*ban

Frank van asch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vcmHjhpek

@ChaosEngine

I hope I don't have to be the one to point out the multitude of studies which have shown where crowds, group think or subjugation of one's opinion's to someone's authority results in terrible consensual decisions being made:

Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram Experiment
Asch Conformity Experiment
Bystander Effect

In a situation like this, it's likely no one in the crowd has ever dealt with a serious fire. They may not recognise the risks of unexpected suffocation. They may not recognise how fast fire can travel or the risks of being trapped.

Earthquakes are somewhat different (and living in Oz I have no experience with them), but I would imagine that they can go from mild to serious very unexpectedly. California sits on multiple major fault lines. A serious earthquake is very plausible, it is in fact 'expected and long overdue' to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-california-idUSTRE72F5KG20110316

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Aschs-Conformity-Experiment

Asch's Conformity Experiment has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dangerous Conformity Asch Experiment Psychology Fire' to 'Dangerous, Conformity, Asch, Experiment, Psychology, Fire' - edited by eric3579

10 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe
>> ^jonny:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Vintage-candid-camera-elevator-scene
wait - did I miss something, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/kulpims" title="member since May 14th, 2007" class="profilelink">kulpims? You noted this was a replacement for the other vid, but then posted it? Was the other one different then?

uhh, this may be about conformity, but it's not Asch's stuff. i also love how people watch this and think it's "others" that are prone to these things and not themselves.

>> ^9547bis:

>> ^blankfist:
Haha, way to go collectivist idiots.

Yep. Tea Partiers would never do that. Ever.


They totally would. They're collectivist statists like the rest of them.

>> ^blankfist:

Haha, way to go collectivist idiots.


Yep. Tea Partiers would never do that. Ever.

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^rottenseed:
Here guys...this should be enough for you to wrap your large brains around

But there's a subtle, yet significant difference.
The Asch experiments deal with statements of fact, or more accurately, statements of perception. We are expected, and expect, to perceive the universe uniformly.
Most of our polls deal with opinions, which most of us are told, from childhood, are like assholes are unique to the individual, and that we should stand up for what we believe.
(Though I will admit that what we're told about the uniqueness of opinions might be at odds with how we're conditioned by our peers and society as a whole whenever we exhibit wrongthink.)

Sorry dude, that test is about how others affect our decision making process. You don't have to try and segregate whether it's got to do with fact or opinion. The test clear and simple.

>> ^rottenseed:
Here guys...this should be enough for you to wrap your large brains around

But there's a subtle, yet significant difference.
The Asch experiments deal with statements of fact, or more accurately, statements of perception. We are expected, and expect, to perceive the universe uniformly.
Most of our polls deal with opinions, which most of us are told, from childhood, are like assholes are unique to the individual, and that we should stand up for what we believe.

(Though I will admit that what we're told about the uniqueness of opinions might be at odds with how we're conditioned by our peers and society as a whole whenever we exhibit wrongthink.)

No problem.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thanks for making it easy for me.

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
*dead

Thanks for making it easy for me.

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
*dead

>> ^laura:
>> ^Pprt:
To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.
^ of course he did, however...I would point out that the customers' reactions were not necessarily engineered. For example, I don't care how artificial of an environment I am in, I will still act like myself.

Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.

To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.
^ I don't think anyone here claimed this was an awesome scientific/social experiment. Entertaining demonstration/exhibition of various reactions to the "elephant in the room" is what is inherent.
It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

^again, I will say that the customers do not appear to be actors, and I don't think that anyone here missed the fact that the woman and the clerk WERE actors. Your suggestion that a fair assesment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks is excellent should anyone wish to follow through with a scientific experiment. I believe for some reason that this was never meant to be passed off as such, and rather more of what I stated above.


The customers were indeed subjects, and social behaviour is indeed defined by one's company.

My offense is that this is certainly not an accurate depiction of "How Muslims Are Treated In The USA" (by the way, thank you for editing the title Farhad2000).

Muslims are free to practicce their faith, minarets dot the landscapes of Washington and many American cities, laws were enacted prohibiting discriminatory practices and Muslims currently enjoy a priviledged status regarding their religion in the public space.

Farhad2000, that debate is entirely unrelated to the video posting and its reticulum is far too wide for superficial rebuttal... I'm not sure it's proper to broach such complex matter considering the raison d'etre of this video posting. Suffice to say that if you are suggesting Islam is devoid of militarism you either ill-informed, oblivious or a seasoned Taqqiya expert.

In my esteem, any religion that encompasses a penal code (jurisprudence), financial regulations, actively censures opposition, legiferates all spheres of life (public and private) must be judged in toto as a political entity as well as a faith. As such, the drive of maintaining a parallel political system for a certain strata of society is indeed indicative of a "threat" to many Western nations.