Podcast appearances and mentions of gina perry

Smile, you're listening to a podcast about Candid Camera. Created by Allen Funt, Candid Camera was America's first prank reality show. A case could be made that this show is responsible for the reality television trend that led to a con man being packaged as a “successful businessman” and is now pranking America as prez. Strange Country cohosts Beth and Kelly talk about this pioneering show whilst smiling through their tears. Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands. Cite your sources:   “Candid Camera | Television Academy Interviews.” Television Academy Interviews |, 1997, https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/shows/candid-camera. Accessed 26 January 2025.   Engle, Harrison. “Hidden Cameras and Human Behavior—An Interview with Allen Funt.” ida, 1 October 2000, Hidden Cameras and Human Behavior—An Interview with Allen Funt.   Flagler, J.M. “Student of the Spontaneous.” The New Yorker, 2 December 1960, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1960/12/10/student-of-the-spontaneous.   Funt, Allen, and Philip Reed. Candidly, Allen Funt: A Million Smiles Later. Barricade Books, 1994.   Miller, Robert Nagler. “Q&A: The keeper of ‘Candid Camera's' zany TV legacy.” The Jewish News of Northern California, 12 July 2018, https://jweekly.com/2018/07/12/qa-the-keeper-of-candid-cameras-zany-tv-legacy/. Accessed 6 February 2025.   Nussbaum, Emily. Cue the Sun! The Invention of Reality TV. Random House Publishing Group, 2024.   Perry, Gina. “Stanley Milgram and Candid Camera.” Gina Perry, 10 April 2012, https://www.gina-perry.com/2012/04/10/candid-camera/. Accessed 6 February 2025.   Saxon, Wolfgang. “Allen Funt, Creator of 'Candid Camera,' Is Dead at 84.” The New York Times, 7 September 1999, https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/07/arts/allen-funt-creator-of-candid-camera-is-dead-at-84.html. Accessed 25 January 2025.   Stewart, Travis. “How “Candid Camera” May Have Destroyed America.” Travelanche, 16 September 2020, https://travsd.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/how-candid-camera-may-have-destroyed-america/.

This week on Hashtag History, we will be discussing the Milgram Experiment which was a series of psychological experiments conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in which he was testing the blind obedience of a participant to an authority figure. These were the experiments where one participant would serve in the role of a “teacher” while the other played a “student”. The teacher would ask the student a question and, if the student got the answer incorrect, the teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock to the student. With each incorrect answer, the shock levels were incrementally increased all the way from 15 volts to 450 (which is a fatal level). When you watch the video footage of these experiments, you can see that many of the “teacher” participants hesitate and even refuse to administer such intense shocks to the innocent “student”. But, shockingly (no pun intended), Milgram would find that - with the right amount of pressure applied to the “teacher” from an authoritative figure - every single participant was willing to go up to 300 volts, and a whopping 65% of the participants were willing to administer the maximum voltage levels of 450! Milgram, whose Jewish parents had immigrated to the United States during the first World War, was particularly inspired by Nazi Germany and how so many members of the Nazi Party obeyed authority so blindly when they murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent Jews during the Holocaust. As was revealed during the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi leader after Nazi leader professed that they only did what they did because they were following orders from authorities. The results of this test are pretty disturbing, to say the least. Lucky for us…they may not be true. For one, the device used to inflict electric shock upon innocent participants…wasn't actually real. And those innocent participants…they were members of Milgram's own staff. But that's not even the most surprising revelations about the Milgram study to surface in more recent years. Australian psychologist Gina Perry has reevaluated the experiment and found that much of the raw data does not reflect Milgram's final conclusion. In fact, that 65% number that we got earlier - the number of participants willing to blindly follow orders - is actually only based on a tiny fraction of those that ultimately participated in the test. Over 700 people took part in the Milgram Experiment, and yet Milgram's final results derive from 40 of those participants. Additionally, Milgram's gauge on “obedience” was skewed. Even if a participant refused to inflict electronic shock on the other participant upwards of twenty times before they complied, Milgram documented this as blindly obeying.  The problem with all of this is that Milgram's Experiment is still so widely known - inaccurately so - and still referred to as factual. Follow Hashtag History on Instagram @hashtaghistory_podcast for all of the pictures mentioned in this episode. Citations for all sources can be located on our website at www.HashtagHistory-Pod.com. You can also check out our website for super cute merch! You can now sponsor a cocktail and get a shout-out on air! Just head to www.buymeacoffee.com/hashtaghistory or head to the Support tab on our website! You can locate us on www.Patreon.com/hashtaghistory where you can donate $1 a month to our Books and Booze Supply. All of your support goes a long ways and we are endlessly grateful! To show our gratitude, all Patreon Supporters receive an automatic 15% OFF all merchandise in our merchandise store, a shoutout on social media, and stickers! THANKS FOR LISTENING! - Rachel and Leah --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hashtaghistory/support

The mid-20th century was the heyday of figuring out why humans were the worst through the use of social psychological experiments. Strange Country cohosts Beth and Kelly talk about one such experiment, Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment where Sherif gathered a group of 12 year old boys to see if he could pit the boys against one another. Sherif's experiment is included in Psych 101 books about group dynamics, but did this hostility occur organically or was it more manufactured by the adults? Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands. Cite your sources: Higgins, Nick, and Maria Konnikova. “Revisiting Robbers Cave: The easy spontaneity of intergroup conflict.” Scientific American Blog Network, 5 September 2012, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/revisiting-the-robbers-cave-the-easy-spontaneity-of-intergroup-conflict/. Accessed 15 January 2024.   Mcleod, Saul. “Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory.” Simply Psychology, 27 September 2023, https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html. Accessed 27 February 2024.   Perry, Gina. The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment. Scribe Publications, 2019.   Perry, Gina. “Robbers Cave Experiment.” Practical Psychology, 26 September 2022, https://practicalpie.com/robbers-cave-experiment/. Accessed 27 February 2024.   Shariatmadari, David, and Gina Perry. “A real-life Lord of the Flies: the troubling legacy of the Robbers Cave experiment.” The Guardian, 16 April 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment. Accessed 27 February 2024.

Nine Year old Ruby and her father Mitch, had an itinerant lifestyle in Gina Perry's debut novel ‘My Father the Whale'. Sixteen years later we see the repercussions of those lifestyle choices.In The Rush, Michelle Prak has the weather and her characters morph from friendly to violent in this tense and twisted thriller 65 

Guest host Meredith Jaffé chats to novelist Gina Perry about the publication of her debut novel My Father the Whale. Factual writer by day, novelist by night, Gina is an award-winning author, science historian, and former psychologist whose feature articles, columns, essays and short stories have been published in newspapers and magazines, including The Age, The Australian Cosmos, and New Scientist. Gina is the author of two books of nonfiction, the acclaimed Behind the Shock Machine, and The Lost Boys. Her co-production of the ABC Radio National Documentary Beyond the Shock Machine won the Silver World Medal for a history documentary in the 2009 New York Festival Radio awards. She was runner up for the Brag University of New South Wales Prize for Science Writing in 2013, and her work has been anthologised in best Australian Science writing. My Father the Whale, is her first novel and it was shortlisted for the 2021 Harper Collins Banjo Prize. It's a heartwarming tale about yearning, belonging, and finding oneself. In this episode, in addition to exploring the world of the novel, Meredith chats to Gina about the differences between writing no-fiction and fiction, her writing process and path to publication. Enjoy this Convo Couch chat between Gina and Meredith.   SHOW NOTES: Writes4Women www.writes4women.com Facebook: click here Instagram: click here Twitter: click here   W4W Patreon https://www.writes4women.com/support-us-on-patreon   Gina Perry Website: click here Facebook: click here Twitter: click here Instagram: click here   Meredith Jaffé Website : click here Facebook: click here Instagram: click here   Pamela Cook www.pamelacook.com.au Facebook: click here Twitter: click here  Instagram: click here Turn Up the Tension online course: click here     This episode produced by Pamela Cook for Writes4Women on unceded Dharawal land.            Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/writes4women?fan_landing=trueSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this special episode of Futureproof, Jonathan looks back at some of our favourite pieces from throughout 2022. - Martin Wikelski, Professor at the University of Konstanz & Director at Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour explores the idea that animals can detect natural disasters. - Carl Zimmer, an award-winning New York Times columnist and author of ‘Life's Edge: The Search For What It Means To Be Alive' speaks to Jonathan about the myriad ways we define life itself. - And to sift through some of the most ethically questionable experiments to ever take place is Gina Perry, writer, science historian, and author of ‘Behind the Shock Machine' & ‘The Lost Boys'.

