learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by blank.image on September 24, 2024 09:43

Are normal people like you and me capable of acting violently on others? That is one of the questions the Milgram experiment sought to answer. Judging based on what I saw, I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others when there’s enough pressure on them from a higher power. The Milgram experiment suggests that even if we do have a high sense of self-esteem (you believe you can’t do anything wrong) rather than low self esteem (you believe you may do everything wrong) we can still be vulnerable to the influence of someone powerful and convincing enough. I do think that the Milgram experiment explains some reasons why people give in to violence and atrocities alike but I feel like it doesn’t cover it all. I understood from the video that we watched that if you separate the perpetrator from the victim and put them under constant surveillance and pressure to carry out the wrongful acts, they’ll probably carry them out. This becomes even more effective when the higher power makes attempts to reduce the dissonance of the perpetrator themself by saying things like “whatever happens is on me, not you”. Even if the higher power doesn’t give them that reassurance, the perpetrator may do it themself thinking that they’re just following orders so it’s not their fault. That is something that we can actually see with the perpetrators in the Holocaust. Many of them didn’t want to say it was their own doing that took innocent lives so instead they pointed fingers at Hitler to reduce their dissonance. I feel like I would’ve wanted to see other factors brought in, like switching the gender of the perpetrator, making the victim visible, making the higher power a robot voice instead of a human one, etc. to be able to make a better conclusion. I feel like not wanting to be outcast can also contribute to being willing to inflict pain on others. An example of this can be a person helping their friends bully someone because they don’t want to be left out of the friend group. I think the people that stopped listening to the experimenters had a stronger sense of judgment in a way. I don’t want to question the morals of the other people in the experiment but I do feel like if a person is screaming out for help and you don’t start to question and ignore what the experimenter is saying there’s something a little off. I could maybe understand if you’re afraid to speak out because you fear for your life but in the experiment there was no sort of threat made to the teacher. I feel like we can attempt to create societies that value disobedience towards others but I feel like the fear of getting outcasted or harmed for speaking out can easily steer people away from that goal.

Blank.image, I found most compelling in your writing that I didn’t see a lot, was the idea of how people agreed to do harm, so that they wouldn't feel like an outcast, and how you brought up a similar idea with how bullying starts. I really like your point that people wanted to feel a part of the “ingroup” and your use example us highschool students can relate to really exemplifies this. This point you've brought up is super fascinating because it's something that's overlooked as I’ve also noticed in other posts like my own, iris_crane, snr25, and yours that we link the people who refused to continue shocking the “learner” had strong morals and a “greater” personality or spirit compared to the people who continued to shock the “learner”. We all seem to agree that a big factor in the obedience of a person relates to a person as an individual but we also linked the obedience of the “teacher” based on personality rather than a cause to the obedience wanting to fit in and that potential fear could be another scenario. Overall, I love your ideas but next time you could maybe expand more on some things you were saying. For example I wish you would elaborate more on what bringing other factors like using a robotic voice would do for the experiment and also on what ways to create a society that values disobedience, and the possible repercussions of that type of society.

Originally posted by iadnosdoyb on September 24, 2024 21:32

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

The point of personal bonding, with people you are related to having more control over you, I agree with on some points, however, I feel that you would be more likely to do something your boss said, out of fear of losing your job. We see time and time again, workers being told to do immoral activities to profit the company and comply out of fear of losing their position. The power family members or close friends hold over you comes out of respect and love, however, with bosses or dictators, it comes from fear, which I feel is far more powerful. In certain movements, a charismatic leader could adopt a similar role of a family member, such as Mao Zeodong and Stalin being “fathers”. I agree that ultimately complacency stems from feeling of inadequacy, you don't trust yourself enough to know better so you default to someone you place above you. With bosses, to remove dissonance people might argue that their unethical work is normal, or not bad, and with dictators, the dissonance is removed with fear, and prioritizing yourself over others. I feel that while it does boil down to character, even the strongest-willed people may fall victim to charisma or fear and that your “willingness” stems from these beliefs. In the end, I agree with your point, that not all people are doomed to commit horrible acts, like you said, many dissenters in history, such as MLK, or Gandhi, are renowned for their bravery in standing against the status quo. However, while some people place their families above everything else, I feel that fear generally is a stronger force for human actions.

