Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vyralmonkey t1_itoa0j4 wrote

Reply to comment by supercyberlurker in TIL that in a series of experiments in the 1950s, Solomon Asch asked a group of actors and a single test subject what the longest line was in a "vision test". The actors would intentionally answer incorrectly, causing the subject to also answer incorrectly, despite it being very obvious. by Amateur_Validator

Except a closer scenario to the test would involve everyone around you walking onto a bridge that is obviously unstable. And you can either think for yourself and act intelligently, or follow the mob

11

ShalmaneserIII t1_itperq2 wrote

> And you can either think for yourself and act intelligently, or follow the mob

The one problem with "acting intelligently" is that it requires a lot of background information in the situation being considered. For usual situations, you can pick up the necessary background, but for unusual ones you probably don't have time.

"Crowdsourcing" the decision makes a bit of sense there- maybe someone has information and experience that's good and is acting on it, and people near them are following suit.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's not unreasonable.

13

supercyberlurker t1_itodzrk wrote

Depends on the risk-reward. I'd probably still answer the same as the others, even knowing consciously I was conforming. It's because the risk of being 'wrong' is extremely low - I'm not in any danger for answering it wrong, unlike an unstable bridge. I would be really curious why everyone was answering as they did, but caution kind of means to just answer the same and then figure it out safely lately. Conversely, I might suspect some kind of 'individuality test' and then intentionally answer it contrarian, but then I don't really know what's being tested there. I think it's more complex than just 'hurr sheep follow'. If it's literally safer to be in the sheep herd, there's more to it.

9