When I read Bauman’s quotes “the most frightening news brought by the holocaust was not the likelihood that this could be done to us, but the idea that we could not do it” it made me think about how easy it is to assume that only “bad people” commit horrible acts. But what Zygmunt is saying is that ordinary people can be pushed into doing things we would normally never imagine ourselves doing. Watching the Milgram documentary really made me realize that. What struck me most in the film was that the participants were just regular adults, they weren’t people that seemed cruel or violent. They showed up for a psychological study and most of them ended up shocking someone because the experimenter told them it was necessary. In the article A matter of obedience? (facing history and ourselves), it explains how obedience is something we were taught from a very young age. We are expected to listen to parents, teachers, elders, and other authority figures. That training doesn’t go away and I think it's why so many people in the experiment struggled to say no, even when they felt like what they were doing was wrong. When we watched the documentary and the first one refused, I thought he was going to get some type of punishment for not doing it because that would completely change the experiment, if it involves you getting hurt by someone else. But at the same time, I don't think obedience alone explains something as big as the Holocaust. In the article “Just following orders” plays out in the mind, pointing out that there were other factors at work. For example, propaganda, fear of punishment, and especially the way jewish people were dehumanized. People weren't just following orders blindly, they were living in a society that made cruelty seem acceptable and normal. Milgram's experiment showed how powerful authority can be but it's only one piece of a much bigger problem. Another part of the documentary that stood out to me was that not everyone obeyed. A few participants stopped and refused to keep shocking the learner, even when the experimenter pushed them. That made me wonder what made those people different. Even though certain environments can pressure people into being cruel, resistance is an option. The people who disobeyed had empathy, confidence in their own judgement, or just the courage to say no. It shows that we should be teaching those values in society. Things like critical thinking, responsibility, and the ability to question authority when something feels wrong. But it can cause problems because if everyone resisted authority all the time, nothing would get done. The real challenge is helping people know the difference between good authority and harmful authority. Zygmunt’s quote really stuck with me because it makes us think about what we ourselves might do if we were in a similar situation. I want to believe that I'd be one of the people who stopped, but most of the participants didn’t, and that's something we should reflect on. Obedience was a strong pull on some of us, so we can be more prepared to recognize it and make better decisions if we’re ever in a similar situation.
Originally posted by user1234567 on September 19, 2025 13:24
Experiments like Milgram's explains ordinary peopels participation in violence, specifically in genocide. In the Milgram study, the men are initially nervous when they hear the pain they are inflicting onto another person. From this reluctance they turn to the person in charge of the experiment with concern, at this moment they don’t want to continue the experiment. However, once the authoritative person tells them that they are not responsible for anything that happens during the experiment, they are less worried about the effects of their actions, showing that people are more concerned about their consequences than their actions. Once the teachers are aware they are freed of responsibility they continue with the experiment, some still hesitate but with firm, short commands from someone in a position of higher power they continue. Similarly, Nazis post WWII say that they only contributed and participated in these mass murders because they were told to by a higher power. Someone as powerful as Hitler, and people in similar places of power were obviously adamant about their beliefs; it is hard to go against them. Another factor is similar to the experiment, that even though they are reluctant, there is a relief of no responsibility. This is where I think the “mob mentality” plays, the Nazis influence was powerful because there were so many of them. However, because there was so many of them, there is no way to blame just one individual person, they are anonymous; in a mob their ideas, emotions, and maybe even excitement is intensified just by being with a large group of people, they are also being led by someone who is acknowledging that what they are doing is for good, all of these increase the likeness of the Nazis to be more blind when following authority, and less empathic of the people they are hurting. Another factor that went into the callous doing of the Nazis is because of cognitive dissonance. Even if a Nazi knew what they were doing, they could think “ya it's bad, but everyone is doing it” or “Hitler is in a higher position of power than me, he knows what he's talking about.” By doing this they are creating the idea in their head that what they are doing isn't that bad, or they are moving the responsibility of their actions onto the fact that it is “normal” because all the other Nazis are doing it, and following orders. Disobeying someone of higher authority is really difficult, especially in the circumstances of WWII, however for the people in the experiment they were not being forced, life or death, to do anything. When one man in the experiment was interviewed after the test was over he said “I was getting ready to walk out.” But he never really did. Being alone in a room with someone of higher authority puts enough pressure on him to stay and continue to inflict pain on someone. One man, however, did resist completely. I would characterize him as really brave, because defending your morals when you think there is no other option is rare. I think that people are taught to be independent, and stand up for what you believe in, but as shown in the experiment people didn't. I think that encouraging people to be more resilient and not just following along with any person, because a really important aspect to both WWII and the experiment is that, just because someone with higher power is telling you to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Post your response here.
I agree with everything this person said. I think the most compelling idea is this "showing that people are more concerned about their consequences than their actions." I completely agree if you even see this in school, don't take your phone out you will get in trouble, do your work or you will get bad grades everything we do has a consequence. People would rather have their phone out and not doing their work but it's the consequences like bad grades or a misdemeanor mark that stop people from doing it, but I've never thought about this on big scale terms like if i hurt someone I will go to jail. That makes me think does anyone who hurts people not know about the consequences or just not care? Or do they think they are too good and wont get caught. My views on Milgram's experiment are exactly the same. I find the same things interesting. And I liked how they tied it back to all of the psychology things we have been talking about in class about things like responsibility and having an authority figure telling you what to do. I would ask them to elaborate on their last idea about how when someone's telling you it's the right thing to be resilient and follow your morals, the entire point of the psychology is that it is hard to do so how would you suggest they just ignore what their brain is telling them to do.