Originally posted by aldoushuxley on September 23, 2024 09:38

I do not believe that everyone has the ability to inflict harm on a person but I do think it is incredibly rare to find a person who won't. The experiment suggests that anyone is capable of harming others, but especially if they are told to do so. Barajas, discusses humans' lack of responsibility when told to do something, in "How the Nazi’s Defence of Just Following Order” Plays Out in the Mind,” which also insinuates that humans feel they can sort of turn off their better judgment when someone else is telling them to do something. They proved this by monitoring how brain activity fluctuates after being given a command. They found that a person's brain activity is dampened when someone else gives them an order. I do not think that this explains why humans do what they do because there are so many factors and these people committing atrocities are not doing so in a controlled environment. They sometimes have peers, awareness of the situation, and freewill, all of which should affect their choices. Of course your natural reaction to being told to do something is to comply but it also matters what kind of person you are. Someone with a weak sense of self is looking for validation so complying is in their own best self interests. Someone who is confident and maybe has an inflated ego might question what gives the authority the right to tell them what to do. Specifically in the Milgram experiment, the teacher that disobeyed had strong morals and responsibility, and refused to go along with something because he knew no matter the situation it was wrong. The ones that went along with it, fed into their cognitive dissonance, and justified their actions with multiple excuses. Order in a society is dependent on following rules but too many rules takes away freedom and too few leads to extreme disorder. What gives society a balance depends on the freewill of the people in that society. Someone's right to choose isn't something our government can take away. People choose for themself whether obeying or disobeying is more beneficial to them and depending on the result those behaviors are rewarded or punished. I think that our society will always lean more towards conformity because of the environment that everyone is raised in. It tends to reward obedience and crush individuality and rebellion. In order to create a society that encourages disobedience of unethical authority figures you would have to put an extreme amount of effort into changing people who already lean towards obedience, and people likely wouldn't be open to that idea either. If by some miracle we did then society would possibly suffer. The military is an example of bad vs good authority and obedience. In some cases the authority is ethical and making decisions to the best of their ability to protect the greater good but they also could be making harmful decisions and that's why it's important that someone knows they have the choice to disobey authority in their own best interests.

I absolutely agree with the fact that one of the leading factors that allow people to be more easily influenced or pushed into following the rules or decisions of another definitely has its roots in the person's own sense of self and how they view themselves. How for example the teacher who did go along with the experiment to the max was someone who was, although clearly worried, was not able to act on his own decisions or ideals. Comparing him to the teacher who did indeed stop the experiment, the second teacher however gave off the body language of someone who clearly had no idea what to do or say within the situation other than reluctantly following the researcher’s demands and rules. I like how you also brought up the idea of us as people are raised as rule listeners, to be obedient and listen to the person with the highest authority. Whether that be your parents, teachers, or someone who you view highly. A certain problem that I could see with the idea of putting an extreme amount of effort to change how people think, and you have mentioned it, is the fact that many people rather live in their usual social norm of what is to be expected and followed of them rather than change if it allows them to still be connected to the society around them, lest they be casted as an outcast or shunned.

Originally posted by iris_crane on September 24, 2024 09:36

I believe that anyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others themselves, however it depends on their morals and sense of self and justice to see whether they are willing to act on that potential to hurt others. The Milgram experiment itself suggests that it is rooted in human behavior to violence, which I do believe. Humans themselves are very sociable creatures, leaning on a group to help further their survival, and willing to do anything to keep themselves from harm or susceptible exclusion from that group regardless if it means hurting another. When there is a leader of a social group, they are the person who dictates the arms and legs of the party with everyone following along. This kind of authoritative power allows those who follow it two different ways and or perspectives to follow. Follow along to reduce the chance of being hurt yourself for disobeying the masses, but also follow along so that you yourself cannot be solely blamed on your own actions. And if the action that they are doing is violent, and everyone else is doing it, what is stopping a person from doing it if they are not going to be the one held responsible for their actions. It allows for the morals that hold a regular person back from violence to be pushed aside for the reason and excuse that they are not held accountable and that they are only doing what the person in power is telling them to. Allowing that more or so primal instinct of violence to emerge without consequences.

