Podcasts about Muzafer Sherif

The familiar phrase "playing devil's advocate" actually originated from a real Catholic Church position where an official was tasked with arguing against candidates for sainthood to ensure only the truly worthy were canonized.ABOUT WEIRD DARKNESS: Weird Darkness is a true crime and paranormal podcast narrated by professional award-winning voice actor, Darren Marlar. Seven days per week, Weird Darkness focuses on all thing strange and macabre such as haunted locations, unsolved mysteries, true ghost stories, supernatural manifestations, urban legends, unsolved or cold case murders, conspiracy theories, and more. On Thursdays, this scary stories podcast features horror fiction along with the occasional creepypasta. Weird Darkness has been named one of the “Best 20 Storytellers in Podcasting” by Podcast Business Journal. Listeners have described the show as a cross between “Coast to Coast” with Art Bell, “The Twilight Zone” with Rod Serling, “Unsolved Mysteries” with Robert Stack, and “In Search Of” with Leonard Nimoy.DISCLAIMER: Ads heard during the podcast that are not in my voice are placed by third party agencies outside of my control and should not imply an endorsement by Weird Darkness or myself. *** Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised.IN THIS EPISODE: In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” – it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate) *** It's one of the most-enigmatic unsolved cases of the 21st Century. A family of three goes missing in 2009, and despite an abundance of evidence, law enforcement is no closer to solving this mystery today. In fact, it could even be said that the more clues that are uncovered only result in additional questions. (What Happened To The Jamison Family?)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS…(Sorry, but this information has been lost over time.)SOURCES AND RESOURCES FROM THE EPISODE…“The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/4v5259xu“Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yckvym9b“The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8uyaes“Childlike Aliens": https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/22ujw2jt“The 666 Bible” by Theresa HPIR: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/32wdwakp“The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p9bnkr4“The Old Factory Visit” by Mike: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/3zxf3vje“What Happened To The Jamison Family?” by Stu Wahlin for Weird Darkness: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/stuwahlin=====(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: November 12, 2018EPISODE PAGE at WeirdDarkness.com (includes list of sources): https://weirddarkness.com/DevilsAdvocate

In the heart of Hagley Wood, a skeleton hidden inside a hollow tree sparked decades of eerie graffiti, whispered conspiracies, and chilling rumors that she may have been a WWII spy silenced forever.Darkness Syndicate members get the ad-free version. https://weirddarkness.com/syndicateInfo on the next LIVE SCREAM event. https://weirddarkness.com/LiveScreamInfo on the next WEIRDO WATCH PARTY event. https://weirddarkness.com/TVIN THIS EPISODE: Was a woman found dead in a wych elm tree in wartime England actually a WWII German spy? (Bella in the Wych Elm) *** Jonathan Reed couldn't bear to be separated from his wife ... so he moved into her tomb. (Til Death Do Us Part) *** Dr. Milton Rokeach forced three men who all believed themselves to be the Messiah to live together for two years in an effort to bring them out of their irrationality. But what Rokeach learned had little to do with the men themselves. (The Three Christs of Ypsilanti) *** A bodiless voice torments a lone beachgoer camping out. (Spirit Voice on the Beach) *** Only months after the infamous ax murders in Villisca, Iowa - the quiet farm community of Payson, Illinois was shattered by its own terrifying murder case. (The Pfanschmidt Murders) *** In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” - it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = Disclaimer and Lead-In00:01:08.512 = Show Open00:04:12.739 = Was Bella In The Wych Elm a WWII Spy?00:19:01.115 = Til Death Do Us Part00:21:37.721 = The Three Christs of Ypsilanti00:29:24.422 = Spirit Voice On The Beach00:34:21.923 = The Pfanschmidt Murders of 191200:43:27.429 = Devil's Advocate00:47:29.089 = The Robbers Cave Experiment00:55:55.927 = Papua New Guinea Witchcraft01:02:18.749 = Child Aliens01:05:36.396 = The 666 Bible01:12:24.511 = The Stillwell Murder01:24:05.754 = The Old Factory Visit01:28:46.489 = Show Close01:29:35.739 = Final ThoughtSOURCES AND RESOURCES FROM THE EPISODE…Episode Page at WeirdDarkness.com: https://weirddarkness.com/SpyWitchWych“Was Bella in the Wych Elm a WWII German Spy?” posted at The UnRedacted: https://tinyurl.com/wtxqr7l“The Pfanschmidt Murders” by Troy Taylor for American Hauntings Ink: https://tinyurl.com/uolq6b8“Spirit Voice on the Beach” by Berggraf38, posted at YourGhostStories.com: https://tinyurl.com/qngcm6l“The Three Christs of Ypsilanti” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/w9delgl“The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/yx66lpob“Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom for Ancient Origins: https://tinyurl.com/rvpyyva“The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd for Ancient Pages: https://tinyurl.com/vluuhdg“Childlike Aliens” by Terry Larch for FreakLore.com: https://tinyurl.com/snrkrbm“The 666 Bible” by Theresa at Theresa's Haunted History of the Tri-State: https://tinyurl.com/t8dlnez“The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm for Murder By Gaslight: https://tinyurl.com/yd4uupot“The Old Factory Visit” by Mike, posted at MyHauntedLifeToo.com: (link no longer available)“Til Death Do Us Part” by Jessica Ferri at The-Line-Up.com: https://the-line-up.com/mary-reed=====(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: November 27, 2018TRANSCRIPT: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8upj93

