Les jeux la mort-Documentray revealing the dark side of human nature.

**Berries'forest** · 03-31-2013

Human nature a term coined to describe the complexity and unpredictability of people's inclination toward doing the things that they do. It has been an everlong inquisitive voyage to understand the nature of us humans, many research has been done around it and not very much was satiifyingly informing and it has yet to be but The Game of Death a french documentary made in the disguise of a reality t.v show inroder to investigate the findings of a 50 year old expirement carried out by Yale's unviersity. The main theme of the project was to inquire to what extent does conformity and obediance play a role in making people's decisions, in this case though it was more than just an individualistic one. The expirement revovled around contestants listings word of pairs and punishing wrong answerers with an electric shock increasing it's volt with every higher level of the game. But what if the contestant screams out in pain and begs you to stop the harm you are inflicting upon them?. What would you do?. Would you continue until the game ends and he/she possibly loses his/her life?. Or will you stop apologize and walkout?. The study revealed a rather shocking and unsettling result , finding that about over 60% percent of the contestants carried on the process despite the pleas of the receiving contestant untill they ultimately suffered in silence. More accurately only 16 out of 80 contestants were brave enough to walk out and put an end to their part in the game. The expirement conlcuded that a significant fraction of the population were more than ready to go to great lengths of inlficting torture and distress on someone else for the sake of pleasing an authority figure.Another reason was obediance and conformity; after revealing the true motive of the expirement the contestants expressed how the felt pressured into continueing the pain infliction because the didn't want to "spoil the show". If this documentary goes to prove anything; it reveals much of the untold secrets of human nature and aspects that can have a heavy impact on it. I don't know how much anyone can stand to watch the whole thing without being repulsed and repungant it goes to as far as to show the mentality behind inflicting pain and suffering in others without the slightest feeling of remorse for merely the gratification of a dominant figure. The game of death is an eye-opener to much of what we still don't know about ourselves and the people around us.

Here's a link for a better read on this subject.

Thoughts on this?.

**Berries'forest** · 03-31-2013

Anyone watched the documentary?. Do you have any thoughts on this?.

**tearose** · 03-31-2013

sister,

I've heard of this experiment before, and I also heard that it was not real, as in the people receiving the electric shocks were part of the experiment and the electric shocks weren't real, they were just acting so the participants would think it was real, like it says in the link you posted. Even so, I don't think I could watch the documentary, even knowing that it is fake. Sounds too grim.

I don't know much about psychology, so I can't say much about the experiment. Maybe some people just lack the initiative to do the right thing or don't trust themselves to make the right decision. I've noticed a lot of similar things like, when I was at university I think it was, they said that if you are on your own at night and someone attacks you, you should shout 'Fire!' instead of 'Help!' otherwise nobody will come to help you as they will be unsure what kind of situation it is and how to handle it. Or if people see a fight, they don't know whether to try and break it up or not, they wait and see what everyone else will do. But I spent some time in a country that is totally different to that, alhamdulilah, and I saw that people would intervene in most situations if they thought something was wrong.
On the other hand, we should be able to trust those who are leaders in our community, so, it's a complicated issue. Allah knows best.

**Berries'forest** · 03-31-2013

I know you think it's 'fake' and in a way it actually is. But the main purpose was not to inflict the pain practically that would threaten losing lives. I think it was to explore how much a person can bear inflicting pain on others and the expirement wasn't based on money either. They were indeed paid before but it was prior to the expirement and not after there waasn't a prize but it rather showed in way that some people can well in this case it was honestly a majority who silenced their consceince and carried on anyway. I'd say it's quite telling but just not sure what it is designed to exactly prove. The factors affecting our psychological state when we inlfict pain on other during the duty of war or even murder?. But it is a really negative outcome afterall.

they said that if you are on your own at night and someone attacks you, you should shout 'Fire!' instead of 'Help!'

Thanks for that one I'll be sure to scream it with my loudest voice.

Thanks for responding

.

**tearose** · 03-31-2013

Yes you're right, I just meant it wasn't real in the sense that the participants thought it was. The only difference is that we as the audience would know there is no real danger, whereas for all those people knew, they could have ended up killing them.

**Berries'forest** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by tearose

Or if people see a fight, they don't know whether to try and break it up or not, they wait and see what everyone else will do. But I spent some time in a country that is totally different to that, alhamdulilah, and I saw that people would intervene in most situations if they thought something was wrong.
On the other hand, we should be able to trust those who are leaders in our community, so, it's a complicated issue

About that. I think it's really disapointing when people play passive roles in those kind of situations and just watch the whole thing pass by right infront of their eyes we should have more courage and think about the people being violated in thses situations. The leaders thing, I'm not too sure about it. I think the main setting was that to signify how much authority figures with socially dominating influence can have an impact or a be an active factor on the way people behave. It was mostly about conformity and pleasing the audience along with gratifying the pleasure of the authoritive figure. I hope this doesn't apply to muslims as we should only fear God and obey Him but when it comes to non-muslims I'm kind of struke by how things do actaully have an influence on some of them. Some not all before any accusation of gross generalizations is pointed out.

**tearose** · 03-31-2013

I suppose I was trying to think about what made the difference in the Muslim country to make people want to take the initiative and intervene to do the right thing. We can't just say it is always best to rely on your own initiative, as we will always refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah to know what is right and wrong not our own instincts. If you apply it to the war situation, which seems to be the point behind this experiment, we would also have to trust and obey the leader in the war effort(same as if it was the khalifa of the Islamic state). So I suppose the difference is, in our case, both aspects are positive; the individual people only want to please Allah, and the leaders only want to please Allah, and everyone has access to the Qur'an and sunnah, so we all know right from wrong.
But in the case of the non-Muslims, they don't try to please Allah, so they end up trying to please the authority figures in their society or being popular (like pleasing the audience in the experiment). And they can't rely on their own initiative, because they don't have a sound basis for deciding between right and wrong.

Of course some of this doesn't apply to the current situation because we don't have khilafa, but it is there in principle. Hope what I said makes sense more or less. And Allah knows best and astaghfirullah if I said anything wrong.

**Berries'forest** · 03-31-2013

Originally Posted by tearose

I suppose I was trying to think about what made the difference in the Muslim country to make people want to take the initiative and intervene to do the right thing. We can't just say it is always best to rely on your own initiative, as we will always refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah to know what is right and wrong not our own instincts. If you apply it to the war situation, which seems to be the point behind this experiment, we would also have to trust and obey the leader in the war effort(same as if it was the khalifa of the Islamic state). So I suppose the difference is, in our case, both aspects are positive; the individual people only want to please Allah, and the leaders only want to please Allah, and everyone has access to the Qur'an and sunnah, so we all know right from wrong.
But in the case of the non-Muslims, they don't try to please Allah, so they end up trying to please the authority figures in their society or being popular (like pleasing the audience in the experiment). And they can't rely on their own initiative, because they don't have a sound basis for deciding between right and wrong.
Of course some of this doesn't apply to the current situation because we don't have khilafa, but it is there in principle. Hope what I said makes sense more or less. And Allah knows best and astaghfirullah if I said anything wrong.

No worries dear sister

. It made a great deal of sense and I think it goes well with the teachings of Islam. Jazak Allah khair sister for your input. I think you avery right about the leadership and authority figure thing. You sure you don't have a major in psychology??.

**tearose** · 03-31-2013

wa iyyaki.
lol. I try to be careful what I say as I reverted not too long ago, and don't have much knowledge yet. I only hope others will correct me where necessary in sha Allah.
Interesting topic, sis, maybe others will have some contributions.