learntoquestion ltq discussions

I think we all want to believe the absolute best in ourselves and that we are incapable of inflicting pain or cruelty against others, but we don’t truly know until we’re actually in a situation that pressures us to go against all of our morals and integrity. I think under specific circumstances, people definitely have the potential or at the very least, are more prone to become a perpetrator of violence against others. The Milgram experiment strongly suggests just this by ordering ordinary people to shock students when they got answers incorrect. While this study was conducted mainly to study human behavior under authority, the results show that people were especially prone to becoming the perpetrator when they couldn’t physically see their victim and are emotionally distant from them, allowing them the ability and comfort of dissociating and preserving their self image by justifying both their action and inaction as just simply following orders: a defense that is heavily overused and illegitimate, according to Joshua Barajas and his team, but yet was made well known in the infamous post-WWII Nuremberg trials, which featured heavily on Eichmann’s court hearings and his inhumane actions during the Holocaust.

I think Milgram’s and experiments like his do actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide though by studying ordinary people’s willingness to blindly follow directions, regardless of whether or not they are hurting someone else, and how they reason throughout it to allow themselves to do this while also protecting their self image because “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Joshua Barajas, 2016). I think these studies are also important because it helps us to better understand human behavior and how a society can get to a point where millions were able to participate in the inhumane treatment of others and do the unforgivable. It also gives us a better understanding of how authority and blindly following orders is dangerous as well as gets us thinking about how every person a part of the experiment and all perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocides, such as the Holocaust, were all ordinary people with ordinary jobs and ordinary lives like us at some point. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, soldiers were all able to participate in the inhumane treatment of others under the Nazi regime’s charismatic leader and the pressure to conform of a mass movement.

However, we can’t forget that in every situation and society, there will be people who are brave and strong-willed enough to stand up for what they believe in and what they know to be morally and ethically right, even when it may be difficult to do so. I think the most important factors or personality traits that the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment who chose to disobey the ‘experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the ‘learner’ is a strong sense of self and moral compass. People who believe they are good people who should always strive to do good and have a strong sense of what is considered right and wrong are less likely to actively participate in actions that harm others or be a bystander to injustice. We should strive to build societies that value and encourage others to think for themselves more so they are able to form their independent opinions on situations instead of blindly following an authority figure or getting sucked into dangerous mass movements due to the pressure to conform.

I think everyone has the potential to cause harm to another, whether it be emotionally or physically. The Milgram Experiment is a clear example of this. It shows that, for a lot of people, it is natural to obey orders. I think it suggests a lot about the human psyche in this day and age. Many people follow what other people do, this can be seen with the presence of trends and other forms of social media. I believe that we as society have become very obedient, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, you have to follow the laws in place. However, when someone in authority tells you to do a bad thing (such as hurting someone) I think we as humans should recognize that it isn't right. In "How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind", Joshua Barajas connects the Milgram experiment to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust: In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act: “In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused,” said study co-author Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, in an email. In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act." (Barajas 2). Like many of my classmates are saying, I believe that the Milgram experiment properly explains people's active participation in violence and other atrocities. The Holocaust stands as a perfect example of this notion. Beyond just the blind following of authority, many people commit these acts of violence just to social pressure. In one of the videos we watched in class, there was one lady who kept standing up to a sound in the waiting room of the dentist as all the other people in the room were doing it. This example of social pressure could also apply to the Milgram experiment, it can become normalized to commit these acts of violence if other people are doing it with you. This also ties into the ideas of dehumanization, which many Nazi's did during the Holocaust to decrease dissonance.

Some personality traits of the “teacher” that may have led them to disobey could be empathy. Many of the people exhibited worry for the “learner” and how they were doing. While some showed empathy, they did continue with shocking the “learner.” Another trait could be having the ability to have critical thinking. Some of the “teachers” questioned the authority of the scientist in the room, as well as testing the legitimacy of the experiment. This crosses over into the idea of education, we as a society can teach people when they are young the critical thinking skills needed to disobey in situations where you are causing another person harm. I think the potential of this also causing danger could be very true. A disobedient and rebellious population is bound to have some sort of violence. We as a society would have to educate those when it is appropriate to disobey and when it is appropriate to obey rules.