Milgram Experiment Reflection Response
Originally posted by perfectbug on September 23, 2025 09:03
Yes, everyone has the potential to become a violent person towards others, but it is a matter of influences and decision-making. I believe I have strong enough morals, based on how I grew up and how I live my life, to stand up against immoral things. I want to say that if I were chosen as the teacher in this experiment, I would have left or stood up for myself. It is wrong to inflict pain on others, and as a human being, when I witness this happening, when I feel the emotions of others in tough situations, and when I see tears, I feel for that person. Strong moral values create a strong human being who will stand up for what they believe is right, whether it's true or not. I find it insane that World War II happened. How could one singular person convince a country to kill and take over the world? In the Facing History and Ourselves description of this experiment, there is one fact stated: “At the time, when Milgram described this experiment to a group of 39 psychiatrists, the psychiatrists predicted that one participant in 1,000 would continue until he or she delivered the most severe shock, 450 volts. In reality, 62.5% of participants did” (Facing History and Ourselves). This stood out to me as it gives important information about how the professional psychiatrists, who should be the experts in this field, were completely wrong about the human thought process in this experiment. Another interesting part of the experiment was how the experimenter spoke to the teacher. The experimenter used a soft tone, but he was very firm, and he used words such as absolutely, or the experiment requires. This word choice created an awkward place for the teacher, who did not know what to do or how to stop. The teacher in some of the videos that we watched stopped and questioned the experimenter by asking them to check on the student, but in the end, most of them continued to shock even when the student who was in the room was not responding or the student in the room was screaming in pain. Another idea I had was that I believe torture or punishment of the physical form was way more common back then than it is now. Now, if a teacher were to put their hands on or do anything harmful to a student, there would be a massive uprising in response. I do believe that because of the norm changing of what is considered okay to do to students, most humans in this future generation or in this generation would not nearly hurt as many people as they did back in this experiment. I could obviously be wrong, but I do think there is a good chance I am right. I wonder how possible it is to try something similar to this experiment with modern technology and younger students who went through school in this era. Overall, this was an extremely interesting experiment that led to a disappointment I have in society.
After reading the response I found that the idea that nowadays more people would be likely to stop the shocks after a shorter period of time before the man ultimately stopped responding/ faking dead. I agree with this idea due to some of the points made in the writing. Specifically “ Now, if a teacher were to put their hands on or do anything harmful to a student, there would be a massive uprising in response”. And I completely agree with this argument. If something like that was to happen in one of our classrooms at BLS today it would be a very big deal, and the teacher would end up in loads of trouble. Adding on to the point that back then violence was just overall more accepted parents would discipline there young kids with violence along with teachers to students but it was okay because of society saying it was okay. Ultimately I believe that we both had very similar ideas on the Milgram experiment itself and how it was taken place. The experiment itself was extremely surprising but it helped the readers to grasp a greater understanding of human behavior and psychology. If this experiment took place today I truly believe that the results would not be the same as they were back when this experiment took place.
Originally posted by user1234567 on September 19, 2025 13:24
Experiments like Milgram's explains ordinary peopels participation in violence, specifically in genocide. In the Milgram study, the men are initially nervous when they hear the pain they are inflicting onto another person. From this reluctance they turn to the person in charge of the experiment with concern, at this moment they don’t want to continue the experiment. However, once the authoritative person tells them that they are not responsible for anything that happens during the experiment, they are less worried about the effects of their actions, showing that people are more concerned about their consequences than their actions. Once the teachers are aware they are freed of responsibility they continue with the experiment, some still hesitate but with firm, short commands from someone in a position of higher power they continue. Similarly, Nazis post WWII say that they only contributed and participated in these mass murders because they were told to by a higher power. Someone as powerful as Hitler, and people in similar places of power were obviously adamant about their beliefs; it is hard to go against them. Another factor is similar to the experiment, that even though they are reluctant, there is a relief of no responsibility. This is where I think the “mob mentality” plays, the Nazis influence was powerful because there were so many of them. However, because there was so many of them, there is no way to blame just one individual person, they are anonymous; in a mob their ideas, emotions, and maybe even excitement is intensified just by being with a large group of people, they are also being led by someone who is acknowledging that what they are doing is for good, all of these increase the likeness of the Nazis to be more blind when following authority, and less empathic of the people they are hurting. Another factor that went into the callous doing of the Nazis is because of cognitive dissonance. Even if a Nazi knew what they were doing, they could think “ya it's bad, but everyone is doing it” or “Hitler is in a higher position of power than me, he knows what he's talking about.” By doing this they are creating the idea in their head that what they are doing isn't that bad, or they are moving the responsibility of their actions onto the fact that it is “normal” because all the other Nazis are doing it, and following orders. Disobeying someone of higher authority is really difficult, especially in the circumstances of WWII, however for the people in the experiment they were not being forced, life or death, to do anything. When one man in the experiment was interviewed after the test was over he said “I was getting ready to walk out.” But he never really did. Being alone in a room with someone of higher authority puts enough pressure on him to stay and continue to inflict pain on someone. One man, however, did resist completely. I would characterize him as really brave, because defending your morals when you think there is no other option is rare. I think that people are taught to be independent, and stand up for what you believe in, but as shown in the experiment people didn't. I think that encouraging people to be more resilient and not just following along with any person, because a really important aspect to both WWII and the experiment is that, just because someone with higher power is telling you to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
The idea about power structures and their effect on the ability of others was very interesting, I liked how you said, “Someone as powerful as Hitler, and people in similar places of power were obviously adamant about their beliefs; it is hard to go against them”, which illustrates the general ideal of how power and authority work to make people commit violent acts. I agree with this idea, and I feel like this could be applied to all actions, not just violent ones. I also wrote about how mob mentality influences the structures of power, and can lead to violence because of the loss of individuality that comes from a mob event.
The idea about how cognitive dissonance is interesting because I feel like people would be dissonant after the fact that they murder someone, not before, this idea felt unclear. Say everyone was told they had to kill. I feel like you could also elaborate on the dissonance part, giving some more analysis .
In the part where you describe the experiment itself you also use some fleshing out instead of explanation, but I liked the idea about how you characterize the man who stood up as brave. Again, I feel like you could explain how it seemed hard to resist the directions of the experimenter.
Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on September 22, 2025 12:34
The Milgram experiment, along with other experiments similar to it, explains ordinary people's participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. Milgram's Experiment shows how people can be easily controlled and influenced by any higher authority to inflict violence on another. There are several reasons for this, but overall, it is due to the sense of power that comes with authority. The experiment focused on how likely a person was to inflict pain on another when an authority figure instructed them to do so. Participants were all told the same thing, and they each seemed stressed out, but all listened at least for a while after being told there would be no physical damage to the person. The experiment shows what people are willing to do when they know they will not be responsible for what happens, and simply when an authority figure tells them to. His experiment explains why people participate in mass violence.
Many other factors come into play when people participate in violent acts. As seen in Milgram's experiment, when a teacher was told he would not be responsible for anything that happened to the man getting shocked, he continued inflicting harm on him, knowing the responsibility wouldn't be put on him. This shows that people's willingness to inflict pain on others can come from several reasons. Another example is social pressure/conformity; when everyone else is participating in violence, it is more likely for others to join the group to fit in. It is the social norm to follow rules, and humans obey authorities to be obedient. It is important to know when obedience should end so innocent people don't end up doing bad things, and innocent people don't get hurt. It was also seen in Stanley Milgram's authority that, due to the teacher's confusion, they would listen to what the authority was saying. Giving them really limited instructions with little detail made them obey orders more easily. Another factor that comes into play would be people obeying very simple, unharmful commands from authorities, and then authorities would have an easier time later making them obey harmful commands. As we see in the experiment, the commander gives short, clear, and firm commands in order to seem more powerful and make the people obey him, and it worked.
Overall, Milgram's work highlights the powerful influence authority has on people. It shows the danger of the influence they have over people, as it can create violence, as we saw in the video. The experiment, while it shows how they would act in situations, doesn't show the scariness of how it could lead to mass atrocities. These mass atrocities or any violent acts are usually influenced by psychological factors. This included conformity, human responsibility, and dehumanization. After watching this video and reading references on these ideas, it is clear that it is extremely easy to fall into the authority's orders and make bad decisions that can inflict harm on others. Stanley Milgram's experiment overall illustrates the reasons that people do these things and how it happens.
I agree with the stance you are taking. I agree with the fact that ordinary people will do what an authority figure says to do for reasons such as conformity, obedience and social pressures. Since this experiment is a test to see how people participate in times of violence, mass atrocities, and genocide, it clearly shows the power an authority figure has over an ordinary person. As I argued in my paper, and you are as well, when an ordinary person knows they won’t be held responsible for any harm inflicted on a person through their actions, then they will do what the authority is telling them to do, such as inflicting pain on them. I also agree with you when you point out that this experiment clearly shows how easy it is for people to obey an authorities orders even if it’s bad and you don’t agree with them. Overall, the Milligram experiment showed that the authority figure wasn’t doing anything but giving short, clear, stern comments for the person to listen to what they were saying. This just continues to show the power authority has on ordinary people even if it’s just from them talking in a stern way.
Originally posted by abrahamlincoln2.0 on September 21, 2025 19:05
Stanley Milgrim’s experiment reveals that not everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, but that an alarming amount of people do. In this experiment, Milgrim tested hundreds of men to see how many of them would listen to an experimenter’s orders to continue the test, even if it hurt or killed the other participant. From this study, it was found that 65% of the participants went to 450 volts, the most severe shock they could give.
However, when looking at the men who disobeyed the experimenter’s orders and stopped the experiment early, it was found that one of the primary factors was the distance between the teacher and the learner. When placed closer to the learner, the teacher was less likely to go to the highest shock level because either the learner’s cries became more audible or the teacher would be instructed to hold the learner down to administer the shock. Milgrim explains how the teacher’s likelihood to stop the experiment was influenced by their concern of “alleviating their own, rather than the learner’s, stressful situation” (FHAO 8). Thus, the closer the learner was to the teacher, the more responsibility the teacher felt when shocking and injuring the learner, which ultimately pushed them towards stopping the experiment earlier. This concept is also known as situationalism which is “the idea that people’s behavior is determined largely by what’s happening around them” (Romm 22).
Adding onto this, some personality traits that contributed to teachers disobeying the experiment was how strongly they viewed themselves and their principles. It’s been proven that those who have weaker self perceptions are more likely to agree with group ideas and conform to societal standards. Thus, the same reasoning can be applied to this experiment, where it is probable that the men who went all the way to 450 volts were less sure and confident of what to do, ultimately leading them to thoughtlessly obey the experimenter’s orders. On the other hand, those who were more confident in themselves and had a stronger understanding of who they were found it easier to disobey the experimenter’s demands to continue shocking the learner because if they did not, it would align less with their values and self perception and cause them to feel extreme cognitive dissonance.
On that note, it is possible to create societies that encourage the traits of people to disobey unethical authority figures. As stated above, the core traits that allow people to openly go against their authority figures are their personal perceptions and morals. Depending on how strongly a person feels about their own character and values, the more cognitive dissonance they will feel. Thus, if a person who has a strong self image of being kind and protective follows an unethical leader who puts others in danger, then they are more likely to feel a heavy amount of cognitive dissonance since the actions they are following do not align with their morals. In contrast, if a person who has a weaker self image follows the same figure, they will feel less dissonance because they already have lower expectations for themselves. However, if everyone constantly stands up for what they believe in and goes against whoever they see is an unethical authority figure, it can lead to major disruption and chaos since there will no longer be a consensus or general idea of what classifies a person as unethical. This means that if we were to attempt to create a society that encourages going against unethical authority figures, it would be best to emphasize self growth and identification rather than praise standing going against unethical figures because it will allow people to understand their morals while still keeping a sense of obedience in place.
The strongest idea in this post was that the strength of oneself defined how well that person could or would disobey their ethics and morals. I agree with this, but this is an interesting concept, if you think about it all of the pressure is from the experimenter, he keeps going on and on telling the teacher to continue with the experiment. But the take that this person had was that it is more of an internal battle. The teacher is dealing with his own morals. This student also mentioned situationalism, talking about how every situation was slightly different depending on the distance between the teacher and the learner which created a stronger or weaker clash between self morals. I do agree that the position of the teacher and their choices have more to do with the internal thoughts of the teacher. I slightly disagree though, as I believe that an immediate presence of a leader who correlates with your self can be as powerful. The peer who wrote this listed many facts that are obviously true but it made it hard to reflect on non opinionated statements.
