>> ^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.

My professor mentioned these experiments as an example of misinterpreting experimental results and the importance of debriefing your participants.

The wrong interpretation of this experiment, without aid of debriefing, is that group conformity is making people believe something that they wouldn't otherwise believe. Whereas the more correct interpretation seems to be that bored undergraduates don't care enough to pay attention or make waves and just want their extra credit.

The video above mentioned two possibilities- the subject who genuinely believes himself to be wrong and the subject who just doesn't want to make waves. But I don't think that emphasizes just how little vested interest the subject actually has in the experiment. They have no motivation to be correct! Of course you can get a measurable social pressure when the task is completely meaningless. And still, 2/3rds of the time people still say the correct answer.

Anyway, with this experimental setup only the first possibility is really interesting in my opinion. And apparently Asch died without know which possibility was dominant.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments and
http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm (I don't accept the interpretation the authors give in that study).

The Milgram experiments are much more informative about authority pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

In the last year, I've done college papers on Milgram, Asch and Adolph Eichmann (in regards to blind obedience to authority). Good find!

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.

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.

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.

Consider the possibility that people are less willing/able to think about who's a *good* candidate when they're being told by their peers and the telescreen, what to think. Evidence of this suggests that people do what the herd tells them. An unfortunate side effect of being a social animal, I guess.

some more info for ya

#661 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 1, July 29, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1534.pdf

#662 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 2, August 05, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1543.pdf

By Charlie Cray
Rachel's Democracy & Health News

.. . A careful examination of alternatives is precisely what the chlorine industry seeks to avoid. Their primary strategy has been to bog down the debate in interpretations of the toxicological evidence -- the "dueling risk assessments" strategy invented long ago by the tobacco industry.

The main front group for this strategy has been Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH receives 76% of its funding from industry sources, including Exxon, the largest phthalate manufacturer in the world.[1]

ACSH hired Dr. C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, to spearhead ACSH's "blue ribbon" panel of 17 "experts," most of whom have ties to the chemical industry, examining PVC safety. Koop and ACSH concluded that vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful.

In its extensive critique of Koop's study, Health Care Without Harm pointed out that ACSH only weighed the risks and benefits of medical products made flexible with DEHP (a toxic phthalate --see REHW #661), while ignoring the available alternatives --cost-competitive nonPVC products that are perfectly good substitutes. For instance, Koop said, "removing the phthalate [from the PVC product] would actually pose a significant health risk to individuals who depend on these devices [IV bags]." Koop ignored the fact that an FDA-approved phthalate-free IV bag produced by McGaw already has about 20% of the IV bag market.[2]

[1] Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991). See also: "Public-Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. For an excellent review of ASCH's ties to the chemical industry and Koop, see: "The Junkyard Dogs of Science," and "Flying the Koop: A Surgeon General's Reputation On the Line," PR WATCH Vol.5, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pgs. 1-6. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html .

In reply to this comment by persephone:
Great sift! We need more chemical toxicity awareness videos like this. People's homes are full of this stuff and they are largely ignorant of the effects it has on their health and well-being.

Even Nike is phasing out the use of PVC. I would like to have seen this video go a little further into describing the effects of the VOCs emitted by PVC. One that women need to be aware of, is the estrogen mimicking effect of VOCs, which basically messes up our menstrual cycle.

some more info for ya

#661 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 1, July 29, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1534.pdf

#662 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 2, August 05, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1543.pdf

By Charlie Cray
Rachel's Democracy & Health News

.. . A careful examination of alternatives is precisely what the chlorine industry seeks to avoid. Their primary strategy has been to bog down the debate in interpretations of the toxicological evidence -- the "dueling risk assessments" strategy invented long ago by the tobacco industry.

The main front group for this strategy has been Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH receives 76% of its funding from industry sources, including Exxon, the largest phthalate manufacturer in the world.[1]

ACSH hired Dr. C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, to spearhead ACSH's "blue ribbon" panel of 17 "experts," most of whom have ties to the chemical industry, examining PVC safety. Koop and ACSH concluded that vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful.

In its extensive critique of Koop's study, Health Care Without Harm pointed out that ACSH only weighed the risks and benefits of medical products made flexible with DEHP (a toxic phthalate --see REHW #661), while ignoring the available alternatives --cost-competitive nonPVC products that are perfectly good substitutes. For instance, Koop said, "removing the phthalate [from the PVC product] would actually pose a significant health risk to individuals who depend on these devices [IV bags]." Koop ignored the fact that an FDA-approved phthalate-free IV bag produced by McGaw already has about 20% of the IV bag market.[2]

[1] Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991). See also: "Public-Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. For an excellent review of ASCH's ties to the chemical industry and Koop, see: "The Junkyard Dogs of Science," and "Flying the Koop: A Surgeon General's Reputation On the Line," PR WATCH Vol.5, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pgs. 1-6. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html .

In reply to this comment by finch451:
Damn, I never knew PVC was actually toxic at a stand still, but it makes sense.

I'm not gonna let this video change my opinion on PVC at the moment, but I will say that it's gonna get me to do some research and see what these 'toxins' are all about.

Good find.

#661 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 1, July 29, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1534.pdf

#662 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 2, August 05, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1543.pdf

By Charlie Cray
Rachel's Democracy & Health News

.. . A careful examination of alternatives is precisely what the chlorine industry seeks to avoid. Their primary strategy has been to bog down the debate in interpretations of the toxicological evidence -- the "dueling risk assessments" strategy invented long ago by the tobacco industry.

The main front group for this strategy has been Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH receives 76% of its funding from industry sources, including Exxon, the largest phthalate manufacturer in the world.[1]

ACSH hired Dr. C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, to spearhead ACSH's "blue ribbon" panel of 17 "experts," most of whom have ties to the chemical industry, examining PVC safety. Koop and ACSH concluded that vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful.

In its extensive critique of Koop's study, Health Care Without Harm pointed out that ACSH only weighed the risks and benefits of medical products made flexible with DEHP (a toxic phthalate --see REHW #661), while ignoring the available alternatives --cost-competitive nonPVC products that are perfectly good substitutes. For instance, Koop said, "removing the phthalate [from the PVC product] would actually pose a significant health risk to individuals who depend on these devices [IV bags]." Koop ignored the fact that an FDA-approved phthalate-free IV bag produced by McGaw already has about 20% of the IV bag market.[2]

[1] Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991). See also: "Public-Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. For an excellent review of ASCH's ties to the chemical industry and Koop, see: "The Junkyard Dogs of Science," and "Flying the Koop: A Surgeon General's Reputation On the Line," PR WATCH Vol.5, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pgs. 1-6. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html .

[2] Health Care Without Harm, "Press Release: Clean Bill of Health, or Misdiagnosis?, Health Care Without Harm Questions ACSH Report's 'Confidence' in Phtalates." (June 22, 1999).

Made me think.
Made me cheer out loud.
Made me cry with laughter.
Congratulations