Psychology Addict #24 | Is Psychology a Science?
This is a question I have encountered quite a few times over the period I’ve been here on Steemit. While I am open to debate, the arguments put forward by those who are reluctant to accept psychology as a science make me cringe a little bit! And this is precisely when I ask myself why don’t people ask?Instead of just blurting out their opinions.
So, when pacing up and down while trying to find a way to demonstrate some of the aspects that make psychology a science, I thought that it would be sensible to start with the very denotative definition of the word science. A minute later, there I was googling: meaning of science.
The search result could not have been better for two reasons:
- it helped me to improve my own definition of the word,
- it helped me to plan my post!
How? Well, can you think of anything that makes us think of science other than experiments? You hear the word experiment, you immediately think: Science! So, I was in luck because I love, love, love experiments. As much as I appreciate case studies, ethnographical approaches, content analyses (which all, by the way, constitute the systematic study mentioned on the definition above) etc... for me, reading experimental research is as enjoyable as reading a good classic novel! Whether it is a between-participant or within-participant experiment, or with animals ... I don’t mind. Bring it on! Although, truth to be told, some of the animal experiments conducted up to the 60’s, 70’s can be heart breaking (Harry Hallow’s research with Rhesus Macaques back in the 50’s is an example).
So, for those who believe psychology is just a statistical bunch of data, a collection of contradictory theories, a conspiracy, or ... not a science; here we go.
A brief description of some of my favourite psychological laboratory studies/experiments.
Can you get more ‘sciency’ than this?
But then, of course, I don’t want just to list my top psychological experiments (this would be a quite long list). I want more! And this is because whenever studying such kind of research, psychologists have to keep ecological validity in mind, which is:
The extent to which a study reflects naturally occurring or everyday situations
Consequently, this post will proceed addressing how laboratory research, in the field of psychology, has contributed to the understanding of human behavior.
So, let’s embark on this rather long post step by step. For those of you who are out of touch with what psychological studies are all about. Here it is a brief explanation!
What are the aims of psychological studies/experiments?
Well, psychological studies seek to understand what underlies people’s behaviour and experiences. And one way of doing this is through research conducted in laboratories! This is a fascinating mode of research because here psychologists are able to isolate and manipulate determiners of responses in order to gather insight into what drives humans to interact with and react to their environment the way they do.
Experiment 1 – Exploring the role ‘consequences’ have on strengthening and eliminating behaviour, through the Skinner Box Experiment
Have you ever found yourself repeating (or, halting for that matter) a certain behaviour because of what happened afterwards? This is what this study explores/explains.
This laboratory experiment was carried out by a behaviourist psychologist (B.F Skinner) back in the 30’s. It contributed to uncover some of the underlying factors that cause humans to initiate, sustain and change their behaviour. This research enlightened this idea through showcasing the ways which behaviour can be determined by its results, by its consequences.
So, once upon a time Skinner created the Skinner box, an object that enabled him to shape the responses of rats and pigeons to subsequently obtain a certain type of behaviour from the animals. Reinforcement (the equivalent of an award or lack of it) was the process used to induce and measure the rate at which the desired behaviour took place, and punishment was the method adopted to lower the frequency of a given action. Behaviourist psychologists called attention to the principles demonstrated through this laboratory study as the underlying factors which govern the ways that humans respond in the real world, and behave in general.
Here, I am only going to discuss positive reinforcement.
In the Skinner box, positive reinforcement consisted of awarding the animals with food as to obtain a desired behaviour, which was pressing the box’s lever (for the rats), or pecking the box’s button (for the pigeons). Whenever the pigeon (for example) pecked the button some food would be delivered by an automatic system inside his box. What did he do next? Yep, he pecked the button!
But, if, for you, this seems too far fetched from how humans behave in real life why not discuss a very familiar scenario indeed where you (and I) behave quite similar to a pigeon!
STEEMIT! Yes, every time you post something you are doing the equivalent of ‘pecking the button’, the more rewards (whether they are in the form of upvotes, followers or comments) you get, the more you engage with other steemeas, the more you post and so on. It is only natural! On the other hand, if you keep on posting, but nothing come your way (again, whether it is a comment, or followers or upvotes) you will stop doing it sooner or later. Just like Skinner’s rats and pigeons!