From Beat the Streets to beating the odds. Gina and Richard Perry through incredible, love and determination share a success story that is one for the ages. Their faith is truly undeniable! Thanks for listening to this episode of the podcast! You can now support the “Blood Time” and “Undeniable” podcasts directly! shorturl.at/dghoK Podcast Feedback? Business Inquiry? Contact Peter “Coach” Cimoroni at (216)-287-1522! Thanks to this episode's sponsors! Bornstein Law: https://bornstein.law Edwins: https://edwinsrestaurant.org Infinite Search Solutions: www.in-finite.com Just For Fun Honda: https://justforfunhonda.com Next Level Continuing Education: shorturl.at/BDLPW Next Level Infinite Banking: (614)-648-2440 The Plug: www.theplugt-shirtstore.com Thinking about starting your own podcast? www.maverickpodcasting.com

Becca is the epitome of if you have a passion, don't ever stop pursuing it. You will be able to hear her passion for the sport of wrestling throughout this interview. Becca grew up in Georgia and, unfortunately, girls wrestling wasn't sanctioned at the time. But that didn't stop her from chasing her dream of one day competing on the mat. Finally, in October 2021, she laced up her shoes and toed the line for her first ever wrestling match. We discuss this and much more in this episode that I know you are going to love! So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Becca Roper. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

Tony was gracious enough to invite me to his studio in downtown Des Moines and interview him in-person. We had such a great conversation that I felt it's necessary to provide all of if to you. So, I'm breaking it down into two parts. This is part two. If you haven't already, go back and listen to part one of my interview with Tony Hager. In this episode, we talk about Tony's college career and how he started IAwrestle. Tony wrestled at Simpson College and majored in graphic design. He actually went through a period when he didn't love wrestling anymore. However, that spark was eventually relit and now he owns IAwrestle. He has expanded into Nebraska, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Him and his team do a hell of a job covering the sport. And after talking with Tony, I have a whole new level of appreciation for the work him and his team puts in. I know you'll feel the same. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, part two of Tony Hager. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

Tony was gracious enough to invite me to his studio in downtown Des Moines and interview him in-person. We had such a great conversation that I felt it's necessary to provide all of if to you. So, I'm breaking it down into two parts. This is part one. In this episode, we talk about Tony's high school wrestling career. Tony wrestled at Ogden High School and was a 4x state qualifier and 3x state placewinner. He made the finals twice, but fell short both times. We associate Tony with IAwrestle, and rightfully so. But I think the majority of us either forget or don't even realize that Tony was a hammer on the mat. On top of that, he can empathize with the ups and downs wrestlers go through because he's dealt with them himself. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, part one of Tony Hager. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

Rick's storied wrestling career started in Knoxville, Iowa, where he was a state qualifier for Knoxville High School. He went on to compete at Buena Vista University and became a 2x All-American for coach Al Baxter. Rick coached at a few high schools before landing as an Assistant Coach at Wartburg under the great Jim Miller in 1988. Rick then took over the Waverly-Shell Rock program in 1999 and led them to unprecedented heights. In 12 years, his teams won 14 state team trophies, including nine state championships (five traditional and four dual). He coached 20 individual state champions and his 2008 Go-Hawks team set the all-time points record with 225 points at the traditional state tournament. Rick has since been inducted into the Iowa Wrestling Hall of Fame and the Buena Vista University Athletics Hall of Fame. After talking with Rick, it's easy to see why he was able to accomplish all that he has. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Rick Caldwell. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

The Happels are one of the most decorated wrestling families in the state of Iowa. Carter hails from Lisbon and comes from a big family, having four brothers and four sisters. He's the oldest boy and second oldest overall. He became Iowa's 25th four-time state champion and finished his high school career with a record of 209-1. He went on to wrestle at the University of Iowa, like his father, Dean. Carter is now the Head Assistant Wrestling Coach at Cornell College. If you have a chance, get out and support the Cornell Rams this year! So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Carter Happel. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

In this episode, we speak with Rich and Gina Perry who are integral members of the Beat the Streets family! Rich Perry is a team member of the Pennsylvania Regional Training Center who has worked with many BTS youth and set an example for the next generation of athletes. In the episode, Rich tells us about the tragic accident th befell him and his subsequent recovery and perseverance.We are beyond excited to announce that since we recorded this episode, Gina has been hired by BTS as the Director of Development and Communications. Gina brings so much passion and expertise to the role. We are so excited to have her on the team!

Eric recently finished up his college career at the University of Nebraska with a 7th place finish at the NCAA tournament, earning his first All-American status. During this episode, we catch up with what he's up to now, what it meant for him to go out on the podium, his recent engagement, and what his family is up to. I'm so proud of Eric and everything he's accomplished. Watching him advance and grow over the past year has been really special to me. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Eric Schultz. Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

Another exceptional person in the sport of wrestling, Andrew was a 3x placewinner at the Iowa High School State Tournament. He placed 7th as a freshman, 4th as a junior and finally won it all as a senior. Andrew went on to compete at Iowa State University, where he was a 2x NCAA qualifier. Andrew is now the Head Assistant Coach at the University of Nebraska-Kearney with his former college teammate Dalton Jensen. Together, they helped lead the Lopers to a Division II national team title this past year. This was such a great conversation that I wish we had more time. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Andrew Sorenson! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

Cody was a 4x Iowa High School state placewinner for Indianola, getting 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, and 3rd. He went on to compete at Grand View University and was part of their very first ever national championship team. Cody entered the coaching ranks immediately after graduating. He enjoyed a stint at Des Moines North-Hoover and is now the Head Coach at I-35 Truro. The I-35 Mat Club is actually hosting their first annual season kickoff this Saturday, October 22nd. You can enjoy dinner and a social that includes an auction and raffle plus live music. You can find more information about the event on the Interstate Roadrunners Mat Club Facebook page. With that being said, please sit back, relax and enjoy, Cody Swim! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

John was a 2x state placewinner for North Fayette, placing 6th as a junior and 2nd as a senior. John went on to wrestle at Wartburg, where he became entrenched as one of the best wrestlers in Wartburg history. He was a 3x AA, placing 3rd, 2nd and winning it all as a senior. He was inducted into the Wartburg Athletic Hall of Fame for his accomplishments along with his college teammate, Byron Tate, this past Saturday, October 15th. John even competed at the storied Midlands Championships twice, placing 5th both times. With all these accolades, his walk-out song is fitting since he really was (and still is) Big Bad John. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, John Helgerson! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lets-talk-wrestling/support

I'm not hoggin around...we'll have a swine of a good time in this newly released episode of the Let's Talk Wrestling podcast featuring Dimitri Boyer! Dimitri was a 4x Iowa High School state placewinner and 2x state champ for Eddyville-Blakesburg. He went on to wrestle at Coe College and was a DIII national runner-up his senior year at 157 lbs. He even did a little MMA. So, safe to say, Dimitri is one bad dude. He's now teaching at his alma mater Eddyville-Blakesburg and is going into his first year as head wrestling coach. Dimitri shows pigs on the side and currently has some merch! If you want to buy some Dimitri Boyer Show Pigs merchandise, you can find the link in the show notes or check out his Facebook page at D Boyer Show Pigs. Lastly, don't forget to consider donating to the GearUp! campaign by visiting their website at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling. Remember, I will personally pledge $20 each week if a person also donates any dollar amount on a #WrestlingWednesday. Thank you so much for your support! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. You can find the link and more information about the campaign in the show notes. Thank you so much for your support! Now, let's talk some wrestling. D Boyer Show Pigs merch website: https://dboyershowpigs2022.itemorder.com/shop/home/?fbclid=IwAR1VVcGCTQpeYkrzwXugLTt0Ix0crOugw2fMjcxon0zWw9R3CfqadPgsWU4

As many accolades as Moza has, I think it's important to first acknowledge how good of a person he is. Because who you are as a person is more important than what you accomplish on the mat or in life. And Moza is a perfect reflection of that. On the mat, Moza was a 2x Iowa High School State Champion for Anamosa High School. He went on to become a 2x All-American for the University of Northern Iowa. Moza also trained at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado and joined the Army World Class Athlete Program. We cover a lot in this episode, so let's get going! Please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Moza Fay! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support!

Richard Perry is a former National Team member at 86kg, a 3x NCAA qualifier and a Connecticut state champion. In August of 2018, Richard was involved in a training accident that forever shaped he and his family's lives. Richard is joined in this interview by his wife Gina Perry, who writes for Intermat and works for Beat the Streets National. (Photo / Tony Rotundo)

Matt wrestled at Apple Valley High School, where he was a 3x Minnesota High School state champion. He stayed in-state and wrestled for the University of Minnesota. Matt finished his college career wrestling one semester at Minnesota State, where he placed 3rd at the DII National Championships. He's now the head coach at SOARR wrestling located in Minnetonka, MN. I loved chatting with Matt and listening to his story. There were several times when Matt faced adversity and, instead of giving up, he chose to battle through and it paid off for him. He's a great example of why I started doing this and what this podcast is all about. So please, sit back, relax and enjoy, Matt Mincey! Beat the Streets National Information: I have partnered with Gina Perry and Beat the Streets National in hopes to help raise money for their GearUp! campaign. The GearUp! campaign aims to provide youth with a new pair of wrestling shoes, head gear, and workout clothing. We've all been touched by wrestling in some shape or form, so now let us provide the same gift wrestling gave us to those who need it most. You can donate at national.beatthestreets.org/letstalkwrestling or help spread the word about the GearUp! campaign. Thank you so much for your support!

In this episode, Tory and Grace are joined by sci-fi super fan Gina Perry to discuss Pixar's newest animated feature, Lightyear.Whatchu Watchin?!Grace - Pretty Woman & Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's ChestGina - Our Flag Means Death & POTC trilogyTory - The Wedding SingerOne Cool Shot“Buzz staring at the sunset after he returns from his first mission failure”dRUNK dISNEY: Lightyear- Drink any time someone says “Buzz” or “Lightyear”- Drink every time Buzz attempts to complete the mission- Drink every time there is a reference/easter egg from Toy Story or Star WarsPlease rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes and Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google Podcast. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs, @DisneyVs on Twitter and @DisneyVersusPodcast on Instagram