I think experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. Displaying the power that someone sitting at an authoritative position could directly affect people and change their views, dampening their dissonance for following the orders of someone else, regardless if it had hurt someone. However this kind of power is also not just the only factor that comes into play. Factors such as the idea that the other party might be from a faction that you have indescribable hatred towards, or whether it is someone of similar background and descent, or even the beliefs or age would cause a different outcome than what the Milgram experiment showed. If the learner had been someone whose views directly opposed the teachers, such as with the political state of America now, Democratic or Republican. There would be a higher chance that the opposing party would be more keen to shock and hurt the other party rather than their own.

The different kinds of factors and personalities often create different possibilities in which the teacher might have disobeyed the commands to continue to shock the learner. One being able to not fold under the pressure of authority, or one empathetic enough to sympathize with the “hurt” student. “The ability to disobey toxic orders, Hollander said, is a skill that can be taught like any other—all a person needs to learn is what to say and how to say it”, is what Matthew Hollanders says in Cari Romm’s article. They know what they are doing is wrong however, with many of the participants either nervous or anxious at the pleas and cries of help coming from the student. I do not think that we can create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures as there will always be a group of people supporting said head of authority, just as it is if there is a society full of people supporting that unethical head of authority, there will always be people who disobey it.

This is such an interesting response! I found interesting your point in the first paragraph about how anyone has the potential to hurt others, but it depends on their sense of self and their morals. This connects to what we learned in class about cognitive dissonance, that people with low self-esteem are more likely to do "bad" things than people with high self-esteem. If I hadn't watched the clips from "The Wave" today, I would have disagreed with you that anyone could cause harm to another, but now I am thoroughly spooked and slightly pessimistic. I noticed that after watching the first 30 minutes of the movie, even I was hyped up about the class and the teacher, and I thought I would never fall for something like that. This makes me understand way better how easily it is for people to fall into a "mob mentality," and for that I agree with you totally. I also agree with you that other factors such as background or opinions would impact the experiment, as I had not thought about that before, great observation. When it comes to the mechanics of your essay, I liked how you divided each topic and connected each idea to each other, and your points were easy to follow and connected to everything we've discussed in class. I enjoyed reading this!

Originally posted by Nonchalant Dreadhead on September 20, 2024 19:15

I believe anyone could become a perpetrator, but if your morals are strong and you are sure of yourself, you wouldn't be a perpetrator of violence. The Milgram experiment strengthens this because the main reason as to why the people inflicted pain was because they were told. I believe that mostly everyone would never want to actually harm someone, but if they do not have established and strong morals for a while, they are easy targets to manipulate. Since they are already someone that doesn't have a high self confidence and strong sense of self, they already tend to easily be influenced by others around them, like we talked about in past topics. Since they can already be influenced by others, if a person tells them to do harm to someone else, especially since they are an authority figure, they may hesitate, but they will still do it. The Milgram experiment also shows how impactful an authority figure can be, being the person that someone else can depend on, and blame if something goes wrong. In the experiment, you can see some people willingly harm someone for an experiment just because an authority told them so. Sometimes human nature is listening to orders, even if you do not one hundred percent agree with what they are telling you. Since the instructor told the person to shock the other, and harm him, and he continued to do it, even if he felt bad, that still shows that people are capable of harming another if told. At the end of the experiment, it also showed that if someone can place the blame on another, they are more likely to do worse acts, since blaming the person takes it off of their conscience. Even though the person felt really bad, he still kept on repeating that I was told to do so, and I wanted to stop, yet did not actually stop or do something about it. I believed that he did not have high enough self confidence to be able to not let others tell him around, because he was capable of doing what he did, but that also does not necessarily mean he is a bad person, or he wants to harm another. Zygmunt Bauman speaking on the Holocaust, saying that “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” This relates a lot to the experiment because even that man did not believe he could confer that much pain to another, yet he did and did not stop himself. Nazi’s during the Holocaust most likley did not believe beforehand that they wanted to harm others, but because Hitler slowly brainwashed them into believing that they could do it to Jews, they thought it was ok, and continued to kill countless. Even when some were on trial, they always tried to blame Hitler and say it was just orders, like many people, always trying to blame another for their actions.