Originally posted by 123456 on September 23, 2025 08:37
I do not think that everyone has the potential to commit violence or inflict pain upon others. That being said, I do now believe that there are more people out there who would blindly follow orders that would result in the harm of others. I think that there are many different aspects of human behavior that contribute to that possibility, and it is the combination of those factors that result in infliction of pain on such a mass level as, for example, the Holocaust. I’ve thought about trying to follow the thread of all of the different psychological effects that we have learned about, and what I keep thinking is the root of all of it is the human craving for comfort/cognotive dissonance. Things like refusing orders from a superior or going against the crowd are things that naturally make people uncomfortable. However, it also makes a decent person uncomfortable to inflict pain upon others. This internal struggle can either result in a person doing the right thing, or the comfortable thing. We saw this in the video of the Milgram experiment, where the man very clearly knew that something was wrong with the learner, and expressed his concern, but ultimately went on. Milgram’s experiment and what it shows is definitely a very large part of what goes into things like genocide and mass killings. However, I also believe that those who directly inflict pain and those who stand by and do nothing are different. Both do wrong, but the severity of one is far greater than the other. One who had the ability to, for example, sit by and watch millions of Jewish people get murdered is one who, in the Milgram experiment, would protest but ultimately continue to push the button. However, I believe that the soldiers that commit the irregular atrocities, that is, not the atrocities normally associated with “regular war”, but shooting innocent people or being in charge of internment camps, are people with genuine indifference or hate in their hearts. Those would be the people who hear the reaction of the learner in the Milgram experiment who either kept going without a word of protest or even smiled while they pushed the shock button. As mentioned in the article, in the aftermath of world war two many Nazi soldiers tried to hide behind the excuse that they were “just following orders”, but I believe that to some extent they felt internally motivated to fulfill those orders. Thus, I believe that the Milgram experiment can explain elements of genocidal events such as being a bystander, but I do not believe that it fully explains the actions of those who directly killed innocents. I also think that to attempt to prove this experiment with just shocks, in a class-like environment, is not directly applicable to a scenario in which someone can see a suffering human, or hold the gun to their head. For example, during the Milgram experience there were reduced results when the learners were moved closer, within eyesight, or in physical proximity of the teacher. While there were still test subjects that induced the shocks without complaint or resistance, I believe that these are the types of people that would be willing to commit the murder of an innocent person. However, I do not believe that that ratio is as large as the experiment made it out to be. I also think that to some extent there is a cherry-picking of subjects when looking at, for example, Nazi soldiers. This is because many soldiers in the army may have volunteered, motivated by true belief in the Nazi cause or by some internalized hatred towards Jews or any other persecuted group during the Holocaust.
The idea that there are people that are genuinely indifferent to the harm of others is very compelling in this response. Although the Milgram experiment did explain certain aspects of the human mind in relations to cruelty, it didn't fully capture the levels of violence in the Holocaust. It is true that under the firm demands of authority, people are likely to obey, as captured by the experiment. However, the experiment also found that rates of disobedience increased as learner and teacher were in closer contact. The teacher still lent sympathy to the learner that overcame their obedience, but people in the Holocaust were able to "point the gun" directly at someone's head. I agree that the people that actively tortured and killed Jewish people, as suggested by this user, are truly evil in their hearts. It's an interesting idea they proposed that digs deeper into the human psyche. Those that murdered innocent people during the Holocaust had a genuine hatred for Jewish people and motive to kill them, which is a variable not captured in the Milgram experiment. The application of cognitive dissonance is also intriguing, as I didn't think about it until it was explained under the context of the Holocaust. The phrase of choosing "the right thing, or the comfortable thing" changed my perspective that those that followed orders were doing so to find comfort. The development of ideas was complete and I enjoyed reading this text.
Originally posted by GreenBlock0213 on September 23, 2025 18:07
In the video about the Milgram Experiment that we watched, I do not think everyone naturally has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but I do believe that there are certain situations that can heavily influence people to act in ways that they typically wouldn’t. The Milgram experiments demonstrate that human behavior is shaped by authority and how responsibility is distributed. When we feel uncertain or unqualified, we tend to put our trust in people who seem to have more knowledge or hold power over us. In the experiment, participants were told to continue shocking the “learner” because “the experiment must go on,” and many complied even though they clearly felt uncomfortable. One participant even admitted that he didn’t want to do it, but he justified his actions because the experimenter kept pressuring him. This shows that in environments where people feel responsibility has been shifted away from them, they may act violently or against their own moral code. It wasn’t that the participants were naturally violent, it was the structure of the experiment and the authority figure’s commands that made them capable of causing harm. I think Milgram’s study explains an important piece of how ordinary people are able to commit terrible acts, but it doesn’t explain everything. Blind obedience to authority is described, but real world violence often involves additional pressures. For example, people may follow along because they are afraid of punishment, or because they want to belong to the larger group, which ties back to the idea of conformity. Propaganda and prejudice can also convince people that their victims deserve what’s happening to them, making their cruel actions seem justified. In the case of genocide, leaders that are able to organize these mass atrocities/genocides often dehumanize groups of people, which makes it easier for ordinary citizens or soldiers to carry out violence without feeling the same level of guilt. Social pressures, fear, and ideology all add a sense of depth to the obedience Milgram demonstrated. So while the experiment helps us understand the fundamentals or basics of obedience, it cannot fully capture the full thought process of why people commit these violence acts. It shows us how people can follow harmful orders, but in real life there are also social expectations involved. The Milgram experiment also shows that not everyone obeyed to the demands blindly. Some people refused to continue, even under pressure. The ones who refused to continue seemed to have stronger confidence in their own judgment, and a better sense of empathy. They also seemed to display a strong sense of mortal conviction that remained strong even under great pressure from the experimenter. These three traits of self-awareness, compassion, and moral conviction are what helped them break from authority and stop. I think that these qualities should be appreciated. Such as teaching people to develop critical thinking skills and stand up for what they believe is right could prevent blind obedience from leading to harm. At the same time, there can be a risk if resistance to authority becomes way too common and too much. If everyone rejects authority just because they themselves disagree, there would be no respect for necessary laws or structures. The challenge is balance between the two, we need people who are brave enough to disobey unethical commands, but who can also recognize when authority is legitimate and helpful. In the end, Milgram’s experiment doesn’t just warn us about obedience, it also shows us the importance of refusing to do something or challenging it when authority crosses the line.
