learntoquestion ltq discussions

No one is excluded from potentially becoming subject to Groupthink, Mob Mentality, or Obedience theory. These three theories have been known to cause humans to let go of their morals and sometimes even their concept of self (values) for the purpose of pleasing authority, fitting in, and more. I think in a way that makes all humans susceptible to committing violence against others, even if that wasn’t their intention. Milgram’s experiment is a perfect example of this. When the teachers were conducting the electric shocks and could hear the screams of some of the students, they still continued and in real life would’ve inflicted pain onto those individuals. You could see how some teachers also seeked guidance from authority when hearing the screams of those being tested showing how it morally did not feel right to them. However, they still continued to shock those in the test because we as humans have been taught to obey authority figures no matter the situation.

People’s participation in violence such as genocide and mass atrocities is partially explained by Millgram’s experiment. Milgram’s experiment demonstrated how it is a primal instinct to obey authority. At the same time, today we are conditioned by routines like school and work to follow the elites' rules and we follow them because of this underlying feeling we’re being surveyed. I think we subconsciously may have a feeling that what we are doing is ultimately bad, but we continue to do such things because of our fear of what happens when we don’t listen. We also believe that since authority figures are directing us we technically played no part in any of the harm that is caused to others. In a way, I think this idea is increased even more when one is behind a screen.

I think one personality trait that allows teachers to disobey the authorities’ orders is a strong sense of empathy for others and an unwavering mental autonomy, thinking for yourself. After one of the teachers had heard the painful scream of the person within the experiment he immediately started to question the authorities. He couldn’t ignore the scream of the individual because he cared about the experimented person's cry for help or maybe he didn’t want to be held accountable for anything that occurred. Either way, he was able to work up enough confidence to tell the guard that this wasn’t right, and then it took even more guts and critical thinking for the teacher to say he wouldn’t continue with the experiment even after the guard had directed the teacher to continue.

I do think our society should foster the idea of rebellion over tyranny and unethical behavior. However, our society needs to be careful that we don’t foster rebellion for the simple purpose of disobeying. We need our society to work as one and for that to happen there can’t be constant rebelling over laws that are made to protect the general public. I think one of the best ways to foster a healthy trait of rebellion would be to make humanities/psychology classes mandatory for every school from sophomore to senior year - almost like a middle school sexual ED class. This time the school will be educating children about human behavior, so that the reflective and self aware part of one's brain could start developing. I think providing students with this knowledge gives them the freedom and skills on how to act as a more thoughtful adult as well. The second article “How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind” also discusses how a flip switches within the brain when one acts under orders. The brain's activity becomes dampened and one stops thinking for themselves. Overall, this supports my idea of increasing education upon topics like this, so your brain may eventually develop new strategies against situations like these.

Everybody has the potential to become a perpetrator, whether we want to believe it or not. The Milgram Experiments suggest that when faced with an authority figure, or someone who is perceived as having power over the situation, we are susceptible to following through with actions that we may not necessarily agree with simply because it is what is expected of us. I think that we have been conditioned to follow the directions of those who are said to be more powerful, more knowledgeable, and more professional, because society has painted them to be of a higher caliber, and thus we should follow their influence regardless of the situation. I also think that we have trained ourselves to believe that everything we do is done with good intentions, even if that is not how others perceive it, which is where we see this idea of cognitive dissonance present itself again. This sense of inferiority that we experience in these situations can often make us feel like we have no control over the situation, and this lack of control is exacerbated when certain consequences are introduced. This causes our instinct to be obedient to bring us to a dilemma; Do I follow through or do I disobey? Many people are likely to choose the former, being that it is the path of least resistance, and that there is someone to put the blame on if there are any repercussions. In other words, while we may not like the particular acts that we are performing under the authority figure, we are able to reduce dissonance because we are not technically responsible for what happens to the victim when all is said and done (at least that is what we believe).

Another piece of this is how our brain responds to coercion. In Joshua Barajas’ “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” it is stated that when faced with coercion, our brain activity is dampened, meaning that, in a way, we actually lose total control of ourselves, either as a result of fear, stress, or the aforementioned feeling of reduced responsibility. The Milgram experiments are very small scale compared to what occurs in the real world, where people experience injustices as a result of this idea of obedience. Additionally, there is a chain of people who feel as though they need to subject themselves to authority, because in the real world, we don’t have people posing as the ‘experimenters’ and the ‘students.’ Everyone is real and actually is affected by these actions, which makes everything all the more real. There are situations where an individual is playing all three roles at the same time, which complicates this idea of a power structure in societies that experience genocide and other atrocities.

