learntoquestion ltq discussions

I believe that everybody is capable of hurting anybody under certain circumstances. Its human nature to protect the ones we love due to the fear we all have of loss. Due to this innate fear were willing to go to extreme lengths which may or may not involve hurting another individual. I think in the instance of the Milgram experiment, whether or not an authority figure can influence you to cause harm depends on both the authority figure and the person. To be clear I do believe that the burden is more so on the person than anything else, however if you take into account different circumstances the situation starts to change. If you asked a group of people if their boss told them to punch someone if they would do it, the answers would most likely be pretty predictable. However if you take this same group of people and ask them if they would punch someone if their mother told them too, the answers would vary. Although their obvious biases in this example but simply put the only real difference between the two authority figures is the value that the person is attributing to them. To bring it back to the question, the willingness you have to get violent, or do violent things to others depends on the value your putting in this said authority figure and the character of the individual. If your conviction is strong enough and you truly do not want to harm somebody, you will not harm somebody no matter what. We've seen this throughout history all the time, how many people were killed or executed because they refused to do something an authority figure or a sociatal norm told them to do. Challenging the status quo is not some unusual occurance, so we know how feasable it is. On the other side of that theres been plenty more examples of people complying to the status quo. I would break that down to character. We've seen both sides and we've seen the type of people pressure and influence can breed. Either your a dissenter or a complier and I do believe its that simple. We see this with the milgram experiment. One person put to much faith in the experiementer. Regardless of the circumstances, he did something he knew wasnt right or at least he believed wasnt right simply because he put to much faith in the experimenter and didnt have the character to oppose him. With the other man, in the same circumstance with the same stakes made an entirely different decision. Some people's character come out different in the end. Your past heavily determines this of course but in the end some people are willing and others are not and thats all it comes down to at the end of the day.

Originally posted by opinionated person on September 23, 2024 23:13

I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because we are all capable of the same things. Although one person might feel differently about doing it than another person, such as if they have lots of cognitive dissonance, there’s still the chance for everyone. The Milgram experiments prove this, and they also show that humans crave leadership, especially in unfamiliar situations, like a random person with no knowledge of electricity shocking someone. The person who went all the way to 450 volts was a prime example of a human that craves leadership, because he personally felt that he should stop, but the experimenter, who seemed like much more of an expert, told him to continue, so, not wanting to defy authority, he continued. Compared to the first “teacher” shown, who stopped well before reaching 450 volts, he probably has learned to be obedient through wanting to fit in with the rest of society. I think that experiments like the one Milgram performed prove the Obedience Theory, but there are multiple other factors like peer pressure to not join a movement and hatred of the movement or leader. Besides the blind following of authority, people might be willing to inflict pain on others because the people who the pain is being inflicted on could be in the inflictor’s way, or the inflictor might want to harm the other person as payback. This pain doesn’t only have to be physical pain; it can be emotional as well. Some of the most important factors are when the “learner” cried out in pain, people were more likely to stop, or at least pause and reconsider. Some of the personality traits that a person who stopped would have are self-confidence and a desire to help people in need. We can attempt to create societies that prize these character traits, but if everyone is so self-confident that no one listens to authority, the world would be a lot more chaotic. One thing that surprised me about the Milgram experiment, which I read about in the article called “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments”, was that some people knew that the cover was fake, which makes me wonder if they still continued with the experiment. I also wonder if there was anyone who, once debriefed, didn’t feel any sort of remorse or cognitive dissonance. What also surprised me was that another scientist repeated the experiment in 2007 and came up with the same findings as Stanley Milgram did 46 years earlier. Milgram also realized that peer pressure has huge effects on obedience: if a big group of people are following a leader, most others will start following the leader as well; not necessarily because they support the leader, but simply because they don’t want to be alone and crave society’s comforts. The environment has a significant impact on a person’s conduct as well; if something is publicized everywhere, there’s more of a chance that someone will do the thing.

Overall, I agree with what this student has to say, as I reached the same conclusion that everyone is capable of violence, and that many people crave leadership. One point made by the student that resonated deeply with me, and that I had not previously considered, was that people could inflict pain on others both physically and emotionally. To me, this makes it even clearer that all people are capable of inflicting pain, as harsh comments are much more common than harsh actions. Furthermore, this peer noted that obedience to authority has both positive and negative consequences, which leads me to believe that a balance of authority and self-sufficiency would be ideal. In order to avoid the chaos of a world without authority, and to avoid the tyranny of a world dominated by authority, our society should aim to have authority figures that are well educated and respected, and that share their knowledge with people. Once people are educated enough to understand a topic, then they should be able to make their own decisions, aside from extremities such as crime. In my opinion, my peer did a very good job developing their argument and their various points, and did so without making any major mechanical errors, although if I were to suggest one thing I would recommend that the student branch out even further into their ideas.

