learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by anonymous on September 25, 2024 16:58

I do think that experiments like Milgram's provide a good explanation for participation in violence. In general people follow the masses or who’s in power. When it comes to situations like these a common saying is that there is power in numbers. If enough people are following one person or are joined under one cause it attracts more people because they may feel as though by not being with the mass they are doing something wrong. The idea of blindly following authority takes away from the personal responsibility of any negatives that may follow your actions or the actions of the people around; It allows you to just brush it off. Think back to Milgram's experiment, the person giving the shocks felt guilty, but didn’t take responsibility. Instead he blamed it on the instructor. At the end of the day, the choice was his. The person could’ve chosen to stop at any moment and stood on it, yet he didn’t and passed the responsibility to the next person.

Hello Anonymous,

I agree with your ideas here and I find them interesting. One part I strong agree with is when you mentioned how people follow both the masses and whoever is in power. I found it interesting how you brought up the “power in numbers” here because I often hear that phrase but I think this is a great situation where we can apply it. Also, I think it is a very true and important point that you brought up when you mentioned how people feel they are doing something wrong by not joining in with the mass movements. I find this to be baffling because someone who is typically a good person and has good morals can throw all that away when they feel like they are an outcast. I think it is wild how it is human nature to hate being on the outs, to such an extent that we would willingly do something wrong to avoid this. An example I can think of here is with the Holocasut. During the trials, some Nazi’s claimed they did not agree with the hatred being spread at first but once they realized everyone was agreeing with Hitler, they felt like they had to and they convinced themselves they did agree with these awfult things. In my piece I also mentioned how people are willing to do more when they find they have no responsibility in their actions, which is explained by what you said, “to just brush it off”.

Originally posted by shark11 on September 24, 2024 21:25

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, because at the end of the day we care about ourselves. While there are certainly some incredibly selfless individuals, when faced with the risk of losing a job in a low-income household or the fear of personal harm, most people will comply with authority. Now does that make you selfish, or an awful person since you are inflicting pain on others? I believe that this question is definitely situational, because as I said there are many cases where the person who commits an act of violence only does so because they are protecting themselves from potential harm. This idea was also noted in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most infamous experiments when Miller states “In the minds of a lot of people, it tends to excuse bad behavior … it’s not the person’s fault for doing the bad thing, it’s the situation they were put in.” Just because someone acts badly, doesn’t mean they're a bad person as long as they still have remorse; however, it is hard to confirm that as an answer and not as a mere excuse. However, it is a different story if you are complicit in an environment where you have complete free will. For example, the Milgram experiment. I understand going on with the shocks a few times after hearing the learners yell, but after multiple pain filled screeches it is obvious that the person getting shocked is in severe pain. In one case he was even knocked unconscious and they continued the shocking. Luckily it was a planned experiment, but if it wasn’t one option was that the learner could’ve been dead and continued getting shocked. I think it is completely immoral to continue such an act, because the people in charge of shocking were all appeared to be at least somewhat educated and adult men who could have stood us up for themselves, and the learner. Although this is a smaller scale experiment, it is definitely related to actual atrocities and genocides, because sometimes you don’t realize what you’re getting yourself into. None of those men even thought that the experiment they signed up for included possibly killing someone, but it ended up being just that. Once you start an experiment, it is easy to fall under the pressure or get brainwashed, and continue on because you don’t know what else to do. Besides feeling pressured, it is also possible to get an adrenaline rush from obtaining so much power, like an addiction. Feeling secure and in control is something that is really hard to let go of, and can sometimes blind people's perception of right from wrong. In the end, whether it be fear or consequences, persuasion, pressure, or just gaining a liking to inflicting pain, I think it would be nearly impossible to train a human being to completely disobey authority during an unethical situation. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a bad person because some leaders are very manipulative and can hide their destruction until it's too late, making it very hard for the person to notice the faults in their actions. However, it doesn’t mean their actions are always excused either. All in all, it is also impossible to create a morality chart that is agreed on throughout the world, or even a country, so a lot of these questions will remain unanswered theories.