While I do believe that disobeying unethical power figures can be beneficial in certain cases, it is important to note that these figures are in power for a reason. It is very likely that they have more tools and resources to eliminate any “threats” as they see fit. I think it is also important to recognize the implications of disobeying unethical power figures in that it may cause more disruption to society after the fact. So, while I believe standing up against unethical behavior is important, the measures that are taken to combat these behaviors must be calculated so as to not cause even more harm and destruction.

Originally posted by lightbulb89 on September 23, 2024 21:10

I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. The Mil gram experiments help us understand this more. The two teachers that were on the experiment had a choice to stop the violence that they were inflicting on someone else. The only reason why they didn't stop is because of obedience. The affects of obedience is shown in the Mil gram experiment through their actions. We can apply this to outside examples. During school when you are told to keep your backpack and all your belongings in the school while there is a fire alarm happening, you don't want to and it is apart of your natural instincts to get all your things with you. But you listen and obey because it's rules that are given to you by someone you consider a higher up. Other people also listen to this rule and they obey by it, so it feels like you have to obey by it. I think that other experiments similar to the Mil gram's experiment explain the active participation in violence and mass genocides. The reason for this is because there's a lot more to obedience that meets the eye. A lot of people are quick to just jump to conclusions about genocides and what was going on in the soldier's minds, but nobody really thinks of them as single human beings and maybe what would've been going on through their mind. I think that there are multiple factors to someone's thoughts behind murder and war crimes, but I think that there are big factors to soldiers in their own personal lives. I also think that the power struggle is a big factor of this. The commander being someone that you have to take orders from and there being consequences if there is no obedience from the solider. The blind following of authority contributes to people's willingness to inflict pain on other people because they feel like the higher power is always right. Since they are a higher power, usually they would be more intelligent on the matter or just be more educated on what is at hand. So that would make them more reasonable to be correct. Also the power struggle adds on to the reasoning to listen. Some important factors that lead the teachers in the Mil gram experiment to disobey the experimenters is that they thought it was genuine pain on the other side.

Hey lightbulb89!

I agree with a lot of the points made in your response, especially the idea that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence to others. I also agree that in the Milgram experiment, the ‘teachers’ continued to cause pain despite their opposing values due to the presence of a perceived authority figure. However, I do think you could have expanded on this statement more. Why do you think the ‘teachers’ remained consistently obedient? What role do you think physical vs. emotional proximity played in the ‘teachers’ decisions? Maybe check out the post made by thesismachine for some interesting ideas on physical/emotional proximity and what may have motivated the ‘teachers’ obedience.

I also love the way you incorporated fundamental attribution error into your argument about why people perceive people involved in obedience to unethical leaders as inherently bad. I agree that not only is it important to consider the political/societal factors of what drives someone’s obedience, but also the personal factors, like bias, class, or lifestyle. I also find your point on perpetrators perceiving authority figures are more educated/knowledgeable interesting. This is a very interesting justification for why someone might just go along with orders without giving them a second thought. ‘They have more power than me and they know more than me’ is a very plausible reason for obedience and a weak feeling of personal responsibility on the perpetrator’s part.

As for mechanics, I think you could do a better job making sure each sentence contains a complete thought and avoiding clunky transitions between topics.

Overall, great job :))

Originally posted by thesismachine on September 23, 2024 21:43

I believe the Milgram experiment shows some factors that influence people to participate in violence. I propose three main factors that may explain why the ‘teachers’ kept shocking the ‘learners’: physical and emotional separation between the person and the victim, a perceived punishment for disobedience or reward for obedience, and the placement of responsibility. These factors can also be used to explain why atrocities happen since many of them include these factors, showing how significant and prevalent they are. For example, the Nazis were not Jewish, they were paid or rewarded for their service, and many of them claimed that they were “following orders”. These factors work together to ‘incentivize’ violence.

It is easy for people to harm others who are unfamiliar to them, especially if they are considered enemies by other people. It is easy for people to create stereotypes of others, to accuse them of things they haven’t done, or to believe false statements about them. It is important for us to know the view of the other party because it allows us to do away with those stereotypes and accusations and understand how other people truly affect us. However, the Milgram experiments show that even this isn’t enough. Even when the ‘teachers’ knew that the ‘learners’ were in audible pain and wanted to leave, many of them continued. This brings empathy into question, but the experiments show that even empathy isn’t enough to stop them.

I believe that the ‘teachers’ in the experiments felt that they would be punished if they didn’t comply with the orders of the ‘experimenter’. Many of the ‘teachers’ continued to shock the ‘learners’ even after they said they wanted to leave because of the pressure put on them by the ‘experimenter’. Later interpretations of Milgram’s work explain that “those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking” (Carl Romm, 2015), showing that people’s ability to resist persuasion, or possibly the pressure of a perceived punishment, also affects their willingness to continue.