Originally posted by JaneDoe25 on September 23, 2024 08:53

The Milgram experiment reveals the troubling reality that many people have the potential to inflict harm on others when told to do so. The desire to obey an authoritative figure allows a person to dehumanize and torture an innocent victim. People are willing to go against what they know is right, starting with something small. When that threshold of injustice is crossed, the shocking truth concludes that most people will blindly follow someone who seems above them. Many people believe they would never do such a thing. However, the experiment shows that even after someone electrocuted another to the highest degree, they still deny that they would obey authority.

This experiment connects to real life in ways evident throughout history. If a person who holds power or who is feared by others makes a demand, people are likely to obey. In instances of genocide, the end result is not revealed. If Hitler were to say ¨my goal is to capture, torture, and murder all Jews around the world” there would be uproar, concern, and a call to action. However, propaganda and small requests slowly infiltrated the minds of citizens. Conflicting thoughts turned into anti-semitic comments, which turned into hate crimes, hate crimes into murder, and murder into the most atrocious genocide in world history. The subtle progression of intensity and gravity of the requests does not cause major alarm. The idea that Jewish people are evil is also a factor to be considered. Someone is more willing to hurt someone they believe is dangerous or different from them. Add an authoritative figure, commanding you to do so, and there is reassurance that you are doing what needs to be done to the “outgroup” to preserve the “ingroup.”

The Milgram experiment relies partially on the moral values of the “teacher.” Although the percentage is low, some people disobey the “experimenter” to end the harm being done to the “student.” Some people are naturally born rebellious or have been standing up to authority all their lives. These people are more likely to end the experiment, as they feel less submissive to someone in power. In a perfect society, people would be more encouraged to think for themselves and question everything. Now more than ever, citizens have challenged the government, police force, school systems, and other authoritative powers. People must have free will and the ability to stand up to corrupt leaders. However, there must be a balance between rebellion and obedience. It is still important that people follow the laws, as without them the world would not be safe. Citizens still need to file taxes, register to vote, and go to work every day. Although it may seem unpleasant, this is how our society functions, and without some conformity and obedience, it would crumble. All that is necessary is that people question everything, attempt to assess their morals, and live their lives as they deem fit, all while upkeeping society's laws.

I agree with your claim that the combination of an authority figure reassuring one's actions and a preconceived hatred for one's victim can collectively be a strong factor in one's willingness to harm others. I'd like to emphasize, however, the importance of emotional distance between the victim and the inflictor. One of the most basic moral principals of our society prevents humans from killing or harming any other human beings, so if the inflictor views the victim as an equal, they will be less likely to cause them harm. However, by creating emotional distance in the form of hierarchy, as the Milgram experiment did when they emphasized the roles of the "student" and the "teacher," they removed the equality between the subject and the victim, subconsciously easing any emotional dissonance that the inflictor may have about harming an equal. This case of dehumanization through hierarchy can be seen in your example of the Nazi party and the Holocaust. Hitler established Jewish people (and any others he viewed as unfavorable to society) as a separate and inferior race. Therefore, when he blamed them as the root of German suffering, the masses found it much easier to resort to violence. This, paired with the clear authority of the Nazi party, cleared the way for the mass genocide that ensued.

Originally posted by onecreamtwosugarslightice on September 24, 2024 19:33

Anyone could become a perpetrator whether they believe it or not. The Milgram experiment showed that as long as there is someone in authority, people are more inclined to follow orders even if it means inflicting harm upon others. It suggests that people rely on guidance from people in power and if they put their trust in that person, they would be willing to follow their orders without much resistance. I feel like the Milgram experiment is a great representation of how easily obedience can be manipulated into violence.

People find comfort in order, whether it’s driven by hatred or love, and we are taught that straying from order is met with punishment. While the severity of the punishment fluctuates depending on the scale of the order, fear of punishment is one of the main reasons people choose to blindly abide by orders. People, also, would typically rather witness someone else be subjected to punishment than having to subject themselves to it, so if that means that they’re the punishers, then that may not be so bad anymore. This is how mass movements fueled by hatred gain traction so quickly in many cases. People don’t want to get caught up in the actions that they see being inflicted on others, so they will likely save themselves over the others. This resolution is even strong when bonded by hate. If you genuinely hate a certain group of people, you wouldn’t feel as bad hurting them as you would people you have no opinion on because there isn’t that emotional drive. When people hate something, there is a greater cause for inflicting pain upon them rather than just self-preservation.

Another massive motivator is the scapegoat theory, which says that people tend to look for someone else to blame for their actions or problems. This was posed during the Milgram experiment when one of the participants kept asking if something happened to the man being shocked, who would be to blame. After asking this question multiple times and being reassured each time that the scientist/researcher would be taking all of the blame, he was suddenly more willing to continue the experiment and upping the voltage. The same could be applied in real life. If someone knows they can get away with doing something inherently bad because someone else is taking the blame, they’re more likely to willingly partake in that bad thing. This is seen on a larger scale in mass movements, where so many people are doing destructive things with the belief the higher power will take the blame.