The most compelling part of this post to me is the part where you mentioned the different social factors that add into blind obedience and the obedience that was shown during the Milgrim Experiment. I agree with this point and I briefly talked about it in my post as I mentioned the fact that the amount of power the authority has can contribute to whether or not a person becomes blindly obedient, as a higher authority authority that doesn’t have a lot of power will not have as much influence on someone’s actions as would an authority with a significant amount of power. Adding onto this, I also like the mention of the balance between knowing when an authority is helpful and when the authority isn’t good where rebellion against it is needed, since I never fully thought about this point and how the balance between the both are beneficial. The point you made about the balance between the two is very interesting and important since it makes sure that there is not an authority that is being blindly followed without some people considering if what they are doing is good for the purpose of all, or if they are causing more harm than good. Overall, I really liked your post as I feel like you really went in depth and brought out new ideas that I didn’t fully think about when first watching the experiment.
Originally posted by pinkbluegreen on September 22, 2025 14:01
Yes, I do think everyone has the potential to became a perpetrator f violence against others. The Milgrim experiment shows that under the right circumstances and the right amount of authority you can coerce someone into just about anything. We’re taught that “authority” is inherently powerful and that we should obey those who have seemingly more respect and power. It also depends on your environment, there can be factors such as peer pressure, an attempt to “fit in”, or a controlled group dynamic where you’re a subordinate. Additionally when power dynamics are given and you assume that you’re inferior to the person in command, not only are you threatened and encouraged to listen but in some cases insecurities in yourself could increase the likelihood that we will be submissive or be resistant to the orders. I think it touches on the explanation that ordinary people can actively participate in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide because it shows how easily influenced we can be by our environment and the people around us. There’s a concept called the banality of evil in which people who actively participate in larger genocides may not have direct impact on the issue but still contribute in some way. I think it’s interesting to see that in this case it was out of free will while in most cases of mass atrocities people are pressured by bigger factors like money, threats, and to attempt to fit in. I also think besides the blind following authority in some cases people will loose their identity and individuality that causes them to inflict pain on others. Without a strong sense of self and confidence to outwardly defy higher authority is rarely seen especially if people don’t feel like they have control over their situation.Some important factors that teachers in the Milgrim experiment had to disobey the experimenters commands were a very confident and stern response. I think that most of the teachers were also aware of the damage and felt a lot of responsibility for the “student”. We can attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. In reality that’s what’s been happening for centuries except the socially acceptable ‘norms’ are always changing. That’s why we always have different interpretations of religion and other aspects of human behavior because our values and moral obligations fluctuate with societies beliefs. I believe there is danger because if everyone began preaching the same thing it would then become morally acceptable to many others who previously thought they would never follow that belief. Especially if it’s forced upon by higher education or on younger audiences.
Your post on the Milgram Experiment is very thoughtful and I appreciated your way of incorporating a variety of the topics we covered in class, alongside multiple everyday factors and physiological beliefs into into your response. Specifically, I connected to the thoughtfulness and hope you presented for the future. Changing societies and spreading knowledge about these things is incredibly important and requires action and reflection. Additionally your comment on "norms changing" stood out to me. This is such an important topic, that impacts society so heavily, but is rarely discussed. Not only do norms change with time, but they change with place, and people which is so impact full as even though we might not notice it, they have the power to completely shape someones perspective. Your response also included how a variety factors can heavily impact a situation which I was able to relate to connect to Carrie Rums comment form "Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” on the importance of situationism in events or tests such as this one. My own view of this topic is very similar to yours as unfortunately people will easily fall into ways of becoming perpetrators. The average individual is very susceptible to changes and a power imbalance has the power to alter peoples actions. If you're wishing to improve your post you could go more into depth on some of the topics you discussed such as the idea of norms.
Originally posted by funny bunny on September 23, 2025 08:50
I think that experiments like the Milgram experiment reveal people’s participation in mass movements of violence since the second guy in the experiment continued to inflict pain on the person on the other side just because an authority figure told him to continue going. This is the role that I feel like most people take on as they don’t want to go against the authority’s orders, but it also varies from person to person considering that the first person in the experiment stopped even though he was told to continue. A factor that determines whether or not a person will listen to an authority figure telling them to continue inflicting pain is whether or not they have a strong sense of self or if they have a sense of self guidance. People who don’t have a strong sense of self and guidance are more likely to listen to the authority figure as they are seeking guidance and orders from them so that they can know what to do. In “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, he writes that “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” This adds onto my previous idea that people are more likely to inflict pain when there is an authority figure that is “forcing” them to continue as they don’t want to go against the orders they are being told.
I also think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but not everyone will go through with taking that potential. There will be people who become a perpetrator of violence like Adolf Eichmann and other low-level officers and use the defense of them being forced by orders, or that they were “just following orders” like many said after the Nuremberg trials. I feel like these reasons are just an excuse to push the blame and responsibility off of themselves as they could’ve said no to the orders like the first guy in Milgram's experiment, but also a key factor in this is the amount of power the authority figure has. In Milgram’s experiment the authority figure had some power over the person they were experimenting on, but not as much power as a military commander would have over an officer. This can impact whether or not people will follow the orders due to fear of what would happen if they didn’t follow the orders of people who hold much power over them. For some people this major power imbalance will not cause them to follow violent orders, but that depends on how strong of a sense of self the person has and how willing they are to rebel against someone who holds a large amount of power over them. All in all showing that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but whether or not they take that potential depends on how strong minded the person is and how much power the authority figure has over them.
