There are no legitimate authorities anywhere.
December 4, 2014 7:18 AM Subscribe
Meet the most frightening author of the twentieth century. And I don't mean Stephen King or Clive Barker. Who needs Pennywise the Clown or Mamoulian when all you have to do is look in the mirror and realize that under the right circumstances, you'd make a good Nazi? All you need is an authority you trust to give you the right orders.
(from the Aeon article) The year was 1960, and Dr. Stanley Milgram had a theory about Germans. Only 27 years old, Milgram was a rising star in social psychology. He had just finished his doctorate work at Harvard on the phenomenon of conformity and begun a prestigious professorship at Yale. For his first experiment as a full-fledged academic, he wanted to push the literature on conformity further, to make it less abstract. Ever ambitious, Milgram didn’t just want a bigger challenge, he wanted to recreate the Holocaust, to quantify and study it at the microscopic level. And unfortunately, he got his wish.
(from the Aeon article) The year was 1960, and Dr. Stanley Milgram had a theory about Germans. Only 27 years old, Milgram was a rising star in social psychology. He had just finished his doctorate work at Harvard on the phenomenon of conformity and begun a prestigious professorship at Yale. For his first experiment as a full-fledged academic, he wanted to push the literature on conformity further, to make it less abstract. Ever ambitious, Milgram didn’t just want a bigger challenge, he wanted to recreate the Holocaust, to quantify and study it at the microscopic level. And unfortunately, he got his wish.
One hopeful sign about people -
I saw some TV broadcast about Milgram, and a modern attempt to re-create them - and yep, the findings pretty much matched Milgram's, even with modern test subjects.
But then they did a variant experiment. They added a SECOND person to the experiment; in addition to the test subject who was being told to administer the shocks, they had a second person who was pretending to be as another volunteer administering the shocks (the two shock-givers would be taking turns or something). And they told the person pretending to volunteer that after a certain point, they should refuse to continue. What they found was that if someone else went first, it became far more likely for the actual volunteers to quit themselves as well.
So while Milgram's original experiments are chilling, this new set of experiments was hopeful - in that sometimes maybe the people complying with evil may only need to see one person step forward and say "fuck this, this is wrong" to tip over into joining them in quitting.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 AM on December 4, 2014 [32 favorites]
I saw some TV broadcast about Milgram, and a modern attempt to re-create them - and yep, the findings pretty much matched Milgram's, even with modern test subjects.
But then they did a variant experiment. They added a SECOND person to the experiment; in addition to the test subject who was being told to administer the shocks, they had a second person who was pretending to be as another volunteer administering the shocks (the two shock-givers would be taking turns or something). And they told the person pretending to volunteer that after a certain point, they should refuse to continue. What they found was that if someone else went first, it became far more likely for the actual volunteers to quit themselves as well.
So while Milgram's original experiments are chilling, this new set of experiments was hopeful - in that sometimes maybe the people complying with evil may only need to see one person step forward and say "fuck this, this is wrong" to tip over into joining them in quitting.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 AM on December 4, 2014 [32 favorites]
As a scientist, Milgram is a great storyteller. But his results were pretty grossly misrepresented, not by credulous media, but by Milgram himself. He had a nasty habit of keeping the results that supported his story, and throwing out the ones that didn't.
-----
By examining records of the experiment held at Yale, I found that in over half of the 24 variations, 60% of people disobeyed the instructions of the authority and refused to continue.
-----
Gina Perry, for her book, Behind the Shock Machine, traced as many participants in the Milgram experiment as she could, and re-examined the notes of the experiment. Milgram claimed that seventy-five percent of the participants believed in the reality of the experiment, but Perry puts the number at about half. The change makes a big difference in the results. The people who didn't buy that they were actually shocking people were far more willing to increase the intensity of the shocks. They wanted to know how far the experimenters would go in the ruse, while the experimenters were wondering the same thing about them. Those that believed that they were shocking people were much more likely to keep the shocks down low.