I agree with a lot of the points this user brought up. I think that there is definitely a correlation between self esteem and the willingness to follow orders from a perceived figure of authority. It takes a certain amount of belief and faith, in oneself in order to stand up against a figure of authority on behalf of your own moral compass or ideas. This also connects to the idea that people with higher self esteem experience more cognitive dissonance, since, if someone has more potential for dissonance they would be less likely to perform an act that would cause dissonance, even if instructed by an authority figure. This post also made a point about how useful a figure of authority can be in curtailing someone's cognitive dissonance. When people can blame their own unethical actions on a greater power who was ‘forcing’ them to perform these acts, they are far more likely to go through with the action no matter what it is. The user connected this to how in the milgram experiment, one of the subjects who went to using the full shock tried to justify his actions by telling the experimenter that he was ‘forced’ to do so. It is also interesting how this user connected this fact to the trials of high ranking Nazi generals who would blame their heinous acts on the fact that they were ‘forced’ to perform them.

Originally posted by username on September 22, 2024 20:36

As shown in the Milgram experiment, everyone has the tendency to commit violence under the right circumstances, especially someone in a position of leadership ordering someone to commit violence and the person following committing it. The results of the Milgram experiment show how anyone can commit violence when being told to, and even more when being told to under the pressure of things like stress or fear. It suggests that people are very susceptible to making wrong decisions when they feel they are going against what they are told to do or what is the norm at the time. Following orders especially can encourage violence as it allows others to shift the blame as they experience “their actions more as “passive movements than fully voluntary actions” when they follow orders.” (Barajas, 1). It seems that people tend to have their dissonance tell them they are often unable to fight back against a leader or that they are infallible if it is not their idea, allowing them to remove themselves of any guilt they may feel when they do something bad at the hands of someone else. I feel that Milgram’s experiment can explain how some people committed the atrocities, although it does not explain how one can first think to do atrocities without any leader present or why some people did so unhesitantly and committed them even more cruelly than they were ordered to. Other factors that can cause people to commit atrocities can be to associate someone with a bad deed or be made to believe that that person is your enemy. Maybe if the Milgram experiment was taken where the “learner” was portrayed as a Russian, the United States’s greatest enemy in 1961, the year the experiment was performed, or a criminal, the results would lean to even more people committing harm. This could explain why many Nazis committed the atrocities so eagerly - because they were made to believe that the Jewish people were bad people and their enemy. Some important factors on whether one commits the atrocities can depend on whether you have a strong or weak sense of self. If the “teacher” has a strong sense of self, they may believe in their own expertise over the “experimenter” and be more likely to stop shocking the “learner”. I believe that we should encourage people to think for themselves so they are not susceptible to authority figures telling them to do wrong. While it is hard to fully encourage this as there are various life moments that can impact one’s personality and ability to disobey, I think that it is important that we encourage others to look inward on how they may react in situations like this so that they use their best judgment for what they are told to do by a leader. Those who have a strong sense of self are typically those who fight back against atrocities being committed and are more likely to lead movements against the unjust leaderships that commit atrocities so we should strive to have a strong sense of self and have a clearly defined set of morals.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by Nonchalant Dreadhead on September 20, 2024 19:15

