learntoquestion ltq discussions

Everyone will always tell you that children are impressionable, able to be molded into whatever ideals or worldviews that are pushed upon them. But the idea that once you grow into adulthood you become more resolute and able to stand your ground barely rings true. Every test subject in the Miligram experiment was an adult deemed in stable and sound state of mind at the time of the experiment’s undertaking. And yet, many of them were molded into naught but tools for the experimenter and their every command. And when it was all over, what was the defense they sputtered out? Things such as “‘Coz he told me to”, “I thought it was for the experiment”, “He said it was his responsibility”. Joshua Barjas made a notable and quite understandable comparison between this experiment and events which played out mere years prior to the Yale Milgram Experiments. When people like Adolf Eichmann were brought before the justice of a grieving and infuriated planet after WWII, these former hounds of war and destruction masqueraded as meek repenters, beholden to the whims of more powerful men with actual malicious intent. Aside from Hitler, Goebbels and Goring themselves, these were some of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany, who had enough autonomy to opt out of these crimes like the test subjects had the opportunity to simply get up and leave, and yet they continued forth on their path of genocide. And like Eichmann and the lot, these men were led into thinking there was some greater good behind what was taking place and the suffering that occurred at their hands, swapping out the “survival of the Aryan race” with “scientific innovation”. They were molded, like clay, into tools of destruction, so much so to the point that they voluntarily undertook these actions on their own accord.

The Milgram experiments, conducted in the 1960s showed that many people are willing to inflict pain on others if they are ordered to do so by a position of power. The article, “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders Plays Out in the Mind,” by Joshua Barajas reported that ”65 percent of volunteers, described as “teachers,” were willing (sometimes reluctantly) to press a button that delivered shocks up to 450 volts to an unseen person.” This is a highly disturbing statistic that demonstrates that most people have the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. However, while a great percentage of, “teachers,” followed orders, there were people that resisted the orders and refused to continue punishing the “learner.” This demonstrates that people exist who are able to defy authority. Therefore, even though many people do, not everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others.

People who were able to disobey the “experimenter’s” orders were independent and self-assured. These individuals didn’t need assurance from the ‘experimenter,” but were able to think for themselves without taking no for an answer. On the other hand, those who succumbed to the orders often looked to authority for directions when they were confused. This group of people also seemed to feel they weren’t responsible for the pain inflicted upon the subjects. According to Barajas, Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, ran an experiment that determined that the brain’s activity is, “dampened,” when being coerced into actions. When young, society trains us to listen to authority and follow rules. Children are brought up not only to respect their parents, but any elders. As they grow up, this respected group expands to people of more importance or authority. While influencing such a societal hierarchy of respect does lead to order in many cases, we are too easily influenced by authority. By attempting to create a society that values individuality and questioning of authority, society can more easily avoid situations such as genocide where people who are easily influenced by authority are coerced into perpetuating violence against others.

Another factor besides the blind following of authority that contributes to people’s willingness to inflict pain on others is dehumanization and othering. Throughout history, a commonality through times when people acted brutally towards another group is thinking of the other group as lesser. For example, during World War II, the Nazi party attempted to convince Europe that Jews were an inferior race. This made people much more likely to engage in harmful activity towards Jews. As Watermelon said, an important way that this thinking is achieved is through propaganda. Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews in this way, and led Germans to believe that Jews were vermin that needed to be “exterminated”. In fact, extermination was the official Nazi term for the mass murder of Jews. This lessened the impact of Nazi actions, and in turn made people more likely to obey Nazi authority, even when orders were violent and inhumane.

It isn’t true that everyone has it in them to be a perpetrator of violence against others. Although there were sadly few cases in the Milgram experiments that were examples of people showing remorse, there were still instances of it. Some in the experiments didn’t think it was right of them to continue with it for reasons such as not knowing enough about the tools being used and not knowing the true results of their actions, and others simply didn’t think it was morally right to hurt another human. However in many trials in the Milgram experiments, those who continued did so only after establishing that they were not to take responsibility for what would come out of the trial. Just like how research in How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind shows, these people felt that there was a distance between their actions, giving increasing shocks, and the result that came out of it, the “learner” becoming unresponsive. They would justify their actions by saying they were coerced into administering the shock in an attempt to pass the negative consequences onto the experimenter. Even though the “teacher” was capable of and committed the act of giving shocks to someone until they couldn’t respond, they didn’t want to get in trouble for these actions or even admit to being capable of doing so. There were many factors of this experiment that would be drastically different from more daily life scenarios that could happen as they were separated from the person they were hurting and was in a very controlled and organized environment. Results of what people would do would be very different in a raw, uncontrolled, and unorganized environment if there was some sort of riot for example.