In the article How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, people lose their sense of agency, or their personal responsibility for their actions, when they are following orders. This is also a factor of the ‘teachers’ actions in the Milgram experiment; the ‘teacher’ felt that the ‘experimenter’ was really the one that was hurting the ‘learner’, and that they were simply carrying out the ‘experimenter’s orders because of how disillusioned they were from their actions.

Ultimately, these factors contribute to a conflict that everyone faces. Many people don’t want to harm others because they view themselves as ‘good’, but they become conflicted when they do something or are told to do something ‘bad’. People feel ‘good’ in the sense that they are following authority, but they also feel ‘bad’ because they are doing ‘bad’ actions. The factors try to explain why people choose to do ‘bad’ actions even when they want to be ‘good’. Ultimately, I believe that people who are able to show more empathy to the harmed, who are able to resist persuasion, and who can understand their actions can stand up to authority.

I strongly agree with your three main factors that explain why the “teachers” continued to shock the “learners” despite knowing that they were inflicting harm. These factors ultimately develop due to the hindered brain activity when an individual is under orders. This would cause a lack of agency towards their actions and a perceived shift in responsibility. This phenomenon seems to also reduce empathy in the process, as they feel as though the “experimenter” is truly responsible for these actions. I think it's very interesting how you brought up how people feel “bad” because they are doing “bad” actions, despite thinking themselves a “good person”. With cognitive dissonance, people with higher self-esteem tend to experience more dissonance, while those with lower levels tend to experience less dissonance, leading them to continue to do harmful actions. In the Milgram Experiment, people justified their actions by blaming it on the experimenter to rid the dissonance they experienced for hurting the “learner”. I do not particularly agree with your point on how the “teachers” may have been influenced by a possible punishment. I feel as though your points in regard to pressure in obeying orders and shifting the blame to the experimenter are stronger. Overall, I strongly agree with your ideas on the Milgram Experiment and found this to be an in-depth reflection.

Milgram suggests that every person has the potential to be cruel and violent when provoked. I agree with this, but the rate at which it occurs should be questioned. Some people are more susceptible to giving in to unethical behavior than others. For example, when prompted to continue with causing harm to another person, people become more likely to do so, than if there is no one asking them to continue these behaviors. In the documentary of the Milgram experiment, it becomes clear that among participants that continued the experiment to 450 volts, there was still a variety of reactions and the amount of time the experiment took also varied. Regarding Bauman’s quote, participants’ reactions to their own actions, once debriefed, often included intense justifications to indicate to themselves that they weren’t the worst, or they weren’t the one actually pushing for the violence to occur, even if they were inflicting the violence themselves.

With this, demonstrated praise or approval for the infliction of violence caused people to continue more willingly, because they felt that they were doing something right, even if their conscience said otherwise. Likewise, if people are aware that others are committing the same atrocious acts, they are more likely to do the same, because they do not want to be recognized as the odd one out. As mentioned in Barajas’ article, people feel less autonomy over their actions when the person giving them orders is watching. This application to obedience in mass movements, such as in the Nazi Party’s defense, is minor, but a psychologically proven claim. Despite the significance of this finding, the actual results did not change much, but reaction time did. The question, then, is, if leaders in the Nazi Party had not been closely watching their inferiors, would these people have committed these heinous acts, or would the atrocities have been stopped at a certain point?

Naturally humans have a tendency to protect or, at least, avoid harming people they know or have met before, and even those whose names they know. The act of giving someone a name allows people to feel more empathy toward them, and feel less compelled to cause that person harm. This idea is evident in the Holocaust because prisoners were given numbers, which, in turn, dehumanized them. This allowed guards and perpetrators to cause harm without feeling extreme remorse or distress. Dehumanization can be seen in other mass movements, even ones we consider positive. The idea is that the mass is one, and so each person does not exist as an individual, but rather as a part of a larger group. This leads to generalizations of entire groups which can be extremely harmful. Once someone steps out of line from the ways of the group, their identity returns, and so, they become more human. Ideally, those who oppose unethical leaders would be praised, but there is danger in them becoming idolized. When idolization occurs, there is a loop back to mass movements which encourage people to act against their own ethics and morals.