After initially reading my peer’s writing I found that I wholeheartedly agreed with their first assertion that all people are capable of becoming perpetrators. I wrote about this idea in my own reflection and believe that this is a crucial point from the Milgram Experiment. I also found their argument about comfort in order to be compelling and I related it to my reading about leadership’s role in mass movements,which highlights the necessity of a higher power that humans can take orders from to live contentedly. I also agreed with my peer’s ideas regarding responsibility and accountability of one’s actions. I used this argument in my own reflection based on one of the Milgram Experiment participants who deflected the blame from himself to the experimenter and thus mitigated his moral dissonance with his actions. Additionally, my peer’s use of specific examples from the Milgram Experiment helped me grasp opinions about the capabilities of an ordinary person to commit a crime of inflicting pain on another. However, I do believe that their analysis and explanation about the reliance on guidance and authority influenced their actions could have used more specific details perhaps about the Milgram experiment to convey the true extent of this power.

Originally posted by human_rights on September 24, 2024 20:47

I believe that everyone has the potential to perpetrate violence against others because people defer to those who they perceive have authority over a situation and will do as asked by those with authority. The Milgram experiment proves that when told to do something by an authoritarian figure, regardless of the consequences towards another person, people will do as told, especially when severity is increased in small increments. People want to be absolved of any responsibility for the outcomes of their actions, especially if they negatively affect other people, leading them to seek reassurance from an authority figure. This subordination to authority is demonstrated in the Milgram experiment, when the second man persisted in shocking the learner subject despite being uncomfortable with it and repeatedly stopping to ask for reassurance from the experimenter. At the end of the experiment, when told he was not actually shocking the learner, he continually justified his actions and maintained his innocence through reasoning that the responsibility was truly the experimenter's, and he was only doing what he was told. This manner of obedience based on blind trust and limited critical thinking has been historically dangerous and a major contributing factor of mass movements. I think that Milgram’s experiment gives a piece of the puzzle towards human behavior in mass movements that perpetuates violence against a group. Factors such as propaganda, which creates a community of support for a set of ideals that help create stigma against groups, internal state of affairs in a country, which may make people more likely to trust a charismatic leader to pull the country out of a difficult situation, and a strong sense of nationalism that fosters an “Us versus Them” attitude. Additionally, a common trait for mass genocides or atrocities against specific groups of people is the collective dehumanization of the out-group and negative group perception of a division of people to justify the negative acts. People recognize that their actions are bad and have a profound effect on others but try to reduce the dissonance that creates by justifying it and reasoning that others deserve what they get as a result of their actions and are lesser than the in-group. Factors like the learner’s cries for help contributed to the teacher’s dissent from the experimenter’s commands to continue with shocking the learner. The realization that the learner was being hurt and wanted to stop but the teacher had to continue despite the learner’s wishes, led to guilt, discomfort, and uncertainty by the teacher. This causes the teacher to seek approval from the experimenter. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the county prison was “a heavily manipulated environment, and the guards and prisoners acted in ways that were largely predetermined by how their roles were presented” (Karrinova 1). These circumstances are extremely similar to the Milgram experiment with the predetermined roles that affect each other and a controlled environment, bringing into question the validity of the results. Similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram experiment is “haunted by ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior.” (Korrinkova 1) What would happen if the circumstances were changed? What if the teachers were women or people of color? What if the teacher knew the learner? What if the learner was a child? It is hard to be certain of the results because not only are there too many variables, but times have changed as well. Who’s to say that if this experiment was performed today, the results would be the same?

I didn't consider the method they increased the shocks, which was definitely important. If there were less steps to get to the maximum voltage, I bet a lot more people would have dropped out. Approval from the experimenter was crucial in this study as well, which may be your most compelling point. When the "teacher" would defer to the experimenter, they were told to keep going. I think this, and the textbook study of power tripping both explain (not justify) the basis of the Nazis in Europe. The combination of a blindly obedient subordinate and a power-tripping authority is a feedback loop, that caused the death of millions of people. Do you think that the fact that these experiments were both done at Ivy Leagues would impact the results? I believe that the highest achieving students are conditioned to obey authority far further than anyone else. All of these students spent their lives doing everything as instructed (Studying, homework, not partying, etc.), which all led to them being Ivy League students. The Nazi regime was built on higher-class individuals, which may have stemmed from an obedient education. If the learner was a child, the number of participants who went all the way would decrease, but likely would not cease. Many circumstances contributed to the Holocaust and other mass killings, and some are seen in these experiments.

