People don't realy(sic) communicate with government and hardly communicate with cops.
That's an umbrella statement.
>are incapable of asking why and why not So are citizens in most cases.
I meant socially incapable. As in, they lack a structured ability to query that information from each other. As in, they can't ask or answer "Why can't I go after the banana?" They can't even ask each other "Why can't you go for the banana?" This crutch makes the position of the video look much more functional for the purposes of the parable. The parable is the part of the video that actually makes it comprehensible, hence the words you hear is what you initially want to explain what is going on. The trick is to not blindly accept it as the superior logic just because it's the only logic that is expressed. I watched the video without sound at first and what was going on made no sense. In fact, without the dialogue (and the said heavy-handed overlay) you can get the sense that you've been trolled at first, like watching really bad TF2 Machinima.
I find it reasonable and purpuseful that it was put there. ...
It's heavy-handed because it means the movie is using underhanded bait-and-switch tactics. What the voice over is explaining about the experiment and what emotions the image is supposed to embody are not necessarily related at all.
I actually give the Milgram and Stanford experiments their due credit since they use actual people to prove the point, whether or not that was an ethical choice in the first place, but I give no credit to the "five monkey" one because you remove the basic elements of unnecessary interaction that is a staple of human psychology and then say "it's the same."
And I still dislike the image because it lacks connected narrative: the sign is the only proof of identity and there isn't even proof that the person being beaten up was holding it. Also it lacks "real" altogether. It's a Photoshopped propaganda piece, dumped randomly onto the end of the movie much like the poster's comments on the video conclude by turning into a word salad of conspiracy buzz words.
What's the official name of this experiment? I'm interested in looking up how many times it was run, with what variation (what was the stated control situation?), and how many times it ended up becoming like this.