I was reading a book dealing with torture and the people who administer torture, the methodology, the mental repercussions and after effects all on people through the recent years involved with torture methods.

The interesting thing about it is they did a study and found that about 62% of your average person (taken from a US sampling) could and did administer torture methods. The study used a switchboard of electro shock which ranged from 15 volts up to 430 volts. The box was a fake and only let mild pulses out to the actors who writhed in pain and played the victim. Many when left to administer their own levels put 150 volts through the victim and several went as far as 350-430 volts completely at their discretion.

So since this was a core sample involving housewives, businessmen, as well as scholars and more the question is raised as to whether you could honestly see yourself being able to follow through on the procedure?

 

i dont know, probably would have to be in the situation.

 

The sample you cited is one of the most known and controversial studies in psychology today, known as the Milgrim Experiment. After reading and studying this study quite a bit, I honestly am still baffled at some of the people who went as far as they did. I think a large factor that contributed to this was the fact that they couldn't visually see the person they were shocking.

Overall I honestly don't think I could do it.


Edit: I think we also need to keep in mind that this survey was done over 40 years ago. A lot has changed in the world in the way of civil rights and "civic duty". I don't know how important that is, but I think it may be a factor.

 

It depends on how much the person impacted a portion of my life. Like if i found a guy that killed a family member. Yes, i will torture the shit out of themselves Until they wish for death, but i will not give it to them, i just would want them to continuously suffer until i feel they're repentful, but even that would'nt suffice depending on the severity.

 

would have to depend on the subject at hand. If they said I had to torture this dude cause he def knew an "evil" secret of great importance to "man kind" than fuck it I'll stick the bamboo shutes in myself.

Like if we caught some tali ban motherfucker and he knew when and where the next terrorist attack was going to be, I'd personally clamp the battery charger to his nut sack.

 

Well actually if you read a bit more on the Milgram study they also put the people in direct contact with the "victim" by having them place the victims hand on a grounding plate in order for the shock to be administered.

So there was a certain amount of direct contact. They said the people in the study had an easier time handling their decision when they were third party indirectly responsible since they were not directly administering the torture process but instead facilitating in a "minor" role.

 

I would have no problems torturing those fegs that stole my car.

 

You do realize that the job of a torturer (sp?) is not to get directly involved emotionally but rather the more they stay detached from the "victim" the more effective they are. Once you show emotion in the process it is a weakening agent the victim can turn against you

 

This may have happened with an adjacent experiment, but I know for a fact that this is not the case for Milgrim's Experiment.

 

Ahh the example I was reading had direct and indirect contact between subject and victim. I know one example they cited was the Milgrim, I will have to look again and see what the second citing was from/