This person says that people are capable of inflicting pain onto others, especially when told to by a higher power. I think that something really significant that they said was “A factor that determines whether or not a person will listen to an authority figure telling them to continue inflicting pain is whether or not they have a strong sense of self or if they have a sense of self guidance” I agree with this because as we have learned, people who are low in self-confidence requires a higher power to rely on because they cannot rely on themselves. Similarly in my post I said that people are capable when told to by a strong and obviously powerful person because they see them as more authoritative, And like this person said a big factor is “how willing they are to rebel against someone who holds a large amount of power over them”. This person also mentioned the fear aspect which I also discussed in my response, I think that fear is a huge factor of the experiment and the idea of not knowing what is happening but also the fear of what would happen if I stop. Notably the only way they feel safe is by continuing the experiment because they are in the presence of someone with higher powerAnd not in the presence of the person they are inflicting pain on.I think this person did a really good job of using text to connect to the experiment and they also have a good understanding of the experiment and its connection to psychology in mass movement.
Originally posted by kikidouluvmee on September 25, 2025 10:00
When I read Bauman’s quotes “the most frightening news brought by the holocaust was not the likelihood that this could be done to us, but the idea that we could not do it” it made me think about how easy it is to assume that only “bad people” commit horrible acts. But what Zygmunt is saying is that ordinary people can be pushed into doing things we would normally never imagine ourselves doing. Watching the Milgram documentary really made me realize that. What struck me most in the film was that the participants were just regular adults, they weren’t people that seemed cruel or violent. They showed up for a psychological study and most of them ended up shocking someone because the experimenter told them it was necessary. In the article A matter of obedience? (facing history and ourselves), it explains how obedience is something we were taught from a very young age. We are expected to listen to parents, teachers, elders, and other authority figures. That training doesn’t go away and I think it's why so many people in the experiment struggled to say no, even when they felt like what they were doing was wrong. When we watched the documentary and the first one refused, I thought he was going to get some type of punishment for not doing it because that would completely change the experiment, if it involves you getting hurt by someone else. But at the same time, I don't think obedience alone explains something as big as the Holocaust. In the article “Just following orders” plays out in the mind, pointing out that there were other factors at work. For example, propaganda, fear of punishment, and especially the way jewish people were dehumanized. People weren't just following orders blindly, they were living in a society that made cruelty seem acceptable and normal. Milgram's experiment showed how powerful authority can be but it's only one piece of a much bigger problem. Another part of the documentary that stood out to me was that not everyone obeyed. A few participants stopped and refused to keep shocking the learner, even when the experimenter pushed them. That made me wonder what made those people different. Even though certain environments can pressure people into being cruel, resistance is an option. The people who disobeyed had empathy, confidence in their own judgement, or just the courage to say no. It shows that we should be teaching those values in society. Things like critical thinking, responsibility, and the ability to question authority when something feels wrong. But it can cause problems because if everyone resisted authority all the time, nothing would get done. The real challenge is helping people know the difference between good authority and harmful authority. Zygmunt’s quote really stuck with me because it makes us think about what we ourselves might do if we were in a similar situation. I want to believe that I'd be one of the people who stopped, but most of the participants didn’t, and that's something we should reflect on. Obedience was a strong pull on some of us, so we can be more prepared to recognize it and make better decisions if we’re ever in a similar situation.
The part of your post that stuck with me the most was when you talked about Bauman’s quote and how it shows that cruelty isn’t only done by “bad people.” I agree with this because it’s easy to distance ourselves and think that no one would act that way, but the truth is regular people can be pushed into acting in ways they normally wouldn’t. Your example from the Milgram film helped back that up. The participants don’t look cruel at all, and also they were just normal adults showing up for a study, but many still went along with it because someone with authority told them to. I liked how you made your point about that. I also thought it was important how you explained that obedience alone can’t explain the Holocaust. Adding propaganda, fear and also the way people were dehumanized backed up your point even more. It reminded me about the other points made about conformity, but your post went into more detail. I also agree with your point with resistance, too. Not everyone followed orders in Milgram’s study, and the ones who showed empathy and confidence in their own judgment. That part of your response made me think of the qualities people need to challenge people with authority. If I had to suggest something it would be to make your sentences longer, so you could add more ideas.
Originally posted by ilovecoffee on September 23, 2025 18:11
I do not think that Milgram’s experiment serves as a legitimate explanation for people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide for a number of different reasons. My main reason is that the situation doesn’t truly reflect a real world scenario. In smaller situations such as this, the results may hold some truth, but in large events such as mass atrocities and genocides, people’s actions would be influenced by a number of different factors and not just an authority figure.
One factor that would play a large role in a situation such as violence, mass atrocities, and genocide, is that it is not just one singular person experiencing this confict, but most likely a large amount of people. Therefore, things such as peer pressure and conformity would inevitably begin to play a role in decision making, meaning obeying to a larger figure is no longer the singular factor in a situation such as this and that the Milgram experiment isn’t an accurate reflection of the scenario.
Another issue with this experiment is that it doesn’t really consider the role that people’s personal beliefs play in situations such as these, only observing their capacity to resist an authority figure. In larger situations such as mass movements or genocides, one is more inclined to resist due to their beliefs that may keep them from obeying, such as an aversion to violence or racism. In this situation, the threat of harming a man is temporary and smaller, meaning many would let it pass, but real life situations are often on a larger scale, causing more internal conflict before acting. Additionally, this experiment also doesn’t consider the impact that self esteem has on this. People with stronger self esteem have been proven to have a higher likelihood of resisting the commands while people with lower levels of self esteem are more likely to obey in order to gain some sense of purpose or fulfillment, and therefore it cannot be concluded that people “always” obey as it is reliant on personality.
