Milgram and the Caravan Cheat

[ShuShu62]

The Milgram experiment is the one where researchers told participants to continue shocking other participants with ever increasing voltages. It is a famous experiment that goes to the heart of what it means to be human. It is easily googled for more details.

The intent behind the experiment was to explain the holocaust as many of the defendents in the Nuremburg trials used the 'just following orders' defense. What the experiments illustrated is that the majority of humans are pre-disposed to cede ethical responsibility to a higher authority.

All comments along the lines that 'I am cheating until the devs fix the bug' or 'I am cheating to make the devs fix the bug' are following that line of thought assigning the role of higher authority to the Developers.

All comments along the lines of 'I am cheating because it is not cheating because we all agree it is not cheating' are also following that line of thought assigning the role of higher authority to the 'cloud' or 'them'. Another term being mob psychology.

Milgram does not apply to comments along the lines of I am cheating because I want to win as the individual is fully bearing the ethical burden. The ethical burden ranging from I am speeding because I am still driving safely (small) to I am speeding and I don't care who I kill in the process (large).

I am sure that you are all shocked to hear me say that I am pretty sure I do not cede ethical responsibility to authority easily. The Milgram experiments show I am in the clear minority. They also show why I feel the need to be more vocal on this. I think one of the reasons the cheating has stopped in every game I have attempted to stop it in so far is because I have a strong/overbearing persona. One strong enough to be an authority that enables folks to make the right choice.

The Milgram experiment showed another thing. Pointing out what people are capable of doing to people can be extremely damaging. The Milgram experiments have never been reproduced because of the damaging effect it had on many of the participants who refused to stand up to authority. Recent studies have shown that ethical self-deception is a necessary human survival trait that enhances human performance both individually and in groups.

So, cheating at the caravan game is cheating. There really is no rationalization to justify it. But having cheated at it in the past, cheating at it in the future, or defending the cheating doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you... human.

...just don't do it any more.

[random user]

The Milgram experiment showed another thing. Pointing out what people are capable of doing to people can be extremely damaging. The Milgram experiments have never been reproduced because of the damaging effect it had on many of the participants who refused to stand up to authority. Recent studies have shown that ethical self-deception is a necessary human survival trait that enhances human performance both individually and in groups.

Sorry to nitpick but this part simply isn't true. Many people were happy to have done the experiment, and it has been replicated many many times. Though wikipedia shouldn't be considered an authoritative source, of course, the Migram experiment article talks about both of these (with citations, which does make it a bit more reliable):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

If I recall correctly, it wasn't until the Stanford Prison Experiment, another famous experiment, where new ethical guidelines for what you could and could not do were drafted (though it's been a while so I might be misremembering that part).

[ShuShu62]

Sorry to nitpick but this part simply isn't true. Many people were happy to have done the experiment, and it has been replicated many many times. Though wikipedia shouldn't be considered an authoritative source, of course, the Migram experiment article talks about both of these (with citations, which does make it a bit more reliable):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

If I recall correctly, it wasn't until the Stanford Prison Experiment, another famous experiment, where new ethical guidelines for what you could and could not do were drafted (though it's been a while so I might be misremembering that part).

I happily stand corrected on the reproduced thing. The 'Ethics section' illustrates that you are correct, but also illustrates where my statements came from.

The Milgram Shock Experiment raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress and inflicted insight suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[11] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

Thats what I get for typing from personal recollection rather than quoting actual text...

[ShuShu62]

Well, now that you made me read the wiki... I think this section explains both why I feel compelled to be adamant and why being adamant works....

Milgram also combined the effect of authority with that of conformity. In those experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peers strongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only 4 of 40 participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading the questions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In that variation, 37 of 40 continued with the experiment.[20]

[random user]

You might be interested in this experiment too then, if you hadn't heard of it before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

[The Lulu]

That makes me feel better. Faith in mankind etc etc. Last night I tried the threat approach. Someone was using the cheat and getting called out for it. The person claimed that it was 'okay' because anyone could do it. He was challenged by others who said, if so, why don't you tell us how? He told them they should google it and find out on their own (yeah sure) and many said that they had looked for it and didn't find it, so unless he was prepared to share it, he was still cheating... he laughed and said he didn't care.