I do think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others just because of other factors that can cloud or alter someone’s judgment such as past traumas or even certain factors that may be present in the moment. In the Milgram experiments, we saw that the teachers were more willing to inflict pain on the learners which was because they were being told to do so by a higher authority. This implies that people are more likely to harm others when they are not the authority figure because they feel much less responsible for any consequences of their actions. This provides just one explanation for the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust, and why nazi’s didn’t feel so guilty for the deaths of millions of Jews. In “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, Barajas explains how Adolf Eichmann, organizer of the Holocaust, was able to shift blame from himself, and other officers of lower ranking, to their superiors. He claimed that they, “were ‘forced to serve as mere instruments’” (Barajas 1), and implies he was not to blame for his own voluntary actions. One man in the Milgram experiment claimed that he wanted to stop shocking the learner, however the experimenter “wouldn’t let him.” This indicates that the experimenter must have been using some form of physical force that made the man continue, when in reality the teacher had free will and the choice to leave at any given moment. When someone is given an order, their action feels a lot less voluntary, and more like they were tricked or forced into doing something. I think this provides an explanation for ordinary people’s active participation in violence because this theory doesn’t only apply to big acts of violence or mass genocides, it can be as simple as a teacher or guardian asking you to do something wrong. This is similar to the video we watched in class about how people are more willing to not conform to society when there is at least one other nonconformer, because they don’t feel individually singled out and feel less alone. People don’t want to hold responsibility, especially not alone, so it’s a lot easier when you’re told you’re not being held accountable.

I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others through many circumstances in their lives. The Milgram experiments portray the aspects of people's behavior through their constant willingness to ignore others' suffering and listen to their leader. It describes the idea that leaders can use people as pawns for their unrighteous acts, Such as Hitler leading the Nazis. In the Article How Nazi’s defense of “just following orders” plays out in the mind, written by Joshua Barajas, a senior editor for PBS News in 2016, states how people saw their actions in the Milgram experiments as “passive movements rather than fully voluntary actions” while following orders. These ideas directly correlate to Hitler and his rule due to the fact that many soldiers felt disconnected from their actions as a result of taking orders, as mentioned in the article.

The experiments show the impact of group dynamics and social pressures that have been placed on human behavior. As the teachers were told to keep going and that all liabilities would be on the experimenter, the normalization of this behavior created a sense of shared responsibility that diminished individual accountability. This suggests that when individuals are placed in situations where they see others complying with harmful actions, or they know there isn’t any responsibility on them, they may feel compelled to keep going to avoid standing out or being perceived as disobedient.

Another aspect illustrated by the experiments is the role of being in compliance with harmful actions. The controlled environment of the lab created a physical and mental distance between the participants and the suffering of the learner. By making it so the teacher could not see the person and their emotions, participants could detach emotionally from their actions, making it easier for them to rationalize their behavior as part of an experiment rather than a personal choice. This detachment connects to the example of Adolf Hitler and his actions. He tries to justify these harmful actions to his allies by detaching them from the Jewish people. Putting them in Gas chambers where you cannot see or hear them being tortured. Hitler's army and allies were physically and emotionally detached from them, making it easier for them to justify their actions. This proves that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence as long as there is a limiting factor that helps the perpetrator justify themselves.

In addition to authority, physical and mental factors, and social pressures, the Milgram experiments highlight the significance of cognitive dissonance in justifying harmful behavior. Participants often experienced a conflict between their moral beliefs and the actions they were being asked to perform, causing discomfort. To resolve this dissonance, many people shift their perceptions, convincing themselves that their role was important for science or that the learner was less hurt than he seemed. This psychological warfare allowed them to rationalize their participation in the creation of pain, emphasizing how individuals can distort their understanding of morality to align with their actions. The findings suggest that when people are placed in high-pressure situations where they must choose between their beliefs and compliance, they may prioritize compliance, further revealing that any one person can become a perpetrator of violence against their peers.

