Systematic Political Science


Setting the Experiment Parameters of Social Psychology Using Mathematical Psychology:
Analysis of the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments for the Behavioral Predictions of Juries and Militaries

by Dallas F. Bell, Jr.

1. Social Psychology

Social psychology is a branch of psychology that deals with the psychological processes within groups.  That includes the behavioral interaction of individuals in groups and the interaction of groups with other groups.  This interdisciplinary field has traditionally been contributed to by psychologists for individual behavior and sociologists for group behavior.  Systematic political science emphasizes that for this to be a complete effort experts should be added from the fields of theology, epistemology to include physiology and neurology, and eschatology. 

A group is a collection of individuals who share a common characteristic or pursuit of a common goal.  Two or more persons who interact may be considered a group even if their interaction is not face-to-face.  If the group is to be technically studied for its formation, its function and its interactions the following list of elements should be used.  First, common goals and motives should be observed.  Second, the individual roles necessary for a division of labor are to be noted as they apply to the hierarchy of common individual needs.  Lastly, the group norms and the subsequent reward and punishment for compliance with those norms or noncompliance with those norms are to be compared to the standard of Natural Laws of Freewill (NLF). 

The study of group dynamics involves analysis of cause-and-effect relationships within both groups and groups to other groups.  This involves cohesiveness, decision-making and subgroup formations.  A social network uses the nodes of individuals or groups that form a social structure to solve problems and pursue goals.  Eigenvector centrality is a measure of the importance of nodes in networks.  Relative scores are assigned to all nodes in a network.  The principle is that the connection to nodes having a high score contributes more to the score of the node with a low score. 

The maximum number of social networks for individuals has been estimated to be around 100 to 150 for routine or intimate contact and 1,000 to 2,000 for community contact.  It is believed that the chain of social acquaintances needed to connect one arbitrary person to another arbitrary person is short.  Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in 1967 in which individuals were asked to reach a target individual by passing a message along a chain of acquaintances.  The average successful chain was about five intermediaries or six separation steps, later called the six degrees of separation.  Problems with Milgram's research have been widely published.  The latest experiments are designed to find separation degrees sufficient to connect two people by e-mail over the internet.  Many people have concluded that experiments like these should account for the variables of common individual need levels, theological beliefs toward NLF, and IQ.     

2. Experiment Parameters from Mathematical Psychology

(Familiarity with all previous papers in this series will enhance the understanding of this specific section.) 

Systematic political science uses the META formulae to map individual and societal behavior.  The x axis plots the instances and the y axis plots the variables.  The z plane records the correlating problem solving ability (IQ).  Mathematical values are given to the y variables of the theological (T), epistemological (R), psychological (B), sociological (W), and eschatological (E) subsets.  In a nutshell, these provide the experiment parameters for social psychology with a primary emphasis on the values of the common individual need levels in mathematical psychology. 

Once the plots of an individual or group are made the decision-making arc's toward or away from NLF will aid predictions of future relative behavior(s).  Individual arcs (Barc), group or societal arcs (Warc), and global arcs (GLarc) may have either a 90 percent to absolute certainty (O1) of behavioral momentum toward compliance with all 10 NLF and their subsets (T1), or compliance with 9 to 5 NLF (T2), or compliance with 4 to 0 NLF (T3). For example, the German government has adopted the theology of Darwinian evolution which may comply with as few as 0 NLF and is a T3.  That theology, as with all theologies, provides an explanation of the infinite past and the eternal future to base the standards and authority for all present behavior.  This explains why in 2007 a bright teenage German girl was forcibly taken from her loving home because her parents had taught her the T1 Christian theology of the infinite God of the first cause of all effects.  That T1 goal of compliance with all 10 NLF is contrary to the local German government group's T3 belief.  About 2,000 years ago Gamaliel, a legal scholar, said that if something is of man it will come to nothing but if it is of (the T1) God it cannot be stopped. (Acts 5:34-39) 

Another government example is the U.S. government's National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).  The U.S. government's only legal theology is T3 Darwinism which rejects most of all NLF.  It is not surprisingly that the NHGRI refers to humans as animals.  The NHGRI has an Ethical, Legal and Social Implication (ELSI) research program with the priority of intellectual property rights issues.  If the dominate Darwinian principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest is their ethical standard, then property ownership of persons other than one's self would be logically considered irrelevant since it is a relative behavioral concept such as the intangibles of love, justice, mercy, forgiveness, humility, and honesty, etc..  Those characteristics are empirically necessary for individual trust and societal cohesion.  To not love, not be just, not be merciful, not be forgiving, not be humble, and not be honest indicates that their counterparts of love and justice, etc. are real and their efficiency litigates them as NLF which is contrary to the principle of natural selection.  The ELSI acknowledges the use of focus groups. 

A focus group is a form of research to find people's attitudes toward a product.  That product may be an idea or a physical item.  This research is either to enable that product to be manipulated in order to be readily acceptable to consumers or is to manipulate the consumer toward being more readily accepting of the product.  Focus groups may be conducted face-to-face and likely be predominately made up of exhibitionists (a characteristic of T3 beliefs) with ample free time on their hands.  Focus groups may also be conducted by phone or the internet and are likely made up of those who like to talk or use e-mail forums with each having spare time.  Such a demographic may have lower IQ levels and be submissive/obedient to manipulation and conformity as is suggested in a Milgram experiment outlined in the next section of this paper. 