Then I went on global and said that I knew how, and even if I wouldn't do it (no one doubted me, solely because it was plain to see I hadn't or it would've been me with a score of 5 up for everyone to see), if I saw it again I would happily go on global and tell the world exactly how to do it, if only to level the playing field. That it would not afford him an advantage if EVERYONE in the game could do it too...

It stopped, at least all last night. Haven't been able to check today, white screen of death *sigh*

Is it just me or are there NO early games available?

[ShuShu62]

You might be interested in this experiment too then, if you hadn't heard of it before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

A person only needs to watch public political discourse to know that one is true...

I knew of the conclusions but not the specific experiment. Thanks.

[ShuShu62]

That makes me feel better. Faith in mankind etc etc...

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

ery pollyanish sentiment I feel. Must be why I like it. Crowds are inherently good, cooperative and quite benificent... they just need reminders every now and then.

[Pulseczar]

Social psychology is a fascinating subject (the Bystander Effect is very interesting), but I don't think the Milgram experiments apply to most people here on this subject, and I certainly don't think it applies to me. When I still played the game, I saw the game as already ruined by the ability to buy better stats with real money. I saw using the caravan exploit as a way to [slightly] get back at those that cheated with money [and didn't know about the exploit]. It increased my enjoyment of the game, without harming any of the innocent players, because the game was hosed whether I used the exploit or not.

Crowds are inherently good, cooperative and quite benificent... they just need reminders every now and then.

Good ol' groupthink. Yay for the unanimous jury judicial system.

[ShuShu62]

...I don't think the Milgram experiments apply to most people here on this subject....

nobody does, that is why it is so reproducible.

You are clearly justifying your actions based on the instructions given by an authority. Your interpretation of those instructions may be... uh... different, but you are definitely saying 'someone else' is guiding you to do what you are doing.

[Pulseczar]

...I don't think the Milgram experiments apply to most people here on this subject....

nobody does, that is why it is so reproducible.

You are clearly justifying your actions based on the instructions given by an authority. Your interpretation of those instructions may be... uh... different, but you are definitely saying 'someone else' is guiding you to do what you are doing.

No, I clearly did it because I wanted to do it. How am I saying someone else guided me? What instructions were given to me that I followed by exploiting the caravan game? Yes, I reacted to the actions of others (namely, cheating with money), and citing that reason for my using the exploit isn't assigning blame or authority for my actions, because my actions weren't wrong (though of course you don't agree with that). There's no reason to pass the blame for a harmless act, because there is no blame for a harmless act.

Okay, let's go about it this way. You are telling me that my using the exploit was wrong. How? Your answer will [very likely] be that it hurts the game. I, of course, think the game can not be hurt because it's not a legitimate game, as is, and is already completely damaged. To "hurt" it would be like trying to demolish a building that's already demolished. Until you and I agree on whether or not the game is already pointless and illegitimate, we're not going to agree on whether or not exploiting the caravan game hurts the game (CivWorld).

Your whole argument that the Milgram experiment applies to people using the exploit is hinged on the claim that using the exploit is unethical. You can't expect us, who do not believe it to be unethical, to agree with your claim that the Milgram experiment applies to us. The Milgram experiment is about passing the buck and conformity, but there's no buck to pass when it comes to exploiting the caravan game, because no harm has been done.

It's like if I told you that the Milgram experiment applies to you as well, for chewing with the right side of your mouth. And you're like, "What? There's nothing wrong with chewing with the right side of my mouth! Why would I have teeth on the right side of my mouth, if they weren't there to serve a 'purpose' of chewing? How is it wrong? How does it hurt anyone?" And then I say: "See. You're denying it. You're trying to rationalize around it. You're trying to assign authority and blame elsewhere. It's not your fault there are teeth on the right side of your mouth. You didn't put them there. This proves that I'm correct. Because you don't think it applies to you, that is evidence that it does apply to you."

