1. Discussions
  2. Facing History 2025-2026
  3. 25-26 Facing History Forum 2
posts 16 - 30 of 44
Login to Reply
Lark
Boston, Massachussetts, US
Posts: 1

Question 2

I think that experiments like the Milgram experiment truly do show how ordinary people will commit atrocities/violence even when they don’t have to. Just simply being ordered around is enough for 50% of the people to go all the way through even past the voltage with the skulls and to the one with the X’s. There wasn’t any mass movement, no punishment, the experimenter wasn’t barking orders or any type of threats yet 50% of the teacher kept pushing the button to higher and higher voltages. This to me is indicative of a troubling part of human behavior, when you have a higher up or someone that's supposed to be, “respected” or “listened to” we automatically follow their orders. This is taught to us since youth with parents and teachers even as time passes by and we as full grown adults still have this odd evolved form of a superego telling us to listen to the “higher up” even if we believe what we’re doing is morally wrong. I understand that other factors come into play like environment and number of people but regardless of that we see that with the barebones of the study people are highly complicit in the pain of others, even if they yell or cry out in pain or explain the conditions of their health. It seems that there's this high level bare minimum of a human following the leaders orders despite moral or logical thinking, humans will become more susceptible in a group too with the primal fear of abandonment or persecution. Even more sickening than the complicity of killing a person when they didn’t need to or worse is the fact they will try to change the events or say, “I had no choice!” and claim that they were worried and it's all the experimenters fault. We can see this with the Nazi’s and when they all got rounded up and put in court or interviewed they either tried to claim they didn’t know any better or were forced to do these mass acts of injustices. But when they got grilled for information they had PTSD for killing the victims, came up with ways like the gas chambers so they didn’t have to acknowledge the victims or face the moral implications of killing innocent people and families. This all happens because of one person, the ever charismatic leader hitler. Atrocities, genocides, unspeakable acts of violence are all second to none when it comes to listening orders in a way we’re more like robots then we think, it might take more effort and time but we can all be manufactured to fit the exact bill people want with some outliers.

IrishPirate21
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

LTQ Post 2: The Milgram Experiment and Obedience

Everyone has the ability to perform harmful acts of violence toward others when of authority or under authority. The Milgram experiment, which tested the limits of obedience to authority while being met with personal conscience highlights the extent to which humans will go when under a force of power. Through this, the idea of every person being capable of becoming a perpetrator of violence is at question. Based on Stanley Milgram’s experiments regarding obedience, conducted in the early 1960s, ordinary people were shown to be able to willingly inflict the believed severe pain onto other people as commanded to do so by a figure of authority.

Milgram’s study lied participants that were told they were part of a learning experiment to which they were the “teacher” meant to administer shocks of increasing intensity to the “learner”, a participant. With the learner crying out and mentioning their heart condition and eventually going silent, the teacher was advised to continue. 65% of the participants administered the maximum shock of 450 volts. Many were distressed, although their obedience exceeded their personal conscience. The discovery suggested that harmful obedience was a widespread tendency among humans when under pressure.

Recent research strengthens this conclusion by displaying how obedience changes the way people undergo actions by themselves. In How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, Patrick Haggard and his colleagues explain that “acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused” (Barajas 1). In essence, when people follow orders given to them, they lessen their sense of agency while feeling that their actions are less voluntary. The study further describes this as a disconnection from the psychological aspect, to where people experience their harmful doings as more “passive movements than fully voluntary actions” (Barajas 1). This ultimately serves as an explanation on why people, despite carrying out acts of violence, could feel less responsible for it.

All in all, Milgram’s classic experiment paired with Haggard’s modern research spotlights the several aspects of human behavior that work in order to make violence possible. At first lies the power of authority to which people are socialized to respect and listen to figures that appear powerful, in features like lab coats, military uniforms, or political suits. Then there is a sense of diffusion of responsibility as individuals feel less accountable for their actions when an authority figure takes responsibility. Based on these experiments, people’s own sense of agency happens to weaken when under coercion.

While traits of individuals like empathy or independence can provide resistance to harming others, Milgram’s results suggest that the majority of people become vulnerable when pressure is applied to them. The Holocaust depicted that whole communities can work to participate in hurtful acts when topics of obedience and fear are brought up. Ordinary people are capable of performing ludicrous acts when met with circumstances that demand obedience and suppress responsibility and blur the essential moral boundaries that are contained in humans which normally restrain human behavior.
user927
Boston , MA, US
Posts: 2

While many refuse to accept it, all human beings are completely capable of becoming perpetrators of violence against their fellow human beings. This is a tough pill to swallow for many; however, the Milgram experiment emphasizes the often overlooked role average people have as perpetrators of violence, specifically when under instructions from a perceived authority figure. Human beings are becoming increasingly self-centered. Thus, once assured that they are not personally responsible, people are much more likely to become perpetrators of violence.


