learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Iambatman64 on September 23, 2024 23:14

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

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

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

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

Hello Iambatman64! (Cool name, by the way.)

I just read your learn-to-question post, and I had a lot of thoughts. Firstly, I just thought it was really interesting how you mentioned obedience to authority as being primal. I agree; I just have to wonder where exactly that evolved from, considering there likely weren’t authority figures back when humanity was a hunter-gatherer society. When civilization was developed, at what point did we begin to orbit around a central figure? Was it the safety they offered? When did this become engrained? It's funny how authority figures back then likely attracted followers based on literal survival rather than the psychological and social survival that more modern charismatic leaders offer. I don’t know; I just find it intriguing.

For the most part, I agree with what you are saying, but I do disagree that we continue in morally reprehensible activities (despite knowing their harm) out of fear of what will happen if we don’t. I would argue that it is actually more so a form of self-contempt. Either guilt of the direct consequences that encourage the cognitive dissonance that makes the bad behavior more likely or an insecurity that ensures a trust in the sagacity and intelligence of an authority figure (especially one also viewed as scientific), but I don’t particularly think it is fear; none of the participants in the experiment seem afraid of the authority figure, just subservient in regards to knowledge, because as established, there is an immediate unconscious trust of an authority figure of which it can take a lot to break.

Overall, I enjoyed reading your opinion; I just wish you had expanded a bit more on certain topics (e.g., the groupthink and mob mentality in your first claim, our quotidian systemic obedience, etc.). Other than slight grammatical errors, I would just explain a bit more about certain subjects (for example, maybe you could have added to paragraph 3?). It was, I thought, very well structured; it was very legible and easy to find your claims.

Thank you for reading. Have a great day!

Originally posted by crunchybiscuits on September 23, 2024 11:10

The Milgram experiment has revealed the true human nature, in which it suggests how anyone is able to become the perpetrator of inflicting pain on others. The experiment itself is set in a very common establishment, and even when there is no sense of fear in a person's demeanor, the experiment concludes that 50 percent of the people were willing to cause violence. Given that there was persistence of rules “forced” (rules the person chose to listen to, the experimenter did not explicitly have control over the teacher) upon the teacher, the pressure to follow them, even being conscious of their actions, is incredibly great. The human nature of satisfaction, especially through the validation of other humans is incredibly normal, and conducts many discoveries through inquisition and brainstorming. However, the potential of feeling validated by a deemed higher being is so great, and this experiment proves the exact same. The notion that it is not our problem that someone else is failing is also a big theme that is picked up through the experiment. Once people know things can be done without feeling remorse, such as the experimenter insisting that the other person was not being harmed, or the fate of the others was the responsibility of the university, people see themselves as part of the bigger picture.

In addition, the Milgram experiment does in fact explain the reason why ordinary people commit heinous crimes. Mirroring the experiment to real life, people who were the catalysts of wars, did not personally attack innocent people, but used their influences to dictate if violence was going to be inflicted to others. A great example is the U.S soldiers during the Vietnam War, in which U.S. soldiers were driven with the fact that they were being controlled by America, the land of free and peace. Many soldiers used this ideology, and also mixed with the influence of their corrupt leaders to inflict great war crimes on innocent Vietnamese people. The willingness of this is also explained by the lack of knowledge on the things that they are attacking. Coming back to America, they were only able to realize their actions, when faced with the separation of bigger authoritative protection. The public, having only social power, all attacked the system, protesting the rights of these veterans. Slowly after years, veterans of the Vietnamese War started to speak up, condone the violence that happened to the victims of this war. This phenomenon is also incredibly widespread in genocide, where the validation of higher ups causes moral dissonance among the soldiers fighting for cultural cleansing.

By having a leader, people are more willing to create pain, because if someone is also as influential and wise as their leader approves of something, it is immediately correct. Even when people doubt their leaders, with pressure from within and the fear of being outcasted, many force themselves to see the pros of their situation, and force themselves to become against their own morality. The continuity suggests how this is woven into history, in all types of degrees and human nature continues its cycle.