I love cooking almost as much as I love reading, and, in my opinion, a well-written cookbook can be as much fun to read as literary fiction. LA Son, Well Fed, and Back to Basics are three very different cookbooks that are all a great read in different ways. With me today are the hosts of my new favorite show, the Three Kitchens podcast. Sarah Somasundaram, Erin Walker and Heather Dyer are longtime friends and passionate home cooks. On their weekly podcast they take listeners along for a deep dive into a recipe. They talk - and laugh - through the challenges, successes and failures along the way as they tackle recipes from around the world with locally found ingredients, right in their own home kitchens. Sarah, Erin and Heather joined me today for a cookbook-palooza – each of them shared their personal favorite cookbooks and what they've learned from them. I guarantee you're gonna be starving by the end of this one. They told me about Butter Tarts (!) and I showed them a naked picture of Anthony Bourdain. It got weird.   Follow the Best Book Ever Podcast on Instagram or on the Best Book Ever Website   This episode is sponsored by Lover's Moon by Mark Leslie and Julie Strauss   Do you have a book you want to tell me about? Go HERE to apply to be a guest on the Best Book Ever Podcast.   Host: Julie Strauss Website/Instagram     Guest: Sarah, Erin, and Heather of the Three Kitchens Podcast Podcast/Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest     Discussed in this episode:   Back to Basics: 100 Simple Classic Recipes with a Twist by Michael Smith L.A. Son by Roy Choi Well Fed: Paleo Recipes for People Who Love to Eat by Melissa Joulwan Julie's Guest appearance on the Three Kitchens Podcast Three Kitchens Date Night Episode Three Kitchens Babka Episode Three Kitchens Oma's Strudel Episode Three Kitchens Bánh Xèo Episode The Chef Show on Netflix (with Roy Choi and Jon Favreau) Chef Movie Broken Bread My Last Supper: 50 Great Chefs and Their Final Meals by Melanie Dunea Absent in Spring by Mary Westmacott The Orphan Collector by Ellen Marie Wiseman The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment by Gina Perry       CONTEST INFORMATION   In celebration of the Best Book Ever 100th Episode, I'm going to invite you to join me in supporting Charnaie Gordon's work. I'm donating $100 from the Best Book Ever podcast. If you want to help, here's how to do it.   If you would like make a donation of any amount of cash or gently used books, go to 50 states 50 books dot net slash donate, and email me a screenshot of your donation to bestbookeverpodcast@gmail.com   Or you can promote her on your social media. On Instagram, post something about her work and  Tag @50States50Books and me @bestbookeverpodcast. I'm not on TikTok, Facebook or Twitter, but if you promote her work through those channels, just screenshot it and shoot me an email so I can see it.   Everyone who promotes her, whether it's through money, books, or exposure, and then lets me know about it will be entered into a drawing, and one randomly chosen winner will receive a $100 gift certificate to their favorite indie bookstore. This contest is only open to residents of the United States, no purchase necessary, and is not associated with 50 States 50 Books or any social media entity. The deadline to enter this drawing is June 30, 2022.   HOW TO SUPPORT GUN REFORM LEGISLATION IN AMERICA   Find your senators here. Find your representatives here.   I know it can sound intimidating to call a lawmaker. But your calls MATTER. Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for the office of your elected official. The person who answers your call will make note of your message and pass it on to the member of Congress. Their addresses are also listed if you would like to send something in writing. This script is easy to follow:   "Good morning. My name is _____ and I live at _____. I am a constituent and have a deep love for my community and neighbors. I urge Senator/Representative _____, as an elected official who represents me, to protect our safety by leading the way toward gun violence prevention. Specifically, I am asking Senator/Rep _____ to advocate for the The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R. Eight) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R. 1446). I will be casting my next vote based on his or her legislative response to the gun violence epidemic in America. Thank you for your time."   The highlighted portion is especially important – it's time we let our lawmakers know that if they don't vote to keep us safe from guns, they won't have a job much longer.   Please know that even if you live in a blue state, these calls and letters are still very important.   If you'd like to make a cash donation, I like these two organizations, both of which are rated highly on Charity Navigator:   Everytown.org Sandy Hook Promise   (Note: Some of the above links are affiliate links, meaning I get a few bucks off your purchase at no extra expense to you. The charity links are NOT affiliates, but they are organizations I trust and personally donate money to. Anytime you shop for books, you can use my affiliate link on Bookshop, which also supports Indie Bookstores around the country. If you're shopping for everything else – clothes, office supplies, gluten-free pasta, couches – you can use my affiliate link for Amazon. Thank you for helping to keep the Best Book Ever Podcast in business!)

I have always been intrigued by famous social experiments, like the Standford Prison Experiment, and Milgram's Obedience Experiments, so imagine my pleasure when I came across Gina Perry's ‘The Lost Boys' which outlines the Robber's Cave Experiment. My guess is you haven't heard of this one before, and that is a shame. The point of […]

Syd and Jess are excited to bring you - our newest bestie - Dr. Gina Perry.  An author, a science historian, a professor, and an all around gem, she has done extensive research into the Milgram Experiments and come out with some incredible findings that will change everything you think you know about psychological research. If you haven't already heard it, don't forget to check out Episode #3.15: The Milgram Shock Experiments!  If you want to help us grow, subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcast fix!Check out Dr. Perry's book about the Milgram Experiments: http://www.gina-perry.com/behind-the-shock/about/AND her new book is out now: http://www.gina-perry.com/the-lost-boys/reviews-the-lost-boys/[Background music: Clean Soul by Kevin MacLeod]Send us an email at: malpracticepodcast@gmail.comFollow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter: @malpracticepodcastSupport the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/malpractice)

Gina Perry, a mother of four children with PRTC Senior Athlete Richard Perry, is a writer and influential force in social media who has endless amounts of positive energy. Gina shares her behind the scenes story of what the Philadelphia wrestling community means to her. From her relationship with Rich and the PRTC to her involvement with Beat the Streets and the Overcomer Trainer Center, Gina provides a unique perspective of the sport that means so much to her family.

1. Please continue.  2. The experiment requires that you continue.  3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.  4. You have no other choice, you must go on. Gina Perry's book is Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments Say hello on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Sign up for our occasional newsletter, The Accomplice. Artwork by Julienne Alexander. Learn more about our upcoming live shows at thisiscriminal.com/live. Check out our online shop. Please review us on Apple Podcasts! It's an important way to help new listeners discover the show: iTunes.com/CriminalShow. We also make This is Love and Phoebe Reads a Mystery.

In this two-part episode, Tory and Grace are joined by previous guests and Star Wars superfans Deanna Franklin and Gina Perry and newcomer Jacob Kolodziej to discuss the “Skywalker Saga only” Star Wars Bracket.dRUNK dISNEY: Any Star Wars Movie- Drink any time someone The Force is mentioned- Drink any time a lightsaber is turned on or off- Drink any time Anakin, Luke, or Kylo Ren whinesPlease rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google Podcast. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs, @DisneyVs on Twitter and @DisneyVersusPodcast on Instagram.

In this episode, Tory and Grace are joined by Star Wars superfans Deanna Franklin, Gina Perry, and newcomer Jacob Kolodziej to conclude and pick a winner of the “Skywalker Saga only” Star Wars Bracket.dRUNK dISNEY: Any Star Wars Movie- Drink any time someone The Force is mentioned- Drink any time a lightsaber is turned on or off- Drink any time Anakin, Luke, or Kylo Ren whinesPlease rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google Podcast. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs, @DisneyVs on Twitter and @DisneyVersusPodcast on Instagram

Episode 64 - The Muppets Bracket Part 1: Christmas Carol vs. From Space (w/ Gina Perry): In this episode, Gina returns to help Tory and Grace kick off the long-awaited Muppets Bracket as they discuss The Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppets from Space.dRUNK dISNEY: The Muppet Christmas Carol- Drink at the beginning of every song- Drink every time someone says “Christmas”- Drink every time there is food on screenPlease rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes, Spotify, or Google Play Music. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs and @DisneyVs on Twitter.

Bridget and Sydney are joined by Gail Montgomery and Gina Perry of Almost Home Animal Rescue, a foster-based non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to finding loving, forever homes for homeless animals.Topics Include:How Gail and Gina got involved in animal welfareSaving over 50 animals a weekHow CUDDLY donors enable Almost Home to service the medical needs of their animalsThe story of Sadie the dogAdvice for new shelters. Start small, make a plan, and be consistentRescue crushes, and personal pet storiesBalancing mental health and shelter lifeAnd other topics...Resources Mentioned:http://almosthomeanimals.org/Want to connect with us? Follow us on social media!Instagram @welovecuddlyTwitter @welovecuddlyFacebook @welovecuddlyhttps://cuddly.com/

In this episode, Tory is joined by previous guests Gina and Ben and Disney trivia winner John to celebrate and discuss the 80th anniversary of Disney’s Fantasia.Pieces for #Fantasia3D:The Planets, Op. 32 (G. Holst)Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14 (H. Berlioz)In the Hall of the Mountain King (E. Grieg)Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550 (W.A. Mozart)Eine Alpensinfonie [An Alpine Symphony], Op. 64 (R. Strauss)Einstein on the Beach (P. Glass)Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (K. Penderecki)Symphony No. 1 (J. Corigliano)Second Suite in F (G. Holst)Equus (E. Whitacre)Stars and Stripes Forever (J.P. Sousa)The Frozen Cathedral (J. Mackey)An American in Paris (G. Gershwin)The Commando March (S. Barber)Appalachian Spring (A. Copland)Symphony No. 5, Mvt. II (P. Tchaikovsky)Boléro (M. Ravel)Fanfare for the Common Man (A. Copland)Please rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes, Spotify, or Google PodcastFollow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs and @DisneyVs on Twitter.

In this episode, Tory is joined by previous guests Gina and Ben and Disney trivia winner John to celebrate and discuss the 80th anniversary of Disney’s Fantasia.Pieces for #Fantasia3D:The Planets, Op. 32 (G. Holst)Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14 (H. Berlioz)In the Hall of the Mountain King (E. Grieg)Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550 (W.A. Mozart)Eine Alpensinfonie [An Alpine Symphony], Op. 64 (R. Strauss)Einstein on the Beach (P. Glass)Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (K. Penderecki)Symphony No. 1 (J. Corigliano)Second Suite in F (G. Holst)Equus (E. Whitacre)Stars and Stripes Forever (J.P. Sousa)The Frozen Cathedral (J. Mackey)An American in Paris (G. Gershwin)The Commando March (S. Barber)Appalachian Spring (A. Copland)Symphony No. 5, Mvt. II (P. Tchaikovsky)Boléro (M. Ravel)Fanfare for the Common Man (A. Copland)Please rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes, Spotify, or Google PodcastFollow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs and @DisneyVs on Twitter.