-----
Similarly, the researchers argue, a close look at Milgram’s study suggests it really isn’t about blind obedience at all. Transcripts of the sessions show the participants are often torn by the instruction to administer stronger shocks. Direct orders to do so were far less effective than entreaties that they need to continue for the sake of the study. These reluctant sadists kept “torturing” in response to appeals that they were doing important scientific work—work that would ultimately benefit mankind. Looked at in this way, it wasn’t some inherent evil or conformism that drove them forward, but rather a misplaced sense of idealism.
This wasn't an isolated incident in Milgram's career. His equally famous "six degrees" experiment was even more grossly misrepresented by Milgram.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [39 favorites]
-----
By examining records of the experiment held at Yale, I found that in over half of the 24 variations, 60% of people disobeyed the instructions of the authority and refused to continue.
-----
Gina Perry, for her book, Behind the Shock Machine, traced as many participants in the Milgram experiment as she could, and re-examined the notes of the experiment. Milgram claimed that seventy-five percent of the participants believed in the reality of the experiment, but Perry puts the number at about half. The change makes a big difference in the results. The people who didn't buy that they were actually shocking people were far more willing to increase the intensity of the shocks. They wanted to know how far the experimenters would go in the ruse, while the experimenters were wondering the same thing about them. Those that believed that they were shocking people were much more likely to keep the shocks down low.
-----
Similarly, the researchers argue, a close look at Milgram’s study suggests it really isn’t about blind obedience at all. Transcripts of the sessions show the participants are often torn by the instruction to administer stronger shocks. Direct orders to do so were far less effective than entreaties that they need to continue for the sake of the study. These reluctant sadists kept “torturing” in response to appeals that they were doing important scientific work—work that would ultimately benefit mankind. Looked at in this way, it wasn’t some inherent evil or conformism that drove them forward, but rather a misplaced sense of idealism.
This wasn't an isolated incident in Milgram's career. His equally famous "six degrees" experiment was even more grossly misrepresented by Milgram.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [39 favorites]
Fascinating read. This tidbit stuck out to me:
In June, a group of European researchers released a Milgram-based study that cross-referenced participants’ shock scores (on a mock game show instead of a lab session) with their results from a personality survey administered months later. Though the results weren’t dramatic, they found that ‘nice’ and ‘agreeable’ people were more likely to follow instructions from a game-show host telling them to torture strangers.posted by Librarypt at 7:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
I wonder - There's the Asch Conformity experiments, and EC's comment makes me think about the peer pressure aspect.
People answered blatantly wrong answers to fit in with the crowd (planted there to give wrong answers).
In EC's comment, she mentions the pressure to *not* do the evil thing. What about an inverse. Someone who is reluctant, but then someone else says they will. Will that increase resistance in the one who won't or will they follow along? Will HOW they say they will affect that choice? Statistically some lead, some follow, we all do different things in different degrees at different times, so obviously experiments like this have to be replicated across large populations and measured for various factors to see commonalities.
But I would like to see how peer-pressure promotes or demotes assent to power.
posted by symbioid at 7:44 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
People answered blatantly wrong answers to fit in with the crowd (planted there to give wrong answers).
In EC's comment, she mentions the pressure to *not* do the evil thing. What about an inverse. Someone who is reluctant, but then someone else says they will. Will that increase resistance in the one who won't or will they follow along? Will HOW they say they will affect that choice? Statistically some lead, some follow, we all do different things in different degrees at different times, so obviously experiments like this have to be replicated across large populations and measured for various factors to see commonalities.
But I would like to see how peer-pressure promotes or demotes assent to power.
posted by symbioid at 7:44 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
realize that under the right circumstances, you'd make a good Nazi?
Surely you don't need Milgram to realize that: the right circumstances are "being born to a non-Jewish family in Germany an appropriate amount of time before the rise of the Nazi party".
Unless you hold some kind of Calvinistesque belief that that generation of Germans were predestined to be particularly Nazi-like, that is.
posted by nicolas.bray at 7:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Surely you don't need Milgram to realize that: the right circumstances are "being born to a non-Jewish family in Germany an appropriate amount of time before the rise of the Nazi party".