Wer möchte nicht gerne dazugehören? Ob als Fans bei Sportevents oder als Mitglieder einer politischen Partei: Wir sehen uns gerne als Teil einer Gruppe - und diese Gruppe ist natürlich viel besser als alle anderen! Soweit so gut, doch daraus entstehen schnell Konflikte zwischen “verfeindeten” Teams. In dieser Folge sprechen Leon und Atze über ein denkwürdiges Experiment, das solche Dynamiken erklären wollte und gleichzeitig höchst fragwürdig war. Was lernen wir daraus für die Konflikte unserer Zeit? Fühlt euch gut betreut Leon & Atze Start ins heutige Thema: 12:19 min. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leonwindscheid/ https://www.instagram.com/atzeschroeder_offiziell/ Der Instagram Account für Betreutes Fühlen: https://www.instagram.com/betreutesfuehlen/ Mehr zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/betreutesfuehlen Tickets: Atze: https://www.atzeschroeder.de/#termine Leon: https://leonwindscheid.de/tour/ Quellen: Onyango, V. C. (2023). Reflections on the Robbers Cave Experiment: Finding lessons on political conflict, racism, xenophobia, and business environments. Am J Hum Psychol. 1(1):34-38. Doi: 10.54536/ajhp.v1i1.2092 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajhp/article/view/2092 Gina Perry: The lost boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/the-lost-boys-9781925322354 Die detaillierte Beschreibung des Robbers Cave Experiment Sherif, M. et al. (1954/1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/57404565/ROBBERS_CAVE-libre.pdf?1537292951=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DIntergroup_Conflict_and_Cooperation_The.pdf&Expires=1729581558&Signature=P38jVZBPG7cyw1Q6bMhdcfULv-isP32g-or3SKD8DbVbr8nbVVK4-dAroJFtqOvOu8cCE56Z8hAn1Fwz3WSNABO-NqYFIp86kMORfU6grgTXX9t-HcnyT811X5f32cKH8wUNQLg8twWYGoSVTTzad73dTQC5UXsE-8tWTqfifudooRnbhemClZzVFaGvhGmkyJf6YXOn-Il7-ST6ch3v6VyvJX24bmNrLBAWULwg2WK3p4ZFcm3IdAjx-U4SCwlAFuu06KLN6et~mvX2GoGF0TOephI6LFE-0D16CMB3ftheskTiklnphh8zHY3KSax6cswHLONDxVmMNEjgZ~uYCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Über Muzafer Sherif: Harvey, O. J. (1989). Muzafer Sherif (1906 - 1988). American Psychologist. 44(10). 1325-1326. Doi.10.1037/h0091637 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-08900-001 Verschiedene Gruppenkonflikt-Theorien: Densley, J. & Peterson, J. (2018). Group aggression. Curr Opin Psychol. 19:43-48. Doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.031 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X17300532 Redaktion: Stefanie Uhrig Produktion: Murmel Productions