Originally posted by MookieTheGoat on September 24, 2024 23:44

Based on the Milgram experiment I think that every person has the ability to become a perpetrator of violence against others. For example, the Milgram results show that most “Teachers” were willing to administer painful electric shocks to the “learners” because an authority figure instructed them to do so. This reveals that people prioritize obedience to authority rather than upholding their ethics and not shocking the person. By shocking the “learners” we can see that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against another. Furthermore, some of the participants kept going even after the learner asked them to stop or became unresponsive which shows that even though they actively knew they were harming the person they were willing to go on. This demonstrates that in the Milgram experiments situational factors, like the existence of an authority figure and the escalation of commands, can override an individual ethical code and force them to inflict violence upon another even though they believe themselves to be a good person. These findings generate the disturbing idea that forces of violence lay dormant in all of us just waiting to be activated when told to. However, despite these findings, there is still hope, because, in the article Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, Cari Romm finds that “It’s a far cry from Milgram’s idea that the capacity for evil lies dormant in everyone, ready to be awakened with the right set of circumstances. The ability to disobey toxic orders, Hollander said, is a skill that can be taught like any other—all a person needs to learn is what to say and how to say it.” These findings from Hollander illustrate a brighter image of our humanity because it shows that even though deep down we all will be violent we can try to override those commands.

Additionally, I think the finding that commands from an authoritative figure can explain the fact of ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide because in most cases a political leader orders people to go on. When watching this I saw 2 parallels to Nazi Germany. First, the Nazi party and Hitler started small by commanding people to help rebuild Germany like how the experimenter started by telling the “learner” to give small shocks only after giving larger orders for the expansion of Germany and Genocide like how the experimenter asked the participant to ignore calls for help from the “learner”. Second, like the experimenter who established themselves as an authority figure by coming from Yale, Hitler established his authory by gaining support over many years. Nevertheless there are other factors that can play into people’s participation in violence for example people backround or upbring can contribute to them participating in violence. However, I think all of these pail in comparision responiblity since if you don’t feel morally culpable for your actions you are more likely to do them. For example in the Milgram experiment the Teacher had to confirm they were not going to be responsible for their actions before they did them. In the end, the past proves to us that everyone is capablem of violence against others.

I found what you said that “deep down we will all be violent” very compelling. I don’t think I agree with this, but I do find it really interesting and I totally see where you’re coming from. Although people certainly have the ability to be extremely violent, I think we as humans are ultimately innately good. Even though so many people have done so many terrible things, I think all of those are a product of the society we have created, where people are conditioned to be distrusting of those who are different from them or those they know little about. However, I do think that there are a lot of people who would agree with you on your point.

For pretty much everything else you said in your post, I was in agreement. What you said about how “if you don’t feel morally culpable for your actions you are more likely to do them” especially resonated with me. I thought this especially connected to the video clip of the Milgram experiments we watched in class, where the person who continued shocks all the way kept saying that he didn’t want to be responsible for any harm caused. He didn’t care that he was causing harm, only that he wasn’t responsible for it.

Overall, I liked reading your post! I would just recommend reading it over one or two more times because the beginning is a little repetitive and there are a few spelling mistakes near the end, but all your points were great!

The idea that anyone is capable of commiting harm on another person is a strong idea in this post, while I agree that many people would commit harm on another in a situation such as the Milgram experiment, I disagree that it would be so black and white in every real world situation. There are many factors that are not controlled in real world situations so saying that any human, if given the opportunity, would turn on another person is a difficult opinion to back. In a real world situation, you would have to take peer feedback and opposition in as well. The way people act in experiments may not be how they act in real life because of their perception of what they’re being asked to do. I agree with the idea that an authority figure telling someone to do something provides some sort of information behind why people are able to commit horrible crimes but I don't think it explains it. At the end of the day humans still have free will and every one of them can execute it. Usually though they would rather choose the option they benefit from and not a choice that harms them which provides an understanding of why so many were able to go along with the Nazi party and similar historical situations. I completely agree with the final idea which covers what would happen if a society had no rules. It would become chaos and I think that it would eventually lead to the fall of humanity.