Could the participants of the Milgram experiment become Nazis or perpetrate genocide, or does the experiment serve as an explanation for Nazis instead? I don’t think either is completely true. As interesting as the experiment was, I definitely feel as though it is an inaccurate representation of the average person’s active participation in mass atrocities and genocide. There is a massive difference between the flipping a switch and being conscious of the pain of the person on the other side versus actively and KNOWINGLY participating in morally reprehensible acts such as rape, torture and murder. The final flip of the switch that “killed” the learner was, ultimately, unintentional. This wasn’t the fervent murder of a person, and wouldn’t be tried as such in court. You could argue depraved heart murder or criminal negligence, but they can claim an ignorance to the consequences of their actions which Nazis can not. Not to say that they could never be, but as of the experiment they weren’t in any way depraved. There is also the fact that all of the participants in the experiment were white (presumably straight) men. They were not a part of the any visible “out-group” to the teachers and this probably gained them a kinship and empathy that members of a different out group would not (consider that this experiment took place in a segregated America: What would the results have been if people of color were included?). While this seems to suggest that the Holocaust, perpetrated by Nazis onto members of their most despised “out-groups” is plausibly perpetrated by the members of the experiment, MANY of the Jewish people, gay men and Roma were women and children, of which the social taboo was (and is) to in any way harm them. We condemn violence against children more than I would argue any crime in existence, and it is often prosecuted as such. Children are often used in political propaganda and media as the paragon of innocence, and considering how violent reactions to harming children are, I find it difficult to believe that the men shown in the video could do that. When comparing the participants in the Milgram experiment to ordinary people in the Holocaust who did terrible things, one must consider that the people weren’t exactly ordinary. This isn’t to say that they were strange and completely out of common social norms in Germany at the time, but that normalcy is an adjective that fluctuates with actions of the collective you compare it to. They might have been “ordinary” but ordinary people aren’t constantly bombarded with anti-semetic propaganda or idealistic Aryan posters. “Ordinary” people aren’t in the middle of a war that their whole country supports due to the charismatic speeches of a crazed political leader, “ordinary” people wouldn’t send their children to Hitler Youth hoping to instill nationalism and pride in their country. As Miller points out in Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments, ““If you put us in certain situations, we’re more likely to be racist or sexist, or we may lie, or we may cheat.”. It has everything to do with the situation or which authority is only a small portion of. It has been roughly 80 years and much has changed but even at the time, that wasn’t “normal”. That is ultimately why I don’t think it is fair to say that the obedience theory “caused” the Holocaust, although it was a cause. The factors that go into a tragedy like the Holocaust are sadly probably not entirely unreplicable but are very specific and unique. Think about how the perpetrators of the Holocaust 1) had been listening to propaganda for years 2) Were (often) under orders 3) Were committing violence against minorities that they had long had political tension with 4) Were part of a larger group and political ideology 5) Were committing violence against people they often didn’t identify with and labeled as an “out-group” (and these are just the factors I could come up with at the top of my head, please comment if you can think of more). The only overlap in the experiment and the Holocuast was number two, and to argue that because the participants conceded to a single factor of a much, much larger issue that they, or even people on the street, could be capable of genocide of other atrocities is, I feel, a gross misrepresentation. “Ordinary” people have committed atrocities, but it goes far beyond a lever to be switched on and off.

I think that only certain people who already have tendencies for violence or aggression have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. As seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment, the people who signed up for the experiment through the advertisement had their personality tested and the results showed that they had “significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism” (Korrinkova 2). These people were more likely to be cruel to the prisoners in the experiment. The Milgram experiments suggest the factors that cause humans to willingly inflict pain on others are having an authority figure telling them what to do and assuring them that they won’t be blamed for their actions, making them follow orders that are harmless at first but make it harder to disobey in the future, and increasing the harmfulness of the orders incrementally over time. To an extent, Milgram’s experiments explained ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. However, there is a large difference in severity of giving someone a non-fatal shock and killing millions of people, so there is bound to be a psychological difference in the people that were in Milgram’s experiment and the perpetrators of violence in the Holocaust. One factor that might explain the behavior of the people performing acts of violence in the Holocaust might be the propaganda spread about Jews to have them be perceived as inferior to Aryan Germans. Hitler used the media to manipulate his subjects into feeling justified for mass killing the Jewish race. Another factor is the fact that they acted in groups. As we’ve seen in class, it’s harder to maintain one’s individual views and opinions when part of a larger group. So people who might’ve been against any form of violence could’ve been persuaded into supporting a murderous movement. The teachers that resisted the orders of the experimenter likely had a stronger sense of self identity than the teachers that carried through with the experimenter’s commands to continue to shock the learner because they were able to recognize that what they were doing was going against their view of themselves and stopped so that they could maintain their self image of being a good person. I don’t think that we can create a society that values and encourages the traits of people who disobey unethical figures because strictly sticking to your self identity is very situational, and people are not always going to be able to follow their moral code and resist the orders of influential leaders.