Every week the Distinct Nostalgia Mind of the Month quiz puts a tv, film or radio fan to the test about their chosen specialist subject. Andy Hoyle is your host and in this second programme, contestant Gina Perry answers questions about the 1970's hit comedy series Fawlty Towers. If Gina scores well and ends up in the top two after four weeks, she will take part in a play off around TV, film and radio General Knowledge. The winner is crowned Distinct Nostalgia Mind of the Month and bags a Distinct Nostalgia mug in the process. The Distinct Nostalgia Mind of the Month Quiz is produced by MIM.If you'd like to test your knowledge, go to distinctnostalgia.com and fill in the contact form. The Distinct Nostalgia Theme is composed by Rebecca Applin and Chris Warner

On New Year's Day 1963, two bodies were discovered on an Australian riverbank. Though their identities were quickly determined, weeks of intensive investigation failed to uncover a cause or motive for their deaths. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll tell the story of the Bogle-Chandler case, which riveted Australia for years. We'll also revisit the Rosenhan study and puzzle over a revealing lighthouse. Intro: Alphonse Allais' 1897 Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man is silent. In 1975 muralist Richard Haas proposed restoring the shadows of bygone Manhattan buildings. Sources for our feature on the Bogle-Chandler case: Peter Butt, Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler?, 2017. "A New Twist in the Case That Puzzled a Nation," Canberra Times, Sept. 3, 2016, 2. Damien Murphy, "New Twist in Gilbert Bogle and Margaret Chandler Murder Mystery," Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 2, 2016. Tracy Bowden, "Two Women May Hold Answer to How Dr Gilbert Bogle and Margaret Chandler Died in 1963," ABC News, Sept. 2, 2016. Tracy Bowden, "Two Women May Hold Key to Bogle-Chandler Case," 7.30, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sept. 2, 2016. Frank Walker, "Deadly Gas Firms as Chandler-Bogle Killer," Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 17, 2006, 41. D.D. McNicoll, "Riddle by the Riverside," Weekend Australian, Sept. 9, 2006, 21. Malcolm Brown, "The Gas Did It: Bogle-Chandler Theory Blames Toxic Cloud," Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 8, 2006, 3. Anna Salleh, "Bogle-Chandler Case Solved?", ABC Science, Sept. 8, 2006. Michael Edwards, "Experts Divided Over Bogle Death Theory," PM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sept. 8, 2006. Lisa Power, "Daring Affairs Came to a Gruesome End," Daily Telegraph, Sept. 7, 2006, 28. Skye Yates, "New Year's Curse," Daily Telegraph, March 26, 2001, 63. Tony Stephens, "New Year Murder Theory in Bogle Affair," Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 2, 1998, 6. Joseph Lose, "Lovers 'Poisoned', Not LSD; Bodies Found Neatly Covered," [Auckland] Sunday News, Jan. 28, 1996, 7. "Breakthrough in 30-year Murder Mystery," [Wellington, New Zealand] Sunday Star-Times, Jan. 21, 1996, A1. Jack Waterford, "Mystery Unsolved After 25 Years," Canberra Times, Jan. 1, 1988, 2. "Court Told of Close Association," Canberra Times, May 25, 1963, 3. "Chandler in Witness Box," Canberra Times, May 23, 1963, 3. "Woman Called to 2-Death Inquest," The Age, March 1, 1963. Cameron Hazlehurst, "Bogle, Gilbert Stanley (1924–1963)," Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 13, 1993. Malcolm Brown, "Sweeney, Basil (1925–2009)," Obituaries Australia, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University (accessed March 2, 2020). Listener mail: Vaughan Bell, "I Seem to Be What I'm Not (You See)," Lancet Psychiatry 7:3 (March 1, 2020), 242. Roderick David Buchanan, "The Great Pretender: The Undercover Mission That Changed Our Understanding of Madness," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 56:1 (Winter 2020), 52-53. Jennifer Szalai, "Investigating a Famous Study About the Line Between Sanity and Madness," New York Times, Nov. 27, 2019. Emily Eakin, "Her Illness Was Misdiagnosed as Madness. Now Susannah Cahalan Takes on Madness in Medicine," New York Times, Nov. 2, 2019. Hans Pols, "Undercover in the Asylum," Science, Nov. 8, 2019, 697. Gina Perry, "Deception and Illusion in Milgram's Accounts of the Obedience Experiments," Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2 (2013), 79-92. Hannah Dwan, "Fighting Baseball on the SNES Had Some of the Funniest Names in Gaming," Telegraph, Oct. 5, 2017. Wikipedia, "MLBPA Baseball" (accessed March 7, 2020). This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Steven Jones. Here's a corroborating link (warning -- this spoils the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

Girl talk at the Dan Gable Museum. We hear personal stories from athletes often. However, we rarely get the opportunity to listen to the perspective of an athlete's wife. In this episode we sit down with Gina Perry and discuss Rich's accident at the 2018 USA Wrestling training camp. This story is one about OVERCOMING despite the odds. It is inspirational and centered around faith, the wrestling community, and family. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/girltalkatthedgm/support