Zygmunt Bauman previously observed that the ultimate horror of the Holocaust is not the worry that it would happen to us, but rather the uncomfortable understanding that we might be the ones to do such horrors. The Milgram experiment, carried out in the 1960s, strongly resonates with this idea. Thinking back on Milgram's results, I'm amazed that 65% of participants—under the influence of an authoritative figure—kept shocking a "learner" with electric shocks even after hearing their agonizing cries. This experiment demonstrates how our morality may be controlled by the power of authority, creating individuals even as myself to act violently while simply carrying out our commands. I consider how emotional detachment and dehumanization, similar to the Holocaust, it made it simpler for participants to cooperate since they were unable to see their victims, in a manner similar to how the Nazis dehumanized entire communities. In this sense, Milgram's research is similar to Hannah Arendt's idea of the "banality of evil," according to which common people carry out horrible deeds out of obedience rather than resentment. It pushes me to face the uncomfortable reality that any one of us could be able to injure someone under the right conditions—not because we're naturally cruel, but rather because we can be influenced by authoritative figures and environmental pressures. For example, Joshua Barajas argument of “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” highlights the emotional disconnestion when people carry out demands because the fault won’t be placed onto them. People, especially those with a weak sense of self, continue to justify their actions no matter how large or small because if they don’t the blame will be placed on to them causing a growth in cognitive dissonance. Although I believe they only partially explain why ordinary people might engage in aggression and crimes, Milgram's studies and Haggard's research contribute in my understanding of the subject. Haggard discovered that following instructions might make people feel less accountable for their conduct, almost as though they aren't totally in charge. Milgram shown that people frequently obey authority, even when doing so causes harm to others. But I think there's more to it than just blindly obeying commands that makes individuals destructive. It is simpler to defend harming victims when there is dehumanization, when people regard their victims as less human. Group pressure, fear, and the need to fit in are all elements I think play a role. Certain cultural and historical attitudes, such as strong national pride or prejudice, might lead people to believe that violence is justified. Additionally, I think that individuals may be drawn to violent leaders due to economic difficulties or sentiments of injustice. Therefore, even if deferring to authority is crucial, there are a lot of other reasons why I believe common people could engage in widespread violence. In conclusion, Haggard's studies and Milgram's experiments demonstrate how simple it is for people to submit to authority and disassociate themselves from their behavior, but they only go so far in explaining why common people commit crimes. Important roles are also played by dehumanization, fear, collective pressure, and cultural ideas, which serve as a constant reminder that anyone might be persuaded to harm others under specific circumstances.

As sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes “The most frightening news brought out by the Holocaust . . . was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” This dark potential that all humans, in my opinion, possess is further supported by the Milgram experiments which shows that ordinary people have the ability to seriously harm others if acting under the orders of an authority figure. In the Milgram experiment the obedience theory, which states that humans are socialized to obey authority, is tested on ordinary people selected on the street and the results of the study ultimately support the theory. In the article “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, study co-author Patrick Haggard states that “acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused.” This notion of disassociation from personal behavior and actions can be seen in anyone and is very harmful for self awareness and analysis. In the Milgrim experiment certain “teachers” who were tasked with shocking other participants constantly sought validation from the authority figure, the experimenter, by asking who was responsible for any harm that was inflicted upon the person they were shocking. After learning that they were not going to be held accountable or responsible they were more likely to continue to shock the other participants, putting the dangers of this disassociation on display. By thinking that we are not responsible for our actions we are more likely to create justifications for what we are doing in order to carry on obeying the social norm of following the rules.

While Milgram’s experiment does give a generalized explanation of why ordinary people might participate in violence, mass atrocities and genocide, it deos not take into account many other factors that could influence if someone decides to participate or not. The Milgram experiment supports the obedience theory by using factors such as how close the “teacher” is to the “learner”, how close the experimenter is to the “teacher”, and the location of the experiment however it does not take into account emotional connection between the “teacher” and the “learner,” the way in which the pain was inflicted, and other reasons that the person inflicting pain would have for disliking the person that pain was being inflicted upon. The conscious or subconscious biases that the ordinary person might have towards a group of people can also affect this person's perception of others in that group and play a part in whether or not they are more likely to harm them.