You see how this experiment contributes to the understanding of human behaviour in the real world?
Yes! But, the limitations of such study are aplenty! And I am only going to cover it briefly. Applying these findings to non-human animals’ lives in general, disregards humans’ intricate culture, capacity to make complex decisions and elaborate plans and spoken language. This is a very deterministic view indeed. Typical behaviourist! The way they put it, it is as if we were just machines going about life with no history, rationality or sentiments. As you can imagine this upset a lot of people back them!
However, Skinner’s laboratory research contributed to the understanding that given responses can indeed be strengthened or weakened by reinforcement. And even if you doubt it, the concept that behaviour is controlled by its consequence has been a notion put into practice by institutions such as prisons and schools as a means to change undesired behaviour as well as praise expected ones.
Experiment 2 – War of the Ghosts & Eyewitness to a car accident – Let’s study memory
These were studies conducted in the laboratory that have contributed immensely to the understanding of the functions, and also the susceptibility of memory.
Memory, it has been demonstrated, is the reconstruction of past experiences through the lens of culture, hopes and perspectives (Rather than a camcorder that videotapes experiences that are later accessed and recollected in a pristine, pristine way).
The research by Bartlett illustrates this concept at the stage in which his participants were asked to retell the story ‘War of the Ghosts’ (after they had heard a recording of it). Overall, participant`s recollection was inaccurate and even contained non-existent elements! Of course, there were cross-cultural aspects in the story that lent little ecological validity to this research; but, even so, this study enlightened the fact that in the real world individuals interpret experiences according to their own expectations and knowledge. Moreover, it also brought attention to the risks of leading questions and the role language plays in influencing memory as well as how these two elements interact with each other.
You see, in real world situations both leading questions and false memories are of great importance in eyewitness testimonies, and this is a matter addressed in the experiment designed by Loftus and Palmer - Reconstruction of automobile destruction, where participants watched different videos of car accidents and had to recall later. This study analysed two aspects
- How precise the witnesses to a car accident were when reporting the event;
- The influence the wording of questions about the accident had on them. For instance, they sought to discover whether using the verbs smashed, hit or contacted in the question about the vehicle´s speed would result in different answers.
Guess what? It did!
The findings revealed that the way the question was worded influenced participant’s responses and their memory of the accident.
The participants that were in the ‘smashed’ question group estimated a mean speed 8.7 mph faster than those in the ‘contacted’ question group; they also mistakenly stated having seen broken glass in the accident scenes!
However, with psychological experiments it is not as straight-forward as I want to make a point about this and here it is! So, what would be a problem likely to arise in such research: ‘demand characteristic’. What is that? Well, it is basically when the participant of the experiment tries to ‘please’ the researcher and end up answering what they think the researcher would like them to say! Tut, tut, tut .... But, since we are talking about eyewitness testimonies, this kind of response is also applicable to real life witnesses who, for example, may behave in a way they believe a police officer expects them to, and end up saying the things they believe is the ‘correct one’. Oops!
Experiment 3 – The Obedience to Authority Study
Have you ever found yourself acting against your nature and ‘going with the flow’? If so, and you are still puzzled about it, this classic psychology study (conducted in a laboratory), might help you understand why.
Have a look:
This is, perhaps, the most well-known psychological experiment among the general public. This is a major social psychology study that has advanced the understanding of the effect situational influences exert on human behaviour; like for example, the overall context people find themselves in as well as the presence of others around them.
So, for those who doubt Psychology is a science because it falls under the branch of ‘social sciences’. Here it is! A fine, fine social psychology experiment conducted in a laboratory!
The Obedience to Authority research was conducted by Stanley Milgram; who designed the study in an attempt to make sense of the atrocities humans committed during the Second World War (he was a Jewish man). In this experiment, participants took the role of a teacher who would punish his student (a confederate) with electric shocks ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts every time he made a mistake. But, when the participant was uncertain of how to proceed due to the discomfort expressed by the ‘learner’, the experimenter would tell the teacher (the participant) what to do: basically, keep on administering painful shocks!
Now, stop to think for a minute and reflect about what you would do: you are inflicting pain on someone because an authority figure has told (please) to do so. But then, the ‘learner’ is clearly in pain; you obviously become disturbed by this, ask the experimenter who just simply tells you ‘please continue’. Would you?