Something that america! said that I liked was that although we might be intending to always do the right thing, we may not know what we are capable of and that could be what causes us to do bad things. If we were to be unaware of what it is that we're really doing, like giving shocks to someone, then we may not know when to stop where it is dangerous because we might not know that what we are doing could actually harm someone.

Someone's personality traits could stop them from doing as they were told in the Milgram experiments and not continue with the shocks. If there was a person who really separated themselves from society and thought that the norms of society were something they didn’t agree with and try to not live by as much as they can, they might be more likely to disobey the experimenter even if they are seen as an authority figure. Or if a person just didn’t have issues with disobeying authority figures in general, that person might be more likely to have stopped the experiment if they thought they should.

Milgram’s experiment, although flawed, is strong evidence that a majority of individuals will torture or even kill a fellow human being if consistently ordered to do so by an authority figure they respect. The participants in the experiment were of varying occupations, socio-economic backgrounds and ages, yet 65% of them chose to inflict lethal shocks on the “learners,” so those factors may not have had a strong impact on how willing they were. In this line of reasoning, most everyday people could become a perpetrator of violence against others. This relates to a theory called situationism. As defined in Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments by Cari Romm, situationism is the theory that normal people are capable of morally questionable or even downright horrific things if put in a specific situation. In the 1960s, the idea of “the banality of evil” entered the conversation about the Holocaust with the publishing of Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram’s experiment sought to prove whether this evil lied within everyday people, ready to be awakened by pressure. It did succeed in showing that people will go against their better judgment when ordered to by an authority figure, but also showed that people commonly have a moral compass that tells them to resist. As seen in video recordings, participants expressed their concern even though they gave in to the pressure - this does not mean they are evil, it means that they are willing to compromise their idea of what is fair.

An important flaw of the experiment is that it does not offer solid evidence that humans will continue a harmful order if it is not repeatedly enforced, or that bias impacts the likelihood of hurting others. These realities may be true, but the Milgram experiment does not prove them due to the structure of the experiment. The emotional distance between perpetrators and victims during the Holocaust was caused by the dehumanization of Jewish people, queer people, disabled people, certain ethnic groups, and other victims because Germans classified them as inferior and therefore more deserving of inhumane treatment. The Nazis believed there was one specific ideal population, and the rest of humanity was undesirable and threatening, so they felt less sympathy for their victims and guilt for their actions. The Milgram experiment was conducted without considering the effect of such prejudices and group mentality. Additionally, Nazis and the German population committed some acts without direct instruction, which the experiment does not explain either, because the participants had to be ordered repeatedly to continue. As mentioned by Watermelon, tactics such as propaganda could have also contributed to the perpetrators’ motivation, but the experiment did not account for it. Milgram’s experiment, although producing key data regarding the effect of consistent commands from authority, does not investigate the other troubling factors that contributed to the Holocaust.

While many participants in the experiment hesitated to continue with the shocks, only a minority of participants fully defied the instructions of the experimenter. These participants were confident enough in resisting authority that they walked out while a man in a lab coat adamantly told them to stay. These “teachers” were non-conformists and/or did not feel respect and fear when interacting with the experimenter. Either way, they denied the authority of its power in order to stay loyal to themselves. This is a quality that could and should be taught in society.

The scariest thing about the quote that Bauman writes is that it has some truth to it. There are many things that would go under the radar because they are actions of obedience. For example in the Milgram Experiment the man didn't want to keep on going unless he heard that the scientist was liable. However it does not, exclude you from being a killer because at the end of the day you were the one who kept on pushing your own boundaries. Blindly the man was willing to kill the learner because the teacher was incrementally getting over the fact that these volts were getting deadlier. Something to observe about this experiment is the fact that these people are normal people who like us are not, in their minds bad people. If the experiment was conducted starting at 350 volts for example, the men probably wouldn't commit to the learning because it is in their conscious that these volts are dangerous. The idea that the experiment might have influenced the subjects into doing a certain action is definitely possible however it is hard not to be frightened about the idea that this type of manipulation can be happening right in front of your eyes and you might not see it, literally and figuratively.

