Lyrics

smellymely17 (Wednesday 19th of November 2008 03:35:38 PM)

they did this one experiment where they would have the monkey only raised by the wire mom....and when the monkey grew up and had its own children it would have sex with them and kill them....

SarahLee1 (Friday 7th of November 2008 07:35:34 PM)

While this experiment did provide a lot of new knowledge, it was unethical.

jarkle (Sunday 16th of November 2008 04:19:57 PM)

Oh aye, but there are so many experiments which are deemed unethical by today's standards. As will many of our recent experiments will be by future generations. These were perfectly ethical by the standards of the time.

Jinggley (Friday 7th of November 2008 06:39:01 AM)

Actually, he hated doing it. He got chastised for calling his monkeys' relationships "love" and hated the nature of his work, but he did it for the greater good. His work ended up setting the foundation for a revolution in zoo and animal care. The ironic thing is, we would not have improved animal conditions so markedly without Harlow first being cruel in his time. That's why he did it, for humans and animals alike.

evenToddlers (Tuesday 4th of November 2008 04:28:34 PM)

See YouTube video 'Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments and the Attachment Theory'

alarikmarcus (Sunday 2nd of November 2008 02:20:05 PM)

Hate to break it to you, but it did tell us a lot about attachment. Not that I condone animal testing, but this is relatively ethical testing. This disproved the long-held societal assertion that you should love your parents merely for being providers. In other words, if your parents are dysfunctional but still feed you, you have an obligation to "respect" or "love" them. This study proved, among other things, just how ignorant that belief is.

teamsquirrels (Monday 3rd of November 2008 09:08:31 PM)

I agree with your second paragraph. But on a complete opinion-based, childish response to "but this is relatively ethical testing", I completely disagree. After reading about his experiments, I think that emotionally depriving those monkeys the way he did, is in no way ethical, especially because very few of them recovered, and now have they have to live the rest of their lives, psychologically disturbed.

alarikmarcus (Friday 7th of November 2008 06:20:01 PM)

You're right, I forgot about his isolation testing. That was some pretty harsh testing. I was only referring to his experiments with attachment and "love", not his experiments with isolation and sensory deprivation (the "pit of despair", as I think he called it). And actually, a few of them became so depressed that they died, if I remember correctly.

Zellig (Saturday 1st of November 2008 08:32:46 PM)

I respect his decency to name the apparatuses what they really were. I bet a lot of scientists would have dumbed down the name to "insemination rack" or "sensory deprivation room". He called them what they were.

polybius87 (Tuesday 11th of November 2008 03:35:13 AM)

what, like how he named female monkeys "little bitches"...