The most compelling idea in crunchybiscuit’s post is that anyone can become a perpetrator of violence simply because it is human nature to want to feel validated by an authority or superior figure. While this is an amazing point for other examples like doing what a parent or teacher tells you to do, I don’t agree with it in this context. I don’t think that the experimenter doesn’t give the teacher praise or validation for shocking the learner, the teacher is just in a stressful and confusing situation and is relying on the experimenter for instructions on what to do. I think that humans mainly seek validation from people that we respect, and that in the specific example of the Milgram experiment, there was no obvious reason for the teacher to respect the experimenter he doesn’t know or know anything about. However, in other examples like a charming leader whose subjects have a lot of respect for them, this point is mostly valid, but the magnitude of needing an authority figures validation differs from person to person. Therefore there is no guarantee that anyone is able to become a perpetrator of violence simply because they seek validation from another person.

Originally posted by Lebron on September 25, 2024 09:25

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

Hello! I just wanted to start off by telling you that this was written incredibly well. I thought that all of your takes were very valid, and you showed adequate understanding with your in-depth insight. While reading, I noticed how you didn't just answer the questions, but you also challenged the experiment, when you stated how the experiment would look if there were variables within the groups. I like that although you were able to challenge the experiment, you also were able to add on with your analysis. Specifically, tying it back to other things we discussed in class validated your own thinking, but also the message of the actual experiment. Additionally, you mentioned some really good connections this experiment made with real life, and initially while writing my own reflection, I couldn’t think of any specific examples, but now, I am able to understand my own opinions about it even more greatly! We had very similar ideas, and I agree with all your statements. Specifically, the one about how people with a greater sense of when or where to bring forth their morals tend to disobey. I think in society, this happens a lot, when people who follow bad ideas tend to do it just for the sake of fitting in. But, anyways, I really enjoyed reading yours!

Originally posted by pinkpenguin on September 24, 2024 18:36

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

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

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

I actually agree with pinkpenguin’s post that even though Milgram’s experiment did prove that anyone could become subject to inflict pain on others, we still need to question the methods he used to come to that conclusion, and if they were effective and not detrimental to the actual results of the data. I think it’s really important that we talk about the ethics of the Milgram’s experiment too. Experimenting on people like this obviously isn’t very ethical and could have caused further damage to an already messed up mental state.

I think I would disagree with pinkpenguin’s post when they said that the natural inclination of humans is ultimately to protect. After discussing with teachers like Mr. Sullivan, I learned that the natural human inclination is to survive. Now there are different manners in which humans take to survive. For one, they could create groups and tribes within each other, and these groups usually end up having a hierarchy system where they must be obedient to thrive as a group. Sometimes that obedience may lead to them attacking other groups too. Therefore, I don’t completely believe that humans have this natural goodness to them. We are more of just trying to survive, and back in our primal days obedience equaled survival.

Originally posted by frozencoffee127 on September 24, 2024 08:40

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

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

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

Hello, frozencoffee127,

I agree with your main idea that people follow authority because of how they perceive it, and that everyone can become a perpetrator by following authority because of how the authority figure may seem more knowledgeable and powerful. People are inclined to follow orders if they believe that disobedience leads to punishment, even if the orders go against their morals or ethics. I can also see how disobeying authority can cause more harm than good by inducing dissonance in those who obey. I also agree that people cling to authority because they feel powerless and lost without it. I’d say that people feel more involved in society when they associate themselves with a person or group with power and influence because they indirectly associate themselves with such power and influence. However, I believe that you could talk more about how other people are affected by groups and the members of those groups, how people shape the way authority figures are portrayed, and how people lose control of themselves when put under the pressure of authority. You could also explain how the Milgram experiments fail to explain certain aspects of authority that you included in your reflection. Otherwise, I enjoyed reading your reflection and I hope to learn more.

Originally posted by Estalir on September 24, 2024 20:40

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

Hey, I really liked what you wrote and felt like it was almost similar to what I agree and wrote. I think the most compelling idea in your post in my opinion was the first quote. “Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence.” This quote stuck with me throughout reading your post. I thought this quote was very true because it talks about how everyone has it in them to be an abuser. This shows a lot about society and the obedience that it takes to listen to someone and hurt someone intentionally. I thought that the idea was interesting because it takes a lot for someone to intentionally inflict violence onto another human. I like the idea that you brought up about once people start to follow a leader, they are automatically put into a group that follows that same person. I think we can see this with modern day examples like politics. For example, if you are openly republican, people assume that you are a Trump supporter, same goes vice versa with being a democratic and being a Joe Biden supporter. I really also agree with what you said about how people with high self esteem have no reason to be following mass movements since they don't get any validation from joining or not. People with high self esteem don’t really need someone or a community to know that they are right. It leads me to believe that people who have less self esteem join these groups to have a community to lean on and to have these set rules to live by in order to feel right within themselves.