Hi shark11!

I really enjoyed reading your response!

I think you isolate one of the most important conflicts in how we view the Milgram Experiment and conformity to authority really well: everyone who was participating had the option to refuse to cooperate, as I think the majority of us would agree they eventually ethically ought to, yet experience and studies show us it is almost impossible not to succumb to the pressure of authority. The question of responsibility becomes very difficult because many actions induced by blindly following authority are morally condemnable, yet we are also bound by our human nature and tendency to comply, which begs the question of the extent of our free will.

I additionally think the idea that anyone can become an instrument of violence because we are fundamentally selfish is a really thought-provoking point, and it makes me wonder, why would self-interest dictate following authority in these circumstances? Social psychology certainly offers a few answers, such as cognitive dissonance or the primal need to become the “in” group, and I think astrali_ makes some great points about obedience theory and how the displacement of responsibility can create a sense of security in the self-concept. It certainly takes strength to stand up to authority, although I agree the teachers should stop shocking the learners when their pain became evident. It would be really interesting to expand more on how selfishness plays into social experiments and historical atrocities and the reasons why humans might tend towards self-preservation.

Originally posted by bnw88 on September 22, 2024 15:36

After watching the video on the Milgrim experiment I do think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence but that this is heavily dependent on cognitive dissonance and sense of self. The stronger one's own view of themselves is as “good” the less likely they are to perform an act of violence as this would greatly contrast with their self image and conflict with their morality. The Milgram experiment suggests that humans are extremely susceptible to figures of authority. For example Nazi commanders and higher ups justified their cruelty by blaming their actions on “just following orders” as stated in the article titled How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind. Perpetrators feel a sense of disconnect when their actions are based on the orders of others, even if they are the ones carrying out these actions. Our willingness as humans to inflict pain on others has a lot to do with our compliant and complacent behavior. Even if an authority figure isn’t directly communicating with a subject, it is human nature to obey whoever they perceive to be incharge. This experiment explains a possible motive as to why authoritative governments are also able to obtain large followings, such as the Nazi regime. Our desire to want to be a part of a group and not be the odd one out (mob mentality) plays into the obedience theory. The more people following a leader even if that leader is corrupt will make others more susceptible to joining due to fear of being socially (or physically) persecuted.

Milgram’s experiment does help to explain ordinary people’s activity participation in violence but other factors like propaganda, fear, coercion, and moral desensitization also play a huge role. The Nazi’s for example instilled propaganda in their citizens, desensitized them to certain forms of violence against Jewish people, and made many fearful for their lives. Using these tactics the Nazi government was able to get people to blindly follow and disregard all other aspects of what they were doing. Without these contributing factors many people would not have become an accessory to genocide and destruction.

Some important factors that led some “teachers” to disobey the experimenter's orders was possibly moral conviction and a strong sense of self. Usually those who are more willing to go against the norm will have disobeyed the order to continue to shock the “learner”. Attempting to create a society that values and encourages traits of those who will disobey unethical authority figures would be very difficult. People desire the majority over anything, individuality can be very difficult to accept in today's society. It would be nice for everyone to feel comfortable questioning authority without feeling ostracized, but I do believe that there is some danger that comes with this. If everyone is rebelling and questioning authority, how do you create unity, especially within a country? Everyone's opinions on who they believe is an unethical leader are different, there is no one person that everyone will fully support and we can see this issue occurring in modern day US history with the election.

