![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 16:08:15
Background:
According to Mark Lippman, Director of Georgetown U. Lombardi Cancer Center,: 'people ... who are the most compliant, the most accepting of what their doctor told them- and frankly, the most god fearing- had ... the worst prognosis, whereas those... who were angry, not accepting, wanting to fight, did the best.Hypothesis:
Does this hold true for 'psychiatric illnesses'? I would love to see a study of people who are in psychiatric care vs. people who have joined anti-psychiatric movements for a comparison in survival rates and recidivism and recovery.Does anyone have any information on this?
JOHN
Posted by Ted on October 29, 2000, at 19:18:09
In reply to Hypothesis based on cancer research., posted by pullmarine on October 29, 2000, at 16:08:15
John,
> According to Mark Lippman, Director of Georgetown U. Lombardi Cancer Center,: 'people ... who are the most compliant, the most accepting of what their doctor told them- and frankly, the most god fearing- had ... the worst prognosis, whereas those... who were angry, not accepting, wanting to fight, did the best.
A non-objective data point: When I was in the hospital 18 months ago, I and one young woman were the only ones who seemed to me to be really *fighting* our mental illness. When she left, she was in excellent shape. When I left, I wasn't quite so good, but my condition improved rapidly. I happened to be back there 6 months ago, 1 year after my stay, and I noticed about 75% of the same people in the outpatient group. They were the ones who seemed to not want to try, and many of them were rather religious (praying before group therapy, etc.)Ted
Posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 23:15:01
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based on cancer research., posted by Ted on October 29, 2000, at 19:18:09
If any of you are familiar with the Milgram study (Obediance to Authority), perhaps you remember that (contrary to milgram's expectations), the subjects in the experiment who refused to obbey orders to electrocute an innocent person were the ones who felt guilt and shame, whereas the ones who obbeyed to the end rationalized their behavior and felt neither guilt nor shame.
I venture to ask: How many of those who chose to disobbey were likely to suffer from depression? Were there significant differences in coping skills and life skills? Were they less or equally likely to fall victim to what is called 'mental illness' (this is a word I normally avoid).
Opinions?
JOHN
Posted by shar on November 1, 2000, at 1:09:28
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies, posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 23:15:01
How many of those who chose to disobbey were likely to suffer from depression? Were there significant differences in coping skills and life skills? Were they less or equally likely to fall victim to what is called 'mental illness'
--My hypothesis would be that they felt guilt or shame at failing at the task or failure to obey an authority figure. Milgram's study showed us how far people will go to obey.
I would think the "quitters" would feel guilt or shame as a transient thing, because ultimately they refused to harm someone (a good thing). While that could create cognitive dissonance (which they would ultimately resolve), I would expect them to be in better shape long term, than those who believed they were shocking someone while hearing them scream in agony.
S
Posted by pullmarine on November 1, 2000, at 14:18:53
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies, posted by shar on November 1, 2000, at 1:09:28
>
> I would think the "quitters" would feel guilt or shame as a transient thing, because ultimately they refused to harm someone (a good thing). While that could create cognitive dissonance (which they would ultimately resolve), I would expect them to be in better shape long term, than those who believed they were shocking someone while hearing them scream in agony.
>
I would take the opposite point of view. In my opinion, the quitters were probably less able to rationalize or deny their actions, which to me seem essential in coping with certain aspects of one's personality and actions. And I would venture to propose that they probably has a higher propensity for depression and mental distress.
john
Posted by shar on November 1, 2000, at 18:37:21
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies » shar, posted by pullmarine on November 1, 2000, at 14:18:53
> >
> > I would think the "quitters" would feel guilt or shame as a transient thing, because ultimately they refused to harm someone (a good thing). While that could create cognitive dissonance (which they would ultimately resolve), I would expect them to be in better shape long term, than those who believed they were shocking someone while hearing them scream in agony.
> >
> I would take the opposite point of view. In my opinion, the quitters were probably less able to rationalize or deny their actions, which to me seem essential in coping with certain aspects of one's personality and actions. And I would venture to propose that they probably has a higher propensity for depression and mental distress.
>
>
> john
Posted by Rzip on November 1, 2000, at 21:26:08
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies, posted by pullmarine on October 31, 2000, at 23:15:01
> If any of you are familiar with the Milgram study (Obediance to Authority)...
I have studied this particular work of Milgram. I therefore feel compelled to defend him. His study has nothing to do with depression or the direct link between "victim" and the naive participant. His pilot studies was designed to investigate the relative psychological effect of a subject to an authority figure. Proximity relations was his sole goal for the study. Granted that all the researchers involved were shocked by the study results (60% of the participants pushed the button to the fullest capacity and hence finished the study).
I only feel compelled to defend Milgram because I have spent quite a lot of time studying this particular work of Milgram, along with my peers.
At the conclusion of the study, all the participants were asked back to be informed of the actor aspect of the "victim". So, Milgram's team did make an effort to alleviate any post-stress. From an ethicial point of view, Milgram holds no responsibility should his study have inavertingly triggered the onset of any clinical depression. The contract of the study was strictly a monetarian exchange for information/data.
- Rzip
Posted by coral on November 2, 2000, at 4:50:14
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies » pullmarine, posted by Rzip on November 1, 2000, at 21:26:08
"From an ethicial point of view, Milgram holds no responsibility should his study have inavertingly triggered the onset of any clinical depression. The contract of the study was strictly a monetarian exchange for information/data."
If memory serves me, the Milgram studies were one of the types of studies that led to outlawing certain types of studies involving human subjects. I could be incorrect about this.
However, any researcher has a responsibility for the outcome of his/her studies, both positively and negatively, especially if human subjects are involved. That doesn't mean that every outcome can be predicted, but that all reasonable efforts to ensure the well-being of the test subjects must be taken into consideration.
Coral
>
>
Posted by pullmarine on November 2, 2000, at 19:54:24
In reply to Re: Hypothesis based milgram studies » pullmarine, posted by Rzip on November 1, 2000, at 21:26:08
Re: Perhaps I did not make my point clearly.
I have also studied this particular work of Milgram, and I was in no way criticizing it. In fact, I think both he, and h. arendt are brilliant people.THe point I am making is as follows: At the end of the book, Milgram reports that contrary to his expectations, the subjects who chose to stop participating in the experiment felt guilty, ashamed, etc.
THe question I raise is the following: If you divide the subjects of the milgram study into two groups: Group A, the ones who stopped giving the shocks; Group B, the ones who went through with the experiment all the way to the end. Whic qroup will have a higher rate of depression or other form of psycho-emotional distress?
John
Posted by coral on November 3, 2000, at 3:44:06
In reply to Re: Perhaps I did not make my point clearly, posted by pullmarine on November 2, 2000, at 19:54:24
Dear John,
In my opinion, those who quit would have the greatest likelihood of developing problems. Again, just my opinion, but they "failed" to comply with authority, risking censure by that activity, there is commonly a fear of challenging authority (how many people say, "Sure, doc, anything you say,"?), and there would probably be guilt about a) getting involved in the first place, b) not quitting sooner.My comment re: the researchers' responsibility was meant to convey that a monetary exchange does not relieve the "professional" from responsibility.
Have I completely missed the point? If so, please clarify.
Thanks,
Coral
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.