IN THIS EPISODE: In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” – it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate) *** It's one of the most-enigmatic unsolved cases of the 21st Century. A family of three goes missing in 2009, and despite an abundance of evidence, law enforcement is no closer to solving this mystery today. In fact, it could even be said that the more clues that are uncovered only result in additional questions. (What Happened To The Jamison Family?)SOURCES AND REFERENCES FROM THE EPISODE…“The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/4v5259xu“Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yckvym9b“The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8uyaes“Childlike Aliens": https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/22ujw2jt“The 666 Bible” by Theresa HPIR: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/32wdwakp“The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p9bnkr4“The Old Factory Visit” by Mike: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/3zxf3vje“What Happened To The Jamison Family?” by Stu Wahlin for Weird Darkness: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/stuwahlinWeird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library= = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2024, Weird Darkness.= = = = =Originally aired: November 12, 2018CUSTOM LANDING PAGE: https://weirddarkness.com/devilsadvocate

Dans cette vidéo, nous explorons une question provocante : les Parisiens, sont-ils vraiment de mauvais investisseurs ? Inspiré par une récente conversation lors d'une soirée, je partage mon expérience personnelle et explique pourquoi mon éloignement physique du monde financier a amélioré mes performances en investissement. Nous plongeons également dans des expériences psychologiques célèbres, comme celles de Solomon Asch et de Muzafer Sherif, pour comprendre comment l'influence sociale peut impacter nos décisions financières. Que vous soyez à Paris ou ailleurs, cette vidéo vous aidera à mieux comprendre l'importance de l'indépendance d'esprit dans l'investissement. N'hésitez pas à partager vos expériences en commentaires !

IN THIS EPISODE: Was a woman found dead in a wych elm tree in wartime England actually a WWII German spy? (Bella in the Wych Elm) *** Jonathan Reed couldn't bear to be separated from his wife ... so he moved into her tomb. (Til Death Do Us Part) *** Dr. Milton Rokeach forced three men who all believed themselves to be the Messiah to live together for two years in an effort to bring them out of their irrationality. But what Rokeach learned had little to do with the men themselves. (The Three Christs of Ypsilanti) *** A bodiless voice torments a lone beachgoer camping out. (Spirit Voice on the Beach) *** Only months after the infamous ax murders in Villisca, Iowa - the quiet farm community of Payson, Illinois was shattered by its own terrifying murder case. (The Pfanschmidt Murders) *** In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” - it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate)SOURCES AND REFERENCES FROM THE EPISODE…“Was Bella in the Wych Elm a WWII German Spy?” posted at The UnRedacted: https://tinyurl.com/wtxqr7l“The Pfanschmidt Murders” by Troy Taylor for American Hauntings Ink: https://tinyurl.com/uolq6b8“Spirit Voice on the Beach” by Berggraf38, posted at YourGhostStories.com: https://tinyurl.com/qngcm6l“The Three Christs of Ypsilanti” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/w9delgl“The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/yx66lpob“Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom for Ancient Origins: https://tinyurl.com/rvpyyva“The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd for Ancient Pages: https://tinyurl.com/vluuhdg“Childlike Aliens” by Terry Larch for FreakLore.com: https://tinyurl.com/snrkrbm“The 666 Bible” by Theresa at Theresa's Haunted History of the Tri-State: https://tinyurl.com/t8dlnez“The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm for Murder By Gaslight: https://tinyurl.com/yd4uupot“The Old Factory Visit” by Mike, posted at MyHauntedLifeToo.com: https://tinyurl.com/yx2tmzqsWeird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2024, Weird Darkness.= = = = =Originally aired: November 27, 2018PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: https://weirddarkness.com/was-bella-in-the-wych-elm-a-wwii-german-spy/

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.