[This is the text of a lecture that I delivered at Tilburg University on the 24th of September 2019. It was delivered as part of the 25th Anniversary celebrations for TILT (Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society). My friend and colleague Sven Nyholm was the discussant for the evening. The lecture is based on my longer academic article ‘Welcoming Robots into the Moral Circle: A Defence of Ethical Behaviourism’ but was written from scratch and presents some key arguments in a snappier and clearer form. I also include a follow up section responding to criticisms from the audience on the evening of the lecture. My thanks to all those involved in organizing the event (Aviva de Groot, Merel Noorman and Silvia de Conca in particular). You can download an audio version of this lecture, minus the reflections and follow ups, here or listen to it above]1. IntroductionMy lecture this evening will be about the conditions under which we should welcome robots into our moral communities. Whenever I talk about this, I am struck by how much my academic career has come to depend upon my misspent youth for its inspiration. Like many others, I was obsessed with science fiction as a child, and in particular with the representation of robots in science fiction. I had two favourite, fictional, robots. The first was R2D2 from the original Star Wars trilogy. The second was Commander Data from Star Trek: the Next Generation. I liked R2D2 because of his* personality - courageous, playful, disdainful of authority - and I liked Data because the writers of Star Trek used him as a vehicle for exploring some important philosophical questions about emotion, humour, and what it means to be human.In fact, I have to confess that Data has had an outsized influence on my philosophical imagination and has featured in several of my academic papers. Part of the reason for this was practical. When I grew up in Ireland we didn’t have many options to choose from when it came to TV. We had to make do with what was available and, as luck would have it, Star Trek: TNG was on every day when I came home from school. As a result, I must have watched each episode of its 7-season run multiple times.One episode in particular has always stayed with me. It was called ‘Measure of a Man’. In it, a scientist from the Federation visits the Enterprise because he wants to take Data back to his lab to study him. Data, you see, is a sophisticated human-like android, created by a lone scientific genius, under somewhat dubious conditions. The Federation scientist wants to take Data apart and see how he works with a view to building others like him. Data, unsurprisingly, objects. He argues that he is not just a machine or piece of property that can be traded and disassembled to suit the whims of human beings. He has his own, independent moral standing. He deserves to be treated with dignity.But how does Data prove his case? A trial ensues and evidence is given on both sides. The prosecution argue that Data is clearly just a piece of property. He was created not born. He doesn’t think or see the world like a normal human being (or, indeed, other alien species). He even has an ‘off switch’. Data counters by giving evidence of the rich relationships he has formed with his fellow crew members and eliciting testimony from others regarding his behaviour and the interactions they have with him. Ultimately, he wins the case. The court accepts that he has moral standing.Now, we can certainly lament the impact that science fiction has on the philosophical debate about robots. As David Gunkel observes in his 2018 book Robot Rights:“[S]cience fiction already — and well in advance of actual engineering practice — has established expectations for what a robot is or can be. Even before engineers have sought to develop working prototypes, writers, artists, and filmmakers have imagined what robots do or can do, what configurations they might take, and what problems they could produce for human individuals and communities.”  (Gunkel 2018, 16)He continues, noting that this is a “potential liability” because:“science fiction, it is argued, often produces unrealistic expectations for and irrational fears about robots that are not grounded in or informed by actual science.” (Gunkel 2018, 18)I certainly heed this warning. But, nevertheless, I think the approach taken by the TNG writers in the episode ‘Measure of a Man’ is fundamentally correct. Even if we cannot currently create a being like Data, and even if the speculation is well in advance of the science, they still give us the correct guide to resolving the philosophical question of when to welcome robots into our moral community. Or so, at least, I shall argue in the remainder of this lecture.2. Tribalism and Conflict in Robot EthicsBefore I get into my own argument, let me say something about the current lay of the land when it comes to this issue. Some of you might be familiar with the famous study by the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif. It was done in the early 1950s at a summer camp in Robber’s Cave, Oklahoma. Suffice to say, it is one of those studies that wouldn’t get ethics approval nowadays. Sherif and his colleagues were interested in tribalism and conflict. They wanted to see how easy it would be to get two groups of 11-year old boys to divide into separate tribes and go to war with one another. It turned out to be surprisingly easy. By arbitrarily separating the boys into two groups, giving them nominal group identity (the ‘Rattlers’ and the ‘Eagles’), and putting them into competition with each other, Sherif and his research assistants sowed the seeds for bitter and repeated conflict.The study has become a classic, repeatedly cited as evidence of how easy it is for humans to get trapped in intransigent group conflicts. I mention it here because, unfortunately, it seems to capture what has happened with the debate about the potential moral standing of robots. The disputants have settled into two tribes. There are those that are ‘anti’ the idea; and there are those that are ‘pro’ the idea. The members of these tribes sometimes get into heated arguments with one another, particularly on Twitter (which, admittedly, is a bit like a digital equivalent of Sherif’s summer camp).Those that are ‘anti’ the idea would include Noel Sharkey, Amanda Sharkey, Deborah Johnson, Aimee van Wynsberghe and the most recent lecturer in this series, Joanna Bryson. They cite a variety of reasons for their opposition. The Sharkeys, I suspect, think the whole debate is slightly ridiculous because current robots clearly lack the capacity for moral standing, and debating their moral standing distracts from the important issues in robot ethics - namely stopping the creation and use of robots that are harmful to human well-being. Deborah Johnson would argue that since robots can never experience pain or suffering they will never have moral standing. Van Wynsberghe and Bryson are maybe a little different and lean more heavily on the idea that even if it were possible to create robots with moral standing — a possibility that Bryson at least is willing to concede — it would be a very bad idea to do so because it would cause considerable moral and legal disruption.Those that are pro the idea would include Kate Darling, Mark Coeckelbergh, David Gunkel, Erica Neely, and Daniel Estrada. Again, they cite a variety of reasons for their views. Darling is probably the weakest on the pro side. She focuses on humans and thinks that even if robots themselves lack moral standing we should treat them as if they had moral standing because that would be better for us. Coeckelbergh and Gunkel are more provocative, arguing that in settling questions of moral standing we should focus less on the intrinsic capacities of robots and more on how we relate to them. If those relations are thick and meaningful, then perhaps we should accept that robots have moral standing. Erica Neely proceeds from a principle of moral precaution, arguing that even if we are unsure of the moral standing of robots we should err on the side of over-inclusivity rather than under-inclusivity when it comes to this issue: it is much worse to exclude a being with moral standing to include one without. Estrada is almost the polar opposite of Bryson, welcoming the moral and legal disruption that embracing robots would entail because it would loosen the stranglehold of humanism on our ethical code.To be clear, this is just a small sample of those who have expressed an opinion about this topic. There are many others that I just don’t have time to discuss. I should, however, say something here about this evening’s discussant, Sven and his views on the matter. I had the fortune of reading a manuscript of Sven’s forthcoming book Humans, Robots and Ethics. It is an excellent and entertaining contribution to the field of robot ethics and in it Sven shares his own views on the moral standing of robots. I’m sure he will explain them later on but, for the time being, I would tentatively place him somewhere near Kate Darling on this map: he thinks we should be open to the idea of treating robots as if they had moral standing, but not because of what the robots themselves are but because of what respecting them says about our attitudes to other humans.And what of myself? Where do I fit in all of this? People would probably classify me as belonging to the pro side. I have argued that we should be open to the idea that robots have moral standing. But I would much prefer to transcend this tribalistic approach to the issue. I am not advocate for the moral standing of robots. I think many of the concerns raised by those on the anti side are valid. Debating the moral standing of robots can seem, at times, ridiculous and a distraction from other important questions in robot ethics; and accepting them into our moral communities will, undoubtedly, lead to some legal and moral disruption (though I would add that not all disruption is a bad thing). That said, I do care about the principles we should use to decide questions of moral standing, and I think that those on the anti of the debate sometimes use bad arguments to support their views. This is why, in the remainder of this lecture, I will defend a particular approach to settling the question of the moral standing of robots. I do so in the hope that this can pave the way to a more fruitful and less tribalistic debate.In this sense, I am trying to return to what may be the true lesson of Sherif’s famous experiment on tribalism. In her fascinating book The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment, Gina Perry has revealed the hidden history behind Sherif’s work. It turns out that Sherif tried to conduct the exact same experiment as he did in Robber’s Cave one year before in Middle Grove, New York. It didn’t work out. No matter what the experimenters did to encourage conflict, the boys refused to get sucked into it. Why was this? One suggestion is that at Middle Grove, Sherif didn’t sort the boys into two arbitrary groups as soon as they arrived. They were given the chance to mingle and get to know one another before being segregated. This initial intermingling may have inoculated them from tribalism. Perhaps we can do the same thing with philosophical dialogue? I live in hope.3. In Defence of Ethical BehaviourismThe position I wish to defend is something I call ‘ethical behaviourism’. According to this view, the behavioural representations of another entity toward you are a sufficient ground for determining their moral status. Or, to put it slightly differently, how an entity looks and acts is enough to determine its moral status. If it looks and acts like a duck, then you should probably treat it like you treat any other duck.Ethical behaviourism works through comparisons. If you are unsure of the moral status of a particular entity — for present purposes this will be a robot but it should be noted that ethical behaviourism has broader implications — then you should compare its behaviours to that of another entity that is already agreed to have moral status — a human or an animal. If the robot is roughly performatively equivalent to that other entity, then it too has moral status. I say “roughly” since no two entities are ever perfectly equivalent. If you compared two adult human beings you would spot performative differences between them, but this wouldn’t mean that one of them lacks moral standing as a result. The equivalence test is an inexact one, not an exact one.There is nothing novel in ethical behaviourism. It is, in effect, just a moral variation of the famous Turing Test for machine intelligence. Where Turing argued that we should assess intelligence on the basis of behaviour, I am arguing that we should determine moral standing on the basis of behaviour. It is also not a view that is original to me. Others have defended similar views, even if they haven’t explicitly labelled it as such.Despite the lack of novelty, ethical behaviourism is easily misunderstood and frequently derided. So let me just clarify a couple of points. First, note that it is a practical and epistemic thesis about how we can settle questions of moral standing; it is not an abstract metaphysical thesis about what it is that grounds moral standing. So, for example, someone could argue that the capacity to feel pain is the metaphysical grounding for moral status and that this capacity depends on having a certain mental apparatus. The ethical behaviourist can agree with this. They will just argue that the best evidence we have for determining whether an entity has the capacity to feel pain is behavioural. Furthermore, ethical behaviourism is agnostic about the broader consequences of its comparative tests. To say that one entity should have the same moral standing as another entity does not mean both are entitled to a full set of legal and moral rights. That depends on other considerations. A goat could have moral standing, but that doesn’t mean it has the right to own property. This is important because when I am arguing that we should apply this approach to robots and I am not thereby endorsing a broader claim that we should grant robots legal rights or treat them like adult human beings. This depends on who or what the robots is being compared to.So what’s the argument for ethical behaviourism? I have offered different formulations of this but for this evening’s lecture I suggest that it consists of three key propositions or premises.(P1) The most popular criteria for moral status are dependent on mental states or capacities, e.g. theories focused on sentience, consciousness, having interests, agency, and personhood.(P2) The best evidence — and oftentimes the only practicable evidence — for the satisfaction of these criteria is behavioural.(P3) Alternative alleged grounds of moral status or criteria for determining moral status either fail to trump or dislodge the sufficiency of the behavioural evidence.Therefore, ethical behaviourism is correct: behaviour provides a sufficient basis for settling questions of moral status.I take it that the first premise of this argument is uncontroversial. Even if you think there are other grounds for moral status, I suspect you agree that an entity with sentience or consciousness (etc) has some kind of moral standing. The second premise is more controversial but is, I think, undeniable. It’s a trite observation but I will make it anyway: We don’t have direct access to one another’s minds. I cannot crawl inside your head and see if you really are experiencing pain or suffering. The only thing I have to go on is how you behave and react to the world. This is true, by the way, even if I can scan your brain and see whether the pain-perceiving part of it lights up. This is because the only basis we have for verifying the correlations between functional activity in the brain and mental states is behavioural. What I mean is that scientists ultimately verify those correlations by asking people in the brain scanners what they are feeling. So all premise (2) is saying is that if the most popular theories of moral status are to work in practice, it can only be because we use behavioural evidence to guide their application.That brings us to premise (3): that all other criteria fail to dislodge the importance of behavioural evidence. This is the most controversial one. Many people seem to passionately believe that there are other ways of determining moral status and indeed they argue that relying on behavioural evidence would be absurd. Consider these two recent Twitter comments on an article I wrote about ethical behaviourism and how it relates to animals and robots:First comment: “[This is] Errant #behaviorist #materialist nonsense…Robots are inanimate even if they imitate animal behavior. They don’t want or care about anything. But knock yourself out. Put your toaster in jail if it burns your toast.”Second comment: “If I give a hammer a friendly face so some people feel emotionally attached to it, it still remains a tool #AnthropomorphicFallacy”These are strong statements, but they are not unusual. I encounter this kind of criticism quite frequently. But why? Why are people so resistant to ethical behaviourism? Why do they think that there must be something more to how we determine moral status? Let’s consider some of the most popular objections.4. Objections and RepliesIn a recent paper, I suggested that there were seven (more, depending on how you count) major objections to ethical behaviourism. I won’t review all seven here, but I will consider four of the most popular ones. Each of these objections should be understood as an attempt to argue that behavioural evidence by itself cannot suffice for determining moral standing. Other evidence matters as well and can ‘defeat’ the behavioural evidence.(A) The Material Cause ObjectionThe first objection is that the ontology of an entity makes a difference to its moral standing. To adopt the Aristotelian language, we can say that the material cause of an entity (i.e. what it is made up of) matters more than behaviour when it comes to moral standing. So, for example, someone could argue that robots lack moral standing because they are not biological creatures. They are not made from the same ‘wet’ organic components as human beings or animals. Even if they are performatively equivalent to human beings or animals, this ontological difference scuppers any claim they might have to moral standing.I find this objection unpersuasive. It smacks to me of biological mysterianism. Why exactly does being made of particular organic material make such a crucial difference? Imagine if your spouse, the person you live with everyday, was suddenly revealed to be an alien from the Andromeda galaxy. Scientists conduct careful tests and determine that they are not a carbon-based lifeform. They are made from something different, perhaps silicon. Despite this, they still look and act in the same way as they always have (albeit now with some explaining to do). Would the fact that they are made of different stuff mean that they no longer warrant any moral standing in your eyes? Surely not. Surely the behavioural evidence suggesting that they still care about you and still have the mental capacities you used to associate with moral standing would trump the new evidence you have regarding their ontology. I know non-philosophers dislike thought experiments of this sort, finding them to be slightly ridiculous and far-fetched. Nevertheless, I do think they are vital in this context because they suggest that behaviour does all the heavy lifting when it comes to assessing moral standing. In other words, behaviour matters more than matter. This is also, incidentally, one reason why it is wrong to say that ethical behaviourism is a ‘materialist’ view: ethical behaviourism is actually agnostic regarding the ontological instantiation of the capacities that ground moral status; it is concerned only with the evidence that is sufficient for determining their presence.All that said, I am willing to make one major concession to the material cause objection. I will concede that ontology might provide an alternative, independent ground for determining the moral status of an entity. Thus, we might accept that an entity that is made from the right biological stuff has moral standing, even if they lack the behavioural sophistication we usually require for moral standing. So, for example someone in a permanent coma might have moral standing because of what they are made of, and not because of what they can do. Still, all this shows is that being made of the right stuff is an independent sufficient ground for moral standing, not that it is a necessary ground for moral standing. The latter is what would need to be proved to undermine ethical behaviourism.(B) The Efficient Cause ObjectionThe second objection is that how an entity comes into existence makes a difference to its moral standing. To continue the Aristotelian theme, we can say that the efficient cause of existence is more important than the unfolding reality. This is an objection that the philosopher Michael Hauskeller hints at in his work. Hauskeller doesn’t focus on moral standing per se, but does focus on when we can be confident that another entity cares for us or loves us. He concedes that behaviour seems like the most important thing when addressing this issue — what else could caring be apart from caring behaviour? — but then resiles from this by arguing that how the being came into existence can undercut the behavioural evidence. So, for example, a robot might act as if it cares about you, but when you learn that the robot was created and manufactured by a team of humans to act as if it cares for you, then you have reason to doubt the sincerity of its behaviour.It could be that what Hauskeller is getting at here is that behavioural evidence can often be deceptive and misleading. If so, I will deal with this concern in a moment. But it could also be that he thinks that the mere fact that a robot was programmed and manufactured, as opposed to being evolved and developed, makes a crucial difference to moral standing. If that is what he is claiming, then it is hard to see why we should take it seriously. Again, imagine if your spouse told you that they were not conceived and raised in the normal way. They were genetically engineered in a lab and then carefully trained and educated. Having learned this, would you take a new view of their moral standing? Surely not. Surely, once again, how they actually behave towards you — and not how they came into existence — would be what ultimately mattered. We didn’t deny the first in vitro baby moral standing simply because she came into existence in a different way from ordinary human beings. The same principle should apply to robots.Furthermore, if this is what Hauskeller is arguing, it would provide us with an unstable basis on which to make crucial judgments of moral standing. After all, the differences between humans and robots with respect to their efficient causes is starting to breakdown. Increasingly, robots are not being programmed and manufactured from the top-down to follow specific rules. They are instead given learning algorithms and then trained on different datasets with the process sometimes being explicitly modeled on evolution and childhood development. Similarly, humans are increasingly being designed and programmed from the top down, through artificial reproduction, embryo selection and, soon, genetic engineering. You may object to all this tinkering with the natural processes of human development and conception. But I think you would be hard pressed to deny a human that came into existence as a result of these process the moral standing you ordinarily give to other human beings.