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. May it be people who already are considered violent to those who are considered passive. Under certain conditions everyone can be this perpetrator, but most of the time it is not on purpose. Most people who become perpetrator of violence in mass movements such as the Nazis are not how people thought or viewed themselves. This is because the goal of the Nazis was not the same throughout the whole time and gradually but surely people kept following and following. Once people starting following a leader they get put into a group of others who follow the same person. When you starting doing tasks with these people the unconscious bond that is formed within this in-group make it hard for people to leave once in. That is because of the fear of being outcasted. Especially in big movements such as the Nazis once your in the in group the out group views you extremely negative as they dislike your position but if you try switching you will most likely not get be accept by those people either and even if you do, the fear of being outcasted by both groups creates a situation where you have to stay in. In Milgrams original experiment, where the teacher shocks the learner for every mistake, the voltage went up to 450 which is lethal but yet because they kept pressing the switch it made it harder for them to completely stop even after they started disagreeing with the actions occurring. In a similar experiment where the voltage only went to a painful but not lethal 140 the same data was collected. This simply shows that the 310 voltage difference is negligible. Once hooked in people tend to stay in regardless of their behavior, and with this process this allows everyone and anyone to become a perpetrator of violence. Moreover, even though anyone can become a perpetrator of violence, not everyone does. This is because of differences in personalities and the biggest difference would be a high self esteem and high moral integrity. People with high self esteem and morality have no reason to follow these mass movements as they do not need the validation that comes from it or if they do join, they have no reason to stay in once they disagree because of the difference in morality. So in the Milgram experiment if one has a high morality they will realize that they do not need to do this and that they don’t have to and stop. As a overall society we can duplicate this and we can see examples in todays worlds. It is not unfair to say that people have higher morals today than they did back in the early 1900’s and further. In todays world someone who, even in the slightest, supports Hitler’s idea is immediately shut down and that is because as a society with high moral we recognize how that is inexcusable. Since we all recognize this there is no chance for any similar movement to happen as those would also be recognized as inexcusable and not allowed to happen. With this idea of high morals we are able to simply stop mass movements that haven’t even started yet. This high morals paired with the technology to be able to spread opinions makes it even harder to start negative mass movements. If even one person disagrees with a negative idea and posts it, tens of millions of people see this post and even if a fraction agree with it that’s more people on the better side of the issue. With continuous reposting and sharing this side is shown more and more and eventually the majority is completely different than before. However, back then there was no way to “safely” share an opposing idea so everyone was under the impression everyone was okay with the movement and was forced to move with it

Bruh I posted mine to section two by accident. Sorry whoever may have been trying to review it tonight.

Yes, I believe that everyone constantly carries with themselves the potential to be violent towards others. I think we would get nowhere by dividing behavior into violent and non violent as opposed to comparing the severity of violent acts. However, there will always be outliers in any collection data and in the context of the Milgram experiment the outliers are those who refused to begin the experiment and those who continued the experiment without protest. The teacher’s whose performance fell anywhere in between represent the average and had the goal of the experiment being to analyze only violence and non violence, the data would return only the handful who didn't begin the experiment as non violent. We don't hand out life sentences for drunk fist fights because the severity of a punch in the face does not exist within the same realm of violence as murder. I also see a direct comparison to the reading I have for homework about the driving force of hatred in mass movements. Hate really is the most easily accessible emotion and we have the tendency to seek allies in our hatred whereas we seek rivals in our love. People who are obsessed with a celebrity tend to compare themselves with other fans and prove to the fanbase that they are the biggest fan. People who hate a celebrity often don't compete with one another over who is the biggest hater.

There was a distinct difference in attitude between the teacher that adamantly protested the experimenter and the teacher who protested but did not stop. The teacher who didn't stop was satisfied by the thought that the experimenter was “making me do it” when in reality he has free will and could at any moment rise from his seat and leave. When people convince themselves that the authority has stripped away their autonomy, they become more comfortable with increasingly heinous acts. The famous excuse from soldiers in all militaries around the world is “I was just following orders” from the Joshua Barajas article. However, the stakes are the most significant driving force for those who quit and those who do not. If you're a nazi soldier and the punishment for disobedience is death by gas chamber, I believe the average response from anyone would be to execute your orders. This also works in reverse in the context that if given a substantial reward for following orders, the orders are more likely to be followed. Yet, in the Milgram experiment, there was no punishment for quitting and the reward was a rather insubstantial amount of money. The teacher who gave the reason that the experimenter “wouldn’t let him” stop has a weaker sense of self and struggles with autonomy when given directions from an authority figure. The teacher who stopped when he felt he needed to stop for the sake of the learner and disobeyed the experimenter when told to continue, has a stronger sense of self and autonomy.

