I’m comfortable saying that casual sex < thinking you murdered someone.  

Sounds like an argument for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hope they get iron-clad waivers, though I would think some court somewhere might find it unconscionable and void it.

THANK YOU. I couldn’t believe someone would argue in seriousness that this is no more unethical than an experiment that is literally THE textbook case of pushing the bounds of ethical psychology.

Zimbardo’s experiment wasn’t even as bad as this. In that experiment, the subjects knew it was a role playing simulation and not real. The surprise was that even role playing proved so powerful in permitting sadistic behavior that the experiment had to be stopped early. The Miligram experiment is a much more apt…

Please correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t the long term psychological effects of the Milgram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment - and Stanford Prison - http://www.prisonexp.org/ - experiments already point out the highly questionable ethics of doing things like this?
OK, it’s not an experiment. It’s not a…

And academics can’t get approval for shit like that anymore because of the damage it does to people. This is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment on national TV - which again is one of the reasons we have IRB.

“No more psychologically damaging than an outlawed experiment banned in all countries” .

well okay then

The Milgram experiments led to the Institutional Review Board process because it was SO UNETHICAL. That’s not supporting your point that this show is harmless. It’s very harmful.

The Milgram experiment DID damage many of the participants psychologically. It was an interesting experiment, but couldn’t be performed today (literally) because of ethics concerns primarily based on how it messed some of the participants up.

Yes, but the modifications are HUGE there: the 150V-or-further assumption, screening participants beforehand, promised pay regardless of performance or withdrawal, a much more mild test shock, and nearly-immediate intervention afterwards by the “recipient” or experimenter to reassure the participant were absolutely…

lol @ “tread ethical boundaries” homie it sails right over the line.

You do realize that the Milgram experiments are taught in Psychology 100 classes, primarily because of its ethical implications dont you?

Also, there’s a bit more justification for things like that to be done in the name of science and learning about the human brain than there is in doing it to make more money for Netflix.

Uh, the Milgram experiments might be a bad example, given that they too caused debates over ethics.

Uh, the same Milgram experiments that wouldn’t pass any IRB today? No more damaging than that? Sure, sure. Good stuff.

This show is fucked, I have no clue how you see otherwise. No person should be forced into that frame of mind for the entertainment of others, period. There is absolutely nothing to gain from this other than satisfying someone’s macabre entertainment.

You don’t see a difference between debunking a magic act and pushing someone to commit murder?

So, because he does it regularly, she shouldn’t be horrified by it? Just because she hasn’t heard of this guy/his shtick before, she’s not allowed to be offended by the premise now that she has? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

They are smart and strong and they’re going to be OK. None of our previous generations modeled great behavior. We’re doing better, even if it’s two steps forward one step back. It’s OK to be proud of what these kids are doing while still considering if the rest of us are doing enough.

I don’t want to knock us at all! I think a lot of us got the wind knocked out of our sails and beat up pretty hard by the baby boomers. So many students had to move back in with their parents after college (I was in college in 2008). We’re a wonderful generation—but we’re a demoralized generation, too. Many of us…