I believe anyone could become a perpetrator, but if your morals are strong and you are sure of yourself, you wouldn't be a perpetrator of violence. The Milgram experiment strengthens this because the main reason as to why the people inflicted pain was because they were told. I believe that mostly everyone would never want to actually harm someone, but if they do not have established and strong morals for a while, they are easy targets to manipulate. Since they are already someone that doesn't have a high self confidence and strong sense of self, they already tend to easily be influenced by others around them, like we talked about in past topics. Since they can already be influenced by others, if a person tells them to do harm to someone else, especially since they are an authority figure, they may hesitate, but they will still do it. The Milgram experiment also shows how impactful an authority figure can be, being the person that someone else can depend on, and blame if something goes wrong. In the experiment, you can see some people willingly harm someone for an experiment just because an authority told them so. Sometimes human nature is listening to orders, even if you do not one hundred percent agree with what they are telling you. Since the instructor told the person to shock the other, and harm him, and he continued to do it, even if he felt bad, that still shows that people are capable of harming another if told. At the end of the experiment, it also showed that if someone can place the blame on another, they are more likely to do worse acts, since blaming the person takes it off of their conscience. Even though the person felt really bad, he still kept on repeating that I was told to do so, and I wanted to stop, yet did not actually stop or do something about it. I believed that he did not have high enough self confidence to be able to not let others tell him around, because he was capable of doing what he did, but that also does not necessarily mean he is a bad person, or he wants to harm another. Zygmunt Bauman speaking on the Holocaust, saying that “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” This relates a lot to the experiment because even that man did not believe he could confer that much pain to another, yet he did and did not stop himself. Nazi’s during the Holocaust most likley did not believe beforehand that they wanted to harm others, but because Hitler slowly brainwashed them into believing that they could do it to Jews, they thought it was ok, and continued to kill countless. Even when some were on trial, they always tried to blame Hitler and say it was just orders, like many people, always trying to blame another for their actions.

I thought that Nonchalant Dreadhead’s idea that the learner shifting the blame from themselves onto the authority, especially if they have a low self-esteem, was very compelling. I completely agree that people have a tendency of doing this as we saw both in the Milgram experiments and in our lesson about cognitive dissonance. I even mention something similar in my own response. I also like how this person brought their idea back to the Holocaust and how former Nazi’s blamed their actions on just following orders. I think that most of us have heard this before, but it also helps us understand why other mass movements and atrocities occur. One thing that I think this person would find interesting is that in the article I read it said that when someone is ordered to do something that would harm others or go against their morals, their brain functions slow, as if they are trying to literally be as unconscious of their actions as possible. Overall I really liked their ideas and thought they did a good job explaining them, but there is one thing I think they could potentially expand on. They mention “sometimes human nature is listening to orders, even if you do not one hundred percent agree with what they are telling you” and I think they could explain how and why they think it is part of human nature to listen to orders.

Originally posted by bookshelf on September 24, 2024 17:30

Everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, wether they are being commanded to, or are the one being commanded. This was seen in the Milgram experiment, as the figure of Authority was commanding college students to administer electric shocks. Both were harming another person, and both of them have the option of blaming the harm on someone else. The person administering the shocks can blame the harm caused on the authority figure, and the authority figure can do the opposite. In a 2016 reflection of the Holocaust, Joshua Barajas explained this by saying “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” (Barajas). This explains why ordinary people were able to become perpetrators of violence- becoming Nazis. If the blame can be shifted onto another person, people are far more likely to carry out an action that they typically wouldn't do. Because of this, Milgram’s experiments actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. The way that Jewish people were predominantly killed in the Holocaust upholds this idea. The vast majority of Holocaust victims were killed in gas chambers at concentration camps. These chambers were sealed on all sides, never allowing any Nazi to see the victims die. According to the Milgram experiments, the Nazis not being able to see their victims suffer contributed to their role in genocide.

However, other factors come into play, all of which eliminate the divide between the person administering and receiving electric shocks. In one experiment where the “learner”, receiving the shocks was visible and present in the room, the percentage of people who administered all possible shocks severely decreased. The percentage of people willing to fully electrocute the “learner” went from 65% to 30%. The opportunity to see and empathize with the learners allowed for more autonomy in the participants. Beside the blind following of authority, prejudices and biases that dehumanize a victim contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others. Social darwinism, which claimed that black people were less “evolved” than white people, was widely used to justify systemic oppression of black people globally.

Societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures would allow for higher accountability in governance. The people in a democracy need a voice and power in order to make change. A truly good politician would not have protesters arrested outside of their rally, however would arrest any that were being violent or hateful. This explains the importance of checks and balances in a society, something that lacked severely in Nazi Germany. However, this concept is reliant on the feelings and perceptions of the masses, which can be unreliable. Since the Nazis hated the Jewish people, they might disobey an authority figure that they saw as “unethical”, that was actually advocating for the oppressed. A balance must be found in democracy where there is both order and freedom. The rise of Fascism led to the death of millions of Jewish, disabled, Romani, and LGBTQ people. That can not be safer than Anarchy.

