It was, however, a set up. The student was actually an actor. He was instructed to say he had a heart condition and plead with the teacher to stop. Most of the teachers wanted to stop, but the experimenter insisted they continue. Because they were told to, 65% of the teachers continued to administer the shock to the “weak-hearted” student.
When I hear stories like that, I really really wish that if I were in that situation I would have been one of the 35% who stopped administering the shock. I worry, though, because I am a rule follower, and not just grammar rules. I always waited twenty minutes after eating to go back in the pool, I never ditched school, I always pay taxes.
But, I would like to think that I follow such rules simply because they make sense. If I didn’t wait the twenty minutes, I would cramp during Marco Polo. If there wasn’t a rule against ditching school, no one would come to school. If nobody paid their taxes, there wouldn’t be public education or bailout money for AIG to use for their fancy massages during their $400,000 week-long spa retreats.
I would like to think that if a rule seemed pointless to me then I wouldn’t be a lemming and just follow it, which is why I am currently in such a dilemma:
I can’t for the life of me understand why funner doesn’t get to be a word.
It seems like it would be a great word, doesn’t it?
How was the experiment?
It was funner than I thought it would be. I never realized how sadistic I actually am; it actually became even funner once I found out that the student had a heart condition.