In the article "How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out In The Mind", it was very interesting to see what the original experiment had done wrong. For example the idea that the Milgram experiment did not use shocks was inpactful to the overall experiment because it was less likely to “fool” the teacher. Although this helps the experiment become more realistic it is really shocking to see that people prevailed, knowing that these shocks were actually happening. It makes sense that the Haggard experiment was trying it's best to be realistic because the howls of the man might have been a little too fabricated but I do think that it was a good enough experiment to get some credit for it's innovation. Something that kind of stands out in the Haggard experiment is that the people understand that these shocks are actually harming someone yet they still go through with these actions.

I don’t think that “obeying orders” is an excuse for Adolf Eichmann because there were so many things happening around him that could have been stopped if it wasn’t for his actual bias. He must have had some type of relationship with the party to get a job and working those conditions. If he was just following orders, why didn’t he at least acknowledge that he was very wrong. Even if you acknowledge that and you feel powerless, the best thing to do in your position might be to just find a job in a better place where you aren’t just “following orders”. The way it is presented, his actions did not have a soulless attachment to the actions but rather some type of connection to what was happening in front of him.

Everyone does not have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, as we are all capable of doing good and evil things. It is not incorrect to say that sometimes when pushed to the maximum, it can cause us to do things we might regret later. However, becoming a perpetrator of violence seems to be an extreme case nowadays. Everyone has once caused harm to someone but in less severe ways than inflicting violence. Though Milgram’s experiment is an example of how people can foolishly participate in mass violence, this conclusion does not apply to everyone. Religion also plays a role in whether an individual would be a perpetrator of violence, so this contradicts the idea that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. It can be a factor that affects someone’s moral decision to take part in these acts of violence. Inflicting harm against someone is against many religions, and one’s duty to follow their religion is stronger than the instinct of obedience to an authority figure. Others are simply raised in a household with more emphasis on helping and doing good for others. The actions we do or don’t do in these types of situations are easily influenced by others, whether positively or negatively. This connects back to when we learned about conforming to a group and adding to our recent conversations about being a bystander. When there is an incident occurring and many people seem to be ignoring it, even though you feel inclined to help whoever is in need, you conform with the rest of the group and move along. One of the common excuses is “someone else will help out”. The Milgram experiment suggests that when bad things happen, we feel it is okay to let it continue if we are not taking responsibility for it. People are more likely to indirectly inflict violence on others because we like to think of ourselves as good people. An article by Barajas mentioned how acting under someone’s order causes us to dissociate from the actions we are doing and “described this distance as people experiencing their actions more as “passive movements than fully voluntary actions” when they follow orders” (Barajas 1). Times when we do inflict violence, we try to justify our actions and/or come up with excuses. Our natural tendency to obey a person of authority is stronger than the desire to help someone who appears to be in pain. This is similar to the idea of bystanders, where many people tend to continue to be in the background in a situation where someone is getting hurt or mistreated. We are highly influenced by someone of authority, which better explains how genocides, like the Holocaust, occurred. Besides the blind following authority, lacking a personal or emotional connection with the person you are inflicting pain on contributes to your willingness to carry out this action. When there is a lack of connection between the perpetrator and the victim, the perpetrator is less likely to feel obligated to help the victim. In the Milgram experiment, the “teacher” barely got to converse with the “learner”. Because of this, the “teacher” was more likely to continue inflicting pain on him because he did not know him personally. If the “learner” was his wife or child, for example, it can be assumed that he would step in to stop the experiment much sooner. User “america!” mentioned how the “teachers” in the experiment were told they would still receive their participation money even if they stopped the experiment, which was a key aspect I had previously missed. The one thing motivating them to continue was the fear of disobeying the authority figure. I found this surprising because most people do a lot of things in life just for money. This scenario shows how the individual’s thought to obey an authority figure is stronger than just taking the money and preventing any further harm.

