French TV turns Milgram experiment in TV show

**Peasant Phill** · 03-20-2010, 18:14

It's strange nobody mentioned this before on this forum.

Last week I saw a headline mentioning A French TV station letting contestants 'kill' others for money.
I immediatly thought about the Milgram experiment I read about in my University years and hoping it wasn't that.
I really don't see the entertaining value (it's a game show after all) of showcasing persons as willing to kill for money.

An article
The experiment

Not that outraged but I fail to see how this either entertaining or educational. All it does is stigmatise the particular contestant.

**HoreTore** · 03-20-2010, 18:34

Cool.

**Centurion1** · 03-20-2010, 19:26

dude thats some ****** up ****. mind games, ugh.

i want some straight on gladiatorial combat myself.

**Meneldil** · 03-20-2010, 20:23

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

It's strange nobody mentioned this before on this forum.

Last week I saw a headline mentioning A French TV station letting contestants 'kill' others for money.
I immediatly thought about the Milgram experiment I read about in my University years and hoping it wasn't that.
I really don't see the entertaining value (it's a game show after all) of showcasing persons as willing to kill for money.

An article
The experiment

Not that outraged but I fail to see how this either entertaining or educational. All it does is stigmatise the particular contestant.

It's not a TV show, it's a documentary. It involved three more or less famous french sociologists. The aim was to prove that the authority of TV is even more important than the authority of a doctor/searcher. Which the documentary did, since 84% of the contestants actually went all the way to the last shock (as opposed to around 60% in the original version of the Milgram Experiment). Though most of them knew what they were doing was wrong, most of them accepted to deal the shocks to the actor, even when he was begging for them to stop.

What's even worse, the spectators also looked disgusted, but still encouraged the guests and cheered them when they dealt the shock.
Quite stunning I say, even though I already know the Milgram experiment by heart. And as with the original experiment, people stopped to deal the electrical shocks when the anchor left the room.

**Peasant Phill** · 03-20-2010, 21:10

I wasn't aware it tried to be an experinment of sorts of its own rather than infotainement. The way the articles I read told the story, it was a genuine TV show.

**Gregoshi** · 03-20-2010, 22:45

Yeah, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good outrage. I was rather miffed too until I read Meneldil's clarification.

**Meneldil** · 03-20-2010, 23:19

That's what I thought too, until I heard more details about the show.

Honestly, I'm not sure it really brings anything to the table. Unlike the Milgram experiment, this one was completely one-sided against the "subject".
In the original experiment, the subject only had to confront Milgram, or the searcher. Here, he had to confront the anchor, the spectators, and potentially all the people watching him on TV. The dude had to face not one, but 2 (or 3) authorities, including a crowd cheering at him, without anyone supporting him.

What is surprising isn't that so many people obeyed, but rather that some of them refused to. One of them (a young girl), stopped the game when the actor started to beg her to stop, and then bursted into tears. Poor girl :(

**Gregoshi** · 03-20-2010, 23:59

The things to which people are willing to subject themselves to be on TV baffles me to no end. 15 minutes of fame in misery, embarrassment, or looking like a jerk isn't worth it.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 03-21-2010, 19:01

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Honestly, I'm not sure it really brings anything to the table. Unlike the Milgram experiment, this one was completely one-sided against the "subject".
In the original experiment, the subject only had to confront Milgram, or the searcher. Here, he had to confront the anchor, the spectators, and potentially all the people watching him on TV. The dude had to face not one, but 2 (or 3) authorities, including a crowd cheering at him, without anyone supporting him.

Aye. See that's what I didn't get. If they wanted to make a point, to add anything to Milgram, then the producers should've thought up a devious experiment that lowers the pressure for the contestants. Instead of drastically increasing the pressure.

All they did now, was to take a person, isolate him, put him in a high pressure environment, confuse him, disorientate him, cheer him on by an audience, put camera's on him. It feels like bloody Guantanamo Bay. Better persons have cracked under this much pressure. Small wonder even more people committed the shocks than in Milgram's experiment.

Milgram's experiment must be, second to Pavlov, the best known psychological experiment in history. I thought it a bit surprising so few contestants recognised it.

I also have a general criticism about Milgram and 'Jeu de la mort', at least againts the common understanding of it. Namely, does it really test people's willingness to follow orders? Does it not say more about social trust than about obeying authority? Me, I hate authority and will usually oppose it, but I generally trust a scientist or a game show host when they tell me they won't kill somebody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1i8...eature=related