Help spread the darkness! VOTE FOR THIS EPISODE at https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/mvjsnkbz – you can vote up to 3X per day! Find Weird Darkness in your favorite podcast app at https://weirddarkness.com/listen. PLEASE SHARE WEIRD DARKNESS® in your social media and with others who loves paranormal stories, true crime, monsters, or unsolved mysteries like you do!IN THIS EPISODE: Jonathan Reed couldn't bear to be separated from his wife ... so he moved into her tomb. (Til Death Do Us Part) *** Dr. Milton Rokeach forced three men who all believed themselves to be the Messiah to live together for two years in an effort to bring them out of their irrationality. But what Rokeach learned had little to do with the men themselves. (The Three Christs of Ypsilanti) *** A bodiless voice torments a lone beachgoer camping out. (Spirit Voice on the Beach) *** Only months after the infamous ax murders in Villisca, Iowa - the quiet farm community of Payson, Illinois was shattered by its own terrifying murder case. (The Pfanschmidt Murders) *** Was a woman found dead in a wych elm tree in wartime England actually a WWII German spy? (Bella in the Wych Elm) *** In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” - it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate)SOURCES AND ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS…“Til Death Do Us Part” by Jessica Ferri for The Line Up: http://ow.ly/Pmkb30mLah9 “Was Bella in the Wych Elm a WWII German Spy?” posted at The UnRedacted: https://tinyurl.com/wtxqr7l “The Pfanschmidt Murders” by Troy Taylor for American Hauntings Ink: https://tinyurl.com/uolq6b8 “Spirit Voice on the Beach” by Berggraf38, posted at YourGhostStories.com: https://tinyurl.com/qngcm6l “The Three Christs of Ypsilanti” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/w9delgl “The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman for All That's Interesting: https://tinyurl.com/yx66lpob “Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom for Ancient Origins: https://tinyurl.com/rvpyyva “The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd for Ancient Pages: https://tinyurl.com/vluuhdg “Childlike Aliens” by Terry Larch for FreakLore.com: https://tinyurl.com/snrkrbm “The 666 Bible” by Theresa at Theresa's Haunted History of the Tri-State: https://tinyurl.com/t8dlnez “The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm for Murder By Gaslight: https://tinyurl.com/yd4uupot “The Old Factory Visit” by Mike, posted at MyHauntedLifeToo.com: https://tinyurl.com/yx2tmzqs= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music provided by Alibi Music Library, EpidemicSound and/or StoryBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ) Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and Nicolas Gasparini (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission of the artists.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46WeirdDarkness™ - is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions. © 2023, Weird Darkness.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =TRANSCRIPT: https://weirddarkness.com/archives/14641

Like the podcast on Facebook – https://facebook.com/weirddarkness, join the Weirdos Facebook Group – https://facebook.com/groups/marlarhouse, and sign up for the fee email newsletter - https://weirddarkness.com/newsletter! Please SHARE Weird Darkness with someone who loves paranormal stories, true crime, monsters, or unsolved mysteries like you do! Recommending the show to others helps make it possible for me to keep doing the show!IN THIS EPISODE: (Dark Archives episode with stories from November 26-27, 2018) *** Jonathan Reed couldn't bear to be separated from his wife ... so he moved into her tomb. (Til Death Do Us Part) *** Dr. Milton Rokeach forced three men who all believed themselves to be the Messiah to live together for two years in an effort to bring them out of their irrationality. But what Rokeach learned had little to do with the men themselves. (The Three Christs of Ypsilanti) *** A bodiless voice torments a lone beachgoer camping out. (Spirit Voice on the Beach) *** Only months after the infamous ax murders in Villisca, Iowa - the quiet farm community of Payson, Illinois was shattered by its own terrifying murder case. (The Pfanschmidt Murders) *** Was a woman found dead in a wych elm tree in wartime England actually a Nazi spy? (Bella in the Wych Elm) *** In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn't end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn't bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn't. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil's Advocate” - it's a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil's Advocate)SOURCES AND ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS…“Til Death Do Us Part” by Jessica Ferri: http://ow.ly/Pmkb30mLah9 “Bella in the Wych Elm”: https://tinyurl.com/wtxqr7l “The Pfanschmidt Murders” by Troy Taylor: https://tinyurl.com/uolq6b8 “Spirit Voice on the Beach” by Berggraf38: https://tinyurl.com/qngcm6l “The Three Christs of Ypsilanti” by Taig Spearman: https://tinyurl.com/w9delgl “The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman: https://tinyurl.com/yx66lpob “Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom: https://tinyurl.com/rvpyyva “The Devil's Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd: https://tinyurl.com/vluuhdg “Childlike Aliens”: https://tinyurl.com/snrkrbm “The 666 Bible” by Theresa HPIR: https://tinyurl.com/t8dlnez “The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm: https://tinyurl.com/yd4uupot “The Old Factory Visit” by Mike: https://tinyurl.com/yx2tmzqs Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music provided by Alibi Music, EpidemicSound and/or AudioBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ), Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and/or Nicolas Gasparini/Myuu (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =WANT TO ADVERTISE ON WEIRD DARKNESS?Weird Darkness has partnered with AdvertiseCast to handle our advertising/sponsorship requests. They're great to work with and will help you advertise on the show. Email sales@advertisecast.com or start the process now at https://weirddarkness.com/advertise = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46Find out how to escape eternal darkness at https://weirddarkness.com/eternaldarkness WeirdDarkness™ - is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions. Copyright, 2021.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =00:16:55.391, 00:32:15.509, 00:53:46.370, 01:08:58.719,

