Sandy Fales

Hey Sandy, I too think that the family and how it functions is an interesting area of focus, and perhaps one that is so often discounted in the public, and yet in a very contradictory way, also overly blamed and scapegoated by an unsympathetic and misinformed populace. So I think it’s an area that needs much more attention and awareness.

With regard to your ruling on the Milgram experiment, I have a completely different take on the end result you mentioned justifying the means. I feel that his sample size and demographics vastly missed the mark for his findings to have been so resoundingly heralded as valid and wide reaching. To me, 40 white, middle-aged men cannot accurately reflect the true nature of the public at large, interesting though the findings were. And having read that at least three of the 40 participants (which isn’t that about 13%?), experienced seizures as a result of the psychological strain and trauma of the experiment (source), I would also argue that there was harm done that exceeded any valuable insights we may have gained, in my opinion. That being said, you mentioned if there were any actual pain involved you might change your mind about the ethics. Do the seizures suffered have any impact on your decision? Also, you said that if they had not been debriefed as they were, then you would be willing to reconsider. Does the fact that the sample could be argued as not legitimate cloud your decision? Given that they were led to believe that the impact of the study was of value enough to make their own discomfort, and possible pain, worth it, would you agree that if the sample was deemed not representative enough to have said impact they were promised, as reason enough to dispute whether they were fully and properly informed/debriefed?

Like what you read? Give Rob Bowen a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.