Social Question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

CyanoticWasp's avatar

I especially appreciated the one apologist who tried to explain away that “they are manipulated from the start” by the requirement to sign a contract and face pressure to go on. Yeah. As if that excuses it.

It’s a tough insight into a lot of human nature. I like to think that I would have been one of the 16—I’d prefer to think that I would have turned down the invitation from the start. But I don’t know…

silverfly's avatar

Yeah, it’s an interesting topic… Sad to think that we all might succumb to obedience.

dpworkin's avatar

It’s a retread of Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments from the 1960s, trivializing an important result.

filmfann's avatar

I would watch it.

wundayatta's avatar

What @dpworkin said. That experiment caused an upheaval in the research community, and that kind of research will never be carried out legally again. It completely violates current ethical standards for research.

Which makes me wonder about it. If it was a TV production doing this, I guess they wouldn’t have to pass ethical review. But it’s a research team in France. I can’t believe they don’t have internal review boards to figure out if research is legal. The Milgram experiment is a classic and has had repercussions all over the world. I have to wonder if this story is a hoax. A little early for April Fools, but who knows?

elenuial's avatar

Actually, I think it’s a brilliant retread, because it strikes at the heart of our post-future pop culture society. It’s more than simply showing us that humans easily submit to authority. It also shows how eager we are as people to consume the spectacle, and for the crowd to egg it on, as they were doing.

Milgram’s work was important, but I think this is an important update, because it’s a better mirror for our current culture. It’s not science, of course, but that’s part of the point.

dpworkin's avatar

(The Zimbardo prison experiment was another kettle of fish.)

elenuial's avatar

This is still different from Zimbardo in a number of important ways. Zimbardo is also important! I think this still has cultural value.

dpworkin's avatar

I agree that Zimbardo is important but I don’t get what it has to do with this show.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@elenuial I agree with your analysis but hardly do I think that the producers of this show were anywhere on your wavelength – I personally think the show is dumb as fuck but what gratuitous show isn’t?

elenuial's avatar

@dpworkin Roletaking.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir A lot of artists have no idea what they’re doing consciously, even when they’re being brilliant. I wouldn’t even ascribe subconscious genius to these people, but it’s definitely an interesting and valuable artifact regardless.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@elenuial Well…it’s only valuable and interesting in that we can use it as a mirror but it has no intrinsic value, imo.

Buttonstc's avatar

Let’s also not forget why the Roman Coliseum was built.

And the jousting of knights is usually prettied up by Hollywood with gorgeous period costumes and lovely ladies giving them perfumed handkerchiefs and all.

But someone stabbed by one of those lances is not such a pretty sight and an agonizing death.

Humanity’s bloodlust has hardly dimmed much over the
Centuries, merely changed form.

dpworkin's avatar

The question isn’t blood lust as much as it is continuing obedience to authority even in the presence of doubt and fear.

DocteurAville's avatar

“Le Jeu De La Mort”

It is a joke about cruelty from people to other people. And, why not, on TV!?

Obey! Is the word of order.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther