Editing 1594: Human Subjects

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
−
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and surprisingly evil.
+
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and highly {{w|sociopathic}}.
  
−
In the second panel, she mentions that several people in one study had been arrested for {{w|arson}}. Megan begins to suggest that the arson is a {{w|side effect}} of whatever is being tested before she learns that the arsonists are in the {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} – that is, the group that is ''not'' subjected to any kind of treatment. This suggests that Megan's selection process is heavily biased toward arsonists, for some reason.  
+
In the second panel, she mentions that several people in one study had been arrested for {{w|arson}}, a fatal disease. Megan begins to suggest that the arson is a {{w|side effect}} of whatever is being tested before she learns that the arsonists are in the {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} – that is, the group that is ''not'' subjected to whatever is being tested and is used as a comparison to see the differences in the people who are actually being tested. This result is "troubling", as the control group would not be expected to have such a high rate of incidence of arsonists. The implication is that her subjects are not representative of the general population, but appear to have been selected from some aberrant subpopulation, such as a prison or mental institution. Or she could have recruited them through an announcement that catered in some way to arsonists. An alternate explanation comes from comic [[790: Control]], in which [[Randall]] notes his hobby of sneaking into experiments and giving LSD to the control groups. Yet another explanation could be that Ponytail went looking for some clusters of characteristics in the sample population, which had no connection to the study criteria, and happened upon the arson arrests - such clusters are expected if you look at enough different characteristics.
  
−
The third panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, which is a long study example of game theory in which two participants are forced to choose between protecting and betraying the other. Each will be rewarded for betraying the other, but the best outcome for both is achieved if neither of them does. This is often used as an example of a situation where each party narrowly pursuing their self-interest will lead to a sub-optimal outcome. Megan's subjects, however, overwhelmingly choose to betray their partners, before being told of any reward. This suggests that betraying their partners is a goal they'll seek for it's own sake.  
+
The third panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, in which two subjects must independently decide whether to "collaborate" with or "betray" the other subject based on different rewards for each choice (often framed as a different length of prison sentence, or a different amount of money). The rewards tier are selected so that the outcomes for each individual from best to worst are: betraying a collaborator, collaborating with a collaborator, betraying a betrayer, collaborating with a betrayer.
 +
The thought experiment is considered interesting as it's uncertain what the most logical course of action, as choosing betrayal always improves one's situation, yet being in identical situations with no knowledge of each other, it's also logical for both prisoners to make the same choice and both collaborating is better than both betraying. Of course, it would not be expected that normal people would simply betray each other for no reason, without benefiting from it in any way.
  
−
The last panel references the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, which was designed to test compliance with authority. In the experiment, subjects were instructed by experimenters to administer electric shocks to a third party. While the shocks were fake, the subjects didn't know this, and the victims were instructed to feign pain and beg for it to stop. The experimenters insisted that the subjects continue administering shocks, and many subjects did so, despite their misgivings, simply because they were ordered to.
+
The last panel references the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, in which subjects were instructed by experimenters to administer electric shocks to an unseen third party. The unseen third party was part of the experiment and pretended to be in agony. As shocks escalated they would beg for them to stop. The results suggest that people will continue to administer harm, despite the pleading of the victim, simply if told to do so by an authority figure, even when no incentive is provided to the subject to continue. In this case, however, the actual experiment did not involve electric shocks, and thus suggests that the subjects, of their own volition, brought equipment to produce electric shock and simply engaged in the activity unprompted.
  
−
Ponytail appears to be describing a similar experiment, until she reveals that the actual study had nothing to do with the shocks, and the subjects apparently smuggled in equipment, with the express purpose of administering real electric shocks to (presumably unwilling) people in another room.  
+
In each of these cases, the subjects seem to have some "negative" psychological traits. While it might not be unusual to find one or two people with such traits in a randomly selected group, the fact that all three experiments contain multiple subjects with these traits (and seemingly the same traits in each study) is very unusual, given that this was not a study on psychology, but a study of moisturizing creams. Obviously, there would be no need for electric shocks and betrayals in a study like this{{Citation needed}}, and Megan's claim that a side effect of using moisturizing creams is arson is simply preposterous.
  
−
In each of these cases, the subjects seem to have some some very troubling personal and psychological traits. While a given study might include one or two people with such traits, just by chance, it appears that all, or nearly all, of the subjects in Megan's study possess a disturbing level of malice, and a lack of both empathy and fear of consequences.
+
The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralized groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The implication is that for an IRB to recommend dispensing with safety procedures after meeting the subjects, the subjects must really, ''really'' deserve bad treatment. Or that after hanging out with the criminals they are more relaxed on rulebreaking, and adopting their mindset. Or the members of the IRB are, like the human subjects, just sociopathically awful people. Or that Megan is selecting for these subjects, or causing these abnormalities, as a side effect of spending (probably significantly) more effort than is necessary to adhere to the procedures.
−
 
 
−
The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralized groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The implication is that the IRB, despite their professional and ethical commitment to safe studies, are so appalled by the people in this study that they're no longer concerned with their safety.  
 
  
 +
The overall theme of experiments that are overwhelmingly skewed by outlier human factors is in itself reminiscent of the recent discovery that [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html many psychological experiments cannot be replicated]. That news made quite a bit of noise in the world of science and even made its way in the general press. Just like in the experiments that could not be replicated, it is likely that if the experiments in this comic were attempted again, the outcome would be drastically different than the one achieved here.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
Line 48: Line 48:
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Psychology]]
 
[[Category:Psychology]]
−
[[Category:Scientific research]]
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page:

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1594:_Human_Subjects"