Unless you hold some kind of Calvinistesque belief that that generation of Germans were predestined to be particularly Nazi-like, that is.
posted by nicolas.bray at 7:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend this book: Moralities of Everyday Life by John Sabini and Maury Silver. The chapter on obedience to authority was assigned in one of my classes in college and it was quite an eye-opener.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:59 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by Jacqueline at 7:59 AM on December 4, 2014
I obediently transfer about $3000 year after year to the U.S. federal government to kill people abroad so there is that for evidence as well.
posted by srboisvert at 8:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [30 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 8:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [30 favorites]
I came here to write what ThatFuzzyBastard has already said, probably better than I would have.
I'd also note that the classic experiments are bogus because they're not an example of long-term compliance, they're proof that you can temporarily fast talk people into anything. If you don't believe me, imagine that Milgram did the same experiment, but allowed people to go home and sleep on it before continuing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:12 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'd also note that the classic experiments are bogus because they're not an example of long-term compliance, they're proof that you can temporarily fast talk people into anything. If you don't believe me, imagine that Milgram did the same experiment, but allowed people to go home and sleep on it before continuing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:12 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
> I obediently transfer about $3000 year after year to the U.S. federal government to kill people abroad so there is that for evidence as well.
You do that under threat of violence and incarceration - it is hardly the same!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
You do that under threat of violence and incarceration - it is hardly the same!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Another little-known fact is that before he began the experiments that made him famous, Milgram was working on an ultimately failed attempt to invent the world's first electronic drum machine.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:22 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:22 AM on December 4, 2014
Question: Authority?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:37 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:37 AM on December 4, 2014
Surely you don't need Milgram to realize that: the right circumstances are "being born to a non-Jewish family in Germany an appropriate amount of time before the rise of the Nazi party".
This is related why I asked this question yesterday.
posted by desjardins at 8:47 AM on December 4, 2014
This is related why I asked this question yesterday.
posted by desjardins at 8:47 AM on December 4, 2014
Perhaps the best treatment I've ever seen of this idea was in this comic, "Stairs", which I suspect I originally found via MeFi.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:57 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:57 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
These reluctant sadists kept “torturing” in response to appeals that they were doing important scientific work—work that would ultimately benefit mankind. Looked at in this way, it wasn’t some inherent evil or conformism that drove them forward, but rather a misplaced sense of idealism.
Not intending to undermine your other points, but I can't help but feel that a good deal of Nazism's success was due to this misplaced sense of idealism. I mean, isn't that the definition of nationalism?
As for Milgram's overall result that 63 percent of normal people are conformist enough that they will torture you to death if given such orders -- that pretty much correlates with my experience, going all the way back to high school. I am very wary of the norm. Yet, call me an optimist, I mostly look at it the other way -- that there is scientific evidence that 37 percent of the people out there (more than one-third) have got minds (and hearts) of their own, and can be relied upon to act from a sense of personal ethics/morality in a tense situation. Cross that with EmpressCallipygos observation about how
... sometimes maybe the people complying with evil may only need to see one person step forward and say "fuck this, this is wrong" to tip over into joining them in quitting"
... and, well, let's just say I'm not entirely in despair.
posted by philip-random at 9:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Not intending to undermine your other points, but I can't help but feel that a good deal of Nazism's success was due to this misplaced sense of idealism. I mean, isn't that the definition of nationalism?
As for Milgram's overall result that 63 percent of normal people are conformist enough that they will torture you to death if given such orders -- that pretty much correlates with my experience, going all the way back to high school. I am very wary of the norm. Yet, call me an optimist, I mostly look at it the other way -- that there is scientific evidence that 37 percent of the people out there (more than one-third) have got minds (and hearts) of their own, and can be relied upon to act from a sense of personal ethics/morality in a tense situation. Cross that with EmpressCallipygos observation about how
... sometimes maybe the people complying with evil may only need to see one person step forward and say "fuck this, this is wrong" to tip over into joining them in quitting"
... and, well, let's just say I'm not entirely in despair.
posted by philip-random at 9:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I don't mean Stephen King or Clive Barker. Who needs Pennywise the Clown or Mamoulian when all you have to do is look in the mirror and realize that under the right circumstances, you'd make a good Nazi?