Great Work! I agree with this idea that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. I Liked how you focused on the good side of people's judgement and sense of self in the final paragraph, I believe it is interesting to think about what goes through people's heads when they disobey orders like that compared to conforming to the experimenter's orders. I also like how you described the idea of having a society where everyone feels comfortable questioning authority without feeling ostracized. This makes me imagine what our everyday lives would be like if this was the societal norm. It makes me wonder if life would be better or worse. Everything in this post is clear and thoughtful, And I think it would be beneficial for people to put more thought into their decision making throughout their day. Even just stopping and asking themselves if they are making decisions based on their own beliefs and not other people's, This could benefit our society in a major way if this were the case. Awesome work!

Originally posted by astrali_ on September 24, 2024 12:45

I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others under the right conditions, shown through the Milgram experiment, however, I also believe that the Milgram experiment only explains ordinary people’s willingness to participate in active violence to a certain extent. I think this is because of missing factors that could also cause people to be obedient under an authority figure such as fear or bribery of some sort. Also, another reason to commit atrocities other than being obedient to an authority would be the feeling of “power” a person has knowing that they can determine another person’s fate.

In Milgram’s experiment, many people went through with the experiment, choosing to go all the way to 450 volts. Shown in the documentary, there were many who were hesitant to do so, but others also went through with the experiment “gleefully.” For those who were hesitant, they probably had a weaker stance on their own morals and were unsure where they stood, making them more susceptible to being forced to commit atrocities with obedience. Alongside this, according to the Obedience Theory, people with a weaker mentality or who are unsure about what to do in a situation tend to listen to those who are more “charismatic,” “credible,” and/or confident. They are often under the impression that “this person knows what they’re doing” even if it isn’t exactly correct.

However, also shown in the experiment, people are willing to commit atrocities as long as the responsibility isn’t placed on them, and rather on the authority figures. In Cari Romm’s article, she calls this “reduced responsibility.” This idea of reduced responsibility is shown in the Nuremberg trials following the Holocaust when Adolf Eichmann tries to defend himself by saying he was “following orders.” In this sense, perpetrators somehow feel as though they are excused from their actions because they didn’t intentionally commit the actions, and they ignore the idea of impact over intent because in the end, millions of innocent people still died.

Another aspect I find interesting about obedience to authority is the emotional disconnect between the perpetrator and the victim. Humans are social creatures and, therefore, create connections through bonding and getting to know each other personally. Through these connections, humans are better able to discern how the people they know react to and feel about things through empathy since it’s easier for many to do so with people they know rather than people they don’t. Through this reasoning, it’s less difficult for people to inflict pain onto others they don’t know, which in the case of the Holocaust the perpetrators most likely had no connections to the victims, rather people they do know because they don’t fully comprehend the victims’ feelings on a personal level. This is even seen in today’s society when people talk badly about others without knowing their story or their reasoning.

For the factors I think are missing from the Milgram experiment, I believe they are just as important as the factors shown in the documentary. Starting with fear as a factor of obedience, this is shown in the Holocaust where any person who would aid Jewish people would receive the death penalty, whether they were a citizen or a soldier. Of course, not many are willing to risk their life to help others, since many people are naturally inclined to look after themselves. Although they did not outwardly or directly commit atrocities during the Holocaust, they were still listening in obedience to an authority figure due to the fear of death and/or punishment.

Another factor that I believe is missing from the Milgram experiment is the “higher power” that people experience when being able to inflict harm on others. Though this depends on the circumstances, people are more willing to inflict pain on others when in a situation where they are also subjected to an authority figure or are told to carry on a specific task or role. In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards quickly became tyrannical due to the realization of the power they held with no repercussions. Being able to tell people what to do gives the person in power the impression that they are free to do whatever they please since there is no higher authority figure to give them orders or punishment. In the Holocaust, due to being subjected to a higher authority figure, but also because of fear, the perpetrators felt “helpless” in that sense and most likely wanted to take out this feeling on the victims in concentration camps in order to feel as though they still have some sort of power.

