Milgram’s experiments would seem to suggest the proper phrasing of the above would require subsituting “most” for “some”.
Enjoy,
Steven
I don’t think she was stupid, but naive and possibly very sheltered. There’s a huge difference.
I also think that a lot of managers don’t take the time to train their employees properly. My first job, a few months in, I was taken by the old short-change artist who kept switching the bills around and asking for different change. I ended up being sixty dollars short.
When I started working at K-mart, training was a joke. They’d have you on a register with someone for two shifts, then toss you out on your own. It got worse the longer I was there-they wouldn’t let new trainees work with someone on register because we each had our own drawers, and they wouldn’t put a more experienced person with them on their first day on register, so people were fucking up right and left.
I’m not sure of the utility of debating whether the term “stupid” can apply. I’m not a big fan of the concept of multiple types of intelligence, such as “emotional IQ,” but I recognize that standard measurements of IQ are by necessity limited indices of intelligence.
If you object to the characterization of her behavior as “stupid,” would you call her behavior “wise”? Clearly one can achieve high scores on measures of IQ and still have impairments in a variety of domains that affect functioning. I really don’t have too much problem calling her behavior stupid, but by that I mean that she clearly failed to take into account all available information, failed to rely on her store of knowledge, and failed to show good problem solving ability. I also recognize that she may be generally skilled in these qualities, but may be overwhelmed nevertheless by any number of other factors, such as a disposition to high levels of anxiety, a personal construction of self-worth or self-esteem that would diminish her ability to avoid deferring to others of perceived authority, and so on.
I don’t know whether she would score greater than one standard deviation below the mean on the WAIS, but describing her behavior as not wise or stupid isn’t that great a stretch for me. One wonders at what point she would have been able to assert some level of “awareness,” “ability to reason” or “functionality.” Would she have self-immolated because of some guy on the phone? Punched or stabbed another employee based on such directives? Stolen money? Walked through the store and out the door naked? Engaged in intercourse with Nix? Written out a confession to a crime she didn’t commit?
Given that her behavior was clearly not wise, not reasonable, highly dysfunctional and impaired and dangerous to herself, it seems silly to be upset about whether or not it could failrly be called stupid.
The Milgram experiment shows that people of average and above average intelligence will go along with an authority figure to an amazing degree. There’s no evidence in the story that the victim was below average in intelligence, other than her falling for the scam, which in itself is not proof of stupidity.
I agree about your interpretation of the Milgram experiment, except to note again that there are contextual factors involved here that markedly diminished compliance for the Milgram study participants. Furthermore, the participants in the Milgram study were asked to administer physical pain to another. Certainly, it can be said that people are far more likely to comply with commands from authority figures than might be commonly understood, but it isn’t clear how frequently they would comply with commands for self-harm.
Out of curiosity, how are you defining “stupid” here, so as to know that it does not correctly describe the victim here? I really don’t have any desire to call her stupid, but I am curious about the strength of reaction against doing so.
The findings of the prankster experiment shows that not that many people fall for it. I read all about your precious Milgram experiment. OK, I did. Big fucking deal. Saying ‘The Milgram Experiment’ over and over doesn’t show anything.
The caller barely hit one in ten. And I’m sure he have varying degrees of success. Too bad he didn’t tabulate all of his findings. Maybe Milgram was wrong. Or maybe new experiments need to be done to further the study. Having a guy in front of you is different than a voice on the phone. Fake cops pull women over and force sex but they have a uniform and are there in person. A voice on the phone is enough to fool most everybody? No it is not. Only the gullible, the weak willed, the stupid. You know the type, the kind that look at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads and believe them.
How old would this girl have to be to be called stupid? At what age should she have known better. If she is old enough to go out and get a job she had better have the life skills to make her way. She should know that the boss is not always your friend and is not always right.
If she served spoiled food that she knew was bad but the manager told her to do so, and people died from it, would you still be defending her?
Let’s get something straight. Again. I feel bad for the girl and anger for the caller, the manager and her boyfriend. I hope those three get jail and the girl gets a huge cash settlement from MickyD’s. And I hope she learns to stand up for herself.
As for her “Do I have to come in tomorrow”, the thing is that none of us heard the way she said it. Was she dreading coming in the next day? Was she ‘punch drunk’? Did she say it like “Are we playing Stonehenge tomorrow?”
But if it happened to me and I fell for it, I would be calling myself stupid.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner!
This is exacly it, IMHO. The non-employee got called in to his fiance’s work where there was a naked teenage girl waiting for him. The caller on the phone gives him justification to do what he knows is wrong. But, he liked it. He wouldn’t have done it if he didn’t like it. As soon as he got home, according to the article, he said he did something wrong. He knew it was wrong.