Wie entstehen Gruppenkonflikte? Mit dieser Frage beschäftigen sich Sven und Thorsten in der aktuellen I NEED A HERO Folge. Neben Geschichten aus dem Arbeitsalltag des Helden e.V. und der Teamuhr nach Tuckman erwarten euch außerdem zwei spannende Experimente von Muzafer Sherif und Jane Elliot.

“WAS ‘BELLA IN THE WYCH ELM’ A NAZI SPY?” and 12 More Paranormal and Macabre Stories! #WeirdDarknessIf you like the podcast, please leave a review in the podcast app you listen from, and share a link to the podcast on Facebook and Twitter to invite others to become Weirdos too!IN THIS EPISODE: (Dark Archives episode with stories from November 26-27, 2018) *** Jonathan Reed couldn’t bear to be separated from his wife ... so he moved into her tomb. (Til Death Do Us Part) *** Dr. Milton Rokeach forced three men who all believed themselves to be the Messiah to live together for two years in an effort to bring them out of their irrationality. But what Rokeach learned had little to do with the men themselves. (The Three Christs of Ypsilanti) *** A bodiless voice torments a lone beachgoer camping out. (Spirit Voice on the Beach) *** Only months after the infamous ax murders in Villisca, Iowa - the quiet farm community of Payson, Illinois was shattered by its own terrifying murder case. (The Pfanschmidt Murders) *** Was a woman found dead in a wych elm tree in wartime England a Nazi spy? (Bella in the Wych Elm) *** In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn’t end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn’t bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn’t. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil’s Advocate” - it’s a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil’s Advocate)STORY AND MUSIC CREDITS/SOURCES…(Note: Over time links can and may become invalid, disappear, or have different content.)“Til Death Do Us Part” by Jessica Ferri: http://ow.ly/Pmkb30mLah9 “Bella in the Wych Elm”: https://tinyurl.com/wtxqr7l “The Pfanschmidt Murders” by Troy Taylor: https://tinyurl.com/uolq6b8 “Spirit Voice on the Beach” by Berggraf38: https://tinyurl.com/qngcm6l “The Three Christs of Ypsilanti” by Taig Spearman: https://tinyurl.com/w9delgl “The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman: https://tinyurl.com/yx66lpob “Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom: https://tinyurl.com/rvpyyva “The Devil’s Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd: https://tinyurl.com/vluuhdg “Childlike Aliens”: https://tinyurl.com/snrkrbm “The 666 Bible” by Theresa HPIR: https://tinyurl.com/t8dlnez “The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm: https://tinyurl.com/yd4uupot “The Old Factory Visit” by Mike: https://tinyurl.com/yx2tmzqs Weird Darkness opening and closing theme by Alibi Music Library. Weird@Work music bed by Audioblocks. Background music, varying by episode, provided by Alibi Music, EpidemicSound and/or AudioBlocks with paid license; Shadows Symphony (http://bit.ly/2W6N1xJ), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ), Tony Longworth (http://TonyLongworth.com) and/or Nicolas Gasparini/Myuu (https://www.youtube.com/user/myuuji) used with permission. MY RECORDING TOOLS…* MICROPHONE (Neumann TLM103): http://amzn.to/2if01CL* POP FILTER (AW-BM700): http://amzn.to/2zRIIyK* XLR CABLE (Mogami Gold Studio): http://amzn.to/2yZXJeD * MICROPHONE PRE-AMP (Icicle): http://amzn.to/2vLqLzg * SOFTWARE (Adobe Audition): http://amzn.to/2vLqI6E * HARDWARE (iMac Pro): https://amzn.to/2suZGkA I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use. If I somehow overlooked doing that for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I’ll rectify it the show notes as quickly as possible.***WeirdDarkness™ - is a trademark and creation of of Marlar House Productions. Copyright © Marlar House Productions, 2020."I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46 *** How to escape eternal darkness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IYmodFKDaM