Everyone likes to view themselves as morally pure, assured that they would help a stranger in need; however, this is simply a false perception many people create of themselves to remain comfortable with their self-image. In reality, people are very passive. If commanded to do something for someone in a position of authority, that person will comply. It is not a matter of what they are being asked to do, but a matter of who is telling them to do it. Since it is another person telling you what to do, responsibility is lifted from your shoulders and whatever you are doing no longer seems too bad. This goes back to the idea that humans are becoming increasingly self-centered, only caring about the outcome for themselves. For instance, in the 60-Minute video on the Milgram experiment, the ‘teacher’ continuously asked the experimenter who was responsible if something happened to the ‘learner’ and continued shocking the ‘learner’ once assured that the experimenter held all responsibility. When humans act under the orders of others, they are able to disassociate themselves from the harm inflicted, and view themselves as a machine, operated by someone else. According to Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, “acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused.” Haggard conducted a similar experiment, which he describes in How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, and discovered that “brain activity is dampened when people are forced to follow orders.” Our brains basically dial down our sense of control and responsibility when we are receiving orders.


Something that may motivate a person to inflict harm on others is the fact that they may not know those being affected personally. A person is far less likely to willingly perpetrate violence against a friend or a family member than they are a stranger. In the video, the ‘teachers’ had no relationship with the ‘learners’, making it easier to send seemingly painful shocks to them. Furthermore, a person could be influenced to inflict harm on others through means of payment. While they may not have admitted to it, it is possible that some of the ‘teachers’ continued sending shocks for the guaranteed “$4 for one hour of [their] time.” If a person is struggling financially, there is no telling how far they may go for money. Additionally, one could fear that they may face repercussions for failing to follow orders. For instance, during the Holocaust, soldiers would face severe punishment for refusing to adhere to the strict Nazi regime. Many feared for the safety of themselves and their families. This fear drove them to participate in killings that they may not have wished to partake in, but feared intense punishment.


jumpingfrog1635
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 3

Milgram Experiment Reflection

At the end of the day, I do believe that any person, no matter their past, can become a perpetrator of violence against others. No one can predict the future and our experiences. Any one person, no matter race, ethnicity, or gender, can use any sort of violence to harm a person. Violence doesn’t discriminate, and nor does trauma. That is the main factor that contributes to my belief regarding this topic. The majority of historic perpetrators have had a traumatic experience of some degree that contributed to their violent decisions/decision-making. Milgram’s experiment with the learner and teacher proved this idea that you grow increasingly motivated to do things, even if previously unaware of them, once they are right in front of you, involving a person or not. And, anyone or thing that can get in the way of this new act can now be harmed unbeknownst to the participant. This is also increasingly more likely when there is an outside pressure to continue in your ways. An extreme example would be a situation of murder where one person is told that if they do not kill another person, they will be killed themselves. Obviously, this is broad and rare, but if put on a lower, less harmful scale, it can relate a lot to Milgram's shock experiment, where the teacher couldn’t stop hurting the student because it was “part of the experiment”. The outside pressure prohibits one’s brain from continuing to do what they are told, even if harmful to the recipient. Some things that could contribute to some people’s willingness to inflict pain on others, different from the pressure of an authority, are prior wrongdoings against them, from one person or a group of people. This can create a motive of revenge, especially violence. In the case of Jeremy Strohmeyer and Sherrice Iverson. Sherrice’s mother had full intentions to avenge her daughter's death upon David Cash, indirectly for Jeremy. In a different case, people may intend to seek power and are willing to do so maliciously, even without any psychological or physical trauma, assuming that it is the only solution. Whether it’s over one person, like a terribly abusive relationship, or a group of people, like President Trump vocally attacking both President Biden and VP Harris in recent presidential debates. One represents the physical, one represents both mental and emotional, yet all serve the same purpose, to scare the opposition. Now, circling back to the experiment, important factors and personality traits that led these teachers from Milgram's experiment to rather disobey the experimenters including demeanor or tone of the experimenter, feelings of respect towards the experimenter, and levels of shock from the experiment specifically. If harsh and stern in their ask, the experimenter's point or ask should get across much easier and quicker to the teacher, limiting the harm. This leads into authority and feelings of respect, for teachers may have wanted to continue and did not feel pressured to stop for they felt the experimenters had no authority. Lastly, more related to this exact experiment, the levels and changes in levels of shock. If the teachers were fascinated with the experiment and its results, it was easy for them to continue even with the notion of stopping, for the levels of shock increased in relatively small increments, making the decision for the brain easier to continue for any sort of motive. Evidently, there is extreme danger in all of it, for losing control of any person in a violent situation can lead to uncontrolled harm to all involved, from this experiment, to something as extreme as the Holocaust.
user927
Boston , MA, US
Posts: 2

Originally posted by Lark on September 23, 2025 13:32

I think that experiments like the Milgram experiment truly do show how ordinary people will commit atrocities/violence even when they don’t have to. Just simply being ordered around is enough for 50% of the people to go all the way through even past the voltage with the skulls and to the one with the X’s. There wasn’t any mass movement, no punishment, the experimenter wasn’t barking orders or any type of threats yet 50% of the teacher kept pushing the button to higher and higher voltages. This to me is indicative of a troubling part of human behavior, when you have a higher up or someone that's supposed to be, “respected” or “listened to” we automatically follow their orders. This is taught to us since youth with parents and teachers even as time passes by and we as full grown adults still have this odd evolved form of a superego telling us to listen to the “higher up” even if we believe what we’re doing is morally wrong. I understand that other factors come into play like environment and number of people but regardless of that we see that with the barebones of the study people are highly complicit in the pain of others, even if they yell or cry out in pain or explain the conditions of their health. It seems that there's this high level bare minimum of a human following the leaders orders despite moral or logical thinking, humans will become more susceptible in a group too with the primal fear of abandonment or persecution. Even more sickening than the complicity of killing a person when they didn’t need to or worse is the fact they will try to change the events or say, “I had no choice!” and claim that they were worried and it's all the experimenters fault. We can see this with the Nazi’s and when they all got rounded up and put in court or interviewed they either tried to claim they didn’t know any better or were forced to do these mass acts of injustices. But when they got grilled for information they had PTSD for killing the victims, came up with ways like the gas chambers so they didn’t have to acknowledge the victims or face the moral implications of killing innocent people and families. This all happens because of one person, the ever charismatic leader hitler. Atrocities, genocides, unspeakable acts of violence are all second to none when it comes to listening orders in a way we’re more like robots then we think, it might take more effort and time but we can all be manufactured to fit the exact bill people want with some outliers.