This is an incredibly fascinating research because here Milgram devised a procedure that enabled to expose ordinary peoples´ attitudes and judgment on whether to inflict suffering on another person, or obey the orders given by a superior. Unlike many had predicted prior to the study, all the participants electrocuted the learner with 300 volts, and 26 out of 40 participants continued to follow the experimenter’s prods up to 450 volts! Can you imagine that?
Ps: This is when I should tell you that in reality the ‘learner’ was not receiving any electrical shock, what the ‘teacher’ heard was a recording of someone screaming and complaining.
Such findings brought to light further insight into how humans behave and respond in the real world when the necessity of making moral judgements before an authority figure arises. In view of these results Milgram inferred that individuals transfer their moral decisions and values to those in charge, as well as the consequences of their actions. This is due to the fact that the nature of ‘the work’ to be executed becomes peripheral, and the order commanded by the authority figure, together with the situation, holds centre stage. I, personally, find this fascinating!
But, what are the implications of Milgram’s conclusions. Many stated that Milgram’s findings and conclusions lift the individuals’ responsibilities from their actions. Consequently indicating that who the individual is plays a small determiner on their behaviour.
Really? So, no matter how good-natured a person is if there is someone telling them to harm a fellow human being they will do it?
So, Elms (Milgram´s assistant) decided to analyse this further. He went on to evaluate the personality of 40 participants who took part in the obedience study through standard personality tests. What did he find? No significant difference between the insubordinate individuals and the obedient ones!
What does this tell us?
That isolating one single factor to explain peoples´ responses to a given situation is to rule out a complex set of factors and components. For example: one’s personality, the presence of others, and indeed the consequences of the actions (as demonstrated by Skinner). Our behaviour and the way we respond to situations is an interplay of all these determiners.
Just in case you have made it to the end, here we are! Hopefully this long post has brought you some understanding of some aspects of psychology and its systematic, observational and experimental nature. Psychologists also deal with correlation coefficients, dependent and independent variables, inductive coding, inferential statistics, measures of central tendency and so on ... This is of course, only a fraction of what psychology encompasses, and it is very, very beautiful.
[Original Content by Abigail Dantes 2017]
Reference List:
Loftus, E.F and Palmer, J.C. (1974) ‘Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, vol.13, no.5, pp.585-9.
Milgram, S. (1963) ‘Behavioural study of obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 371-8.
Skinner, B.F The behaviour of organisms: An experimental analyses, New York, NY, Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Dear Reader,
Thank you for taking the time to read my writing once more! I wish the New Year brings you lots of inspiration, originality and an ever greater sense of community to be shared here on this wonderful platform! By the way, what is your Steemit New Year’s resolution? Mine is to debunk misconceptions about psychology & raise awareness about mental health! 😊
I would agree that psychology is a science. Any part of a discipline that uses experiments along with rigorous statistical analysis of data can be considered as scientific. However, I also think science is not the only useful method to aquire knowledge which is a view held by many people today who subscribe to a naturalistic view of the world. I believe earlier psychologists used these methods and while they might not have used rigorous statistics they still made contributions to knowledge. I think is it this latter part of psychology that makes some skeptical.
Hi @timspeer, thank you so much for stopping by and commenting! Yes, I fully agree that early psychologist are the ones to blame for this skepticism :D but, as I said before, it has been nearly a century since behaviorists brought a measurable and analytical approach to the field! My point is, how long more do people need? On the other hand, when one sees that psychology nowadays is still largely associated with the theoretical and subjective methods of psychoanalyses one understands the confusion a little better!
Happy 2018 Tim :)
Is this where 'art' comes in? I tend to think that art and science are complementary ways that the mind works to acquire and apply knowledge. Sometimes it is a matter of perspective, but I tend to think that most human endeavour can be viewed as both art & science, at least the ones that seem to excel in being creative/innovative.
Hm... not so long after all. I had actually printed out this post to prepare myself for something long and hard to understand, but in the end I found your post quite "entertaining", if you allow me that expression. In fact, it felt like you deliberately kept a few things a little short...
When I started reading, I immediately thought, the arguments you list for psychology being a science, sound like something, that applies to the way I work as an artist. Painter, to be precise. Which would mean, art is a science too! Ok, I found my mistake. Although "...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation..." are similar, its the position of the experiment. At first I'm like... "yes, I too experiment a lot", only to understand that the reason and purpose/aim of the experiment is different...