Hi astrali_,

The part of this response that stood out to me most was the idea that people like the feeling of having power. I also agree that this is a big factor that was left out. In the Milgram experiment, I’m sure the teachers felt a sense of relief when being assigned their role rather than having the role of the learner - firstly because they wouldn’t have to be harmed in any way, but also because they gain a sense of authority and power and feel like they are of a higher status. In your post, you mentioned how Adolf Eichmann felt forced to comply which is something I also wrote about, however you made a point that I really liked and hadn’t thought about. It was the idea of impact over intent, because no matter your intent, the impact of your actions will always be more prevalent and it will be what people see and judge. It’s also important to think about all possible consequences of your actions no matter what you want to happen, which is something that Eichmann wouldn’t be able to argue with. The last thing that I also agreed with was how unsure people are more willing to obey someone seen as charismatic or credible. I think when people doubt themselves, they’d rather listen to someone else, no matter how wrong they might be, so that they won’t be the ones held responsible. Overall, I think this was a really strong response and you made a lot of connections that I didn’t see the first time. There was nothing I disagreed with and you did a great job!!

Originally posted by shesfromouterspace on September 23, 2024 21:02

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against another. Human’s desperately crave, even if for a moment, a chance to portray a certain level of dominance. This feeling may be unconscious, but each of us have our own events in life, like being bullied or robbed, that made us feel inferior. When given the opportunity to blame someone for the actions that a person takes to hurt another, humans will use this as a way to let out desires and atone for being so weak in the past. In “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” by Maria Korrinkova, one quote, “When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are” illustrates another point for why humans are capable of such horrific actions. If we are not to blame- because being called out for a bad action will invoke humiliation- then doing everything in our power to hurt another person seems okay. Even in a position of authority, if there is someone on a higher level, they will receive the brunt of the opposition's critics while we continue to do whatever we want. The reason for this, maybe frustration, anger, or fear of being violated ourselves. At the end of the day we’ll continue these acts until called out.

The Milgram experiment explains how ordinary people participate in mass atrocities because we easily conform to minimizing the impact we have on others. The best example of this is dehumanization. When someone is dehumanized, we start to create unrealistic expectations for them, like how the teachers in the Milgram experiment continued to give high voltage shocks and assumed that the learner was still willing to go on. Other factors contributing to people's willingness to inflict pain on others can be having a strong group leader, like Adolf Hitler, or the normalization of violence within a person’s community.

Not every situation has the teacher in the Milgram experiment going along with what the scientist says. Sometimes, the teacher has a strong sense of self and knows that they are in charge of what they are doing. This means that they can distinguish between what they are doing versus what they are being told to do, therefore making them more likely to not follow through with what is being told of them. They do not see the scientist as an authority figure, and they see the learner for what they are, someone being hurt for the pleasure of others. On a broader scale, I think societies can teach people how to defend themselves against unruly authority figures. The key is to educate people on how to check themselves and the power another has. Did they earn the position they are in? Are they purposely hurting others for self profit? Discouraging personal gain and promoting caring about others' well -being, morals, empathy, and courage to speak out against the majority is the key to creating less teachers who finish the experiment and more teachers who stand up for the learner.

Hi shesfromouterspace!

After reading your post, I would say that our views are pretty similar. We both agree that everyone has the ability to become the perpetrator of violence in a situation, but I liked how you added the fact that other factors, like being bullied or robbed, as another explanation other than doing harm for the sake of obedience. Your point shows how there isn’t just one singular reason why people do bad things to others, whether they do it subconsciously or not. I also think that the piece you added about blame was really interesting, because while we agreed about reduced responsibility and how that affects people’s decision making, explaining that people are more likely to follow through with violence against a group because they themselves wouldn’t be receiving criticism for it added another layer to this conversation about obedience. Lastly, the point about having a strong sense of self is really important in this context, because while a lot of people, for whatever reason, might fall subject to obedience, the idea that there are also people that go against this notion puts the Milgram Experiment to question. It makes us think about whether or not we can generalize his experiment and apply it to the entire population. Overall, I thought your reflection was very well thought out and an insightful read.