Some of the important factors and personality traits that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters commands to continue to shock the “learner” were a strong sense of self. This sense of self gave them the confidence to be sure of their decision and reject the orders of the experiments which they deemed to be wrong and/or harmful. Despite the ability of humans to obey harmful orders from an authority figure we all also have the ability to reject negative leadership. We can enforce this by creating societies that value and encourage individuality, confidence, and a strong sense of self rather than conformity. Despite the benefits that these reinforcements have they can also lead to the possibility of creating an environment where individuals feel the confidence to go against essential rules and laws that protect the well being of a society.

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence when their environment or authority figure pushes them to do so, but it is not inevitable. What the Milgram experiment taught me was that we will continue to do horrible things if we don't feel responsible for the actions we take. Justifying our actions is the key to going through with the terrible behaviors we see in this experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. If people are unable to see the consequence of their actions, then they will act with increasing harm because they don´t understand the true extent of their actions. We base our actions on the people around us, those who both tell us what to do and people who are the victims. That is the reason someone might help a well-dressed man on the side of the road compared to a poor-dressed woman, because they are perceived as not well-off people often don't care about them as much. This line of reasoning also applies to experiments, as people are more likely to follow social norms than rock the boat and go against authority. The same ideals that prevent a person from helping out someone in need also prevent a person from resisting authority when they know they are doing the wrong thing. These social norms, including following authority, are what make people inflict pain against others, because going against the grain is against human nature.

In addition to following one´s authority in the Milgram experiment and the guards in the Stanford experiment, people are able to commit these atrocities by being absolved of any responsibility. Often during the Milgram experiment, the teacher who continued with the shocks would ask who was responsible for the learners´ well-being, and when he was told that he had no responsibility, continued with the shocks. It is the lack of responsibility that allows for people to commit such terrible actions, because they don´t have to answer for what they've done, but their supervisor does. If people are able to separate themselves from their actions and remove the humanity from their victims, then they are able to justify everything they do. The promise that they are losing their own individuality and embracing an authority figure´s will removes the burden of self-reflection and morals. According to the Stanford prison experiment, ¨we act as we think we´re expected to act -- especially if the expectation comes from above,¨ illustrating how humans are built to conform to an authority figures instructions and follow the norms of society to not be singled out in the group (4). Even if the actions are heinous and morally objectionable, we still go through with them because if we don´t, we risk going against the grain in society. It is human nature to conform to societal norms, and if those norms are set for someone to hurt another, then we will follow those norms no matter how objectionable they may be. Blindly following authority is key to the atrocities of our time, but it is the lack of responsibility and following social norms to obey authority that push people over the edge and commit such acts.