Originally posted by littleprincess26 on September 23, 2024 10:52

I do think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because the Milgram experiment proves it. The experiment shows that most of the teachers continued to give shocks to the students even when they hesitated because they were ordered to do so. The person delivering these orders had a very stern tone and I think that played a role in the way the teachers acted. We also learned that from an early age, children are taught to obey the higher ups such as their parents and teachers. This affects the way humans behave because we have been taught this all our lives. Personally I can agree with this because I feel like, as students at BLS, we have to obey many rules, have a structured day, do whatever the teachers ask of us otherwise we get punished, and even ask for permission to use the bathroom. I think that if someone of authority were to tell me to do something, I would be more likely to do it than if someone with no authority were to tell me to do something. I think that experiments like the Milgram experiment are a perfect way to explain how ordinary people can easily participate in violence, mass atrocities and genocides. Although genocides and mass atrocities seem far more severe than giving shocks to someone, it proves to us that we are capable of committing violence. These small acts of violence can then lead to severe acts of violence when someone with even more authority is telling you to do it. In an article about the Nazis actions, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London who ran a similar experiment said they “also used a questionnaire in the second experiment to get explicit judgments from the volunteers, who explained they felt less responsible when they acted under orders.” Additionally, if everyone around you is actively participating in such things, you would be more likely to do it because of herd mentality. Besides blindly following authority, there are also other factors that contribute to people’s willingness to inflict pain on others. For example, the Milgram experiment has given some money to the participants and although some may not need it, and may not see that as a reason to obey the authority, there are others who may be struggling financially and feel obliged to obey. I noticed that the one guy who was strongly disobeying the experimenters commands to continue was saying that they could take the money back and that he could not continue because the learner could be dead. I think this man was not only financially stable but also had a stronger morals which is the reason he didn’t continue. He just felt so strongly about it. This connects to the lessons we learned previously about how people behave differently depending on their self esteem. I think that we could possibly try to create a society that values disobeying unethical authority figures but that may lead to total chaos. People may begin to feel strongly about their own opinions which creates a lot of divides in the world. This can lead to bigger conflicts, wars, and etc.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by MakeArtNotWar on September 23, 2024 14:14

The human conscience and the ability to harm has long been a question of philosophical and psychological debates—are humans innately good or evil? Do humans, despite centuries of developing civilization and establishing moral codes, resort so quickly to our primal urges to destroy and kill? The answer, as with everything human, is ambiguous. Humans and human consciousness always sit on one spectrum or another. However, the cases of the Milgram and the Stanford Prison experiment suggest a clean-cut answer: that when given the right conditions, there is nothing holding us back from returning to our innate malicious tendencies.

While I do not contest the data of these experiments, I am critical of the absoluteness of the conclusions. Both trials enlisted the participation of “normal” people, and put them in situations where they were given the ability to inflict harm on others, and the data collected showed that a good number of the subjects opted to do so. However, a key factor in both the studies has largely been overlooked in the discussions of the results, which is that in both experiments, a hierarchy was established. In the Milgram experiment, there was a distinction made between two “test subjects” (of which only one was the actual subject), as the “teacher” and the “student.” In the Stanford Prison experiment, the test group was divided into “guards” and “prisoners.” I believe that this distinction created emotional distance between the test subject and the victim, making it easier for the “teachers” or the “guards” to inflict harm on others.

In general, it is a strong moral principle that no human being should harm another human being. However, by creating a hierarchy in which the subject is above the victim, the superior ceases to see the inferior as an equal, effectively dehumanizing the victim and subconsciously justifying any cognitive dissonance that the inflictor may feel.

This phenomenon of dehumanization to excuse harm can be seen across history. Hitler’s Mein Kampf described Jewish people as the root of all evil and established all races other than the “Golden Race” as inferior, leading to the systematic genocide of entire populations. Slavery was justified by false scientific studies claiming that African Americans were biologically inferior to white people, establishing them as such an “other” that they were considered a different species. Propaganda posters in the World Wars often depicted the enemy as animalistic or barbaric to remove any guilt that the citizens may hold for the murder of enemy soldiers and raise morale.

This ability to dehumanize others to the point where harming or killing them comes easy to someone is ironically an echo of our most primal genetics. In the pack mentality drilled into our subconscious, we desire to be part of a group—the right group—and that desire causes us to ostracize and denounce any other group. The oxytocin in our brain not only increases empathy towards individuals we consider to be part of our own “group,” but also increases hostility towards individuals in the “out group.” These experiments make sure to emphasize the difference between the subjects and the victims, establishing the victims to be in a different group than the inflictors. The lessened feelings of guilt and the subconscious increase of hostility together make it easier for the test subjects to inflict pain on others.

Humans are not innately good or bad, but a product of centuries of biological hardwiring and social manipulation. Our decisions are a product of our environment and our biology, neither of which rules above the other. It is important to recognize that just as not all the test subjects of the two studies resorted to harm, not all of humanity will fall into this principle. We are endlessly varied in our perspectives, decisions, and cognitions, and thus it is essential that we recognize that fact and not seek to restrict or define our population with incorrect or insufficient labels.

In your recap on the Milgram experiment I agree with your argument about how human behavior is multifaceted. I think that your emphasis on dehumanization is used for justifying harm. Additionally I agree with your argument that distinctions can create emotional distance, allowing individuals to inflict hatred more easily. I resonate with the broader idea about groupthink and social psychology that you discussed. Especially regarding identity and belonging in the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments

You also connected the experiments and groupthink to historical events, such as the atrocities committed under Hitler. I think the argument is that social psychology can be seen in long-standing patterns of dehumanization throughout history. This idea added another idea I didnt think of in the discussion.