That’s still 1 in 5 who would deliver a potentially lethal dose of shock to a begging, pleading subject. The percentage who delivered “painful” to “severe” shocks from nothing more than instructions over a phone was higher(I’ll see if I can find exact numbers on the web, worst case scenario I’ll dig up my copy of the book and report back in a few days if anyone is interested. I’m pretty sure this raw data was in the book). Nothing the caller asked the assistant manager to do would rise to the level of potentially killing the girl. Using the high-end of Milgram’s experiment is not appropriate. Also the instructions were percieved as coming from a much higher authority than an “experimenter”. Milgram himself, in his original paper said the authority figure was deliberately created to be weaker than many people would encounter in real life.
The instructions in this case were percieved as coming from a police officer with the knowledge and approval of senior management. Another of Milgram’s variants showed what happened if there were peers concurring in their judgement as to what should be done. This was closer to the situation at the McDonalds. Multiple authority figures were believed to be on the phone and two assistant managers and numerous other employees also deferred or co-operated with the caller.
I’d guess that had Milgram’s experiment used a stronger authority figure, such as a police officer, or a combination of authorities in agreement, that even over the phone the results would have been over 50%.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think considering Ms. Ogborn anything other than a victim is grossly unfair. She was NOT the one taking instruction from a voice on the phone. She was faced with at least three adults, two of which were her supervisors and one of which was a man who substantially outweighed her and physically assaulted her when she attempted to refuse his instructions.
Not dumb, not stupid - a victim.
Sheesh!
But the girl isn’t even part of the Milgram experiment. That shows how people, like the ass manager and her boyfriend can fall into the trap of the authority figure but not why someone would take it. Remember the victim is an actor and he is not being hurt.
The boyfriend was told by his girlfriend and the guy on the phone to do this. So there you have authority figures combined. But the Ass Manager only had the voice on the phone. Yes, he did tell her that he was talking to the manager on the other line but she never verified any of that.
I’ve heard alot about this ‘fight or flight’ insticnt. It doesn’t look like she had it. I wonder why? Yes the man was much bigger than her but that was long after she accepted the abuse. Her 51 yearold female boss shouldn’t have been to hard to push out of the way and get the hell out or simply say ‘NO’.
No one is calling her anything other than a victim from my reading of this thread. What people are questioning is her intelligence in letting them strip search her in the first place.
Personally, I think she was incredibly naive and incredibly ignorant on her rights, but I don’t think she is of below average intelligence.
Her manager on the other hand who was 51, really should have known better.
Oh, I’ll agree with you on that. The term fuckwit springs to mind. And the fiance - asshat.
Yes, yes, yes! Recall, also, that the caller failed in many other attempts to get restaurant managers to go along. The ones he managed to dupe thus were self-selected for their credulity and willingness to obey an authority figure, no matter where they were led. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the managers, like this Donna Summer, who willingly complied tend to be people who kowtow in general to authority and enjoy browbeating subordinates.
I agree with most everything you say here except that the manager of each restaurant has an obligation to properly train their employees no matter what the turnover is. I’m not sure who is “Corporate” or “Management” in the heirarchy at McDonalds, but I do know that management is responsible for the actions of the employees in the store, while corporate defines policies (both company and state/federal requirements) that must be implemented by management. Corporate provides manuals and memos to management, and management must follow those policies set forth, as long as the policies are legal. This SHOULD release Corporate from any criminal action/inaction, but they are still liable for any monetary damages that may arise from a manager, supervisor, or employee’s gross misconduct. When I see something from the rectal-wretching Evil Captor, saying that it’s corporate’s fault because he thinks that they make memos and manuals in “fine print” because his little mantra is “Corporations are ALWAYS evil”, and they must be blamed for everything, then he is no less idiotic than the a corporate lawyer apologist defending anything that a corporation does. I, on the other hand, don’t knee-jerk to one side or the other, but I do pay attention on who did what. I already said that the manager, assistant manager and the fiance are to blame here, and a lawsuit should be pending on behalf of the employee, but that’s not good enough for EC;
So, just because a corporate lawyer says that, I should become angry at corporate? No. Dude is doing his job of being an apologist, otherwise they would have hired some other suit to say it. Unlike EC, I don’t buy the lawyer’s response, because his response will always be defensive to the point of hyperbole, just like I don’t buy EC bullshitting hyperbole either. The truth lies somewhere inbetween.
Self-cannablization can be a bitch at times, can’t it? :wally
So, IMHO, there’s a problem with labeling the young lady stupid. Never mind that she is the victim, that she’s unsophisticated, inexperienced and has been raised to do as she’s told. Let’s not even concern ourselves with the likelihood that in the insanity of the moment(s) she hoped the ground would simply swallow her up. Don’t even consider that her implied contract of a perfect world has been violated: that is the belief that if all her actions are fair and just, she is in turn rewarded with fairness and justice. Ah youth, huh?