Obviously, focus groups or experiments in general draw attention to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  The principle indicates that observing nature is not separate from nature but the nature being observed includes the observer(s).  Researchers are not just detached entities but are part of the research.  Even the environmentalist issue of global warming has its (T3 eschatological) supporters hysterically giving the cause as manmade, whereas other scholars reason the cause is cyclical and/or a temporary solar effect.  Therefore, experiment parameters must be followed precisely. 

3. Analysis of the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments

It would be helpful to use the experiment parameters presented to analyze the famous Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments.  Stanley Milgram conducted a series of social psychology experiments at Yale University in 1961.  They were to measure the willingness of study participants to obey their instructor and perform acts that theoretically conflicted with their conscience.  Recruits from newspaper ads and direct mail were offered $4.50 for one hours work whether they completed the task or not.  They were all men between 20 and 50 years of age with education levels ranging from elementary school dropouts to having doctoral degrees.  The participants were led to believe that they were to teach words to a person concealed in another room and if that person failed to give a correct answer that person would receive escalating degrees of electrical shocks.  As the voltage increased many participants became uncomfortable but 26 of the 40 participants (65 percent) administered what they believed were near fatal shocks of 450-volts.  In reality, no one was shocked but sounds from the next room replicated someone being painfully shocked.  All participants believed they allowed highly painful 300-volt shocks before beginning to refuse the order to continue.  Later experiments included women and the results were the same though women reflected much higher stress levels than men. 

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo, a childhood friend of Milgram, led U.S. Navy funded researchers in an experiment at Stanford University on anonymity and aggression.  Undergraduate students volunteered to play the roles of prisoners and prison guards living in a mock prison. Participants were recruited from a newspaper ad for $15.00 a day for two weeks.  Twenty-four of the seventy respondents were selected for being psychologically healthy and were all middle-class white males.  Half were assigned to be prison guards and half prisoners.  The prisoners almost immediately began to show signs of severe emotional disturbances as the guards began to act more sadistically when they thought they weren't being observed.  The experiment was ended after only six days due the morality of the experiment being questioned by an outsider. 

Zimbardo "assumed the IQ of his participants to range from average to higher than average."  Like Milgram, he "did not assess the theological and eschatological beliefs of the participants."  He reasoned "that women and men both behave equally evil regarding anonymity and aggression." This should not be surprising given the number of women who aggressively have abortion procedures that has perceived anonymity concerning the victim which in this case is the unborn baby.  (The preceding remarks in quotations are summarized excerpts from an e-mail exchange between Philip Zimbardo and Dallas F. Bell Jr. in March 2007.)  

Historically, we may see long-term prison examples regarding the importance of T input.  The Old Testament of the Bible records Joseph rising from prison to become the leader of Egypt.  Much of the New Testament was written by Paul who was imprisoned on many occasions.  Corrie Ten Boom had T1 beliefs which enabled her to cope in Hitler's T3 concentration camps.  She emerged as a great author and lecturer who encouraged many others facing hardships.  Richard Wurmbrand attributed his T1 beliefs to surviving 14 years of torture in T3 Rumanian prisons.  He was a successful author and founder of the famous Voice of the Martyrs organization which provides worldwide assistance for prisoners persecuted for their T1 beliefs.   

The head of state is in effect a nation-state's chief prison warden supervising rewards and punishments of its citizens.  Heads of state with documented T1 beliefs such as George Washington, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan never behaved sadistically as the Darwinists with T3 beliefs like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who are recorded to have collectively murdered more than 100 million innocent men, women and children in their countries.  Thus, theological beliefs are extremely important data and could have contributed to more successful experiments as could have adding the input of individual need levels found in mathematical psychology. 

In contrast to Alexis de Tocqueville's observations over a hundred years earlier concerning the general behavior of Americans, Milgram's and Zimbardo's experiments show that a sample of modern-day U.S. (founded on T1 beliefs of compliance with NLF) volunteers are susceptive to temporarily following evil orders, even those theoretically contrary to their own conscience.  Darwinist's T3 nation-states did not need to do an experiment to find out if people will do evil because this is witnessed daily.  The conscience is an innate guide to epistemologically conform to NLF.  If this guide is not guarded but is suppressed for a time the noncompliance with NLF becomes easier as the conscience is seared and the individual is turned over to a depraved mind (Romans 1:16-32).  Cognitive dissonance is mental stress caused by the awareness of being epistemologically inconsistent with NLF.  The conscience and cognitive dissonance are tools of protection for finite humans that encourage a behavioral arc toward compliance with NLF.  Peer pressure and overwhelming epistemological input in neurons cause people with minority behavioral arcs and the least perceived power to be influenced toward the majority behavioral arcs and the most perceived power. T1 beliefs are the most aligned with NLF and will exert more proportional influence when they are complied with due to their efficiency. 

It may be derived that a volunteer (U.S.) military will be temporarily susceptible to obedience to whoever is giving the orders.  Whether the orders are in compliance with NLF or not compliant with NLF behavioral arcs may become fluctuating waves until theological polarization occurs.  That process should be considered when deciding the policy merits of a conscripted military which would dilute the perceived benefits or shortcomings of a military with the characteristics of a total volunteer demographic.  This model may also be applied to jury pools. 

4. Conclusion

Long ago King Solomon said in Proverbs 23:7 that as a person thinks in their heart so are they--bounded rationality.  John Milton echoed this concept in book 1 lines 254 and 255 of Paradise Lost.  Milton wrote that the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. Mankind's rationality is bounded by knowledge, ability and preference within NLF.  If an experiment is to be valid it must accept those parameters of reality. 

-------------------------ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2007 DALLAS F. BELL, JR.-------------------------