[afrobotics]

I think Shushu is trying to say that you are following authorities lead in this way:

Even if you don't believe the cheat is unethical, you are only doing it because it is condoned by the authorities. Take a prison example, you knife a guy in front of a guard because you know that guard will do nothing. You don't consider it unethical to knife the guy, because he's done bad things or w/e. However, if they guard gave you a signal that you would be punished, you wouldn't do it, independent of the ethical nature of the act. You would be acting in self-interest not to.

Because 2k isn't changing the rules of the game, you are acting the way you are. In this way I think it satisfies Shushu's assessment.

[Pulseczar]

I think Shushu is trying to say that you are following authorities lead in this way:

Even if you don't believe the cheat is unethical, you are only doing it because it is condoned by the authorities. Take a prison example, you knife a guy in front of a guard because you know that guard will do nothing. You don't consider it unethical to knife the guy, because he's done bad things or w/e. However, if they guard gave you a signal that you would be punished, you wouldn't do it, independent of the ethical nature of the act. You would be acting in self-interest not to.

Because 2k isn't changing the rules of the game, you are acting the way you are. In this way I think it satisfies Shushu's assessment.

Is this directed to me? How did I follow any authority's lead? When you say "the cheat", you're talking about the caravan bug exploit, right? I've never known of a game developer that condones exploitation of bugs, except in a couple cases where the vast majority of the people liked the bug being in the game (in which case, it became an intended feature), which is clearly not the case here. The fact that Firaxis has not explicitly stated that it's against their rules to use the caravan exploit, or verified that this is indeed a bug and not an intended feature, does not constitute them condoning it. I don't consider it condoned by them. Therefore, I could not have been acting out of belief that they condone it.

[ShuShu62]

I think Shushu is trying to say that you are following authorities lead in this way:

Even if you don't believe the cheat is unethical, you are only doing it because it is condoned by the authorities. Take a prison example, you knife a guy in front of a guard because you know that guard will do nothing. You don't consider it unethical to knife the guy, because he's done bad things or w/e. However, if they guard gave you a signal that you would be punished, you wouldn't do it, independent of the ethical nature of the act. You would be acting in self-interest not to.

Because 2k isn't changing the rules of the game, you are acting the way you are. In this way I think it satisfies Shushu's assessment.

I really like this summary. It definitely applies to some of the conversations here.

After rereading the text that triggered my reply...

...When I still played the game, I saw the game as already ruined by the ability to buy better stats with real money. I saw using the caravan exploit as a way to [slightly] get back at those that cheated with money [and didn't know about the exploit]. It increased my enjoyment of the game, without harming any of the innocent players, because the game was hosed whether I used the exploit or not....

I was simplistically reacting to
1. My actions are justified because the game is ruined
2. The developers ruined the game by relying on civBucks
3. The developers are the authority
4. Therefore the Authority is guiding my actions

your summary and example adds ethics back into the discussion and greatly enhances what was originally just a logical derivation. What really hooked me was the parallel between having no problem shivving someone as long as you aren't caught, and having no problem hurting others despite obvious evidence to the contrary voiced by those being hurt and the Milgram participants continuing to apply shocks despite obvious duress from those being shocked.


So yes Pulse, we are both referring to you, but you are unique in the conversation as the others rely on the authority's tacit approval of the cheat while you are leveraging the authority's explicit approval of civBucks.

[rolling ball]

Once everyone has access to hammers to break stones, why do people who use stones to break up stones object to others who use hammers?

[ShuShu62]

Poker is a game of skill played with a deck of cards to win money.
If one person has a gun they can use it to win rather than skill
But if everyone has a gun it returns to being a game of skill so everybody should just use guns instead of cards

Gives 'no limit' poker a whole new meaning.