However, expanding on the psychological mechanisms, such as cognitive dissonance or the role of authority figures, could enhance your argument. Additionally, while you acknowledge that not all participants in the experiments chose to harm others, it might be helpful to explain the factors that led some to resist the authority of the experiment.

Your response is very strong and thought-provoking and offers a new perspective I haven't viewed. A bit more depth in discussing resistance to harmful actions could strengthen your argument further but I am excited to hear discussions in the future.

Originally posted by projectvictory on September 24, 2024 21:38

While watching the Milgram Experiment, I was both shocked and unsurpised in the human nature that was being displayed in the video. I believe the people in the role of ‘teacher’ continued on for a myriad of reasons, but more specifically because of the authoritativeness that the ‘experimenters’ had over them. Most of the people selected to be the Teachers were normal people, with no vengeance or malice to the person they were shocking. However, in a room where you can’t see the person you’re hurting, and someone who presents themselves as educated and informed is calmly telling you to continue, anyone could be pushed to hurt someone else. As long as the Teachers could convince themselves that what was happening was not directly their faults (just taking orders), they could continue to harm the Learners. As much as the Teachers sympathized, they were still disconnected from the human connection between themselves and the Learners, and focused on completing the orders of the Experimenters. From this experiment, I do not believe we can complete or come near to completing a society that completely disregards the ideas of the biggest authoritative group. As much as we may not agree and want to rebel against some of the ideas of our society, we fail to also realize how much we want to be in the in-group (listening to orders, and associating ourselves under the higher-ups that we follow) vs the out-group (people who have such a strong sense of self that it is unnecessary to hurt others just because they are told). People may do it unconsciously, but so many attrocities have been committed because they feel the need to listen to someone in charge, wiping the blood off their hands even after committing the crime. A prime example of this dissonance is when Nazi’s on trial simmered down their reasoning for seeing-out a mass genocide by saying they whole-heartedly “acting under orders” and that these orders allowed them to “perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused” (Barajas). This is a prime example that because authority figures exist, we put so much more pressure on them to be the cause for all evil in the world, disregarding what we contribute. On the other hand, in a world without a person/group to blame, people blur the lines between what they represent and the pain they cause. The Nazi’s, no matter how much they deflected, could not escape the fate and guilt of the deaths, displacement, and disaster they caused. Without the ability to manipulate and shift blame, we as a society would fail to not only understand why we do the things we do and hurt who we hurt, and lose any high self-esteem we would have had. If everyone were to willingly inflict pain on others and feel no guilt, our dissonance would decrease so much that we would have no reason to be good people. The in-group would be come the violent aggressors, and the out-group (most likely a very many few) would remain peaceful.

I completely agree with your view on the Milgram project. There is always the feeling of needing to fit in and I do not think it will ever go away. With all of us being in high school we see a lot of this happening firsthand. People are constantly trying to be part of the ‘popular’ group to fit in and they will go to lengths to feel accepted. Everyone always seems to be shocked at how something like World War two could have happened but when you break it down it does not seem so unreasonable. A good amount of the strategies used whether they were known or not we see in everyday life. Someone will agree with one thing someone says and follow blindly for the rest to follow or someone they want to impress or care about follows it so they feel almost obligated to follow as well. The nature of how people act whether it is something as small as wearing a certain brand or as large as a world war they all have major similarities that will most likely never change.

Originally posted by snr25 on September 24, 2024 10:02

Yes, everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others given the right situational factors. The Milgram experiments revealed that authority can strongly influence behavior and can drive people to inflict harm even if they don't intend to. Even so, not everyone will act on their inevitable potential to become a perpetrator in similar situations. Factors like context, level of violence, number of authority figures and victims significantly influence a person's decision. The desire to conform to aspects of human behavior is what makes it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others. The human susceptibility to authority can override our empathy and moral judgment. The participants felt obliged to administer the shocks because they felt that the authority figures were legitimate enough to know what they were doing. They also believed that the responsibility lay with the experimenter, not themselves, which lifted a weight off their moral conscience.

In addition, this shift of responsibility explains how experiments like the MIlgram’s explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide.In How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders " Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, he highlights that “..people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act”, which supports the general belief of people of under authority that they are fulfilling a duty rather than commiting immoral acts. This dehumanization enables widespread participation atrocities and genocide. Other factors such as group dynamics, propaganda and fear also come into play. These individuals strive for a sense of belonging and want to be a part of the collective. Also the perception of viewing the hated group as a threat to one's identity or community drives this participation.