The most compelling idea in my partners post is the concept that this behavior is implemented in us from a young age. We obey our parents and teachers at such an early and impressionable time in our lives, teaching us to always obey those in power. As kids, we never question the morality of what are parents or teachers instruct us to do. This sets the standard for human beings to always obey those in power, never questioning the morality of their commands. I agree with this idea because we are so susceptible as children and we put our faith in the adults around us, adhering to their commands without question. I do believe though that as we grow older, we begin to question more. As we become victims of all the atrocities this world has to offer, we become less trusting and are trained to question the morality of those around us. Nevertheless, the assurance that wrong-doings are being done or commanded by people in power, makes certain actions appear more acceptable. Similar to my partners post, I wrote about the fact that people often follow leaders orders for fear of abandonment or persecution. Both my partner and I used the example of the Holocaust and those who played a role in the killings; however, I disagree that these people used fear as an excuse for killing. Many of the soldiers in the Holocaust felt genuine fear because of intense social pressure and Nazi propaganda. There was a widespread misconception that refusal was not an option. I think overall this is a strong post; however, it could benefit from some transitions to separate the ideas, thus making them more clear. I really like the flow, especially towards the end of the post.

greywatch
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

LTQ2

It is very possible for anyone to perpetrate violence on others. When people cannot see who they are hurting, it is easier for them to commit acts of violence because they don’t witness the effects. For example in the Milgram experiment, the participants who had limited interaction with the person getting shocked carried out the experiment. As the level of interaction increased between the participants and the person getting shocked, the experiment was carried out for a shorter amount of time. The presence of an authority figure also changed the participants' willingness to inflict pain. When the experimenter was present and exhibiting authority, the participants felt like the blame was not on them and made them more willing to complete the experiment. When the participants didn’t have someone telling them that they must continue, but a robot instead, then they were less likely to do so. This experiment, although has its flaws, generally depicts how people might think when participating in violence, mass atrocities and even genocide. If the effect of their actions is not obvious to them, it is easy to convince themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Another component of the experiment included one participant being studied in the presence of many other volunteers. In these situations the participant was even less likely to stop the violence. When in the midst of others, the blame distribution allows people to feel less guilt for their actions. And when the majority, or all of the group members have one idea, it is very challenging to put forth an opposing idea. There is fear of ridicule and fear of isolation that invokes silence and compliancy. Many disagreed with the methodology of the Milgram experiment, and therefore it was carried out once again by psychologist Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University. They only had the voltage level reach 150 and measured the data that way instead of up to a hypothetical 450 volts. Rethinking one of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments says that, “At the end of the experiment, Burger was left with an obedience rate around the same as the one Milgram had recorded—proving, he said, not only that Milgram’s numbers had been accurate, but that his work was as relevant as ever.” And even though the experiment had its flaws, that data was still accurate and the evidence is still revealing itself in people today.

If the teacher in the experiment didn’t go through with the complete experiment it could have been for two reasons, they empathized with the learner or they felt guilty. The learner was yelling and moaning out of pain and when they heard that they felt bad for him. The learner had expressed that he had heart problems and they had felt the low shock, so they could imagine what the higher voltages may have felt like. Or the teacher didn’t want to accept the blame for their actions so they stopped. If the teacher was a very empathetic person, they would not have let the learner be in pain. If the teacher had a firm belief that hurting people in any capacity was wrong, then they would have not carried out the experiment.

We can attempt to create societies that disobey unethical authority figures, but it is challenging. It raises questions like, who decided what is ethical and unethical, who are the authority figures. We also have to think about the consequences. There are downsides to both. Being obedient causes someone to be unethical, disobeying orders can bring their own consequences. It is dangerous to disobey authority figures because they have authority for a reason, and they may have the power to harm us instead. That brings a person to decide between themselves and someone else, and they usually will pick themselves.
krausz
Brighton, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

The Milgram experiments are without a doubt some of the most famous psychological experiences ever conducted. Although there were many different permutations of the same concept, fundamentally, in these experiments, volunteers, under the guise of participating in a memory experiment, had to ask a series of questions to another person and shock them with increasing power. However, the person who was answering the questions was in on the experiment, and were never really getting shocked - but nevertheless, they let out progressively more desperate cries for help, until they went completely silent, forcing the volunteer to grapple with their actions. At the conclusion of these experiments, Milgram judged that under an authority figure, really anybody would commit any act. But, as time has gone on, as Cari Romm writes in her article Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, holes have both been found in Milgram’s experiment itself and what he gathered from it, putting into question the certainty of his findings and what they mean for humanity.