(C) The Final Cause ObjectionThe third objection is that the purposes an entity serves and how it is expected to fulfil those purposes makes a difference to its moral standing. This is an objection that Joanna Bryson favours in her work. In several papers, she has argued that because robots will be designed to fulfil certain purposes on our behalf (i.e. they will be designed to serve us) and because they will be owned and controlled by us in the process, they should not have moral standing. Now, to be fair, Bryson is more open to the possibility of robot moral standing than most. She has said, on several occasions, that it is possible to create robots that have moral standing. She just thinks that that this should not happen, in part because they will be owned and controlled by us, and because they will be (and perhaps should be) designed to serve our ends.I don’t think there is anything in this that dislodges or upsets ethical behaviourism. For one thing, I find it hard to believe that the fact that an entity has been designed to fulfil a certain purpose should make a crucial difference to its moral standing. Suppose, in the future, human parents can genetically engineer their offspring to fulfil certain specific ends. For example, they can select genes that will guarantee (with the right training regime) that their child will be a successful athlete (this is actually not that dissimilar to what some parents try to do nowadays). Suppose they succeed. Would this fact alone undermine the child’s claim to moral standing? Surely not, and surely the same standard should apply to a robot. If it is performatively equivalent to another entity with moral standing, then the mere fact that it has been designed to fulfil a specific purpose should not affect its moral standing.Related to this, it is hard to see why the fact that we might own and control robots should make a critical difference to their moral standing. If anything, this inverts the proper order of moral justification. The fact that a robot looks and acts like another entity that we believe to have moral standing should cause us to question our approach to ownership and control, not vice versa. We once thought it was okay for humans to own and control other humans. We were wrong to think this because it ignored the moral standing of those other humans.That said, there are nuances here. Many people think that animals have some moral standing (i.e. that we need to respect their welfare and well-being) but that it is not wrong to own them or attempt to control them. The same approach might apply to robots if they are being compared to animals. This is the crucial point about ethical behaviourism: the ethical consequences of accepting that a robot is performatively equivalent to another entity with moral standing depends, crucially, on who or what that other entity is.(D) The Deception ObjectionThe fourth objection is that ethical behaviourism cannot work because it is too easy to be deceived by behavioural cues. A robot might look and act like it is in pain, but this could just be a clever trick, used by its manufacturer, to foster false sympathy. This is, probably, the most important criticism of ethical behaviourism. It is what I think lurks behind the claim that ethical behaviourism is absurd and must be resisted.It is well-known that humans have a tendency toward hasty anthropomorphism. That is, we tend to ascribe human-like qualities to features of our environment without proper justification. We anthropomorphise the weather, our computers, the trees and the plants, and so forth. It is easy to ‘hack’ this tendency toward hasty anthropomorphism. As social roboticists know, putting a pair of eyes on a robot can completely change how a human interacts with it, even if the robot cannot see anything. People worry, consequently, that ethical behaviourism is easily exploited by nefarious technology companies.I sympathise with the fear that motivates this objection. It is definitely true that behaviour can be misleading or deceptive. We are often misled by the behaviour of our fellow humans. To quote Shakespeare, someone can ‘smile and smile and be a villain’. But what is the significance of this fact when it comes to assessing moral status? To me, the significance is that it means we should be very careful when assessing the behavioural evidence that is used to support a claim about moral status. We shouldn’t extrapolate too quickly from one behaviour. If a robot looks and acts like it is in pain (say) that might provide some warrant for thinking it has moral status, but we should examine its behavioural repertoire in more detail. It might emerge that other behaviours are inconsistent with the hypothesis that it feels pain or suffering.The point here, however, is that we are always using other behavioural evidence to determine whether the initial behavioural evidence was deceptive or misleading. We are not relying on some other kind of information. Thus, for example, I think it would be a mistake to conclude that a robot cannot feel pain, even though it performs as if it does, because the manufacturer of the robot tells us that it was programmed to do this, or because some computer engineer can point to some lines of code that are responsible for the pain performance. That evidence by itself — in the absence of other countervailing behavioural evidence — cannot undermine the behavioural evidence suggesting that the robot does feel pain. Think about it like this: imagine if a biologist came to you and told you that evolution had programmed the pain response into humans in order to elicit sympathy from fellow humans. What’s more, imagine if a neuroscientist came to you and and told you she could point to the exact circuit in the brain that is responsible for the human pain performance (and maybe even intervene in and disrupt it). What they say may well be true, but it wouldn’t mean that the behavioural evidence suggesting that your fellow humans are in pain can be ignored.This last point is really the crucial bit. This is what is most distinctive about the perspective of ethical behaviourism. The tendency to misunderstand it, ignore it, or skirt around it, is why I think many people on the ‘anti’ side of the debate make bad arguments.5. Implications and ConclusionsThat’s all I will say in defence of ethical behaviourism this evening. Let me conclude by addressing some of its implications and heading off some potential misunderstandings.First, let me re-emphasise that ethical behaviourism is about the principles we should apply when assessing the moral standing of robots. In defending it, I am not claiming that robots currently have moral standing or, indeed, that they will ever have moral standing. I think this is possible, indeed probable, but I could be wrong. The devil is going to be in the detail of the behavioural tests we apply (just as it is with the Turing test for intelligence).Second, there is nothing in ethical behaviourism that suggests that we ought to create robots that cross the performative threshold to moral standing. It could be, as people like Bryson and Van Wysnberghe argue, that this is a very bad idea: that it will be too disruptive of existing moral and legal norms. What ethical behaviourism does suggest, however, is that there is an ethical weight to the decision to create human-like and animal-like robots that may be underappreciated by robot manufacturers.Third, acknowledging the potential risks, there are also potential benefits to creating robots that cross the performative threshold. Ethical behaviourism can help to reveal a value to relationships with robots that is otherwise hidden. If I am right, then robots can be genuine objects of moral affection, friendship and love, under the right conditions. In other words, just as there are ethical risks to creating human-like and animal-like robots, there are also ethical rewards and these tend to be ignored, ridiculed or sidelined in the current debate.Fourth, and related to this previous point, the performative threshold that robots have to cross in order to unlock the different kinds of value might vary quite a bit. The performative threshold needed to attain basic moral standing might be quite low; the performative threshold needed to say that a robot can be a friend or a partner might be substantially higher. A robot might have to do relatively little to convince us that it should be treated with moral consideration, but it might have to do a lot to convince us that it is our friend.These are topics that I have explored in greater detail in some of my papers, but they are also topics that Sven has explored at considerable length. Indeed, several chapters of his forthcoming book are dedicated to them. So, on that note, it is probably time for me to shut up and hand over to him and see what he has to say about all of this.Reflections and Follow Ups After I delivered the above lecture, my colleague and friend Sven Nyholm gave a response and there were some questions and challenges from the audience. I cannot remember every question that was raised, but I thought I would respond to a few that I can remember.1. The Randomisation CounterexampleOne audience member (it was Nathan Wildman) presented an interesting counterexample to my claim that other kinds of evidence don’t defeat or undermine the behavioural evidence for moral status. He argued that we could cook-up a possible scenario in which our knowledge of the origins of certain behaviours did cause us to question whether it was sufficient for moral status.He gave the example of a chatbot that was programmed using a randomisation technique. The chatbot would generate text at random (perhaps based on some source dataset). Most of the time the text is gobbledygook but on maybe one occasion it just happens to have a perfectly intelligible conversation with you. In other words, whatever is churned out by the randomisation algorithm happens to perfectly coincide with what would be intelligible in that context (like picking up a meaningful book in Borges’s Library of Babel). This might initially cause you to think it has some significant moral status, but if the computer programmer came along and told you about the randomisation process underlying the programming you would surely change your opinion. So, on this occasion, it looks like information about the causal origins of the behaviour, makes a difference to moral status.Response: This is a clever counterexample but I think it overlooks two critical points. First, it overlooks the point I make about avoiding hasty anthropomorphisation towards the end of my lecture. I think we shouldn’t extrapolate too much from just one interaction with a robot. We should conduct a more thorough investigation of the robot’s (or in this case the chatbot’s) behaviours. If the intelligible conversation was just a one-off, then we will quickly be disabused of our belief that it has moral status. But if it turns out that the intelligible conversation was not a one-off, then I don’t think the evidence regarding the randomisation process would have any such effect. The computer programmer could shout and scream as much as he/she likes about the randomisation algorithm, but I don’t think this would suffice to undermine the consistent behavioural evidence. This links to a second, and perhaps deeper metaphysical point I would like to make: we don’t really know what the true material instantiation of the mind is (if it is indeed material). We think the brain and its functional activity is pretty important, but we will probably never have a fully satisfactory theory of the relationship between matter and mind. This is the core of the hard problem of consciousness. Given this, it doesn’t seem wise or appropriate to discount the moral status of this hypothetical robot just because it is built on a randomisation algorithm. Indeed, if such a robot existed, it might give us reason to think that randomisation was one of the ways in which a mind could be functionally instantiated in the real world.I should say that this response ignores the role of moral precaution in assessing moral standing. If you add a principle of moral precaution to the mix, then it may be wrong to favour a more thorough behavioural test. This is something I discuss a bit in my article on ethical behaviourism.2. The Argument confuses how we know X is valuable with what makes X actually valuableOne point that Sven stressed in his response, and which he makes elsewhere too, is that my argument elides or confuses two separate things: (i) how we know whether something is of value and (ii) what it is that makes it valuable. Another way of putting it: I provide a decision-procedure for deciding who or what has moral status but I don’t thereby specify what it is that makes them have moral status. It could be that the capacity to feel pain is what makes someone have moral standing and that we know someone feels pain through their behaviour, but this doesn’t mean that they have moral standing because of their behaviour.Response: This is probably a fair point. I may on occasion elide these two things. But my feeling is that this is a ‘feature’ rather than a ‘bug’ in my account. I’m concerned with how we practically assess and apply principles of moral standing in the real world, and not so much with what it is that metaphysically undergirds moral standing.3. Proxies for Behaviour versus Proxies for MindAnother comment (and I apologise for not remembering who gave it) is that on my theory behaviour is important but only because it is a proxy for something else, namely some set of mental states or capacities. This is similar to the point Sven is making in his criticism. If that’s right, then I am wrong to assume that behaviour is the only (or indeed the most important) proxy for mental states. Other kinds of evidence serve as proxies for mental states. The example was given of legal trials where the prosecution is trying to prove what the mental status of the defendant was at the time of an offence. They don’t just rely on behavioural evidence. They also rely on other kinds of forensic evidence to establish this.Response: I don’t think this is true and this gets to a deep feature of my theory. To take the criminal trial example, I don’t think it is true to say that we use other kinds of evidence as proxies for mental states. I think we use them as proxies for behaviour which we then use as proxies for mental states. In other words, the actual order of inference goes:Other evidence → behaviour → mental stateAnd not:Other evidence → mental stateThis is the point I was getting at in my talk when I spoke about how we make inferences from functional brain activity to mental state. I believe what happens when we draw a link between brain activity and mental state, what we are really doing is this:Brain state → behaviour → mental stateAnd notBrain state → mental state.Now, it is, of course, true to say that sometimes scientists think we can make this second kind of inference. For example, purveyors of brain based lie detection tests (and, indeed, other kinds of lie detection test) try to draw a direct line of inference from a brain state to a mental state, but I would argue that this is only because they have previously verified their testing protocol by following the “brain state → behaviour → mental state” route and confirming that it is reliable across multiple tests. This gives them the confidence to drop the middle step on some occasions, but ultimately this is all warranted (if it is, in fact, warranted – brain-based lie detection is controversial) because the scientists first took the behavioural step. To undermine my view, you would have to show that it is possible to cut out the behavioural step in this inference pattern. I don’t think this can be done, but perhaps I can be proved wrong.This is perhaps the most metaphysical aspect of my view.4. Default Settings and PracticalitiesAnother point that came up in conversation with Sven, Merel Noorman and Silvia de Conca, had to do with the default assumptions we are likely to have when dealing with robots and how this impacts on the practicalities of robots being accepting into the moral circle. In other words, even if I am right in some abstract, philosophical sense, will anyone actually follow the behavioural test I advocate? Won’t there be a lot of resistance to it in reality?Now, as I mentioned in my lecture, I am not an activist for robot rights or anything of the sort. I am interested in the general principles we should apply when settling questions of moral status; not with whether a particular being, such as a robot, has acquired moral status. That said, implicit views about the practicalities of applying the ethical behaviourist test may play an important role in some of the arguments I am making.One example of this has to do with the ‘default’ assumption we have when interpreting the behaviour of humans/animals vis-à-vis robots. We tend to approach humans and animals with an attitude of good faith, i.e. we assume their each of their outward behaviours is a sincere representation of their inner state of mind. It’s only if we receive contrary evidence that we will start to doubt the sincerity of the behaviour.But what default assumption do we have when confronting robots? It seems plausible to suggest that most people will approach them with an attitude of bad faith. They will assume that their behaviours are representative of nothing at all and will need a lot of evidence to convince them that they should be granted some weight. This suggests that (a) not all behavioural evidence is counted equally and (b) it might be very difficult, in practice, for robots to be accepted into the moral circle. #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Response: I don’t see this as a criticism of ethical behaviourism but, rather, a warning to anyone who wishes to promote it. In other words, I accept that people will resist ethical behaviourism and may treat robots with greater suspicion than human or animal agents. One of the key points of this lecture and the longer academic article I wrote about the topic was to address this suspicion and skepticism. Nevertheless, the fact that there may be these practical difficulties does not mean that ethical behaviourism is incorrect. In this respect, it is worth noting that Turing was acutely aware of this problem when he originally formulated his 'Imitation Game' test. The reason why the test was purely text-based in its original form was to prevent human-centric biases affecting its operation.5. Ethical Mechanicism vs Ethical Behaviourism After I posted this article, Natesh Ganesh posted a critique of my handling of the deception objection on Twitter. He made two interesting points. First, he argued that the thought experiment I used to dismiss the deception objection was misleading and circular. If a scientist revealed the mechanisms underlying my own pain performances I would have no reason to doubt that the pain was genuine since I already know that someone with my kind of neural circuitry can experience pain. If they revealed the mechanisms underlying a robot’s pain performances things would be different because I do not yet have a reason to think that a being with that kind of mechanism can experience genuine pain. As a result, the thought experiment is circular because only somebody who already accepted ethical behaviourism would be so dismissive of the mechanistic evidence. Here’s how Natesh expresses the point:“the analogy in the last part [the response to the deception objection] seems flawed. Showing me the mechanisms of pain in entities (like humans) who we share similar mechanisms with & agree have moral standing is different from showing me the mechanisms of entities (like robots) whose moral standing we are trying to determine. Denying experience of pain in the 1st simply because I now know the circuitry would imply denying your own pain & hence moral standing. But accepting/ denying the 2nd if its a piece of code implicitly depends on whether you already accept/deny ethical behaviorism. It is just circular to appeal to that example as evidence.”He then follows up with a second point (implicit in what was just said) about the importance of mechanical similarities between entities when it comes to assessing moral standing:“I for one am more likely to [believe] a robot can experience pain if it shows the behavior & the manufacturer opened it up & showed me the circuitry and if that was similar to my own (different material perhaps) I am more likely to accept the robot experiences pain. In this case once again I needed machinery on top of behavior.”What I would say here, is that Natesh, although not completely dismissive of the importance of behaviour to assessing moral standing, is a fan of ethical mechanicism, and not ethical behaviourism. He thinks you must have mechanical similarity (equivalence?) before you can conclude that two entities share moral standing.Response: On the charge of circularity, I don’t think this is quite fair. The thought experiment I propose when responding to the deception objection is, like all thought experiments, intended to be an intuition pump. The goal is to imagine a situation in which you could describe and intervene in the mechanical underpinning of a pain performance with great precision (be it a human pain performance or otherwise) and ask whether the mere fact that you could describe the mechanism in detail or intervene in it would be make a difference to the entity’s moral standing. My intuitions suggest it wouldn’t make a difference, irrespective of the details of the mechanism (this is the point I make, above, in relation to the example given by Nathan Wildman about the robot whose behaviour is the result of a random-number generator programme). Perhaps other people’s intuitions are pumped in a different direction. That can happen but it doesn’t mean the thought experiment is circular.What about the importance of mechanisms in addition to behaviour? This is something I address in more detail in the academic paper. I have two thoughts about it. First, I could just bite the bullet and agree that the underlying mechanisms must be similar too. This would just add an additional similarity test to the assessment of moral status. There would then be similar questions as to how similar the mechanisms must be. Is it enough if they are, roughly, functionally similar or must they have the exact same sub-components and processes? If the former, then it still seems possible in principle for roboticists to create a functionally similar underlying mechanism and this could then ground moral standing for robots.Second, despite this, I would still push back against the claim that similar underlying mechanisms are necessary. This strikes me as being just a conservative prejudgment rather than a good reason for denying moral status to behaviourally equivalent entities. Why are we so confident that only entities with our neurological mechanisms (or something very similar) can experience pain (or instantiate the other mental properties relevant to moral standing)? Or, to put it less controversially, why should we be so confident that mechanical similarity undercuts behavioural similarity? If there is an entity that looks and acts like it is in pain (or has interests, a sense of personhood, agency etc), and all the behavioural tests confirm this, then why deny it moral standing because of some mechanical differences?Part of the resistance here could be that people are confusing two different claims:Claim 1: it is impossible (physically, metaphysically) for an entity that lacks sufficient mechanical similarity (with humans/animals) to have the behavioural sophistication we associate with experiencing pain, having agency etc.Claim 2: an entity that has the behavioural sophistication we associate with experiencing pain, having agency (etc) but then lacks mechanical similarity to other entities with such behavioural sophistication, should be denied moral standing because they lack mechanical similarity.Ethical behaviourism denies claim 2, but it does not, necessarily, deny claim 1. It could be the case that mechanical similarity is essential for behavioural similarity. This is something that can only be determined after conducting the requisite behavioural tests. The point, as always throughout my defence of the position, is that the behavioural evidence should be our guide. This doesn’t mean that other kinds of evidence are irrelevant but simply that they do not carry as much weight. My sense is that people who favour ethical mechanicism have a very strong intuition in favour of claim 1, which they then carry over into support for claim 2. This carry over is not justified as the two claims are not logically equivalent.Subscribe to the newsletter