Originally posted by Estalir on September 24, 2024 20:40

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

Hi! I really liked what you said and I wrote something similar to this. I thought that the most compelling idea in your post in my opinion was the first quote. “Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence.” This quote stuck with me throughout reading your post. I thought this quote was very true because it talks about how everyone has it in them to be an abuser. This shows a lot about society and the obedience that it takes to listen to someone and hurt someone intentionally. I thought that the idea was interesting because it takes a lot for someone to intentionally inflict violence onto another human. I like the idea that you brought up about once people start to follow a leader, they are automatically put into a group that follows that same person. I think we can see this with modern day examples like politics. For example, if you are openly republican, people assume that you are a Trump supporter, same goes vice versa with being a democratic and being a Joe Biden supporter. I really also agree with what you said about how people with high self esteem have no reason to be following mass movements since they don't get any validation from joining or not. People with high self esteem don’t really need someone or a community to know that they are right. It leads me to believe that people who have less self esteem join these groups to have a community to lean on and to have these set rules to live by in order to feel right within themselves.

Originally posted by haven3 on September 23, 2024 19:50

Similar to the cognitive dissonance theory, everyone wants to believe that they are a good person so when we learn about these psychological factors that make people do horrible things or things that do not align with who they are we like to think so highly of ourselves that we would never be like them. However in actuality most everyone in certain situations will do horrible things because of the way our brains work. It is a horrible thing to think about because everyone wants to believe that when it comes down to it, they would be the outlier but there can only be so many outliers. The Milgram experiment suggests that humans' desire to not be an outcast can force them into submission of a seen authority figure. Because the authority figure is seen as a leader humans will fear the potential exclusion from the group that the authority figure is a leader of and will obey them.

This innate desire to be a part of a group because of the safety that it provides is a factor that can impact someone’s ability to harm another person and it stretches further than just when there is an authority figure present. People will act in a violent manner in a group because they might fear the violence of the masses being turned on them if they stand out or they get sweeped up in the masses, becoming a hive mind unintentionally. Similarly a large factor of people committing violence to others is the rate of escalation. If someone came up to you and gave you a gun and told you to shoot someone, chances are you won’t because you have a moral conscience. However if someone gave you a gun and then asked you to go to a protest of a cause you somewhat believe in you might go, and at that protest if on of the opposition gets slightly injured and the people around you see it as a victory, then you go to another rally and the same thing happens, maybe you're also a little happy because the people around you were and no one really got hurt, but at the third the fighting escalates and someone tries to attack you it is much easier to pull the trigger.

Although there are many pieces of human psychology that can affect humans ability to harm others, we must keep in mind that those are solely factors. Just because psychology can explain how people commit atrocities doesn’t mean we are all doomed to do horrible things to others if, as the Milgram experiments suggest, if an authority figure tells you to. You still have free will and can choose to disobey, can choose to not be a part of the hivemind, or any of these other psychological factors determine how you will be forever.

Hi haven3,

First I want to preface by saying that I wasn’t originally assigned to you, and Ms. Bowles and I already had a conversation about my response so I hope that clears up any confusion you or the person that was assigned to you might have.

Your response was great, very thoughtful and thoroughly written. I liked how you immediately related the experiment to the cognitive dissonance theory and contrasted how most people would like to think that they would be an outlier in a situation that calls them to go against bad behavior. Many people have fallen victim to this belief and the connection you made to how this is illustrated in the Milgram experiment explained the concept concisely.

In my response I also mentioned the ostracization that people might feel when they don’t conform to the large majority and how it is one of the driving factors behind Mob Mentality. I like how you included your own conclusion that escalation is another factor in violence that can be committed by humans, I found that really interesting. To add to this idea of escalation as a factor I think someone’s flight or fight response contributes to how they react in an overwhelming or violent environment. Your example of bringing a gun to the protest was a creative way to describe this phenomenon.

