an intrinsic part of a companies culture. Tough to
implement if not there from the beginning.

------
verdant
Experiments like the Milgram experiment would not be considered ethical today
because of the mental effect it has on the test subjects afterward (feeling
bad about themselves for not stopping). I'm undecided if that's good or not -
It just seems to have exposed a truth about human nature, which remains true
even if you don't expose it. But, if it a lasting psychological impact on the
test subjects... that doesn't seem desirable.

The point of the article is correct from a business standpoint as well as a
moral one. Too often we fail to question processes and procedures because
"that's the way its always been done."

~~~
cicada
The ethical concerns about the Milgram experiment are too varied to go into
much detail here (if you're interested,
[http://books.google.com/books?id=U44OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA193](http://books.google.com/books?id=U44OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA193)
) but the short, relevant, version is that the psychological impact was
positive, not negative. 84% of those surveyed (out of 92% who participated)
reported that they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated in the
experiment.

~~~
verdant
Very interesting. I was just going off the ethical arguments and data raised
from a course I took while at the university where we studied the Milgram
experiment.

I guess that's what I get for just going along with someone who was an
"authority" on the subject.

------
mgreenbe
First, I don't buy the post's statistics. 65% of the subjects administered
every shock in the experiment. But

    
    
      when we believe that someone knows more than us about a 
      subject, they can get us to do what they want most of the 
      time (or 65% of the time if you can believe the experiment)
    

mis-parses the probabilities.

Second, I think the "(65% of) people obey to authority despite what should be
their better judgment" overfits the results of the experiment. Perhaps people
simply listen to scientists during experiments?

~~~
anigbrowl
The point is that the listen to scientists because they are wearing white
coats, despite the (play-acted) agonized yowls from the unfortunate victim,
from which the experimental subject can clearly infer that they are causing
suffering. If you think that tuning such information out is normal or
sensible, I suggest some self-examination.

Note that in the Milgram experiment the scientist figure never tells the
subject it's safe or makes excuses for the degree of shock administered, they
just insist that an external authority 'the experiment' requires the subject
to continue.

~~~
jcl
Your description doesn't quite match the one in the article:

 _The researcher tells you to keep going, and that the shocks will cause "no
permanent tissue damage" to the Learner._

~~~
anigbrowl
True, sorry about that - I was thinking of the specifications for the original
experiment at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment> But still, it
comes down to the question of whether you believe this abstract assertion, or
the person who is (supposedly) on the receiving end of the shocks.

The disturbing issue raised by Milgram's experiment is how you can apparently
persuade a majority of people to do just about anything, as long you have an
appropriate authority figure around to affirm that it's safe/ legal/
necessary. With things like waterboarding and suicide bombing being stples of
the news in recent years, this strikes me as a serious problem.

~~~
jcl
It seems Milgram did not follow the experimental specifications exactly as
given on Wikipedia. The "tissue damage" exchange is mentioned further down on
the Wikipedia page and comes from Milgram's own anecdotal recollections of the
experiment.

If this is the case, it seems that he improvised rationalizations as needed to
get the subjects to continue administering shocks. This strikes me as rather
sloppy on his part. (...not that I think the numbers would have been all that
different had he not done this.)