The version of the experiment we watched showed two men who were similar enough that we can sort of dismiss the idea that any prejudices played a role in the learner’s decision making. In real life, however, this isn’t always the case. Many mass movements and genocides occurred due to the prejudices of the offenders against the victims, and many people joined due to these prejudices. A lack of prejudice also plays a role in the decision making, as people may be averse to joining due to the prejudice that goes into it. Therefore, the Milgram experiment wouldn’t showcase this due to the fact that prejudice isn’t considered.
Finally, the test doesn’t consider the fact that there are many different ways that a person could respond, and that not all people can be described as simply obedient or disobedient. This is touched on in the article “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” when they state, “Rather, he argued, people in both categories tried several different forms of protest—those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking.” In situations such as mass movements or genocides, people could respond in many ways. For example, they could join, refuse to join, speak up, etc. It also may not have been safe to not join in many cases, especially when it could lead to punishment.
Therefore, the Milgram experiment does not accurately represent how people would respond in real world situations such as mass movements, genocides, and violence because it doesn’t take many factors that rely on the setting into account.
Post your response here.
I completely agree with this person’s take on the Milgram experiment. The stance that they take - that while the Milgram experiment offers some insight into human behavior in these types of situations, but cannot really be used to determine someone’s potential action in a more drastic type of situation. I thought that the point they brought up about real-life situations most likely being in a group was very interesting. It brings up a good point: would it be easier to disobey authority if you were in a group? I think that if you are already having doubts, then the answer is yes, because most likely the rest of the group is having those same doubts and one of them is willing to speak up against what is happening. Another point that this person brought up that I thought was very interesting, which was similar to mine, was the idea of ulterior motives playing a role in genocides and war throughout history. For example, a Nazi soldier might be motivated to kill an innocent Jewish prisoner out of hate rather than just blind obedience to authority. I also thought that another very valid point was that in more extreme situations, where a person knows for certain that they are or will be harming an innocent victim, what may have just been protests in the Milgram experiment would more than likely turn into outright refusal to follow orders.
Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on September 22, 2025 12:34
The Milgram experiment, along with other experiments similar to it, explains ordinary people's participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. Milgram's Experiment shows how people can be easily controlled and influenced by any higher authority to inflict violence on another. There are several reasons for this, but overall, it is due to the sense of power that comes with authority. The experiment focused on how likely a person was to inflict pain on another when an authority figure instructed them to do so. Participants were all told the same thing, and they each seemed stressed out, but all listened at least for a while after being told there would be no physical damage to the person. The experiment shows what people are willing to do when they know they will not be responsible for what happens, and simply when an authority figure tells them to. His experiment explains why people participate in mass violence.
Many other factors come into play when people participate in violent acts. As seen in Milgram's experiment, when a teacher was told he would not be responsible for anything that happened to the man getting shocked, he continued inflicting harm on him, knowing the responsibility wouldn't be put on him. This shows that people's willingness to inflict pain on others can come from several reasons. Another example is social pressure/conformity; when everyone else is participating in violence, it is more likely for others to join the group to fit in. It is the social norm to follow rules, and humans obey authorities to be obedient. It is important to know when obedience should end so innocent people don't end up doing bad things, and innocent people don't get hurt. It was also seen in Stanley Milgram's authority that, due to the teacher's confusion, they would listen to what the authority was saying. Giving them really limited instructions with little detail made them obey orders more easily. Another factor that comes into play would be people obeying very simple, unharmful commands from authorities, and then authorities would have an easier time later making them obey harmful commands. As we see in the experiment, the commander gives short, clear, and firm commands in order to seem more powerful and make the people obey him, and it worked.
Overall, Milgram's work highlights the powerful influence authority has on people. It shows the danger of the influence they have over people, as it can create violence, as we saw in the video. The experiment, while it shows how they would act in situations, doesn't show the scariness of how it could lead to mass atrocities. These mass atrocities or any violent acts are usually influenced by psychological factors. This included conformity, human responsibility, and dehumanization. After watching this video and reading references on these ideas, it is clear that it is extremely easy to fall into the authority's orders and make bad decisions that can inflict harm on others. Stanley Milgram's experiment overall illustrates the reasons that people do these things and how it happens.
I agree with everything that was said in this post. I think their most compelling idea was when they brought it all together at the end and considered just how easy it is for people to blindly follow authority figures, eventually leading to atrocities such as genocides and mass movements. This is interesting because a lot of people fail to understand how these events and movements come to be, and the Milgram experiment does a very good job of displaying the process. I also think that they used a lot of evidence in their post which helped to prove what they were saying, and I liked how they brought many different topics from this class into their commentary, such as when they brought up social pressure and conformity. In my post, I also discussed conformity and the role that it would play in this situation if it was set up differently, so I agree with what they were saying. I also like the point they made about how the limited instructions given by the authority helped the person obey more easily. Overall, I thought this was a very good post that summarized the Milgram experiment well and was able to effectively connect the experiment to other topics in our class.
Originally posted by random on September 22, 2025 14:09
In Milgram’s experiment the goal was to have the teacher be convinced that the learner was getting shocked if they got the pair of words wrong. The learner was assigned to buzz the wrong one some of the times, and when the teacher shocked the learner, the learner was commanded to make a noise to prove it was real to see what the teacher would do. Some of the important factors that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenter's commands to continue to shock the learner was when the learners made noises that seemed outrageous and when some would say “this is hurting my heart, I have heart problems, please let me out” and the teachers asked the experimenters if they would check in on the learners. At one point one of the guys stopped responding to the questions and stopped reacting to the shocks, and the teacher kept asking the experimenter to stop, and the experimenter would say “please continue, it is essential that you continue” and the teacher continued out of commands of the experimenter. I think we could attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures because if someone was in danger, the person supposedly doing the harming such as the shocking would not want to be in a situation where they would get in trouble or be accused if something had happened to them. In the video one of the teachers tried explaining to the experimenter that he did not want to continue the experiment due to the reactions of the learner. Although he was commanded to continue, he could have stopped the experiment if he wanted to, but he chose to continue based on how serious the experimenters sounded when they said “ it is essential that you continue”.