Quote and Reply

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, because at the end of the day we care about ourselves. While there are certainly some incredibly selfless individuals, when faced with the risk of losing a job in a low-income household or the fear of personal harm, most people will comply with authority. Now does that make you selfish, or an awful person since you are inflicting pain on others? I believe that this question is definitely situational, because as I said there are many cases where the person who commits an act of violence only does so because they are protecting themselves from potential harm. This idea was also noted in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most infamous experiments when Miller states “In the minds of a lot of people, it tends to excuse bad behavior … it’s not the person’s fault for doing the bad thing, it’s the situation they were put in.” Just because someone acts badly, doesn’t mean they're a bad person as long as they still have remorse; however, it is hard to confirm that as an answer and not as a mere excuse. However, it is a different story if you are complicit in an environment where you have complete free will. For example, the Milgram experiment. I understand going on with the shocks a few times after hearing the learners yell, but after multiple pain filled screeches it is obvious that the person getting shocked is in severe pain. In one case he was even knocked unconscious and they continued the shocking. Luckily it was a planned experiment, but if it wasn’t one option was that the learner could’ve been dead and continued getting shocked. I think it is completely immoral to continue such an act, because the people in charge of shocking were all appeared to be at least somewhat educated and adult men who could have stood us up for themselves, and the learner. Although this is a smaller scale experiment, it is definitely related to actual atrocities and genocides, because sometimes you don’t realize what you’re getting yourself into. None of those men even thought that the experiment they signed up for included possibly killing someone, but it ended up being just that. Once you start an experiment, it is easy to fall under the pressure or get brainwashed, and continue on because you don’t know what else to do. Besides feeling pressured, it is also possible to get an adrenaline rush from obtaining so much power, like an addiction. Feeling secure and in control is something that is really hard to let go of, and can sometimes blind people's perception of right from wrong. In the end, whether it be fear or consequences, persuasion, pressure, or just gaining a liking to inflicting pain, I think it would be nearly impossible to train a human being to completely disobey authority during an unethical situation. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a bad person because some leaders are very manipulative and can hide their destruction until it's too late, making it very hard for the person to notice the faults in their actions. However, it doesn’t mean their actions are always excused either. All in all, it is also impossible to create a morality chart that is agreed on throughout the world, or even a country, so a lot of these questions will remain unanswered theories.

I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Some people may refuse to be a perpetrator of violence against others but will change due to a variety of reasons. For example they can justify their actions by using a us vs them mentality or separating themselves from the action. This can be seen throughout history with events like the Rwandan genocide and the Holocuast. I think the Milgram experiment shows that people are likely to inflict pain upon others if they are able to distance themselves from the action. Subjects in the experiment who went through all the voltages stated that they only did this because they were told to. Their mentality is that the scientist was the one deciding to shock the other subject, not them, so they were not responsible for the other’s suffering. They have the same reasoning Nazis did when they were on trial, that they were just following orders. I think there is more that goes into ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide then what was tested in Milgram’s experiment. For example the experiment tested only white men from the same area. I think it would be important to see if a person is more likely to shock a person of a different race or nationality than them. Besides the blind following of authority, the us vs them mentality contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others. We are less likely to cause harm to people who are similar to us and more likely to harm those different to us. People are more likely to harm others if they are able to justify their actions to themselves. I think that people with higher views of themselves are more likely to disobey the experimenters in the Milgram experiment. We saw that students with more self-confidence were less likely to cheat and act in ways that go against their self image. This is true for the experiment as well. People with very positive views of themselves are less likely to shock the person because it goes against how they see themselves as a person. On the other hand people with negative self images are more likely to follow the experimenter’s commands despite moral objections.

Originally posted by mouse0 on September 21, 2024 17:03

The majority of people have the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. In the Milgram experiment, it is revealed that once authority is established with the obeying of simple commands, a person is more likely to obey harmful commands if the magnitude of the commands increases incrementally. It is harder for the individual to disobey given commands, despite being aware of the detrimental consequences it has on others. At the end of the experiment, the “teacher”, who delivered the painful shocks on the “learner”, was questioned as to why he continued to hurt the “learner”. The teacher shifted the blame to the experimenter, arguing that he was doing what he was told. This suggests that the teacher has distanced himself from his actions and the pain he thought he was inflicting. By avoiding the responsibility of his actions, he is justifying that he is not in the wrong. The Milgram experiment was originally developed to explain the defense of Nazi officers, who claimed they were just “following orders”, to understand what was happening in their head. In “How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out In the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, a more in depth study by Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist, reveals that brain activity is hindered when people are given orders. They feel more distanced from their actions and less responsibility. If this is a basic human function, it is likely the majority of people have the potential to hurt others under the orders to. However, in the cases of atrocities like the Holocaust, this is not the only factor influencing the decisions of people under orders. The prevalence of an “Us vs. Them” advertised by the Nazi party, had aided Nazi officers into believing that they were in the right. The Jewish community was dehumanized to the extent where it “justified” their execution to the Nazi supporters. Another aspect of the Milgram experiment was the presence of non-conformers. The non-conformer would refuse to comply with the orders of the experimenter after they realized the pain the “learner” was going through. This highlights the importance of non-compliers in unjust governments/societies because this mindset eventually leads to a solution, whether violent or peaceful. However, in accordance with the results of the Milgram experiment, people are less likely to be non-conformers, as most people obey the orders given by the experimenter. Attempting to create a society where we encourage people who disobey immoral/unethical government officials would, in theory, prevent atrocities like the Holocaust from taking place and contribute to a more peaceful society. This could prove to be problematic, however, as people have different morals and beliefs on what is ethical. On top of this, there will always be consequences in disobeying authority figures. It is unlikely that people will want to undergo such consequences in the face of injustice. In the case of the Holocaust, there were many who knew not to disobey Nazi authority for the sake of their safety. It benefitted the non-Jewish people to let the Holocaust take its course as their safety was preserved.