In the summer of 1954, two groups of 8- to 11-year-old boys were taken to a summer camp in Oklahoma and pitted against each other in competitions for prizes. What started out as typical games of baseball and tug-of-war turned into violent night raids and fistfights, proving that humans in groups form tribal identities that create conflict.  This is the basic outline of a research study many are still familiar with today: the Robbers Cave experiment. But it's only one part of the story.  My guest dug into the archival notes of this famous and controversial social experiment to find unknown and unreported details behind what really happened and why. Her name is Gina Perry and her book is The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment. We begin our conversation by discussing what the Robbers Cave experiment purported to show and the influence the experiment has had on social psychology since. We then discuss the similarities between head researcher Muzafer Sherif's ideas about the behavior of boys in groups with those of William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, and how both men's ideas were influenced by their personal experiences in war. We also dig into the general connection between children's summer camps and psychological studies in the 19th century. Then turning to the Robbers Cave experiment itself, Gina shares how that experiment wasn't Sherif's first attempt at this kind of field study, and how it had been preceded by another experiment in which the boys turned on the researchers. She describes how Sherif and his assistants attempted to get different results at Robbers Cave by goading the boys into greater conflict and how they got the boys to reconcile after whipping them up into a competitive frenzy. At the end of our conversation, Gina talks about finding the boys who were in the experiment and what these now grown men thought of the experience, and we discuss whether or not there's anything to be learned from Robbers Cave on the nature of group conflict.  Get the show notes at aom.is/robberscave.

[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?

Bu bölümde #sürüpsikolojisi konuşuyoruz. Sosyal Uyum, Sosyal Uygunluk, Otoriteye İtaat ve insanın insana olan etkisinden bahsediyoruz. Stanley Milgram, Muzafer Sherif, Solomon Asch gibi bilim insanların klasik deneylerinden bahsediyoruz. ---- Gelecek Bilimde, Twitch üzerinden canlı yayınlar gerçekleştiren bir bilim iletişimi platformudur. Bilimsel Soru-Cevap Sitemiz: https://gelecekbilimde.net Hakkımızda - https://bit.ly/gelecek-bilimde Twitch Kanalı - https://www.twitch.tv/gelecekbilimde Spotify Podcast - https://spoti.fi/2EdEdQR Destek Olabilirsiniz: Kreosus üzerinden TL ile Destek - https://kreosus.com/gelecekbilimde Patreon üzerinden Destek - https://www.patreon.com/gelecekbilimde ByNoGame - https://www.bynogame.com/destekle/gelecekbilimde Sosyal Medya Hesaplarımız: Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/gelecekbilimde Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/gelecekbilimde Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/gelecekbilimde