Let’s instead consider that perhaps her mother encouraged her to get the job (having just lost her own) and said “now don’t fuck it up” - although her mother probably said it far more subtly. Let’s consider that perhaps she’s been abused by some other male authority in her life and reacted like a deer in the headlights (been there, and believe me - that’s a very tough knee jerk reaction/self preserving acquiesence to break - the wilder the scenario the more complete the compliance). Let’s wonder, shall we, what unfortunate circumstance, lack of real life education, social conditioning, etc., created a young woman who wouldn’t KNOW to say - No I won’t do that - regardless of the outcome.
Furthermore, being truly stupid is not a blamable offense in my estimation. It is an unfortunate condition at birth. Having said that - were all of those other victims in the story also stupid, or have we missed in teaching some of our children when to put up and when to scream?
I’ll use this cautionary tale to ensure that my children know to use their critical thinking, self-awareness and right to protect themselves in every situation, even those that appear safe (like working at a McDonalds).
Agreed on all points. But in a court of law there a case which can be made on the “realities of the situation”. This was famously done with the “McDonald’s coffee lawsuit” where the policies of the company resulted in a greater danger to customers than is normal for the industry and these policies were crafted with full knowledge of this increase in danger for their customers. If corporate has created a culture where expectations of stores and workloads of store managers are so high they do not have reasonable opportunities to take time away from productive work for training, and corporate knows the training is probably being cut short or cut entirely AND they continue to set policies which create and prolong this situation then some liability could well travel up to corporate. That’s a high standard to live up to I should think, but courts of law have been known to be pretty demanding at times.
The extreme case would be if corporate sets policies like Pharaoh Ramases “Bid them make bricks without straw, and their tally of bricks shall not diminish.” In this case it would be clear that corporate bears some blame for forcing store management to choose between training and continuing to be employed at all. Any disclaimers of liability based on “but we told them to train people to avoid scams like this” would be brutally demolished by demonstrating that corporate training policies were not supported by corresponding reductions in the productivity levels they demanded. If corporate placed two obligations, to be productive and to train everyone adequately, but set the goals for each to the point where they were not both achievable simultaneously, then it is fairly obvious which would win out. A review of the productivity goals versus training goals should tell if they can both be accomplished with the man-hours available. If they can’t and corporate doesn’t lower the productivity goals to accomodate training then I’d say corporate should share some blame for the situations caused by poorly trained associates.
No idea what actually happened of course and my overall assumption is that McDonald’s corporate acted in good faith by publishing information about these hoaxes. My personal bad experience with a McDonald’s training system doesn’t implicate the entire company.
Enjoy,
Steven
When I was Ogborn’s age, many people believed that their boss “couldn’t” force them to piss in a bottle under observation. Court rulings regarding drug testing demonstrated that this belief was wrong, and that an employer may make such a demand.
Earlier than that, many people believed that their boss “couldn’t” pull a credit report on them just because the boss felt like it. Courts decided that this belief was incorrect as well.
Employers are subject to few restrictions when it comes to invading their employees’ privacy at work. I can believe that a naive “good girl,” having been taught to acquiesce to authority, would accept the notion that her manager was acting within her rights to perform a strip search. I’m not at all surprised that Ogborn complied when told that the search was being instigated on the instructions of a (putative) law enforcement officer.
Remember, during the past 4 years, it’s become acceptable for airports to require strip searches if someone’s believed to be a security risk, or so I understand.
Zebra, let me give you an idea of what would have been going through my head if I’d been in Ms. Ogborn’s position. A quick note: I’ve got the article the OP linked to up next to me. Here’s a new link to it for those who don’t want to go back to the first page. She wasn’t 19; she was barely 18. It’s buried fairly well down in the article, under “Illusions Destroyed,” but she was still in high school when this happened.
When the accusation was first made, I would have been amazed and confused because I knew I hadn’t done it and stealing is something I wouldn’t do. Even Ms. Somers, the manager who made her strip, etc. “conceded later that she had never known Ogborn to do a thing dishonest.” (All quotes will be from the article unless otherwise specified.) OK, fine. I’m being accused, but I know I’m honest and I didn’t steal anything. The policeman knows my manager’s name, says he has corporate on the phone, has the sound of police radios in the background and says that the local police are on the way. I don’t know how much of this the manager told Ms. Ogborn, but I’d be surprised if she didn’t mention the police were on the way.