Based on the Milgram experiment, I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Even by just watching the video, you could see how some of the teachers wouldn't stop the experiment if they really felt for the learners. Some continued until there were 450 volts. The teachers kept going even after the learner had no responses and no reactions. So in that case, I think people have the potential for becoming a perpetrator of violence towards others. The Milgram experiments suggest the aspects of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict on pain and others because when the teachers were continuing to do the experiment, they were not aware that nothing was happening to the learner, but they still continued and could have harmed them in any way if it were real. I think some people choose what they do with their actions by either just choosing peace by helping people or choosing violence and harming people in any type of way possible. Most people would choose peace, but there are a percentage of people who will go out of their way to do bad. In the article “How the Nazi’s defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind (Joshua Barajas, 2016),” a Scientific American states that “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. Although pleas from the unknown person could be heard, including mentions of a heart condition, Milgram’s study said his volunteers continued to shock the “learner” when ordered to do so. At no point, however, did someone truly experience an electric shock” (pg. 2). This backs up my point that I explained earlier of how when some of the learners expressed a heart problem, the teachers continued to do the experiment not knowing if they would be fine at the end of this. Milgram’s study was very much accurate when he said his volunteers would listen to the commands about shocking the learners, although the shocks were not real, the volunteer teachers were tested to see if they would stop based on the amount of volts and the outrageous noises and sayings were said.
i think the most compelling idea in your post is how you highlighted that even when the learners expressed extreme distress such as mentioning heart problems or going completely silent, the majority of teachers continued to follow the experimenters commands. i agree with your point that this shows how authority can override empathy and it's really interesting because it forces us to question how strong our own moral compass would be in a similar situation. you connected this really well to the broader idea that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence if they prioritize obedience over conscience. I also really liked how you used the Barajas article because it backed up your explanation with real evidence and I also liked how you related the experiment to the "just following orders" denfense, which ties back to the holocaust. one idea that connects yo your post is how other classmates have pointed out the role of individual traits, like morals and independent thinking in resting authority. overall, i really resonated with your post, especially about how people can obey authority even when it goes against their morals.
Originally posted by applebeesandthesevenseas on September 25, 2025 20:49
Originally posted by pinkbluegreen on September 22, 2025 14:01
Yes, I do think everyone has the potential to became a perpetrator f violence against others. The Milgrim experiment shows that under the right circumstances and the right amount of authority you can coerce someone into just about anything. We’re taught that “authority” is inherently powerful and that we should obey those who have seemingly more respect and power. It also depends on your environment, there can be factors such as peer pressure, an attempt to “fit in”, or a controlled group dynamic where you’re a subordinate. Additionally when power dynamics are given and you assume that you’re inferior to the person in command, not only are you threatened and encouraged to listen but in some cases insecurities in yourself could increase the likelihood that we will be submissive or be resistant to the orders. I think it touches on the explanation that ordinary people can actively participate in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide because it shows how easily influenced we can be by our environment and the people around us. There’s a concept called the banality of evil in which people who actively participate in larger genocides may not have direct impact on the issue but still contribute in some way. I think it’s interesting to see that in this case it was out of free will while in most cases of mass atrocities people are pressured by bigger factors like money, threats, and to attempt to fit in. I also think besides the blind following authority in some cases people will loose their identity and individuality that causes them to inflict pain on others. Without a strong sense of self and confidence to outwardly defy higher authority is rarely seen especially if people don’t feel like they have control over their situation.Some important factors that teachers in the Milgrim experiment had to disobey the experimenters commands were a very confident and stern response. I think that most of the teachers were also aware of the damage and felt a lot of responsibility for the “student”. We can attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. In reality that’s what’s been happening for centuries except the socially acceptable ‘norms’ are always changing. That’s why we always have different interpretations of religion and other aspects of human behavior because our values and moral obligations fluctuate with societies beliefs. I believe there is danger because if everyone began preaching the same thing it would then become morally acceptable to many others who previously thought they would never follow that belief. Especially if it’s forced upon by higher education or on younger audiences.
Your post on the Milgram Experiment is very thoughtful and I appreciated your way of incorporating a variety of the topics we covered in class, alongside multiple everyday factors and physiological beliefs into into your response. Specifically, I connected to the thoughtfulness and hope you presented for the future. Changing societies and spreading knowledge about these things is incredibly important and requires action and reflection. Additionally your comment on "norms changing" stood out to me. This is such an important topic, that impacts society so heavily, but is rarely discussed. Not only do norms change with time, but they change with place, and people which is so impact full as even though we might not notice it, they have the power to completely shape someones perspective. Your response also included how a variety factors can heavily impact a situation which I was able to relate to connect to Carrie Rums comment form "Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” on the importance of situationism in events or tests such as this one. My own view of this topic is very similar to yours as unfortunately people will easily fall into ways of becoming perpetrators. The average individual is very susceptible to changes and a power imbalance has the power to alter peoples actions. If you're wishing to improve your post you could go more into depth on some of the topics you discussed such as the idea of norms.
Post your response here.
I agree with my peer that simply being ordered is enough to scare most people into complying, even when it is not a life or death scenario. There was no punishment in the experiment, and they did not have anyone to conform with, but they still continued with the experiment, just in fear of the experimenter. I also agree that the experiment made most of the teachers become less compassionate, and in a situation where most would run to check on the learner, they just hesitated when they heard cries of pain. I also think that the average person is very susceptible to changes and the imbalance of power can alter the way people act, as seen in the experiment, where the teacher had the power over the learner, but the experimenter had power over the teacher. In the situation of the Milgram experiment, I think it is almost like the perfect storm for the teacher to cooperate with the experimenter, as first they cannot see the learner, the experimenter is a strong authority figure, and they are encouraged to do it. In many other situations, I think the “teacher” would rebel against the experimenter. In violent situations however, where the life of the person inflicting harm is at risk if they do not conform, I think they are almost guaranteed to go along with it, as they both fear the consequences, and do not know how to go against the system. I also agree with you that the changing of norms is significant in how someone responds, as long term norms can influence how someone views short term changes.