We all like to believe that we would do the right thing in a harmful situation. However, the sad truth is that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Several psychological factors contribute to this behavior, such as the social conformity and obedience theories. The Milgram Experiment exposes these aspects of our behavior and makes us question the extent to which authoritative figures influence us to act immorally.

The first teacher in the documentary serves as an example of what many hope they would do in this situation. Despite all the pressure and commands he received from the instructor, he refused to shock the learner. However, this is sadly not how a majority of the teachers acted. Most of them obeyed authority and even administered all 450 volts of electricity. This result raises questions about how easily ordinary people obey orders from an authoritative figure that will harm others. The experiment exposes how we are more likely to obey when harmful commands are incrementally increased and when we have no personal responsibility for the harm being done. The second teacher in the documentary continuously asks the instructor if he is responsible for anything that goes wrong. When he is assured that he does not bear any responsibility, he continues to administer shocks. This shows the extent to which individuals will disregard morality and perpetrate harm if they have no accountability. It helps to reduce cognitive dissonance, in turn preserving a stable and positive self-image because they think it is not their fault.

In “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” Romm writes, “Milgram was a proponent of what today’s social psychologists call situationism: the idea that people’s behavior is determined largely by what’s happening around them. ‘They’re not psychopaths, and they’re not hostile, and they’re not aggressive or deranged. They’re just people, like you and me.’” This emphasizes how human actions are largely determined by our environment. In Milgram’s experiment, the instructor uses an imperative tone and strict language to reinforce his obedience and create a certain environment.

Milgram’s work with the obedience theory can also explain the dynamics of Nazi Germany. Romm writes that in his 1963 paper, Milgram “invoked the Nazis within the first few paragraphs ‘Obedience, as a determinant of behavior, is of particular relevance to our time,’ he wrote. ‘Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded; daily quotas of corpses were produced … These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders.’” Milgram notes that the human tendency to obey authority is what made large scale genocide possible. At a time when disobeying orders had severe consequences, Nazis were quick to participate in acts of cruelty and persecution. This can also be seen as a form of groupthink as they conform to the ideology of Hitler and ignore the ethical and moral consequences of their actions.

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but they choose against it. The Milgram experiment is a prime example of this. Everyone who went in for the experiment learned that they were going to be causing gradual pain to other human beings, and still went through with the experiment. Although some stopped on their own accord because they knew what they were doing was wrong, others kept going because someone told them to. The participants knew that the level of shock they were giving was deadly, and they still went through with it because the authority figure told them to. The experimenter was the authority figure for the participants and was telling them how to commence the experiment. People tend to fear authority figures, which is why we listen to teachers in school and listen to our parents. Although there was no known consequence for not listening, the participants kept going because of the authority figure. Since the authority figure kept telling the participants to inflict pain on others, they listened.

I think experiments like Milgram’s explain why ordinary people are willing to participate in violent acts because when people are given absolute power over others, they take the chance. There also tends to be an authority figure present, which makes them fall into line and listen. An example of this would be the Stanford Prison Experiment. The participants who got the role of guard immediately abused their power and used the opportunity to degrade and humiliate the prisoners, and it got so bad that the two-week experiment had to be cut short after just six days. It also explains how people listen to authority figures simply because they are above them, which is also why people listen to the police and government officials.

People who had empathy were most likely to stop the experiment because the test subject started complaining of heart troubles, which is when many people stopped the experiment. They also stopped again when the subject stopped talking since this is when people genuinely got concerned. Empathy is a good trait to have because it allows humans to feel what others are feeling without necessarily feeling it. I think that as a society, people need to start being more empathetic because violent events could then be prevented since people seem to lack that quality. Although in the scenario we are talking about, it is good to disobey authority figures, it isn’t good all the time since there are actual times when we need authority figures around to establish peace in society. For example, disobeying a government official not only gets you in jail, but this disrupts the peace and balance in society. Then again, it isn’t always how authority figures work. Hitler is an example of an authority figure who didn’t help since he aimed to exterminate all Jews, and he had people doing this for him. The people who helped him were most likely sculpted to lack empathy and were able to commit these acts.