While I don’t believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, the Milgram Experiment certainly shows that the vast majority of people can get really close to becoming one. Although it is a bit optimistic to think that there are a number of people that absolutely wouldn’t follow orders just for the sake of “following orders,” I think that external circumstances play a huge role in how people respond to authority and for some, these circumstances trump either do or do not trump their moral compass. In the video shown in class, one of the “teachers” was adamant in stopping the experiment early despite the incessant and urgent orders of the experimenter. That participant valued his own morals and beliefs more than the orders set in place. This person demonstrated that it is possible to resist authority if it is morally wrong and expects you to act as a perpetrator of violence against others. For many others, however, this clearly wasn’t the case. I think that this experiment highlighted how one’s environment contributes to their willingness to inflict pain on others when told to do so - the “teacher” is set up at Yale, an authoritative entity on its own, and is accompanied by a researcher in a white lab coat monitoring the experiment with his pen and clipboard. Though these details seem to be of little importance, they all contribute to the “teachers” perception of the environment he’s in and the people he’s with being a credible place. It’s difficult to question the authority of someone who seems to know what they are doing, especially at Yale of all places. I think that this relieved some people of their initial concerns about the experiment, and they quickly resorted to the “just following orders” mentality as that seemed to be the most sensible decision. The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Maria Korrinkova discusses the role one’s surroundings play in shaping people’s willingness to obey by, as demonstrated by the Stanford Prison Experiment, a similar experiment done to assess human behavior regarding obedience. Korrinkova describes how the participants of the study all strived to act as they thought they were expected to act - the guards thought they should “behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion,” as a prison induces those preset expectations that typically have a negative connotation. The guards acted in reprehensible ways, but yet, their behavior wasn’t innate. It was rather a product of their preconceptions of the institution. Like the Milgram experiment, we see how easy it is for people to quickly conform to the environment they’re in and act accordingly - the “teachers” blindly followed the experimenter’s orders because they already had preset expectations of the institution they were in. These preconceived notions of places and people magnifies the chances of being a perpetrator of violence. Aside from environmental factors, I think that the Milgram experiment didn’t take into consideration both emotional distance and the personal excitement someone may get from following orders that they know are wrong. In the Holocaust and various wars, perpetrators of violence were told that the other side deserved to be harmed and that they were doing the right thing for the sake of the nation. Of course, while this isn’t true, it becomes much easier to dehumanize others and sacrifice your moral compass to do terrible things to “terrible people.” In the Milgram experiment, the “teacher” was a complete stranger to the “learner” - this emotional disconnect made the teachers more willing to inflict pain on the learner because they wouldn’t feel as bad if the learner was perhaps their lifelong best friend or mother. I also think that the opportunity to have some sort of authority and control over others excites people to some extent. The ordinary person isn’t typically in a position of power, so I assume that some people unfortunately have no issue following extreme orders. For instance, the guards in the Stanford experiment were “normal” college-guys given the freedom to do whatever they want, and they were quick to abuse the limited power that they had. It isn’t unlikely that, similar to these men, many people choose to just “follow orders” and take it to the extreme, as they were merely given the “opportunity” to. All of these factors ultimately shape an individual’s capacity to obey authority and maltreat others - it is simply up to the individual to decide what matters most to them and where they draw the line.

The Milgram experiment showed a lot, it showed how humans react to authority and how humans feel in certain situations. Regarding aspects of human behavior, the Milgram experiment suggests that people tend to put themselves first, typically long as something is not hurting them or affecting them first, they won’t put too much thought into it, however if it has something to do with affects their conscious or causes them to become guilty, that is where there is a little hesitation. In the Milgrim experiment, it showed how those who chose not to obey authority figures instead did not inflict pain on other people out of their own will. However, the person who in fact did listen to authority figures showed how willingness to inflict pain on others comes from that sense where it feels that you do have to listen to that person. This comes because the person either has a higher status than you or can seem intimidating, so you feel as if you have to listen to that person, and you want that sense of validation that you are doing something right even though it is affecting someone else. I believe that these types of societies which value and encourage these types of traits who disobey unethical authority figures are essential and can be necessary. These societies can be created with people who take charge, even one outlier can have a major impact on how other people act. This one outlier can influence the actions and thoughts of other people, which can lead them to not be driven to the majority of the people who listen to the authority figure but people who don’t, especially if it for the need of validation of if the majority of the group are in the direction are doing harm to other people because the authority figure “said so”. Every society needs a balance, everyone can’t be the same, and everyone can’t do the same thing. Then, you would never know the difference, outcome, or consequence of the other action. However, there can be danger, the one outlier can result in the majority of the population which can lead to consequences on the outlier for being different and not obeying the rules. These thoughts of obeying authority figures can lead to even bigger outcomes like violence, mass atrocities and genocide. However, even though I think it is a high possibility that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, I don’t think that everyone would. People are different, and even though there can be a majority of what most people do, I believe that there will always be a different person, there will always be an outlier because obviously everyone is different. “Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions? Were its findings about prisons, specifically, or about life in general?” (Korrinkova). Everyone has different pasts, motivations, thrives, thoughts and etc, and there can be at least some type of sympathy in a person’s heart. Like Korrinkova said, the things people go through can determine how they think and the outcome of their actions. However unfortunately, there are some people who genuinely have a bad heart and so there is not a driven factor of wanting validation, but it is the pleasure which the person gets from inflicting pain on a person, which is the sad reality.

Are we all capable of evil? We would like to think not—at least, not us. The Milgram experiments, however, suggest the contrary. Milgram attempts to discover how likely humans are to inflict pain on others when given the command; the Stanford Prison Experiment observes what authority figures would do when given the opportunity. Let’s find out why.