Important factors that led the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment to disobey the ‘experimenter’ were being able to hear the learner’s cry for help, triggering empathy. They viewed themselves as perpetrators who were purposely causing harm, which motivated some to begin to question the authority. Personality traits include confidence, responsibility and empathy, confident ‘teachers’ were able to trust their own judgment over external pressure from the ‘experimenters’. Individuals who are responsible take accountability for their actions and wont shift the blame. Yes, we can attempt to create societies that value and encourage traits of responsibility, confidence and empathy when faced with unethical authority figures. Through emphasizing the importance of having ethical principles and moral responsibility in everyday life, such as school and work, people will be more inclined to question orders instead of blindly obeying them. Yes, the danger in encouraging disobedience could be the potential breakdown of authority structures. People would have less trust in legitimate authority figures which could lead to chaos and social disorder. Necessary laws and guidelines may be broken and impulses may take over. It's important to have a balance between individual liberties and authority.

A compelling idea from this post is the idea that people often feel disconnected from their own actions when they obey authority. I agree with this idea, as it aligns with the Milgram experiment and major historical events, such as the Holocaust. The concept challenges us to think about our own actions in the presence of a leader and emphasizes the importance of thinking for yourself. It raises questions regarding the accountability of citizens, implying that people who think critically could change the way of history.

Other posts touch on the idea that most mass movements or corrupt leaders don't openly state their end ideas. This means that the authority figure will keep their true, cruel intentions a secret and slowly lure followers down their path. These ideas are similar to my own post, as I point out that if Hitler had exposed what he wanted to do to Jews on his first day in power. There would be more social disapproval and uproar if Hitler declared he wanted to begin the most devastating genocide in world history.

This post was very insightful and touched on all the major points of the experiment. The quote from "Just Following Orders" helps explore these ideas from a new perspective. That being said, I feel like a lot of peers have similar opinions about this topic, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it shows that we agree on this complex topic and all have strong ideas.

Originally posted by 1984_lordoftheflies on September 23, 2024 16:23

I don’t think that Milgram’s experiment fully explained the participation in mass atrocities and genocide such as the Holocaust. Besides the shortcomings of the methodology referenced in Cari Romm’s article, such as the experimenter going off script, or that some volunteers knew the whole thing was a hoax, the teacher in that experiment was told that the ‘student’ would not be permanently injured, and that the shocks were painful but harmless. They were told this by someone they perceive to have knowledge: a professor at a prestigious university. If you compare this to low-level Nazis in the Holocaust, they knew what was going on. It was Hitler’s goal to solve the ‘Jewish problem’, he wanted to kill all the Jewish people. Thus, for Adolf Eichmann and other low-level officers, the defense that they didn’t know what was going to happen doesn’t hold up. Milgram’s experiment also doesn’t explain how many other factors could have collided for people when mass atrocities were happening. It only studies how people respond to orders from authority, not explaining why people supported Hitler’s ideas about Jewish people, for example. I think another big thing that comes into play here is the ‘Us vs. them’ mentality we were talking about earlier in class. A lot of propaganda went out to dehumanize other Jewish people during the Holocaust, which made mass murder easier for people.

However, this doesn’t mean that the whole experiment is worthless. One thing that really stuck out to me when we were watching the video of the man who went all the way and killed the student, he repeatedly verified that, if anything were to have happened to the student, the experimenter would be responsible for it, and not himself. Once, he was about to press the button to shock the student again, after the student had just been screaming in pain and saying that he had a heart condition, and he paused to re-verify, asking if he would be responsible if anything were to happen to the student. This suggests that nobody wants to feel responsible or guilty for something bad happening to another person or one’s death. However, some people might not care about the death in the first place. I think this is the big takeaway that explains how atrocities happen. I mean, people use this defense all the time when they’re talking about things like wearing clothes from SHEIN or other brands that use sweatshop labor. I don’t believe that everybody has the potential to purposefully kill somebody or be violent to somebody- as we see in Milgram’s experiment, 40% of people didn’t go all the way. At the same time, in Joshua Barajas’ article, he references how Patrick Haggard found that brain activity is actually dampened when you’re being coerced, by using brain scans. A loss of agency was seen in the brain. This shows that people are definitely more susceptible to doing bad things when they’re receiving orders from somebody else.

There’s many traits that someone who didn’t go all the way might possess. Assertive, for example, because the experimenter was repeatedly telling them to keep going with the experiment. We should be encouraging people to be assertive and stand up for what they believe as a society. There is a danger to this, though. If people always think that they are in the right, our society will never grow. There’s also a greater capacity for empathy in people who didn’t go all the way. I think we should definitely value empathy more as a society, or rather expect it more. Now, empathy is valued to a degree, but it’s perfectly normal to disregard others and put yourself first. It reminds me of that video we watched in class of the person on the street saying ‘help’ and nobody stopped to help him. Our capitalist society encourages selfishness and greed. For example, it’s a common thought that homeless people or poor people are like that because of a lack of personal merit or ability, and therefore that it isn’t your responsibility to help them. Instead of this, our society should encourage empathy and care for others.