This post was very concise and demonstrated a very clear understanding of both the Milgram experiment and the article they read. Their observation of how, in the Milgram experiment, how at the end the teacher did not accept that they had hurt the other person and instead pushed the blame to the experimenter was very interesting. The writer of this post could have connected this to other things we have learned about in class, like how it is an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance which would have made the observation stronger, however it is a very good observation to begin with. I was really interested in the ending of this post, how they explained both the upsides and downsides of non-conformers, explaining that although the mindset of a non-conformer can help when the conformers are injuring people but that if we had a society of non-conformers it would be difficult because what is morally wrong or right is dependent on the person. The connections that this person made between the psychology we are currently learning and the Holocaust was woven into the post very well and it is beneficial to remember why we are learning about this in the first place and connecting these psychological experiments with what we will learn about in the future. Overall I think this post was a very accurate and detailed exploration of the obedience theory and they connected the article, experiment, the Holocaust, and their own thoughts on the matter in a very informative way.

Originally posted by ilovemydog34 on September 23, 2024 18:07

I think the Milgram experiments were a prime example of how we are “programmed” to obey the authority above us. These experiments highlight how we willingly inflict harm on others because we are able to justify how we are not responsible for it. We tell ourselves we are simply doing as we are told and we are being forced to do these things by the authority figure. These are principles many of us are aware of and know we possess but when we are put in situations, it is often hard to stray away from them. During the documentary of this experiment we see many examples where the teacher would say they are not comfortable with continuing because the learner was screaming in pain but when the experimenter told them to continue, they did despite how the experimenter had no physical restraints on the teacher, they acted as though they did. I believe that these experiments explain how people can justify behavior they do because they are told to but I think there are still limitations to that. On a far more extreme level, the Nazi’s that followed Hitlers orders were listening to commands but at the same time they were committing mass genocide so some part of them knew what they were doing and weather they forced themselves to agree with what Hitler was doing out of fear is different. This theory was studied in Joshua Barajas’s article, “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind”. He finds “That is, when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves, Haggard said.” I found this quote particularly interesting because it shows how for some reason when we are told to do something, it automatically shift something in our brain to make us feel less responsible for this action, Something else the Milgram experiments emphasized that I think often explains humans behavior to willingly inflict harm on others is that the teacher could not see the learner in pain. There was a wall in between them and they did not know each other, both factors making it much less personal. This physical barrier allowed them to view the subject as not human, which explains why Hitler had the Nazis use the gas chambers, to eliminate personal confrontation because he wanted them to follow his orders. They could not see them and when many went to court we saw that their reasoning was they were simply following orders, implying they were the ones doing the right things because the ones in authority were telling them to do so. Another thing I learned was people will do things when they know the results will not inflict any punishment on them. When the teachers of the Milgram experiment learned that if any physical harm was done to the learner, the experimenters would be responsible, they felt more comfortable continuing. I believe this is because we want to protect ourselves and our view of ourselves. When we can justify our behavior by saying “well it is not my fault” we are more willing to do it. This mindset was most likely used by the Nazis in the same way because they could place the blame on Hitler for the mass genocide, rather than individual Nazis despite how they were the ones who willingly murded innocent people. Overall, something I have observed is people want to protect themselves because that is human nature and they take measures to assure they are protecting themselves before continuing on to hurt someone else. We can see the human tendency to follow the orders of those in authority in many experiments such as the Milgram experiments or similar to them but also in daily life, such as in school or in the workplace. I also learned that we all want to avoid getting into trouble with these authority figures, such as teachers or bosses, so we do this by listening to what they tell us to do. This is yet again another step we take to protect ourselves.

Hello! I thought that your response was very well put and I couldn't agree with your insight more. I found it very intriguing that you brought up the idea of perpetrators being aware of their harm but being unable to stray away from the expectation of obedience; I agree strongly with this point. While the need to obey authority, when applied in real-life situations, is viewed as a negative trait, I think it's also important to account for the fact that the issue lies in the system that has been set up for years and often people find it hard to break out of what is traditionally normal. You also brought up the topic of the diffusion of responsibility, which plays an important role in situations to which we apply this theory. I also observed Joshua Barajas's article and found that quote, which discussed the perpetrator's lack of responsibility, quite relevant. I wholeheartedly agree with you that when harming others, or performing some kind of negative act, perpetrators often feel less responsible when they are ordered to perform these acts, because they are "simply following orders." I think this is an example of dissonance, which we talked about previously in our class. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your response and you covered a lot of topics that I also did in my response, great job!