This week, we take a look at 2 notable post world war 2 social psychology experiments and their creators: Stanley Milgram and his "shock machine", and Muzafer Sherif's boys camp study on group conflict. How did these scientists approach their work? How did the experiments run? How do the experiments hold up? How did people feel then about the ethics of them, and how do we feel now? We are joined by registered psychologist and author Gina Perry, who has written a book each on these men: "Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments",...

In 1954 a social psychologist started a war between two teams of fifth graders at an Oklahoma summer camp. He wanted to investigate the sources of human conflict and how people might overcome them. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll review the Robbers Cave Experiment and examine its evolving reputation. We'll also dredge up a Dalek and puzzle over a hazardous job. Intro: Butler University mathematician Jerry Farrell can control coin flips. Nashville attorney Edwin H. Tenney gave a baffling Independence Day speech in 1858. Sources for our feature on the Robbers Cave experiment: Muzafer Sherif et al., Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment, 1961. Gina Perry, The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment, 2018. Ayfer Dost-Gozkan and Doga Sonmez Keith, Norms, Groups, Conflict, and Social Change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif's Psychology, 2015. Paul Bloom, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, 2013. Gina Perry, "The View From the Boys," Psychologist 27:11 (November 2014), 834-836. Ralph H. Turner, "Some Contributions of Muzafer Sherif to Sociology," Social Psychology Quarterly 53:4 (December 1990), 283-291. Muzafer Sherif, "Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," American Journal of Sociology 63:4 (January 1958), 349-356. Gregory M. Walton and Carol S. Dweck, "Solving Social Problems Like a Psychologist," Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:1 (January 2009), 101-102. O.J. Harvey, "Muzafer Sherif (1906–1988)," American Psychologist 44:10, October 1989, 1325-1326. Elton B. McNeil, "Discussions and Reviews: Waging Experimental War: A Review," Journal of Conflict Resolution 6:1 (March 1962), 77. Alex Haslam, "War and Peace and Summer Camp," Nature 556:7701 (April 19, 2018), 306-307. Steven N. Durlauf, "A Framework for the Study of Individual Behavior and Social Interactions," Sociological Methodology 31 (2001), 47. Gary Alan Fine, "Review: Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment," Sociological Forum 19:4 (December 2004), 663-666. Andrew Tyerman and Christopher Spencer, "A Critical Test of the Sherifs' Robber's Cave Experiments: Intergroup Competition and Cooperation Between Groups of Well-Acquainted Individuals," Small Group Research 14:4 (November 1983), 515-531. Samuel L. Gaertner et al., "Reducing Intergroup Conflict: From Superordinate Goals to Decategorization, Recategorization, and Mutual Differentiation," Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4:1 (March 2000), 98-114. Furkan Amil Gur, Benjamin D. McLarty, and Jeff Muldoon, "The Sherifs' Contributions to Management Research," Journal of Management History 23:2 (2017), 191-216. Anna E. Kosloski, Bridget K. Welch, "Confronting Student Prejudice With 'Mario Kart' Nintendo Wii," Social Thought and Research 31 (2010), 79-87. Carol Tavris, "Thinking Critically About Psychology's Classic Studies," Skeptic 19:4 (2014), 38-43, 64. Michael J. Lovaglia, "From Summer Camps to Glass Ceilings: The Power of Experiments," Contexts 2:4 (Fall 2003), 42-49. J. McKenzie Alexander, "Group Dynamics in the State of Nature," Erkenntnis 55:2 (September 2001), 169-182. Maria Konnikova, "Revisiting Robbers Cave: The Easy Spontaneity of Intergroup Conflict," Scientific American, Sept. 5, 2012. Peter Gray, "A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment," Psychology Today, Dec. 9, 2009. David P. Barash, "Why People Kill," Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 8, 2015. Barbara McMahon, "I Survived the Real-Life Lord of the Flies," Times, April 25, 2018, 2. Leyla Sanai, "'The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment', by Gina Perry - Review," Spectator, April 28, 2018. Anoosh Chakelian, "The Lasting Wounds of Robbers Cave," New Statesman 147:5425 (June 29-July 5, 2018), 16-17. Judy Golding Carver, "What Lord of the Flies Is Really About," Guardian, April 20, 2018, 8. Eleanor Learmonth and Jenny Tabakoff, "'What Are We? Humans? Or Animals? Or Savages?'" Independent on Sunday, March 16, 2014, 26. Darragh McManus, "The Real-Life 'Lord of the Flies,'" Irish Independent, May 5, 2018, 18. David Shariatmadari, "A Real-Life Lord of the Flies: The Troubling Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment," Guardian, April 16, 2018. Gina Perry, "Real-Life Lord of the Flies," Qatar Tribune, Feb. 24, 2018. Peter Waterson, "Letters: Love-Hate," Guardian, Oct. 18, 2001, 25. Listener mail: Wikipedia, "Mojibake" (accessed May 10, 2019). Victoria Ward, "'Weekend Foggy Earphones': How Three Random Words Helped Police Come to Rescue of Mother and Daughter," Telegraph, March 25, 2019. Tiffany Lo, "How Mum and Daughter Were Saved by Saying Words 'Weekend Foggy Earphones' to Cops," Mirror, March 26, 2019. Jane Wakefield, "Three-Unique-Words 'Map' Used to Rescue Mother and Child," BBC News, March 26, 2019. Mark Bridge, "Valerie Hawkett: Three Words Find Woman Who Crashed Car in a Field," Times, March 26, 2019. "Dr Who Dalek Found in Pond," Telegraph, March 4, 2009. Wikipedia, "Dalek" (accessed May 10, 2019). This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Sam Dyck, who, for background, sent this summary of 2017 fatal occupation injuries from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