I agree with 1984_lordoftheflies’ analysis of Cari Romm’s article, as well as that of the Nazis. This analysis is interesting because it leads to the question of if the Milgram experiment had taken place in a room where there was some form of propaganda to subconsciously convince the “teacher” to continue the experiment, would the teacher have been more convinced to go all the way to 450 volts? In addition, if the Nazis didn’t want to feel responsible for what was happening to Jewish people across mainland Europe, did they feel a lot of cognitive dissonance and did any of them feel bad for what they did? In my response, I said that the person who went all the way to 450 volts was an example of someone who craves someone else’s leadership, and 1984_lordoftheflies built on that idea by adding that that “teacher” wanted it so that he would have something to fall back onto and not take the blame, and he didn’t want someone else’s leadership because they might know more than him. I also agree that people who didn’t go all the way would be assertive and self-confident, and there’s a difference between being self-confident and overconfident, which is what’s not good for society. One suggestion I have for this post is that I’m a little confused whether the defense that people use all the time is that people don’t want to feel responsible for deaths, or whether it’s that people think the deaths don’t matter.

Originally posted by Gatsby on September 25, 2024 13:04

Originally posted by onecreamtwosugarslightice on September 24, 2024 19:33

Anyone could become a perpetrator whether they believe it or not. The Milgram experiment showed that as long as there is someone in authority, people are more inclined to follow orders even if it means inflicting harm upon others. It suggests that people rely on guidance from people in power and if they put their trust in that person, they would be willing to follow their orders without much resistance. I feel like the Milgram experiment is a great representation of how easily obedience can be manipulated into violence.

People find comfort in order, whether it’s driven by hatred or love, and we are taught that straying from order is met with punishment. While the severity of the punishment fluctuates depending on the scale of the order, fear of punishment is one of the main reasons people choose to blindly abide by orders. People, also, would typically rather witness someone else be subjected to punishment than having to subject themselves to it, so if that means that they’re the punishers, then that may not be so bad anymore. This is how mass movements fueled by hatred gain traction so quickly in many cases. People don’t want to get caught up in the actions that they see being inflicted on others, so they will likely save themselves over the others. This resolution is even strong when bonded by hate. If you genuinely hate a certain group of people, you wouldn’t feel as bad hurting them as you would people you have no opinion on because there isn’t that emotional drive. When people hate something, there is a greater cause for inflicting pain upon them rather than just self-preservation.

Another massive motivator is the scapegoat theory, which says that people tend to look for someone else to blame for their actions or problems. This was posed during the Milgram experiment when one of the participants kept asking if something happened to the man being shocked, who would be to blame. After asking this question multiple times and being reassured each time that the scientist/researcher would be taking all of the blame, he was suddenly more willing to continue the experiment and upping the voltage. The same could be applied in real life. If someone knows they can get away with doing something inherently bad because someone else is taking the blame, they’re more likely to willingly partake in that bad thing. This is seen on a larger scale in mass movements, where so many people are doing destructive things with the belief the higher power will take the blame.

After initially reading my peer’s writing I found that I wholeheartedly agreed with their first assertion that all people are capable of becoming perpetrators. I wrote about this idea in my own reflection and believe that this is a crucial point from the Milgram Experiment. I also found their argument about comfort in order to be compelling and I related it to my reading about leadership’s role in mass movements,which highlights the necessity of a higher power that humans can take orders from to live contentedly. I also agreed with my peer’s ideas regarding responsibility and accountability of one’s actions. I used this argument in my own reflection based on one of the Milgram Experiment participants who deflected the blame from himself to the experimenter and thus mitigated his moral dissonance with his actions. Additionally, my peer’s use of specific examples from the Milgram Experiment helped me grasp opinions about the capabilities of an ordinary person to commit a crime of inflicting pain on another. However, I do believe that their analysis and explanation about the reliance on guidance and authority influenced their actions could have used more specific details perhaps about the Milgram experiment to convey the true extent of this power.

The most compelling idea is that people are programmed to be met with punishment if they stray away from orders, which I agree with. I talked about a similar idea about how fear of punishment and rejection heavily influences the choices people make. This is interesting because humans rely on order to function, its the driving force of stability in our society. The idea that people tend to shift the blame and don't take accountability for their actions when guided by a higher power is something others and myself have also touched up on. Deflecting the blame onto he experimenter was something that occurred in the Milgram experiment and this peer did a nice job of describe why the participant did this and how it applies to larger mass movements, its a common phenomenon. My overall views are extremely similar, I also believe everyone is capable of being a perpetrator and that people are more likely to participate in harmful acts if they know they wont be named responsible. This peer did a good job at going in depth about the specifics of the Milgram experiment and how aspects of it support broader subjects, like the scapegoat theory. Most of their ideas were supported with examples from the experiment and further analysis which helped me visualize the message my peer was trying to convey.