Milgram’s experiments were conducted in the 1960s, coming out of the larger temporosphere of World War II. A few questions were lingering on people’s minds: what caused the Holocaust? What could we do to prevent something like this from happening again? In the light of all of this, Milgram’s experiments as he interpreted them revealed something haunting: anybody could be a Nazi and possibly commit heinous acts such as those in the Holocaust. After all, his experiments showed that with enough coercion, people were willing to torture others just because they were told to do so. However, archival footage and further digging shows an ever so slightly more nuanced story. For one, in the most famous iteration of the experiment, the volunteers were seated across a wall from the person they were shocking; they had no sight of them at all. This may have served as a way of depersonalization. If you cannot see somebody, it is harder to connect with them. Additionally, though over half of participants administered the highest voltage to the other person, almost every one of them protested against giving a larger shock once the person receiving them started screaming and complaining. Nevertheless, the researcher told them they had to keep going. This raises another question - whose fault was it that the person getting shocked supposedly got hurt? The researcher kept pushing and pushing for the participant to keep going, but the one actually pushing the lever was the participant themselves.


In some aspects, I agree with Milgram’s findings, and in others, I strongly disagree. In my personal belief, supported as well by later and more ethical versions of the electric shock experiment, the common person will submit to authority, no matter who you may be. We are easily influenced creatures. I believe it is hard wired into our brains; it is beneficial to have somebody to follow to feel safe and guide your actions. I also believe that this nature is, at least partially, what led to mass events and movements, both positive and devastatingly negative. However, what the true meaning of Milgram’s experiment could be is both within our reach and infinitely elusive. As Cari Romm quotes in her piece, “if there is a consensus, it’s that we need a new explanation”. In the end, to disagree on a matter such as this is to agree to debate and to continue to develop our understanding of human nature.
123456789
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 2

Throughout history, we can observe people who are capable of committing horrific acts of harm when influenced by powerful leaders. In the simplest form, Milgram’s experiments suggest that most people can be led to inflict pain on others with pressure from persuasive authority figures who they feel they can shift responsibility onto in order to avoid consequences. Therefore, one of the most significant factors of this theory that any person can be led to harm others is the fact that they lose their sense of personal accountability because they become justified under the illusion that they are simply obeying authority and often are unsure or confused about the situation they are in. This leads them to defer to the figure in power. In “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” Barajas writes, “According to Milgram’s experiments, 65 percent of his volunteers, described as “teachers,” were willing (sometimes reluctantly) to press a button that delivered shocks up to 450 volts to an unseen person, a “learner” in another room” (Barjas 10). This is significant because it demonstrates that the majority of average participants did harm others even while knowing it would cause them serious pain which portrays the extent of humans susceptibility to the obedience theory. As the article continues, Patrick Haggard’s research, “a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London (Barjas 3),” also reiterates and supports this claim as people believe their actions to be passive when under orders which enables the harmful behavior. Another pivotal part of why this experiment works is the gradual escalation such as small shocks that increase over time which make harmful actions easier to justify. This can be observed in mass movements as figures lay the groundwork for larger changes within a society. For example, Hitler started his anti-Semitic policies with discriminatory laws and then progressed to large-scale violence. In modern day society, Trump also began his mass movement with harsh language and normalization of hatred toward minorities and groups he disagreed with which allowed his supporters to continue to follow him even as his actions became more harmful and extreme.

Although Milgram’s experiment does recognize many of the factors that influence obedience it doesn’t illustrate the full explanation of mass atrocities. This experiment isn’t able to effectively portray factors such as the dehumanization of victims, propaganda, personal gain or desire for change, or aspects of groupthink. Groupthink is partially demonstrated in Milgram’s experiment because it can be caused by strong leaders which the “teacher” acts as. However, it doesn’t fully address how groupthink is intellectual or academic conformity that hinders critical thinking that would likely stop the average person from inflicting pain on others which is why it is extremely prominent in mass movements. Another significant aspect which can’t be encapsulated by this experiment is how ideological such as religious or nationalist beliefs can make violence feel morally justified.

Although the vast majority of participants in the experiment complied with the teachers' requests, those who didn’t conform and didn’t obey are particularly interesting. These people can often be characterized as having strong moral convictions, empathy for the victim, or higher sense of personal responsibility. Non conformists are such a significant part of society because it helps to promote critical thinking and questioning of authority. This balance between obedience and nonconformity is essential in society because it allows for there to be debate while also keeping necessary authoritarian structures in place.

Steinbeck
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

LTQ - Reflections on Obedience and the Milgram Experiment

After the fair election of Biden in 2020 something strange happened. Then former president Donald Trump just claimed the election was rigged and he’d actually won by a landslide.And yet with no evidence to back up his claims millions of his followers just believed him. This knee-jerk reaction many of his supporters had proves just how little humans question authority. When there’s a person or an institution that we’ve accepted as being “in charge,” our first instinct is to follow their orders and obey their rules. That includes following them and accepting their ideas even when they defy logic. The Milgram experiment demonstrated this as test subjects continued to obey the instructions of the ‘experimenter’ even after they believed the learner was dead. The authority that the experimenter had was enough to convince regular people into committing what they thought was murder. That same kind of authority is what led Trump's followers into believing a blatant lie.