It is very interesting to read, how people have tried to find these scientific validations for their theories. I have heard of the thing with (false) memories. Reminds me of a line of Peter Ustinov in.. I don't remember, was it "Murder in the Orient Express" or the "Evil under the Sun" where her referred exactly to this fact, how perception and memory can be fooled and manipulated.
This issue is particularly interesting for me as a painter, where you often have to rely on your memory or knowledge (?) of something, you want to depict. I always use the example, where I say, look at your hand in a certain position. Now look at your paper and draw it from memory without looking again. Almost impossible! I actually like to play with such things in my work to draw something in way that it looks right, but when you take a closer look, it isn't.
The one that really gives me the creeps is the Milgram's experiment. Of course the results alone are shocking, but much more than that is for me the question, of how I would have "performed". I would hope, I would have sided with the "victims" and protected them, what seems like a natural instinct.
On a completely different, totally non scientific approach: Are you familiar with Olga Kharitidi's book "entering the circle"? I read it some 20 years ago and could not put it down, after I started it. Its supposed to be the true story of a Russian Psychiatrist (sorry), of how she got in touch with "scientific research" as well as the ancient wisdom and methods of the shamans in the Altai mountains in southern Siberia. If its true, its quite fascinating.
OK, before I forget.. as far as I'm concerned you made your point very well and I agree, that psychology (today) is a science 😁
You are spoiling me with these great comments of yours @reinhard-schmid! I actually am very pleased to hear you found the post entertaining, my last intention here was to just list a series of experimental methods, designs and outcomes to make my point! For that very reason I refrained from going into too much detail (as you pointed out!).
In your comment, I found the part you discussed the experimental side of art (your work) particularly interesting . Of course! Yet, I failed to see it that way up to now :)
The studies of memory also fascinate me! And Loftus' works are by far the best ones in the field (in my humble, humble opinion). As for Milgram's study, I suppose the question you asked yourself is an inevitable one! I just like to believe I would be one of the few who would fell free to challenge the 'authority' and took the humane route.
As for Olga Kharitidi's book, well ... it is now on my list of books to read in the summer (which is becoming rather long!)!
Lots of love to you and a great, great 2018 to you and all your loved ones!
You are spoiling me! With interesting content and your kind and detailed answer.
As far as the experiment is concerned, most people probably don't connect that with art. Particularly not with my work. But I did another one today. In contrast to science, it is not to prove a theory or fact, but to find a way to produce a certain result. With my reverse glass painting I have to think ahead and plan every layer carefully, to predict, how it all will look together when I turn the painting around and view it from the other side (through the glass)... its a little bit like playing chess. Therefore I frequently do a test (or experiment), to find out, how a procedure or color combination might turn out. Could also be a language thing, as in German "to experiment" can pretty much mean the same as "to try out something"...
With the Milgram's study, I think that today we should behave differently, knowing about the experiment and how it can influence people. I strongly believe, knowledge and education can change a lot of things for the better. My Grandfather, who had problems with the nazis took me to a former concentration camp, when I was 5 years old. I had no clue back then, what it was, but it was just one of his ways to teach me to be aware of injustice and evilness and always resist against it. Interesting thing is, that he was actually a quiet man, only ever raised his voice once. When I broke a branch of his pear tree. The one he had forbidden me to climb up on...
I too find the memory studies fascinating. Mainly, when it has something to do with perception. Do you know the one, where the students were to watch a basket ball (?) game and count how many times the guys with the white shirts had the ball? Something like that. From what I remember, nobody saw the person with a monkey suit on walking through the picture... Similar things happen to me all the time.. I know, because my wife sees everything!
Did a little web search last night.. the book is still available. I also had the CD that Olga Kharitidi did later together with Jim Wilson. I really liked the music. There was one track, that was supposed to be an original recording of a real shaman. Ok.. that sounded a bit weird. But what is really odd, was this: I tried to make a copy of the CD, but that particular piece could not be copied, even with several attempts! I borrowed the CD to a friend who has a professional studio, since he said, he could copy it for sure... never saw or heard it again :-/
All the best for you and your loved ones as well!