The hidden story of a very weird psychological experiment. The guinea pigs are kids. But they have no idea what they were in for. Neither do their parents. Who were the lost boys?

The hidden story of a very weird psychological experiment. The guinea pigs are kids. But they have no idea what they were in for. Neither do their parents. Who were the lost boys?

In this Valentine’s Day episode, we welcome special guests Curtis and Gina Perry to the show to gush over some of our favorite romantic couples of Disney. We discuss some “bromances”, memorable friendships, and relationships that we love. We also talk about some of the more passionate moments in Disney and Pixar as well as the love songs that underscore them. Please rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes and Google Play Music. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs and on Twitter @DisneyVs.

In this Valentine’s Day episode, we welcome special guests Curtis and Gina Perry to the show to gush over some of our favorite romantic couples of Disney. We discuss some “bromances”, memorable friendships, and relationships that we love. We also talk about some of the more passionate moments in Disney and Pixar as well as the love songs that underscore them. Please rate, review and subscribe to Disney Versus on iTunes and Google Play Music. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/DisneyVs and on Twitter @DisneyVs.

For its 25th anniversary All in the Mind launches 3 new awards to recognise outstanding help, support or advice in the field of mental health. Claudia Hammond explains the categories and how to nominate. Also in the programme, a new look at one of the most famous and controversial psychology experiments ever. In 1961 Stanley Milgram ran a series of experiments where unwitting volunteers were ordered to give increasing electric shocks to a man they'd never met under the guise of research into memory. Many gave a series of increasing shocks up to 450 Volts despite hearing screams and calls for help from the unseen 'victim'. But it was a set up. The shocks were fake and the victim was an actor. The results of Milgram's obedience research caused a worldwide sensation. Milgram reported that people had repeatedly shocked a man they believed to be in pain or even dying and he linked his findings to Nazi behaviour. But was his version of the results really what happened? Claudia Hammond talks to Gina Perry who has researched Milgram's unpublished papers and spoken to those who took part in the experiment. Her findings reveal a story far from Milgram's own version of his obedience research.

“I began to see some of the high profile, very dramatic experiments in social psychology of the 1950s and 60s, as what they were – metaphors. We invest them with a truth and authority that often goes way beyond what we’ve demonstrated in the lab” says Gina Perry. The particular experiments she is taking a fresh look at in her book, Behind the Shock Machine, are the Milgram experiments, conducted at Yale University in 1963, which suggested that 65% of people would give fatal electric shocks to complete strangers if asked to do so by an authority figure.  These experiments have been used to ‘explain’ the behaviour of Nazis in the holocaust. Stanley Milgram’s findings are shocking, but are they valid?  That is the central question Perry seeks to address. Craig Barfoot’s interview with Gina Perry explores the evidence....