What ensued after Trump’s lie was a mass riot at the capital building. Trump told his followers to “fight like hell”. These three words greenlighted violence against police officers and the destruction of federal property in the minds of Trump's most militant supporters. The only reason words had this much power was because of humans' inherent reaction to detach ourselves from personal responsibility when someone in power tells us to do something. We’re no longer acting under our own free will. We start to think that our actions are not tied to the consequences of harming others. Maria Korrinkova writes in her article about the Stanford prison experiment, “Occasionally, disputes between prisoner and guards got out of hand, violating an explicit injunction against physical force that both prisoners and guards had read prior to enrolling in the study. When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are. The participants knew that an audience was watching, and so a lack of feedback could be read as tacit approval”. When the guards inflicted violence on the prisoners and were met with no repercussions it made it acceptable. The guards had shifted the blame of their action onto the experimenters with the evidence being they could have ‘just stopped them’. Both Trump's followers and the guards in the prison experiment would have most likely never acted how they did in their daily life. Only an authority figure can make what they did acceptable in their own minds.

Trump continues to exploit human behaviors that Milgram tested in his experiment. He has gotten a large following of Americans to completely accept the violence perpetrated against illegal immigrants. He does this by saying that these people “chose” to break the law and have less than human traits, e.g. "They're eating the cats and dogs”. Humans seem to have the ability to dehumanize others, to think of them as something less than ourselves. Milgram tested this by further removing the ‘teacher’ from the ‘learner’. The less human he could make the learner the more likely they’d be to continue to inflict the punishment. Trump and other leaders are aware of our innate flaws. It is only when we become aware of these flaws as well, that we can begin to defy these leaders.

onlyshallow
02119, PS
Posts: 1
With Milgram’s experiments being conducted according to scientific principles and standards, some liberties have to be taken when comparing their results to the effects of mass movements in the past, but they do paint a picture of the human psyche and how good people can be driven to do bad things. The results of the specific trials shown in the documentary (experimenter present, “learner” in an adjacent room”) show that at least 50% of subjects can be driven to harm others, even when they already collected their check from the study and faced no penalty if they were to refuse to continue the experiment. In my opinion, these results indicate that in a real-life scenario with more at stake, a vast majority of people have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, especially considering the experimenter and learner dynamic, where the authority is a closer and more immediate force than the victim, making it easier for participants to disconnect themselves from their actions and to think of themselves as “just following orders”. Another factor that could lead to people being driven to violence is the charisma of the experimenter; the scientist in the documentary did not have a particularly strong personality, and only told the teacher to continue without saying much else. If the experimenter were more convincing, that might make the difference for some of the people who opted to stop shocking the learner, and they might instead continue with the experiment. The results of the experiments--and especially the results of the group shown most prominently in the documentary--have convinced me that most people are susceptible to being made into instruments of violence, particularly in a one experimenter/one teacher/one learner scenario. Milgram’s experiments do a good job of demonstrating how a single man might behave towards another, but there was no testing done on groups of multiple teachers/learners, which would be more apt for a mass movement or mob scenario like the atrocities he sought to understand. Perhaps one dissenter in a group of 10 could convince the other 9 that the shocks were wrong or unethical; perhaps people are less likely to follow orders when they greatly outnumber the experimenter. Human tendency to conform, detach themselves from their actions when taking orders, and to defer to authority are shown clearly in the results, but the effects of groupthink or the presence of a dissenter--factors that arise when the experiment is extrapolated to have larger groups--are underrepresented in the study in my opinion. Regardless of the hypothetical macro-trials with larger groups, The results of Milgram’s experiment give us some insights into constructing a society that might avoid mass movements and acts of violence. The immediacy of the victim seemed to greatly affect the amount of people who continued with the shocks; when teachers were put in the same room as the learner and made to force his hand onto the shock plate, their complicity dropped from 62.5% to 30%, meaning that if a similar scenario were to arise in real life, the “teacher” would find it more difficult to dissociate from shocking the “learner” if the two were face-to-face. Similarly, teachers were less likely to obey the experimenter if they were far away from each other, so they do not feel the need to comply as strongly as if the experimenter were close. These insights were what Milgram focused strongly on; a well-founded focus in my opinion, as they seem to demonstrate better than almost any other factor ways in which mass movements and atrocities can be avoided.
pink
Charlestown, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

Originally posted by Steinbeck on September 23, 2025 22:06

After the fair election of Biden in 2020 something strange happened. Then former president Donald Trump just claimed the election was rigged and he’d actually won by a landslide.And yet with no evidence to back up his claims millions of his followers just believed him. This knee-jerk reaction many of his supporters had proves just how little humans question authority. When there’s a person or an institution that we’ve accepted as being “in charge,” our first instinct is to follow their orders and obey their rules. That includes following them and accepting their ideas even when they defy logic. The Milgram experiment demonstrated this as test subjects continued to obey the instructions of the ‘experimenter’ even after they believed the learner was dead. The authority that the experimenter had was enough to convince regular people into committing what they thought was murder. That same kind of authority is what led Trump's followers into believing a blatant lie.