It was beautiful reading your description of the steps of your work process @reinhard-schmid, it was like the scene of a movie. It must be so beautiful being a painter :)
Your account of your father made my heart sink a little (if you allow me to be completely honest), but it was nice to hear he is and has always been a calm person. He must be filled with inner peace. I remember you told me not long ago (after Christmas?) that you were thinking of your parents with admiration for the choices they have made in life. How nice!
As for Entering the Circle; yes, I had already checked on Amazon, saw the price and read some (very good) reviews. Definitely on my list !! Sorry to hear about your CD ... oh Gosh! Doesn't that always happen?!
Best and lots of love :)
I feel very privileged with my job and that I am able to make a living as an artist. It can be quite frustrating at times, hard and difficult to accomplish what you want... but then it is often very rewarding, like today, when something gets finished and you are just so totally in love with what you created...
I have come to really admire my parents, but the man I talked about was my Grandfather. My mom's dad. Hope I didn't give you too much of a bad feeling. He was never in one of the death camps. But locked up for some time for being an "enemy of the state" for being a "communist"... just a kind and peaceful man who believed in sharing. Later he was sent to the East front to probably get killed, but he spoke Polish and Russian and repeatedly made friends with the enemies... sorry, looks like I'm getting carried away too far off topic.
Haha... yes, that lost CD really bothers me. And nobody offers a download (must be the shamanic thing). I did see a (used) CD for sale at over 300,- I'd like to have one, but not for that price!
Just read your "Introducing Myself / A letter for the Steemit community" post again, to hopefully get to know you a little better. Had to smile, seeing you with that book about Chile.. I have a colleague there who looks very much like what one can see of you on that photo. Very skilled painter.
Looking forward to what you will tell us next. In the meantime, I see a lot of the past posts looking very interesting!
❤️😘
The place of psychology in science was controversial since the beginning of this branch of knowledge. As we know psychology is very, very diverse. The problem is that within a psychology you have so much paradigms that exlude each other - you can say that behaviourism says opposite things than psychoanalysis. Yet they both have some effiacy in psychotherapy! How's that!? The problem with psychology as science is that it has not even settled the definitions for most basic thing.
Many philosophers of science have exploring this problem. I've got deepen into that topic because I wrote my master thesis on contemporary attempts and empirical verification of jungian psychology. Jungian thought is often (wrongly) considered as unscientific, mystical, occulitc etc. so I had to really investigate his methods and his thoughts on psychology as science. For me it's easier to say that there is no one psychology, but many psychologies, thus many psychologies as sciences. Carl Jung said that psychology is a "mediatory science" and is quite different than other because it investigates a natural phenomena (like other natural sciences) but it uses methods from human sciences. And that is a MUST because there's no Archimedean point regarding observation of mind - whatever we do, we can't exclude our mind from the equation.
Anyway, this subject fascinates me I could go on and on but there's no point :D I prefer a wider definition of science, taken from german understanding of this word - that science is a knowledge gathered in order (Anglo-Saxons has a more strict one). Good post, but I'd argue a little that psychology is "objective" even with statistical and empirical methods. But it definitely is a science!
Wow @saunter, thank you so much for all this info. You are right, one could just go on and on and on... I appreciate very much you taking the time to add these points to this debate.
Happy 2018!
You too - Happy New Year Abi!
A very long and Insightful read.Psychology a word with it's root in Latin simply means PSYCH (mind) and LOGY (study) . Full meaning is STUDY of the MIND . This should be enough to convince anyone that's it has been a scientific subject since the time of the great Aristotle .Right now big marketing companies use psychology to advertise their goods and services by appealing to the human mind with specific words, pictures to convert sales.
Gosh @badmusgreene! I should have included this information on my post (the philology of the word psychology). Shouldn't I? Well, I appreciate very much you coming here to add more relevant information to this debate! All the best :)
My pleasure @abigail-dantes.Happy new year in advance.
I never realized this was a debate. Learning has occurred! I would have assumed it fell within science. Hypothesis, observe, record, analyze, repeat. A stripped down version of the Scientific Method, and all apply to what the field of psychology does. So, thanks for this. Another interesting experiment in psychology was the Stanford Prison Experiment. Fascinating stuff. Another great post.