*ahem*
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:05 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
*ahem*
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:05 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
As for Milgram's overall result that 63 percent of normal people are conformist enough that they will torture you to death if given such orders -- that pretty much correlates with my experience, going all the way back to high school. I am very wary of the norm. Yet, call
But that's not Milgram's result! Milgram's result is that 63% of the 40% who stuck around will do it (that is, slightly less than a quarter of the population). And that's only if a large percentage of them don't believe anyone is actually being tortured, another large percentage is told it's for a larger good, and the rest are not allowed to think about it. That's all much less dramatic.
Milgram is not quite the Stephen Glass of popular science, but he's close.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:19 AM on December 4, 2014
But that's not Milgram's result! Milgram's result is that 63% of the 40% who stuck around will do it (that is, slightly less than a quarter of the population). And that's only if a large percentage of them don't believe anyone is actually being tortured, another large percentage is told it's for a larger good, and the rest are not allowed to think about it. That's all much less dramatic.
Milgram is not quite the Stephen Glass of popular science, but he's close.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:19 AM on December 4, 2014
Milgram's result is that 63% of the 40% who stuck around will do it (that is, slightly less than a quarter of the population).
so until we get a breakdown on that 60% who chose not to stick around, it's all pretty meaningless, because your other points (belief in greater good, disbelief that torture is actually real, obeying orders to NOT think) all sound like good Nazi functionalism to me.
And thus we're left with anecdotal observations such as mine -- that Milgram's 63% actually feels about right.
posted by philip-random at 9:34 AM on December 4, 2014
so until we get a breakdown on that 60% who chose not to stick around, it's all pretty meaningless, because your other points (belief in greater good, disbelief that torture is actually real, obeying orders to NOT think) all sound like good Nazi functionalism to me.
And thus we're left with anecdotal observations such as mine -- that Milgram's 63% actually feels about right.
posted by philip-random at 9:34 AM on December 4, 2014
These reluctant sadists kept “torturing” in response to appeals that they were doing important scientific work—work that would ultimately benefit mankind. Looked at in this way, it wasn’t some inherent evil or conformism that drove them forward, but rather a misplaced sense of idealism.
This is setting up a strawman interpretation that I don't think many people have. Of course they presented themselves as legitimate authorities working toward the greater good - nobody ever said people will listen if you just start barking orders at them. And there couldn't be words that miss the point more than "inherent evil."
If there's good evidence that a significant percentage of subjects saw through the whole thing that's an entirely different story.
posted by atoxyl at 9:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is setting up a strawman interpretation that I don't think many people have. Of course they presented themselves as legitimate authorities working toward the greater good - nobody ever said people will listen if you just start barking orders at them. And there couldn't be words that miss the point more than "inherent evil."
If there's good evidence that a significant percentage of subjects saw through the whole thing that's an entirely different story.
posted by atoxyl at 9:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Milgram claimed that seventy-five percent of the participants believed in the reality of the experiment, but Perry puts the number at about half.
I tend to look askance at modern replications of the Milgram experiment. First, because modern ethical guidelines do not allow you do have shock levels that go up to 450 volt/XXX levels, even deceptively (Burger's design maxed out at 150 volts). Second, because one weird effect of the popular knowledge of the Milgram Experiment has to be that the number of people who grok that the person they are shocking is fake has to have gone up.
I myself actually took part in psych experiment that was a modified Milgram looking at attitudes in gendered violence and almost immediately caught onto the deception.