What ensued after Trump’s lie was a mass riot at the capital building. Trump told his followers to “fight like hell”. These three words greenlighted violence against police officers and the destruction of federal property in the minds of Trump's most militant supporters. The only reason words had this much power was because of humans' inherent reaction to detach ourselves from personal responsibility when someone in power tells us to do something. We’re no longer acting under our own free will. We start to think that our actions are not tied to the consequences of harming others. Maria Korrinkova writes in her article about the Stanford prison experiment, “Occasionally, disputes between prisoner and guards got out of hand, violating an explicit injunction against physical force that both prisoners and guards had read prior to enrolling in the study. When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are. The participants knew that an audience was watching, and so a lack of feedback could be read as tacit approval”. When the guards inflicted violence on the prisoners and were met with no repercussions it made it acceptable. The guards had shifted the blame of their action onto the experimenters with the evidence being they could have ‘just stopped them’. Both Trump's followers and the guards in the prison experiment would have most likely never acted how they did in their daily life. Only an authority figure can make what they did acceptable in their own minds.

Trump continues to exploit human behaviors that Milgram tested in his experiment. He has gotten a large following of Americans to completely accept the violence perpetrated against illegal immigrants. He does this by saying that these people “chose” to break the law and have less than human traits, e.g. "They're eating the cats and dogs”. Humans seem to have the ability to dehumanize others, to think of them as something less than ourselves. Milgram tested this by further removing the ‘teacher’ from the ‘learner’. The less human he could make the learner the more likely they’d be to continue to inflict the punishment. Trump and other leaders are aware of our innate flaws. It is only when we become aware of these flaws as well, that we can begin to defy these leaders.

My peer makes a strong argument by connecting real word events to psychological research. I think that the most interesting idea shown is the connection between how Trump uses authority and the Milgram experiment. I agree that this comparison shows how people can obey authority figures even when participating in this leads to harmful or irrational actions. The way that the capital riot and Trump's rhetoric led to Milgram's findings was intriguing and made me think about how much authority figures continue to have in how they can use it to make people behave in certain ways. The use of the Stanford prison experiment showed how fast ordinary people are able to justify harmful action when authority condones them. This reminded me of discussions we have had in class about propaganda and groupthink which also explains why people are able to adopt extreme beliefs or actions without much questioning. My own perspective is similar to my peers as I also believe that authority has a very powerful role in determining behavior but I try to think that not everyone is equally susceptible to it because of values to help people resist these pressures like critical thinking independence. The only suggestion I have is that you could also add a bit about why people feel comfortable with following authority to avoid making it sound like all obedience is negative.

LarryLegend33
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 2

Milgram's Experiment and Obedience Theory

Although Milgrams Experiment does show the darker side of society, I don’t believe that it totally explains ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. Also I believe that for a group of people to be conscious of committing violence or mass genocide they have to have very radical views on what they are opposing. Often I don’t think that people will commit this violence unless they are provoked by the opposite side or if they are being harmed by the other people. In the experiment many of the people did follow through with “hurting” the subject, but I believe that it is not because they thought the blame would be shifted to them, I think it is more that the people participating were most likely nervous or afraid and rather than challenging what they were doing they continued to go through with the experiment because of the fact that they were afraid of doing something they knew was bad. I see it as almost when kids do something bad they “double down” on it because they think they are so deep into what they have done that there is almost no way out.

Again I think the other factors in the experiment are fear and confusion. All of the participants are told that the shock to the subject will not hurt, but when they start to hear the subject make painful noises they become confused as what was told to them was false. Then when the experimenter tells the participant to continue after hearing the pain that is being caused to the subject they become confused because they know that they are hurting the subject but the experimenter is telling them to continue.

Besides following the blind authority, people's emotions and beliefs often contribute to people’s willingness to inflict pain. What I mean by this is that peoples views/ beliefs and emotions towards other people’s ideas and views will ultimately affect willingness to inflict pain on others, whether easier or harder. This connects back to Zygmunt's quote, “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” in the way that often we think that we would not commit these crimes, but our personal views and ideas can be so opposite to others that it can lead us to inflict pain whether physically or mentally on others. A large example of this can be seen today but not to such an extreme scale as a mass genocide, when we look at our country we can see that it is very divided and often people will resort to violence when there views are challenged. Just in the past weeks with the death of Charlie Kirk we can see how people can commit violence because of their opposing views. All in all I think that Milgram's experiment shows a small factor of how ordinary people participate in active violence.
promotes
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

Originally posted by pinkrose2 on September 23, 2025 09:18



LTQ Post 2: The Milgram Experiment and Obedience Theory


I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, but not everyone acts on that potential, despite the troubling high violence rates in our world today. It comes down to intentions, whether you are willingly able to inflict pain or hurt someone without any remorse is dangerous. I wouldn’t argue that it’s solely mental health because there are “normal” and ordinary people who commit these acts, such as in the Milgram Experiment. The Milgram Experiment was an experiment that tested whether ordinary people would shock the learners, and to what extent they were ready to go.

However, I would consider acts of violence as large as mass shootings, and as little as hitting or pinching someone, so everyone is definitely capable, but the question is to what extent. Sometimes our own impulses and urges overpower us in the moment, even if the hurt isn’t intentional. It also boils down to our consciences, and if we experience any guilt in those moments and what we do with that guilt. Additionally, figuring out if there’s a shift to something or someone else helps us to feel better about inflicting the pain on someone. In the article “ How Nazi’s Defense Of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind”, Adolf Eichmann stated that he “shifted the blame of the death of millions of jews on high-level superiority officers”, taking the blame off of him to help ease his conscience, or taking the prime focus off of him being the only committer of violence to experience less backlash.