Originally posted by bear00 on September 24, 2024 20:04

I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others through many circumstances in their lives. The Milgram experiments portray the aspects of people's behavior through their constant willingness to ignore others' suffering and listen to their leader. It describes the idea that leaders can use people as pawns for their unrighteous acts, Such as Hitler leading the Nazis. In the Article How Nazi’s defense of “just following orders” plays out in the mind, written by Joshua Barajas, a senior editor for PBS News in 2016, states how people saw their actions in the Milgram experiments as “passive movements rather than fully voluntary actions” while following orders. These ideas directly correlate to Hitler and his rule due to the fact that many soldiers felt disconnected from their actions as a result of taking orders, as mentioned in the article.

The experiments show the impact of group dynamics and social pressures that have been placed on human behavior. As the teachers were told to keep going and that all liabilities would be on the experimenter, the normalization of this behavior created a sense of shared responsibility that diminished individual accountability. This suggests that when individuals are placed in situations where they see others complying with harmful actions, or they know there isn’t any responsibility on them, they may feel compelled to keep going to avoid standing out or being perceived as disobedient.

Another aspect illustrated by the experiments is the role of being in compliance with harmful actions. The controlled environment of the lab created a physical and mental distance between the participants and the suffering of the learner. By making it so the teacher could not see the person and their emotions, participants could detach emotionally from their actions, making it easier for them to rationalize their behavior as part of an experiment rather than a personal choice. This detachment connects to the example of Adolf Hitler and his actions. He tries to justify these harmful actions to his allies by detaching them from the Jewish people. Putting them in Gas chambers where you cannot see or hear them being tortured. Hitler's army and allies were physically and emotionally detached from them, making it easier for them to justify their actions. This proves that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence as long as there is a limiting factor that helps the perpetrator justify themselves.

In addition to authority, physical and mental factors, and social pressures, the Milgram experiments highlight the significance of cognitive dissonance in justifying harmful behavior. Participants often experienced a conflict between their moral beliefs and the actions they were being asked to perform, causing discomfort. To resolve this dissonance, many people shift their perceptions, convincing themselves that their role was important for science or that the learner was less hurt than he seemed. This psychological warfare allowed them to rationalize their participation in the creation of pain, emphasizing how individuals can distort their understanding of morality to align with their actions. The findings suggest that when people are placed in high-pressure situations where they must choose between their beliefs and compliance, they may prioritize compliance, further revealing that any one person can become a perpetrator of violence against their peers.

One of the most compelling ideas in this post is how those who followed harmful leaders in mass movements didn’t see thei cooperation as voluntary but rather passive with small steps. I agree with this idea because most people do not realize they are being used and lied to until too late and by that time they usually have no choice but to keep doing what they’re doing because of the fear of being outcasted. This idea is interesting though because in hindsight we can see how even from the beginning the danger of the movements but that’s because we know how the movement ends. I’m sure if many people knew what they were getting into when they joined such a movement, they wouldn’t have joined at all. However, the people in the current time did not have this hindsight so it’s interesting to see how they viewed their actions after they acknowledged the damage it has done.

I agree with all the thoughts on this post and especially the idea that anyone could become a perpetrator of violence. In the Milgram experiment there is nothing really keeping the teachers there and forcing them to press the buttons except the commands and yet they still become perpetrators of violence even though they have the consciousness and the power to stop it. This is with no propaganda or persuasion or fear in the equation either so once that is added it simply shows how easy it is for people to be manipulated during such times

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.

First I’d like to start off by saying I really enjoyed the irony behind the point you made about the vietnam war. America promotes itself as the land of the free and peace, so why did the soldiers feel an obligation to enact violence? I agree with the idea that we empower leaders and look to them for judgment. We as humans are always subconsciously seeking validation from others. No matter how sure we claim we are in ourselves, we still seek it.