In this class we talk a lot about human psychology and how it affects our behaviors, and I think that this can sometimes change the way we think of ourselves and maybe make us overthink who we are. After learning and reading about such a difficult topic your last paragraph that you write brings me back to earth and I like how it reminds all of us that just because some of these things explain behaviors of mass movement doesn’t mean we are all subject to it and still have the ability to make our own decisions. This was such a wonderful piece of writing, amazing job!!

- bnw88

Originally posted by #1FacingStudent on September 24, 2024 21:13

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

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

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

Quote and Reply

The first line of this response, which said that everyone has the potential to be violent towards others, struck me. While I don’t like how this theory makes me feel, I have to admit that the Milgram experiment supports it. I think this is especially true when people are instructed to be violent and there is either a reward or punishment to go with this instruction, as pointed out later in the response. However, since in the Milgram experiment there were no serious rewards or punishments for following instructions, it becomes easier to disobey the experimenter. But, obviously, most still obeyed the experimenter’s instruction. The decision comes down to depend on the teacher’s sense of self and autonomy. The stronger it is, the more likely the teacher is to disobey the experimenter. This is a point that both this response and I brought up. However, the post also brought up points I had never thought of before. The point that hate is the most accessible emotion and that we tend to unite based on our hate and seek rivals based on our love is one I had never thought of before, but upon reflection totally agree with. While I agree, I don’t quite see how it relates to the Milgram experiment.

The words of sociologist Zygmunt Bauman are extremely relevant when discussing human behavior relating to violence. Bauman exposes the harsh reality that the potential for any given individual to become a perpetrator of an act of brutality such as the Holocaust is not an unreasonable fear. The troubling aspects of human nature are exemplified by the Milgram experiments, conducted in the 1960’s, as they provide crucial insight into both the conscious and subconscious motives that possess humans to take part in such atrocities.

The Milgram experiments revealed the unsettling truth that a large number of participants were willing to administer what they believed to be a painful shock to another human being simply because an authority figure told them to do so. While one might think that they could never do such a thing, it is important to note the situational factors that may have led “teachers” to believe that what they were doing wasn’t as bad as it actually was. The presence of an authority figure, the scientific environment, and the fact that the authority figure was taking responsibility for everything all had a huge contribution on the moral conscience of the teacher. This tells us that the willingness to commit violence does not always come down to an individual's moral compass, but also in the broader context of human behavior. This leads me to believe that there is a major difference between willingly inflicting violence on someone when there are factors taking the guilt and responsibility off of you compared to when there is not. In the documentary, we see one of the “teachers” going forward in inflicting pain on a “learner” when he was told that he was not responsible for anything. While that is not an excuse to hurt another human, it can lighten someone's conscience.

Not every participant in Milgram’s experiments blindly followed authority, raising the question of what traits allowed those individuals to stand up against unethical authority. As a young person, I strongly believe that one becomes much more comfortable standing up to authority as they age and gain life experience. The power dynamic between a teenager and an adult is extremely different from the power dynamic between one adult to another. Some traits that I think contribute to one being “disobedient” are having a strong sense of self and critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills allow one to question why they are doing something and what is stopping them from staying true to themself. In Romm’s literary criticism of the Milgram experiments, she brought up the point that many of the “teachers” who went all the way to 450 volts did not do it willingly. This stresses the idea that no one actually wanted to go that far, but the only participants willing to stop were the ones with a strong sense of self, who were confident in their moral compass.

In conclusion, I think there is no excuse for the atrocities that have been caused by humans in the past, but I do think that humans can be easily deceived by social factors. These factors can make us justify our actions and genuinely believe that we have no responsibility in an act of violence, or that we were required to do it. In reality, there are very few situations where any act of violence is required or validated.