“ORIGINS OF THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE” and 6 More Creepy True Stories! #WeirdDarknessCreepy Crate giveaway Tweet: https://twitter.com/WeirdDarkness/status/1064320835484291073 In modern times, the Devil’s Advocate is in one of the most popular English idioms. You may have heard or even occasionally used this familiar expression, but did you know the phrase can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an office for a person who was employed as the Devil's advocate? The Devil’s advocate is an ancient phrase that has long history.IN THIS EPISODE: In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist Muzafer Sherif released twenty-two 12-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other. (The Robbers Cave Experiment) *** Witch hunts and trials. They didn’t end in Salem – they live on even today in Papua New Guinea. (Papua New Guinea Witchcraft) *** A man in Japan sees small, childlike ashen white aliens. (Childlike Aliens) *** How can a holy book such as the Christian bible bring bad luck? One paranormal museum in West Virginia has the answer with an infamous display of the 666 Bible. (The 666 Bible) *** The people of Hannibal, Missouri in the late 1800s would remain appalled that one of their most prominent residents could be murdered without retribution. Even a $10,000 reward couldn’t bring justice. (The Stillwell Murder) *** A father takes his son to the ruins of an old, burned down building – and the boy sees something his father doesn’t. (The Old Factory Visit) *** “The Devil’s Advocate” - it’s a phrase that can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church that long had an actual official office for a person who was employed to be exactly that – an advocate for the devil. And he still works for the church even today. (The Devil’s Advocate)EMERGENCY HOTLINE NUMBERS…Depressed? Contemplating suicide?: 800-830-9804Struggling with alcohol or drug addiction?: 800-831-1560SUPPORT THE PODCAST...*Advertise your product/service on Weird Darkness; visit http://www.bgadgroup.com or call 770-874-3200.*WHAT WAS THAT COMMERCIAL I HEARD?: http://www.WeirdDarkness.com/sponsors WEIRD DARKNESS STORE at http://www.WeirdDarkness.com/store AUDIOBOOKS NARRATED BY DARREN at http://www.WeirdDarkness.com/audiobooks BECOME A PATRON at http://www.patreon.com/marlarhouse JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP at https://www.facebook.com/groups/MarlarHouse/ STORY CREDITS AND/OR SOURCES…“The Robbers Cave Experiment” by Taig Spearman: https://allthatsinteresting.com/robbers-cave-experiment “Papua New Guinea Witchcraft” by Caleb Strom: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/new-guinea-witchcraft-0010998 “The Devil’s Advocate” by Ellen Lloyd: http://www.ancientpages.com/2018/11/19/devils-advocate-ancient-phrase-traced-to-the-roman-catholic-church/ “Childlike Aliens”: http://www.freaklore.com/japanese-man-sees-small-white-childlike-aliens-in-kyoto “The 666 Bible” by Theresa HPIR: https://theresashauntedhistoryofthetri-state.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-666-bible-of-morris-memorial.html “The Stillwell Murder” by Robert Wilhelm: http://www.murderbygaslight.com/2018/11/the-stillwell-murder.html “The Old Factory Visit” by Mike: https://www.myhauntedlifetoo.com/2018/10/29/the-old-factory-visit/ WEIRD DARKNESS MUSIC PROVIDED BY Midnight Syndicate http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ and Shadow’s Symphony http://www.facebook.com/shadowssymphony/ - all music used with permission. All rights reserved.  All other music provided by AudioBlocks.com with paid license. There is no copyright infringement intended for this episode and/or the material used for it. If you have an issue with Marlar House/Weird Darkness posting this, please contact us privately and we can sort it out. "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.” — Psalm 23:4 ESV*** “How can I be saved from darkness?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IYmodFKDaM

Llegamos a la tercera entrega de nuestros podcast extra con los mejores momentos de este año y medio de podcast. En esta ocasión repasamos algunos de los experimentos más conocidos, comentados e incluso criticados, de la historia de la psicología. Más concretamente de la psicología social, con protagonistas como Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, Solomon Asch y Muzafer Sherif.Si quieres ampliar información sobre alguno de los experimentos que comentamos, no dudes en buscar los podcast en los que tratamos ampliamente cada uno de los temas.Podcast 6: EL EXPERIMENTO DE MILGRAMPodcast 15: EL EXPERIMENTO DE LA CÁRCEL DE STANFORDPodcast 19: ¿NOS DEJAMOS INFLUIR POR LA MAYORÍA? LOS EXPERIMENTOS DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL GRUPO, DE ASCHPodcast 31: EL EXPERIMENTO DE LA CUEVA DE LOS LADRONESEn el CLUB ETM ya tienes al completo todas las sesiones disponibles del RETO “IDEAS PARA AYUDARTE A BUSCAR TU ELEMENTO, TU PASIÓN, TU VOCACIÓN,…” y mañana mismo empezamos un nuevo RETO, destinado a dejarnos buenas ideas para que podamos mejorar nuestra asertividad; nuestra comunicación asertiva. Y, ya sabes que puedes proponernos nuevos temas para RETOS, además de para podcast, desde el formulario de contacto.| +info en https://entiendetumente.info/ |Toda la música de Entiende Tu Mente está compuesta exclusivamente para Entiende Tu Mente.Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/entiendetumenteTwitter: https://twitter.com/entiendetumenteInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/entiendetumente

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?