On the other hand, this assessment suggests that when under command or pressure, we are more likely to inflict pain on others, if being told to do so. The second guy, like many other humans, even if they know they’re doing something wrong, but someone with “power” is telling them to do the opposite, they are going to follow that person no matter what because it’s basic human instinct. “ In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even when they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas pg.1). Throughout the trials the second guy was worried about the learner, especially when there were complaints about his heart condition, but he continued, and carried on with saying “ this isn’t my responsibility if he dies”. This also contributes to the idea that afterwards, when asked why he didn’t just get up and leave, he was so quick to shift the blame onto the experimenter. Unfortunately, there are less people that are like the first guy who would stand up and argue that this situation is wrong, and how it needs to be stopped.

Furthermore, this experiment explains people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide to an extent, but there are so many more factors that explain this behavior. These behaviors include survival instincts, life or death, the relationship between ourselves and the victim, blind following, and social conformity/idea of the majority. Besides blind following of authority, the willingness to inflict pain could be purposely and wanting to do it because they’ve been hurt in the past, so all they know is that, or thriving off the suffering of others, and life vs. death situations that cause extreme reactions to save ourselves. Also, if someone is feeling powerless in their life, the ability to have or gain power attracts us and increases the chances of wanting to hurt other people/inflict that pain.

Some of the important factors that led the teachers to go against the experimenters is their willingness to recognize that this is an actual analysis, that leaving isn’t going to hurt their chances at anything. They also realized that they have the power to stop, just like they have the power to inflict pain on others. Although in the article, Adolf argues that “ he and other low level people were mere instruments”, I believe those who were able to stand up for themselves completely rejected the idea of being instruments, but rather the one who are playing the instruments signifying the powers taken back. In certain aspects, creating societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey authority figures is necessary if it’s promoting peace and standing up for what’s just , but in the other aspects where it promotes hateful division and disunity it’s unnecessary.


In their post, my peer argued that everybody is capable of partaking in acts of violence, regardless of mental health or sociopathic tendencies. The compelling idea that people are easily influenced, especially in vulnerable situations, is backed up by the Milgram experiments, demonstrating the willingness of ordinary people to inflict pain onto others when given instruction to. I agree with my peer on the basis that everyone is capable of making decisions and following orders that raise harmful impacts, due to free will and our ability to make our own choices. However, I disagree with my peer’s argument that “[Someone], even if they know they’re doing something wrong [is] going to follow [a] person [with power] no matter what because it’s basic human instinct.” I don’t believe that it’s our natural instinct to follow others blindly, especially when it goes against our morals. Instead, I think what causes us to make choices with negative consequences is actually a result of societal norms and learned behavior that encourages people to build the habit of abandoning independent thought in favor of following others’ orders. When building societies, the compliance of the people is a necessity for the success of said society. As a result, over many years, it has become a habitual behavior that incentivizes people to follow authoritative figures, which is why I don’t believe that it’s within our nature.

IrishPirate21
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3

LTQ Post 2: Peer Response

Originally posted by onlyshallow on September 23, 2025 22:10

With Milgram’s experiments being conducted according to scientific principles and standards, some liberties have to be taken when comparing their results to the effects of mass movements in the past, but they do paint a picture of the human psyche and how good people can be driven to do bad things. The results of the specific trials shown in the documentary (experimenter present, “learner” in an adjacent room”) show that at least 50% of subjects can be driven to harm others, even when they already collected their check from the study and faced no penalty if they were to refuse to continue the experiment. In my opinion, these results indicate that in a real-life scenario with more at stake, a vast majority of people have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, especially considering the experimenter and learner dynamic, where the authority is a closer and more immediate force than the victim, making it easier for participants to disconnect themselves from their actions and to think of themselves as “just following orders”. Another factor that could lead to people being driven to violence is the charisma of the experimenter; the scientist in the documentary did not have a particularly strong personality, and only told the teacher to continue without saying much else. If the experimenter were more convincing, that might make the difference for some of the people who opted to stop shocking the learner, and they might instead continue with the experiment. The results of the experiments--and especially the results of the group shown most prominently in the documentary--have convinced me that most people are susceptible to being made into instruments of violence, particularly in a one experimenter/one teacher/one learner scenario. Milgram’s experiments do a good job of demonstrating how a single man might behave towards another, but there was no testing done on groups of multiple teachers/learners, which would be more apt for a mass movement or mob scenario like the atrocities he sought to understand. Perhaps one dissenter in a group of 10 could convince the other 9 that the shocks were wrong or unethical; perhaps people are less likely to follow orders when they greatly outnumber the experimenter. Human tendency to conform, detach themselves from their actions when taking orders, and to defer to authority are shown clearly in the results, but the effects of groupthink or the presence of a dissenter--factors that arise when the experiment is extrapolated to have larger groups--are underrepresented in the study in my opinion. Regardless of the hypothetical macro-trials with larger groups, The results of Milgram’s experiment give us some insights into constructing a society that might avoid mass movements and acts of violence. The immediacy of the victim seemed to greatly affect the amount of people who continued with the shocks; when teachers were put in the same room as the learner and made to force his hand onto the shock plate, their complicity dropped from 62.5% to 30%, meaning that if a similar scenario were to arise in real life, the “teacher” would find it more difficult to dissociate from shocking the “learner” if the two were face-to-face. Similarly, teachers were less likely to obey the experimenter if they were far away from each other, so they do not feel the need to comply as strongly as if the experimenter were close. These insights were what Milgram focused strongly on; a well-founded focus in my opinion, as they seem to demonstrate better than almost any other factor ways in which mass movements and atrocities can be avoided.