Originally posted by SharkBait on September 23, 2024 21:19

As proven by the Milgram experiment, other replicating studies, and historical atrocities, everyone holds the ability to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Whether or not they consciously decide to do so serves as the larger question; in some cases, people enjoy the harm of others, but the Milgram experiment proves that perpetrators harm others not because they want to but because they are ordered to do so. Additionally, when others do not feel solely responsible for the harm of others, they tend to harm others more, given that it’s not entirely their fault, and or there is no consequence. In Joshua Barajas’s “How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind,” Patrick Haggard, in reference to the Nazi soldiers’ diffusion of responsibility during the Holocaust, states “In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused.” This quote, in particular, gives us insight into the reasoning behind the obedience theory and how experiments like the Milgram experiment are so essential in figuring out different perspectives of mass atrocities and how we can change as humans. While the Milgram experiment accounts for the behavioral aspect of perpetrators in mass atrocities, it fails to account for other personal aspects of individual lives that may influence obedience. In the case of Nazi Germany, it’s interesting to note that many German citizens and Nazi soldiers were threatened if they did not obey. Additionally, cultural differences also play a huge role in whether or not someone may harm another person; while in no way do these differences excuse the actions of the Nazis, they may have found it easier to harm the Jewish population due to the fact that they had some significant cultural, and even physical, differences. Differences in culture, society, morals, physical appearance and background create a distance between people which plays a role in an individual’s willingness to harm another person; the Milgram experiment explored ideas of physical and emotional distance, which affected the teacher’s willingness to harm the learner. Distance is significant to note when analyzing studies like the Milgram experiment, which found that hearing someone in pain may cause someone to feel more sympathy towards the victim but in most cases, since the perpetrator could not see or touch the victim. The Milgram experiment, and studies alike, help to provide researchers with evidence and reasoning behind multiple mass atrocities that have occurred throughout history. While it is difficult to realize society’s ills, experiments like these are important in determining what influences mass atrocities, crimes, and everyday actions of obedience. In addition to learning about the reasoning behind the actions of perpetrators, we can also learn how to prevent issues from occurring in the future, and how we can move forward as a society of individuals with individual thoughts. I believe that reframing our mindset of obedience can help to prevent further genocides like the Holocaust, and even less extreme punishments that happen in our everyday lives. By emphasizing the importance of the individual and the humaneness of groups of people, rather than strictly numericizing them, our society as a whole can prevent mass atrocities from occurring and reframe our mindset surrounding the need to obey authority simply because of traditional normatives.

I thought it was very interesting that you related the variables shown in the Milgram experiment directly to Nazi Germany, and pointed out what was not the same in the two. I agreed with the idea that the obedience theory was present in Nazi Germany, but I don’t know if I agree with the idea that people generally enjoy causing others harm, unless they are sadistic. I also partially agree with the idea that experiments like the Milgram experiment can help prevent mass atrocities, because they definitely help raise awareness, but I don’t know if they actually help prevent mass atrocities from occurring in the long run. On a lot of posts, the same idea that harm to others is inevitable when we are obeying authority is present, but not everyone agrees on the extent to which this impacts how often, or how much, we are willing to harm others. I do agree that recognizing every person as a human being could potentially help limit mass atrocities, but the reality of human nature is that this is unlikely. However, I do agree that emphasizing the importance of individuality is a good step toward making positive changes in society. I suggest that you do not write out the whole title of what they are referencing, but rather use the author’s name to give them credit. It was just very blocky, and made the post harder to read. I wish that towards the beginning, when making the statement about different personal aspects that change our perceptions of one another, you would have gone into more depth into more examples of this. The last sentence tied up the argument nicely, and was very eloquently written. I also really liked that you did relate the documentary and the reading to Nazi Germany and the relations between the experiment and the real life mass genocide.

Originally posted by VelveteenRabbit on September 24, 2024 20:05

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

I like the fact that you bring the reader’s attention to the experiments’ lack of an in or out group, I hadn’t really thought of that! This very well could have caused some sort of connection between the teacher and learner in that they shared various aspects of their identity. I agree with your statement that there was a stark and noticeable difference between the learner and the teacher and a Nazi and their victim(s) in such an atrocity as the Holocaust, this could prompt some questioning of the experiment in whether or not it truly showed a parallel to the emotions shown by the latter. There were absolutely circumstances that were not touched upon by Milgram, like the gradual escalation of German hatred towards Jewish people by Hitler brought on by propaganda and speeches, or the fact that Jewish people at the time had already been seen and recognized as a minority. I can’t think of too much you could do to improve your post, other than that some parts of the post only repeated points you had already made, and didn’t really expand upon them. Other than that, I almost wholeheartedly agree with the claims you make!