[churd]

Human psychology is an incredibly complex subject. Most people do not have the patience or expertise to have a full discussion about that subject. That's pretty much the case here.

Shu, you pretty much skipped over what would have been the body of the research, and went straight to the conclusion. At no point to you attempt to draw any parallels to the methodology of Milgram's experiment. Yet somehow the reader is expected to jump on board with the idea that the authority in Milgram is the same as the developers of CivWorld. ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺.

Amongst the many, many facets of the experiment that you glossed over, the one I'd highlight is this one: the goal of the teacher and the subject is cooperative, whereas the goal of the caravan cheat and the person flaming him in chat is competitive. When the subject eventually answers a question correctly (despite the fact that the answers were rigged), the teacher also benefits, because they can move on to the next question. When a caravan cheat wins the caravan gold, he denies the other person the ability to win that gold. ...Sorry, I've mentioned two things that were wrong with your analysis, by mentioning that THE SUBJECT IN MILGRAM WAS PART OF THE EXPERIMENT.

These two topics have nothing to do with each other. The hilarious/painful thing is that I'm on "your side" when it comes to the caravan. I don't do it and I don't like people who do. But drawing a "parallel" to Milgram is ridiculously uninformed.

[ShuShu62]

... But drawing a "parallel" to Milgram is ridiculously uninformed.

We can agree to disagree here as I believe your critique is ridiculously literal.

your critique is equivalent to saying Milgram does not apply to Nazi Germany because the Nazis weren't testing the jews. The point is the theory (willingness to hand over ethical responsibility to someone else), not the actual mechanics used to test the theory.

You and I agree on many things, but we have a very pronounced SJ vs NT difference in personality. I have had many mutal respect relationships with SJs who just really can't understand why I am so incapable of understanding how the world really works. No worries.

[churd]

Do I really have to go over this?

1) The point is the willingness to have over ethical responsibility in the face of a life threatening situation. The "subject" fakes a heart attack. That was meant to parallel the potential death of the Jewish people in gas chambers. Losing gold in an electronic game, or being flamed by the loser, is a significantly lesser circumstance.

2) One of the findings was that the teachers experienced a great degree of stress over their decision to continue, even as they continued. That's what makes the experiment about humanity. There is no parallel to that, either.

3) The methodology of the experiment explicitly states that the teacher hears a progressively more and more stern set of instructions from the person running the experiment. Four sentences are laid out, and did not vary as the experiment was run multiple times. This is wildly different from tacit approval from developers.

This last point is the most important point. There is no external pressure on caravan cheaters to use the caravan cheat. The only pressure on them is internal: the drive to win the game. It's ridiculous to compare a true authority figure to a game developer. One has the ability to stop the experiment and not pay you (in the case of Milgram), or to kill you for insubordination (in the case of Nazi Germany). The other is a bunch of free-market capitalists who can only providing you with incentives to make the game easier. That's a fundamental psychological principle: positive and negative reinforcement, or colloquially the carrot and the stick.

This is why psychology is a difficult subject. Most experiments are useful if and only if you understand the underlying architecture and methodology.

Post Script ) I am an INTP in Myers Briggs. SJ and NT are not parallel personality types in Myers Briggs. The opposite of SJ in NP. The opposite of T is F. So at least part of the difference between us is my insistence on properly citing other people's work.

[ShuShu62]

Do I really have to go over this?

Apparrently.

1) The point is the willingness to have over ethical responsibility in the face of a life threatening situation.

If you read farther, you will find the results were reproducible even when the participants KNEW they were only using a computer simulation. The life threatening aspect meant that there were not limits to what humans are willing to give over to authority, not that they are only willing to do it in life threatening situations.

...2) One of the findings was that the teachers experienced a great degree of stress over their decision to continue, even as they continued. That's what makes the experiment about humanity. There is no parallel to that, either...
.