All right. I’ve been accused, but I know I’m innocent and I need the job. They can’t do anything to me if I didn’t do anything wrong, right? Besides, if I lose this job because I was accused of stealing and not cooperating with authority, it’s going to make finding another job a lot harder and my mother and I need this job. The policeman says he needs to have me stripped search. All right. I may not be thrilled about this, but if it’ll prove my innocence, I’ll do it. After all, they strip search people at airports and other situations and if I can prove that I don’t have the purse I’m accused of stealing on me, it’ll all be over, right? It’s only a human body and I’m a 21st century kind of girl. It can’t be that bad and it’ll prove to my manager what I already know: that I’m innocent. Besides, the local police are on the way, so it’ll all be over soon.
At that point, Ms. Summers the manager took Ms. Ogborn’s clothes to her car and took her car keys away from her. Ms. Ogborn is now 18 years old, naked, unable to reach her clothes and is still being told she’s in trouble with the law and that police are on the way. In her position, at her age, walking out simply wouldn’t be an option. From what Ms. Ogborn knows, she’s still in the same position she was earlier – if she protests, she stands to lose her job for theft and defying authority, and that’s assuming she isn’t arrested which is not a safe assumption if she believes the police are on the way and at this point, she has no reason to believe they’re not. Even if she does walk out, at that point, with no clothes or only an apron, her humiliation goes from private to public. She’s naked and can’t drive home. Presumably she can borrow a cell phone from someone or use one of the office phones to call for a lift home, even if a coworker doesn’t offer her one, but if I were her, I’d assume my manager and the police would try to stop me from what they would see as escaping. My manager, who supposedly knows me, didn’t believe me when I said I was innocent; why should anyone else, especially if I’m fleeing from the law? At that point, I can see how Ms. Ogborn could see how her only hope would be to trust in her own innocence and in God, if she were religious, and hope it would be over soon. If she resists or walks out, even assuming she can her clothes or a spare uniform, she’s branded a thief and her reputation is ruined. If she stays, she can prove she never did any such thing and her reputation will be saved.
I won’t go into what happened next, if you don’t mind. It would be a bit too disturbing and I’ve got a full day of work ahead of me.
The fake policeman was good, as con men usually are. He gave plenty of collaborating information, enough so that Ms. Summers was convinced he was real. Zebra did have a point when he or she said that it’s a bit like some fake psychics who appear to know things no one else could unless they really were what they claimed to be. Ms. Summers had passed the first test: she’s accused an employee of theft with no more evidence than what he’s given her over the phone. Ms. Ogborn protested, as any of us would, I think, if falsely accused, and the matter was taken to a private area. Then came the second test: the caller ordered to do something which wasn’t necessarily completely unreasonable and Ms. Summers complied. When Ms. Summers strip searched Ms. Ogborn, she put her in a vulnerable position and limited her options. The caller also knew he had a compliant victim (Ms. Summers) and a vulnerable one. Ms. Summers passed another test when she accepted his explanations for why it was taking the police so long to show up. The trap was neatly sprung. 
We hear a lot about strip searches being required at airports or in cases of theft. People who object are called prudish or interfering with security. I’ve read it often enough on this very board. People really have written that if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear from authority or from security measures such as strip searches or other measures. Ms. Ogborn knew she was innocent. Chances are, like me, she was taught to obey authority. From what I know of her and what I was like at her age, all she had to do was prove her innocence and everything would be all right. After all, the innocent have nothing to fear from the law, right?
Unfortunately, she had no way of knowing that the authority she was trying to prove her innocence to wasn’t the law until sometime after her keys and her clothes were taken away and she was alone with two people who were convinced of her guilt.
I have only sympathy for Ms. Ogborn. I even have some for Ms. Summers who’s apparently realized the ramifications of what she’s done. I have none for Mr. Nix, Ms. Summers’ fiance, who, despite being a “great, super guy, a great community guy,” according to his best friend, saw nothing wrong with beating a young woman who he was told was accused of theft and, by that point, drug use when she refused to kiss him to prove her innocence. He didn’t do anything or ask what was going on when the caller ordered him to have her give him oral sex. Instead, he complied. I don’t blame Ms. Summers for ending their engagement. As for the caller, the false policeman who started this, even though I know this is the BBQ Pit, the way I feel is too fierce and angry even for this place.
I know this is a long post, even for me, and it hasn’t been easy reading. If it has distressed anyone, I apologize.
CJ
Look, I’m with you there. I’m with you for the jumping up and down to prove nothing’s concealed in the body cavities. As long as there’s some shred of rationalization attached to the request that makes it seem as though it’s related to the idea that a theft is being investigated, or drug use is being checked, then I understand how the young lady might be fooled.
The oral sex is where I draw the line.
Of course, she may not have been compliant by reason of the con; at that point, she may simply have wanted to avoid additional beating. But everything I said above applies to Nix’s reasoning, as well. He, too, could have bene fooled by the events up to the oral sex, but not the oral sex itself. And he has no excuses with respect to being beaten; he was the one doing the beating.