Overall, post does a spectacular job in showing how Milgram's resarch is not solely about obedience in the lab, but also a glimpse into understanding the certain conditions that permit violence and mass movements within a society. I think the most compelling idea in this post is your observation into the immediacy of the experimenter and the victim influenced whether the participants obeyed or resisted to command. You make note that obedience rates dropped when the "teacher" had to place the learner's hand on the shock plate by force, and when the experimenter distanced themself. A powerful point was made such that it shows people's choices are not shaped by authority, but by their direct social environment. I agree that situational factors like these are crucial, and your arguement that they offer us an insight into the ways to prevent mass atrocities is compelling.

I also found it interesting that you considered such factors like the charisma of the experimenter. As Milgram's authority figure was fairly neutral, you suggest that a leader that is more forceful could have increased compliance. This serves as a connection to historic figures like Stalin who did not simply issue commands but inspired obedience and loyalty actively.

A suggestion that I have is to add more on your though of group dynamics. The mention of the possibility that one dissenter in a group could influence others, while being true, Milgram himself discovered that when participants viewed peers refuse to obey, their very own rates of obedience decreased sharply. Expanding this point paired with evidence from the various studies of Milgram would strengthen the reflection.

Mr.Belding
Boston, MA
Posts: 4

Peer Response

Originally posted by Hibiscus on September 20, 2025 15:01

I’d like to believe that if someone were telling me to do something that went against my moral obligation, I would follow my moral compass rather than obey the wrongful command. After learning about the Milgram experiments and reading A Matter of Obedience, I realized that even with good intentions, the inclination to obey “authority” can sometimes overpower our intent. The Milgram experiments collected hundreds of people who thought they were being part of a study to assess the relation between punishment and learning, but in reality, the experiment was conducted to test their willingness (or inadvertent willingness) to obey commands that went against their principles.

The tests were conducted in a multitude of different settings and exchanged variables deriving from the original. The initial experiment was with two men, one the teacher and the other the learner. The learner was really part of the experiment, but the teacher didn’t know. With each question, the learner answered wrong, the teacher would have to electronically shock the learner, who was not visible, but could be heard from the other room. The learner would shout in pain from the shocks, but even if the teacher objected to continuing the experiment, the experimenter would persist that he go on. The following version of the experiment would change the proximity of the learner and the experimenter.

Through the study and according to the reading, 62.5% of participants followed through to the extreme shock. This is a wild statistic, or is it? The further away the experimenter was and the closer the learner was, this percent dropped significantly. This then changes the perspective. When removing authority and substituting it for humanity, people start to be more likely to follow their own values.

What this study shows about human nature and behavior is that we have an inclination to obey. This could be for a multitude of reasons: maybe we don’t believe we are responsible for what we’re doing if we just obey orders or that the person instructing has more knowledge of the subject or many more reasons. The factor of being with a stronger self image (meaning they won’t disregard their dissonance) may also come into play. As the reading suggests, a change in instruction from distanced infliction of pain to “direct physical force” may change people’s behavior (A Matter of Obedience).

What this study really helps reveal is why or how people in situations of genocide and atrocities, like the Holocaust for example, acted with such violence. Here, factors of fear of disobedience, absolvement from responsibility, being deceived and looking to authority, or other reasons proven by the Milgram experiments may explain such brutal behavior. This leads us to the conclusion that humans should try their best to keep their moral compass strong and stand against the commands of others, but the issue with that is how morality is subjective. While one person may think that killing hundreds of thousands of people is wrong, another person may think that is the right thing to do. Here lies the issue with pushing people to follow their own principles because they are not objective. In fact, this very way of thinking is what most likely led those who start mass violence to follow through.

Finally, another point brought to light by A Matter of Obedience is that the Milgram experiments do not “fully explain the behavior of perpetrators in the Holocaust” who “chose to go beyond the orders they were given” and “act out of their own hatred.” My interpretation of why this could be is that those certain people, when given the opportunity to do something bad, used their aggression or malice they already had and took this permission of atrocities to pursue their own hatred. I also think the more dissonance pushed away during following orders, the higher a chance anyone could continue to act on hatred since they already justified it.

I read the post by Hibiscus and it basically summarized what happened in the Milgram experiment. The most compelling subject in this person’s post is that they suggest in order to combat obediance is to keep your moral compass as strong as possible. I disagree with this stance as keeping your moral compass strong isn’t that easy as seen by the Milgram experiment. Furthermore, a better way to think about disobedience is having differing views as maybe all the people in the experiment were taken from a certain state which could have impacted certain views and such. In every post I read most of them talked about how the milgram experiment was really messed up. Additionally, this experiment and this learning question allowed people to think about how the milligram experiment taps into the human psyche.

My views agree with their last paragraph regarding how the perpetrators in the Holocaust are not explained by the Milgram experiment, and how the Nazi’s at least the one’s in the camp, were most likely people who already had ill intent. In a different scenario like at school, if given the opportunity to not follow the rules and do your own thing, people would take that opportunity. I believe that this is the same in these mass genocides and that in these situations people will take the opportunity to do something bad.response here.

posts 16 - 30 of 44
Login to Reply