Ask Lulu about her wrestling with the decision to out cheat the cheaters. And my personal experience of outcheating them once per game. I speak from personal knowlege that this definitely has applied to me in this context.

...3) The methodology of the experiment explicitly states that the teacher hears a progressively more and more stern set of instructions from the person running the experiment. Four sentences are laid out, and did not vary as the experiment was run multiple times. This is wildly different from tacit approval from developers.
....

Only if they refuse to adhere. Here again, I am speaking from personal experience. The more I protest against cheating because cheating isn't cheating. The sterner the reactions from the 'adamants' became.

...This last point is the most important point. There is no external pressure on caravan cheaters to use the caravan cheat. The only pressure on them is internal: the drive to win the game. It's ridiculous to compare a true authority figure to a game developer. One has the ability to stop the experiment and not pay you (in the case of Milgram), or to kill you for insubordination (in the case of Nazi Germany). The other is a bunch of free-market capitalists who can only providing you with incentives to make the game easier. That's a fundamental psychological principle: positive and negative reinforcement, or colloquially the carrot and the stick.
....

The conversation is not about the original cheaters but rather the one's rationalizing cheating because others are cheating.

...Post Script ) I am an INTP in Myers Briggs. SJ and NT are not parallel personality types in Myers Briggs. The opposite of SJ in NP. The opposite of T is F. So at least part of the difference between us is my insistence on properly citing other people's work....

Are you sure? You are awefully literal for an INTP. Full disclosure, I am more a fan of Kiersey's interpretation of the myers Briggs testing that Myers Briggs directly. In Kiersey, the core groups are SJ, SP, NT, and NF and yes SJ/NT are are opposites from an abstract vs. concrete thought way while the other two don't play in that space at all(just do it, just feel it)


P.S. as Midknight implied elsewhere... I am ENTP.

[rolling ball]

Poker is a game of skill played with a deck of cards to win money.
If one person has a gun they can use it to win rather than skill

Gun doesn't help players win the game, it's just helps getting the money. If you lose the game and gets the money, you still lose the game.
I play with no money and can't really use a gun to steal money when I'm playing online.

[ShuShu62]

Gun doesn't help players win the game, it's just helps getting the money....

Exactly, so why are you advocating using a gun ...errr hammer... to get the money again?

[churd]

The conversation is not about the original cheaters but rather the one's rationalizing cheating because others are cheating.

Really? That explains a lot of my misunderstanding of this topic. Because you really could have fooled me. Or rather, did fool me. The particularly misleading statement was

So, cheating at the caravan game is cheating. There really is no rationalization to justify it.

That, and all the examples which only talk about action, not rationalization of action. And all the examples which focus on types of cheating. Such as the gun-at-a-poker game example. Hopefully you can see my confusion.

-----

Offtopic and personally judgemental, there's a reason why Keirsey's system is not traditionally adopted in workplace evaluation. It has nothing to do with timing, that it came second, or that it had to map to existing theories in order to even be considered. It has to do with the fact that it makes peoples thoughts, feelings, perceptions and judgments entirely subservient to their tendencies between intuition and sense. Myers-Briggs is completely balanced, whereas Keirsey is weighted in ways that don't fit some people's expectations. It does not make sense to ask a series of questions, then throw out the answers to some questions based on the answers to others.

[ShuShu62]

Really? That explains a lot of my misunderstanding ....

I realize that I cut off the bits where you are illustrating where you feel I have been misleading. I think I have been very clear on that distinction. In fact, it was the whole process of making that distinction in so many threads that motivated this thread.

The guns is a perfect example. As I recall, there were three lines to my analogy. Why did I add a third line if I only needed the first gun toter to make my point?

offtopic... Redundant testing to separate noise from actual messages is basic scientifid process. I would have thought an INTP could appreciate that. It is certainly why the SATs were so adamant that revealing the correct answers after the fact would invalidate the entire testing paradigm.