Humans are trained to follow rules and obey authority. Not surprisingly, the results of the Milgram experiments suggest that most people will harm others if ordered to do so by an authority figure. Over the course of the experiment, the norm was set to follow the experimenter’s harmless orders, which encouraged obedience when told to administer severe shocks. In addition, the experimenter stated that they would accept all responsibility for any outcome of the experiment. Thus, the teacher was relieved of blame, justifying the harmful deeds they were committing and encouraging them to continue. These results conclude that humans will deflect to an authority figure in moments of uncertainty, relinquish responsibility and blame, as well as give up their own morals and agency to follow orders.

The Stanford Prison Experiment took a darker turn. The results of the experiment suggested that many people will abuse their authority when given the chance. In Maria Korrinkova’s essay The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the guards, Dave Eshelman, stated, “‘I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, ‘How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘Knock it off?’” (Korrinkova). Though the results of this experiment may seem like people are inherently immoral, the environment of the prison also encouraged this behavior. Thus, the environments that oppressors create are direct factors in encouraging people to inflict pain on others willingly.

Experiments such as these help analyze ordinary people’s willing involvement in mass atrocities and genocide. Oppressors use several techniques in order to encourage obedience from everyday people. For instance, authority figures begin with seemingly harmless commands, later making people more willing to follow inhumane orders. They shift responsibility onto others, maintaining “innocence.” In Joshua Barajas’s essay How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, Patrick Haggard argues, “‘If people acting under orders really do feel reduced responsibility, this seems important to understand. For a start, people who give orders should perhaps be held more responsible for the actions and outcomes of those they coerce,’” (Barajas). This deflection of responsibility gives rise to the “I was just following orders” argument used countless times throughout history.

However, not everyone will conform. In the Milgram experiment, some participants quit once they realized that they were putting the learner in pain, and were adamant about their decision despite intense pressure from the experimenters. These people were confident in their sense of self, assuming responsibility for their own actions and refusing to take part in something that contradicted their morals. We can all be these people. It is imperative that we hold ourselves accountable for our actions, and not give up our autonomy to the majority.

From what I saw in the documentary, it’s clearly evident that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. While some people are harder to convince or draw into a plan or action that will harm others, ultimately everyone is willing to participate in violent acts to a certain degree. For example, in the video we watched in class, the first “teacher” stopped far earlier than the second “teacher”. While he stopped before the shocks got to an extremely painful voltage, he still participated in the violent act of shocking someone no matter how little the shock. In comparison to the second “teacher”, he does seem like he’d be the “better” person, as the second “teacher” stopped to question authority and be reassured, yet continued with the experiment until the very end.

Following this, the second “teacher” had to find excuses or way to justify himself, saying that he was “about to get up and walk out” or using the excuse that he was told to continue. This goes along with what we’ve talked about in class regarding dissonance, and how those with high self image will go to greater lengths to justify their actions, which is why this man goes so far as to displace blame in order to keep the image of himself he has in his head. This can also be seen in the article titled, “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” by Cari Romm. Following the Milgram experiment, people were looking for dirt on Milgram himself, hoping to villainize him instead of putting any sort of accountability on the participants who had the free will the leave and end the experiment at any time, even if they were told not to.

This idea that someone who participated in violent acts, but doesn’t bear responsibility due to the fact that they lacked leadership, or were just “following orders” is far too common in society today and in the past. When there is any kind of authority figure present, people tend to neglect their free will whether or not the authority is only verbally or physically threating. Naturally, humans feel the need to obey authority to avoid being outcasted, but falter when obeying authority comes at someone else’s expense. This typically goes under the radar, but having sat and discussed this in class, it’s very evident that people like Nazi’s during the Holocaust and the college kid who walked out in the middle of an assault/murder hold more responsibility than they’re often given in these situations. Overall, I believe that the Milgram Experiments provided valuable insight on how the average person’s mind works, and how we differentiate ourselves from others through our actions and self image. People with a strong sense of self, like the first “teacher”, had less trouble disobeying authority to potentially help another person. At the same time, this can’t completely save him from accountability, as he still gave some lighter shocks to the “student” and didn’t stop until the “student” mentioned a potential health condition.