The setup was to have male subjects fill out a questionnaire asking them about their opinion on gender roles and any experience they'd had with domestic violence. The subject would then be shown videos of 2 different female (fake) subjects who were ostensibly in the other room, one of whom was stereotypically pleasant and the other stereotypically bitchy. The male subject would then be randomized to partner with one of the female "subjects" and you'd both be given little cognitive tasks. If you failed, your partner had the option to give you a shock and vice versa, the shocks ranging from 1-10, with 1 being a mild buzz and 10 being like one of those novelty joybuzzers. The idea being to see how the male subject's response to either of the women compared to the questionnaire.
Sounds like a neat little experiment right?
Well, the problem is that as soon as the shock portion started getting explained to me, I thought, "oh, like Milgram." When I saw the videos of the females subjects -- who will not be winning any Oscars anytime soon -- I knew for certain that I was getting Milgram'd. At that point I ended my participation, letting the investigators that I knew what was going on and any data they got from me would be compromised.
Now, I'm pretty knowledge about human subjects research, almost like it's my job or something. It would make sense that I would catch on to the deception. The thing is though, the Milgram experiment is one of this historical notes that have entered pop culture. I wonder how many participants in that experiment also realized what was going on, but said nothing and went on to always shock 10, or always 1, or whatever, because they knew there wasn't an actual person in the other room.
Regardless of the rigor (or lack thereof) involved in the original studies, I really do not think they are replicable today. At not just because the experimental design is well known, but also because the concept behind the experiment is now part of our cultural discourse. It's not just the idea of the evil of the Nazis as not exceptional, but banal. It's also decades of publicizing of other research misconduct (e.g., Tuskegee Syphilis Study), which has created a reasonable doubt that simply because a dude in a white coat tells you to do something, it doesn't make it right.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
I tend to look askance at modern replications of the Milgram experiment. First, because modern ethical guidelines do not allow you do have shock levels that go up to 450 volt/XXX levels, even deceptively (Burger's design maxed out at 150 volts). Second, because one weird effect of the popular knowledge of the Milgram Experiment has to be that the number of people who grok that the person they are shocking is fake has to have gone up.
I myself actually took part in psych experiment that was a modified Milgram looking at attitudes in gendered violence and almost immediately caught onto the deception.
The setup was to have male subjects fill out a questionnaire asking them about their opinion on gender roles and any experience they'd had with domestic violence. The subject would then be shown videos of 2 different female (fake) subjects who were ostensibly in the other room, one of whom was stereotypically pleasant and the other stereotypically bitchy. The male subject would then be randomized to partner with one of the female "subjects" and you'd both be given little cognitive tasks. If you failed, your partner had the option to give you a shock and vice versa, the shocks ranging from 1-10, with 1 being a mild buzz and 10 being like one of those novelty joybuzzers. The idea being to see how the male subject's response to either of the women compared to the questionnaire.
Sounds like a neat little experiment right?
Well, the problem is that as soon as the shock portion started getting explained to me, I thought, "oh, like Milgram." When I saw the videos of the females subjects -- who will not be winning any Oscars anytime soon -- I knew for certain that I was getting Milgram'd. At that point I ended my participation, letting the investigators that I knew what was going on and any data they got from me would be compromised.
Now, I'm pretty knowledge about human subjects research, almost like it's my job or something. It would make sense that I would catch on to the deception. The thing is though, the Milgram experiment is one of this historical notes that have entered pop culture. I wonder how many participants in that experiment also realized what was going on, but said nothing and went on to always shock 10, or always 1, or whatever, because they knew there wasn't an actual person in the other room.
Regardless of the rigor (or lack thereof) involved in the original studies, I really do not think they are replicable today. At not just because the experimental design is well known, but also because the concept behind the experiment is now part of our cultural discourse. It's not just the idea of the evil of the Nazis as not exceptional, but banal. It's also decades of publicizing of other research misconduct (e.g., Tuskegee Syphilis Study), which has created a reasonable doubt that simply because a dude in a white coat tells you to do something, it doesn't make it right.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
lupus_yonderboy: > I obediently transfer about $3000 year after year to the U.S. federal government to kill people abroad so there is that for evidence as well.By the time war broke out in Nazi Germany, it absolutely was the same.
