Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Survival/Preparedness Forum' started by DoctaGlockta, May 22, 2012.
That's how the UN controls folks.'08.
Never become a refugee.
Dexter is right about that not being a valid study, but I think that at the core, all humans are hard wired to kill for survival. Only our societal or moral values prevent us from doing so. I think that when the time comes, if it does, most ppl will do what they have to do to defend themselves. I could be wrong.
The 'study' was done by Stanley Milgram. It was the seminal study on obedience and destructive behavior. A couple of things to remember -
1. Everybody tries to 'generalize' the results far beyond the specific conditions. Bad business to get into scientifically speaking.
2. The study was NOT discredited. It certainly had some ethical implications for doing such studies, and as mentioned, is highly criticized depending on how you want to use the results.
3. There were MANY variations of the study conducted (until that sort of study was shut down). They showed many credible 'general' results regarding people's willingness to harm others under many conditions that were far far less than SHTF.
It had some serious implications for the people involved that would absolutely convince you it was not bogus. It also raised quite a number of good questions. It was not the be-all end-all definitive work (nothing ever is) and it has been blown way far out of context (nothing ever should be). But one would be foolish to ignore it. Or over rely on it.
It was discredited - you will have to find research it.
From what I can remember some of the problems were with how he advertized for and selected the participants - biased the results.
Also, not a double blind experiment. The professor was a key participant and wrote up the results and conclusions.
This is from memory so research it.
But there's alot that is the same as well. Read the book. I'd bet you come away with a different understanding of the topic.
I read it after two deployments, and much experience, and it changed quite a bit about how I dealt/worked with it.
I found this on the experiment.
Discussion of the Milgram Experiment
While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
I read several articles on this experiment and in no place have I read that it was discredited. I have read that people didn't like his findings or how he went about getting them. I also think that it is of some concern that the information is being used by our military. It is my understanding that his information is being used be a lot of people and that many have built on it. It was never discredited.
If I felt myself or loved ones were threatened by someone or a group I'd like to think I'd react swiftly and effectively. Unless we're talking psychological warfare, pain would not be a variable. The point is to stop the enemy and protect myself/loved ones through whatever means necessary. SHTF/WROL just gives everyone far more options which I think is good for those that can think outside the box.
I don't care if you respect me, I don't care how big your group is, and I don't care how crazy you think you are. I will go until I die if need be. I was actually thinking about something a little different but similar in the shower today. If I ever found out my kid needed an organ or he would die quickly. I'd immediately get tested to see if I were a match and would have no problems helping him out post-mortem. Whether it be that or fighting "zombies"....I just need to know I did the right thing in the best interest of my family.
So yes, I would have no problem on a mental level using physical/lethal force against an enemy trying to do myself/loved ones harm.
But I think the more important thing to look at is the circumstances. I highly doubt that it'll be roving gangs or solitary thugs doing the harm. It'll be mothers and fathers trying to feed their kids. The have nots that never thought to prepare.
What would you do if it were an 80 year old grandmother limping to your door asking for food/water?
What about a 5 year old that lost their family and needed a place to stay?
I don't stress about the gangs or individuals....I think a lot about how I would react to the people I felt sorry for on some level. What if that were my kid? Would I want a stranger to ignore or kill them just because I was dead even though I did more than 90% of the people in this country to prepare?
I didn't read every reply...but is this the one where they built a mock prison and some were prisoners and some were guards and the guards got really carried away and were cruel??
If so we looked at this quite a bit in undergrad.
We also looked at the diffusion of responsibility. Basically this is where someone is being harmed, tons of people watch, and no one calls for help or helps because they assume others are doing it.
Then you can look at historical accounts of soldiers intentionally missing their targets/enemy during battle.
I think statistics and experiments have their place but for every one someone can name you can name another one that contradicts it in some way.
Only in a last resort situation.
This actually is a more important question than it first seems.
A fully honest answer to this question should come before even buying your first gun for self defense.
It is more important than most anything else in self defense. If you're not willing to harm another, will you even slap them? Let alone anything further.
Many, many people with less than zero training (they've seen movies/TV) have sucessfully defended themselves because they made the decision to use violence if it was needed beforehand.
Honestly making the decision is more important than owning or training with a weapon.
Here is a tragic reminder of what happens when you are NOT willing to use deadly force when it is called for! There may (or may not) be time for commands & if ignored ....especially ignored with an obvious deadly intent...everything else is secondary to stopping the threat... post haste!
The video is very graphic...not for the squeamish!
[ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=969_1263249923"]LiveLeak.com - GRAPHIC - Deputy Kyle Dinkheller[/ame]
I understand the LEO was a really good guy, & had just been informed that day his wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. He was about to get off shift when this encounter ended his life!
Screw SHTF. You **** with me or mine, and you're dead.
... or get between me and my 1st morning cup 'o coffee.
If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another?
Absolutely! Especially people already dislike. Hopefully they would come around during that SHTF incident.
Wow! That is really sad! The officer seemed like he was really uncertain about what to do when the guy wouldn't obey his orders.
That's what I thought too. That little crazy dance put the officer off guard like he was dealing with an idiot as opposed to a killer.
Once the gun comes out you say yes sir or you get shot around here. Good rule to follow.
Well, when I taught the study (having read it - the original, half a dozen variations, seen the films of it, and studied it in coursework in grad school)...as I said - there were some issues. But nothing so wrong that it should be ignored.
Sincerely, Dr. Aceman, PhD, Psychology. Or we can go with your comment.