Oh! The Stanford experiment is a superb experiment! Zimbardo, years later, reflected on that alongside other events and wrote The Lucifer Effect, which is magnificent. @therightsideofup, your first two sentences made me laugh! :D Thank you for your support & a very Happy New Year to you! :)
Nice post. Major unifying thread in psychology is a commitment
to the development and utilization of research methods
suitable for collecting and analyzing behavioral data.
Yep! :)
Thank you for taking the time to read @munawar
Thank you for raising this topic.
I often thought of exactly this question. Not because I came up with it myself but once listened to a lecture of Alan Watts.
When he talked about C. G. Jung (when I remember correctly), Western psychology and Eastern approach he said a sentence which never left me. It was like: "Psychotherapy is more like an art, not a science". I felt an immediate response within myself which said: "Yes".
Why? In therapy there is more than science in the room. As Psychology is interested in the behaviour of humans, the causes of disease and the methods of treatment the therapist himself needs in addition something which science cannot deliver. He needs to be an artist who "dances" with the client . A good therapist is a practitioner who picks his methods like a painter the right canvas, brush and colors in resonance with whom he is working. ... As I myself was on the clients side I was sensing, what Watts meant by that.
In addition to your fascinating article and the impressive examples you gave I thought it would be nice to mention a quality which probably cannot be measured by science.
As I am a fan of combining disciplines and "marry" them my statement is:
Yes, Psychology is a science as well as it is an Art :)
Happy New Year to you!
Thank you for these beautiful, beautiful words @erh.germany. I feel that add so much to this debate!
So, stealing the above sentence from you :D
Happy 2018. all the best to you and your family.
:) go ahead - all the best for you, too.
Hi @abigail-dantes . sorry for late reply. i started following you recently.
Science in a sense is independent of personal opinions, prejudices and bears same results everywhere. an infection is same for everyone around the globe, atom is same and releases same amount of energy everywhere. but i think that psychology is not same for everyone. every person has different views about the same thing. so how can psychology be "formulated". it is so much diverse. it is not an equation which should be immune to environment, culture or religion.
everyone is when born, he psychology gets altered according to his environment. but science is independent of birth, it already exists. if population of world is 7 billion then there are 7 billion psychologies behind it.
psychology cannot be "unified" because it does not work that way. because psychology is "in conflict" with every other person.
in a sense "spirituality" could be a science because in spirituality one has to kill himself of the world, he has to get rid of all "worldly distractions", and have to only focus on his "soul" and "spirit" only..
it is my humble opinion on the subject, you have the right to disagree.
if psychology would have been the science then there would not have any "need" for legislatures for individual countries. there would only have to be one "legislature" as in the case of science where all formulas and equations are same followed throughout the globe.
Regards
kay-khosa
Beautiful comment @kay-khosa :)
Thank you for this amazing insight!
thank you @abigail-dants for upvote. it means alot.
I get that question a lot too as a Psychology major. Often, they assume psychology could just be AB rather than BS (mine's BS). Then I always put in mind that when I was a Philosophy major, philosophy was even a science and not just a science but THE mother of all sciences as many scholars would say. Therefore, it was easy to reply a quick burn to those questioning the science nature of my psychology major.
However, with those experiments you cited,
it just showed how psychology is really science-y (Skinner's has always fascinated me btw). I mean, there's also the ever controversial experiments like that of Little Albert. As painful as it may sound, it's still "in the name of science".
Love this long post, didn't notice it was really long until I made it to the end. Great points!
Hi @thegiamarcos, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. I suppose this is a question all of us face. I like the point you made about philosophy too. Yeah! poor little Albert :/ the old behaviourists were a bit cruel! But, then ... they were the ones who wanted to bring a more scientific aspect to psychology!
Happy 2018 :)
Yes, it's a big question to one's morals haha. Oh, happy 2018 too!
Abby thank you for that fascinating writeup and such marvelous information!
I can definitely say I learned a lot. Haven't heard of that obedience to authority experiment before. Great stuff !
Oh, and happyyyy 2018 - one day ahead :D
@mcfarhat! Oh ... I am so pleased to hear you liked my post and also learnt from it! Ow ... Thank you so much for your kind, encouraging words! Yes, That is one of the major, major psychological studies. It absolutely fascinates me. Milgram was a genius! :)
May 2018 bring you good health, prosperity and peace. Lots and lots of love to you always :)