You do that under threat of violence and incarceration - it is hardly the same!
posted by IAmBroom at 11:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
So I wonder if one takeaway from Milgram's experiments is supposed to be that personal responsibility is subordinate to authority? That we shouldn't prosecute Nazis or KKK members, or CIA torturers because they were cogs in the machine? Is "I vas chust followink orders" supposed to be a viable defense?
posted by happyroach at 11:14 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by happyroach at 11:14 AM on December 4, 2014
> I obediently transfer about $3000 year after year to the U.S. federal government to kill people abroad so there is that for evidence as well.
You do that under threat of violence and incarceration - it is hardly the same!
Yes and No. You see I am an immigrant and I came here knowing I would have to do this. The dissonance is awful but inescapable. I have chosen. However, the longer I am here perhaps the less responsible I will feel as I don't get to vote.
posted by srboisvert at 11:32 AM on December 4, 2014
You do that under threat of violence and incarceration - it is hardly the same!
Yes and No. You see I am an immigrant and I came here knowing I would have to do this. The dissonance is awful but inescapable. I have chosen. However, the longer I am here perhaps the less responsible I will feel as I don't get to vote.
posted by srboisvert at 11:32 AM on December 4, 2014
Perry's book sounds interesting (and the phenomenon of unbelieving subjects experimenting on the experimenters would certainly be a confounding variable) but "one participant only agreed to keep torturing after they were told they couldn't return the money, another felt remorseful and angry afterwards" is pretty weak sauce. I'm sure a lot of non-psychopaths involved in war crimes would jump at an option to return their pay and leave the battlefield, and/or feel remorseful afterwards. That's interesting, sure, and suggestive that things aren't quite as bleak as they might seem -- but it doesn't change the fact they when it comes down to it, they obey.
posted by No-sword at 4:09 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by No-sword at 4:09 PM on December 4, 2014
srboisvert: "I obediently transfer about $3000 year after year to the U.S. federal government to kill people abroad so there is that for evidence as well."
I realize this was written in the spirit of snark, but one of my main reasons for choosing to return home to Chile rather than keep living in the US was my distaste with funding the slaughter of various brown peoples around the world.
posted by signal at 5:13 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I realize this was written in the spirit of snark, but one of my main reasons for choosing to return home to Chile rather than keep living in the US was my distaste with funding the slaughter of various brown peoples around the world.
posted by signal at 5:13 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Panjandrum, the psych experiments I am familiar with all end with a debrief, one of the first tasks of which is to ask the participant what they thought the point of the experiment was. In the ones I have collaborated on, we discarded the responses from any participant who caught on even slightly. I would be very surprised if the modern replications of milgram type experiments do not do something similar: ask first of all open-endedly what the participant thought was being studied, then ask whether they thought their partner was really another student or an actor, and finally whether they thought the shocks were real. Even if participants didn't admit to seeing through acting and fake shocks, they would have a hard time coming up with a fake purpose for the experiment even if they had some incentive to do so.
In my experience, too, more people tend to believe unlikely experimental setups and fake reasons for running them than you would expect. The only problem is that by disregarding the data from the people who did see through it, you are selecting a population that does not think very critically, and therefore for a milgram experiment is perhaps more likely to go along with it than the general population would be.
posted by lollusc at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2014
In my experience, too, more people tend to believe unlikely experimental setups and fake reasons for running them than you would expect. The only problem is that by disregarding the data from the people who did see through it, you are selecting a population that does not think very critically, and therefore for a milgram experiment is perhaps more likely to go along with it than the general population would be.
posted by lollusc at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2014
I'm really not seeing how "...but it took someone posing as an authority figure telling them it was for the greater good to convince them!" does anything to undermine how scary the result was.
posted by Zed at 10:05 AM on December 5, 2014
posted by Zed at 10:05 AM on December 5, 2014
« Older Rarer than hitting for the cycle... | Never Get Comfortable Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by grobstein at 7:32 AM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]