En este podcast hablamos de este curioso experimento de Muzafer Sherif, uno de los más destacados en la historia de la Psicología Social. ¿Cómo crear conflictos sociales y generar tensión entre grupos? ¿Cómo solventarlos? Seguro que no te deja indiferente.Suscríbete a nuestra lista de correo para recibir material extra y podcast exclusivos, haciendo clic en este enlace -> http://entiendetumente.info/te-unes (ya tienes disponible nuestro primer minipodcast exclusivo para suscriptores, con 6 ideas para vencer la procrastinación hoy mismo).Desde 2018 también podrás patrocinar nuestro espacio, siempre y cuando tu producto/servicio vaya acorde a nuestros valores y sea algo que realmente sirva para ayudar a nuestra audiencia. Visita -> http://entiendetumente.info/te-ayudamosToda la música de Entiende Tu Mente está compuesta exclusivamente para Entiende Tu Mente.Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/entiendetumenteTwitter: https://twitter.com/entiendetumenteInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/entiendetumente/

The simplest nonlinear system is The Torus and it governs our daily lives into expected routines. It has one loose but stable outcome basin. If you commute to work, the outcome basin is most likely your arrival at work at an approximate time each day. The dynamics of The Torus are marked by self-similarity. Self-similarity, as a concept, firms & entire societies, may be similar day-to-day, year-to-year or generation to generation However, no one embodiment in any given cycle or iteration of the behavior of any given system is precisely like a previous embodiment. While your daily commute might seem routine and typical, it is always different, in fact, probably much more different than you realize! Routine dynamics inside a factory, an office, a hospital, a school or a prison have the character of a torus. CHAOS EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE TORUS. Imagine a substantial alteration to your daily commute - perhaps something that changes your trip so drastically that it is now removed from the largely predictable, patterned Torus such as an accident or severe weather. In such situations in which the basin is no longer predictable, chaos ensues. SIMILARITY REPLACES SAMENESS. Even in high-tolerance manufacturing, there are similarities between items & not sameness. This dates back to the work of such quality control experts as W. E. Demming. Statistical variation always exists between items or processes. SAFETY & SAMENESS. When we expect things to be the same, things to follow a predictable sequence, we can easily overlook subtle, but very critical changes that alert us to compromised safety situations. Many people in the Twin Towers stayed at their desks for 4-minutes following the first plane crash. People simply thought that in a few minutes an “All Clear” would be issued or else struggled to accept the magnitude of the attack & continued to believe that their day was still within the parameters of The Torus. ROBBER'S CAVE EXPERIMENT. In the summer of 1954, social psychologist Muzafer Sherif examined what is now known as “Realistic Conflict Theory” which accounts for group conflict, negative prejudices, and stereotypes as being the result of competition between groups for desired resources. Sherif's field experiment demonstrated devolving The Torus to chaos & involved 2 groups of 12 y.o. boys at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. FIRST PHASE. Boys randomly assigned to 2 groups & encouraged to bond with their group. They did not know of the existence of the other group. One group was “The Eagles” & the other “The Rattlers” and such logos / words were on their shirts & flags. SECOND PHASE. Competition stage where friction between the groups was to occur for the next 4-6 days such as baseball games & tug-of-war. Winners were heavily awarded & cumulative scores were kept. Prejudice increased from name calling to physical altercations. The Eagles burned the Rattlers flag & then the Rattlers ransacked the Eagle's cabin & stole private property. The groups became so aggressive that the researchers had to separate them. The study confirmed Sherif's Realistic Conflict Theory. However, the theory wasn't observed in the block-deep lines of people seeking a coveted spot on a boat during the 9/11/01 Lower Manhattan rescue. FOLLOW DR. PERRODIN: On Twitter @SafetyPhD and subscribe to “The Safety Doc” YouTube channel & SoundCloud RSS feed. DR. PERRODIN'S SAFETY BLOG: crisisprepconsulting.wordpress.com SAFETY DOC WEBSITE: www.safetyphd.com David will respond to discussion thread comments or questions & also to emails. The Safety Doc Podcast is hosted & produced by David Perrodin, PhD. ENDORSEMENTS. Opinions are those of the host & guests and do not reflect positions of The 405 Media or supporters of “The Safety Doc Podcast”. The show is curse free & adheres to nondiscrimination principles while seeking to bring forward productive discourse & debate on topics relevant to personal or institutional safety. Email David: thesafetydoc@gmail.com