I agree with the concept of emotional and cognitive disconnect that occurs when someone can avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions by blaming an authoritarian figure and reasoning that their actions were not a reflection of their beliefs. This is particularly interesting because it directly fits in with major historical events and large-scale atrocities that were perpetrated not only by major leaders but also blind followers. It brings into the conversation the difference between obedient acts of harm and intentful acts of harm. Is one worse than the other or are they both equally awful? Additionally, the point brought up about the ways in which Nazi’s would not be able to see their victims die in the gas chambers, further supports this concept of an intentional disconnect to reduce emotional and cognitive dissonance that comes as a result of their actions. The point on historic social darwinism was also a good demonstration of how humans justify things such the creation of a cross-oceanic slave trade and abysmal treatment of others based on the idea that lesser than. I agree with the stress of checks and balances of the government to create a better society with a greater capacity for civilian input. Bookshelf’s reflection is really good, and I agree with the concepts brought up. However, I believe that some further development on some ideas would be beneficial and make the reflection feel a bit more fleshed out, additionally there were some grammatical and spelling errors.

Originally posted by redpanda on September 24, 2024 09:24

A person can deem themselves an all around “good person” but anyone can find themselves to be a perpetrator of violence against others under several different circumstances. Despite one's morals, I think there’s always going to be something that pushes one to become a perpetrator of violence. As the Milgram experiment portrayed, a person can go to great lengths under an authoritative figure. Humans are so inclined to listen to an authority figure because we were born that way, through following orders from one’s parents, or listening to instructions from a teacher, to following directions from law enforcement. Humans are constantly being instructed, ordered, or led. The feeling of cooperating can often feel rewarding, knowing that you’re doing something right, but also people do not want to face the consequences of disobeying authority.

I think the Milgram experiment is a perfect explanation of ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. Many people did not want to disobey the Nazi Party for fear they’d be killed, and the Nazi Party claimed they would alleviate all of Germany’s problems regarding the economy and political instability, so the German people were so willing to accept these ideas, despite the ridiculous propaganda being spread. More factors that come into play is that the “teachers” were more inclined to obey when the “learner” wasn’t in the room. This creates this dissonance for the teachers because they can’t actually see the learner who is experiencing pain so the lack of guilt becomes more present. If the “teachers” watched the “learners” squirm with pain, there would probably be a greater chance of hesitation, but “teachers” might convince themselves to continue by holding more responsibility to the authority, and almost blame the experimenters for instructing the “teachers” to inflict harm upon the “learners”. Ultimately it’s this idea of not taking accountability for one’s actions, or finding ways to justify one’s actions under pressure, which again is cognitive dissonance. Also by giving the “teachers” this power and control, it might give a person more confidence, and help with one’s self-esteem.

What I found extremely interesting was in the “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” reading by Maria Korrinkova, where the author points out “the ease with which regular people, if given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors”. It is so fascinating how people can just flip the script and become “tyrants” as soon as they are slightly pushed into a position of power. It’s just the sad reality that people can just forget about their morals, or are willing to harm others because of the ego boost they get.

Of course we should endorse and attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures but the biggest problem with that is that many are scared of being different and a lot conform to the mainstream ideas of society despite what they truly believe. We have discussed this idea in class as well, where people try so hard to fit in with society that they just drop their own opinions and beliefs. It is also since change is such a difficult thing that people are so quick to reject anything remotely new. The danger in creating societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures is that it promotes this concept that people should retaliate more, and eventually this could evolve into not just disobeying unethical authority figures, but authority figures in general. As a result, this act of defiance can get extremely out of hand and corruption and disorder would likely follow.

Amazing response, Red Panda! I think the part I definitely agree with is that the Teachers in the experiment had an easier time inflicting pain on the Learners because they weren't present in the room. While I understand why it would be easier to inflict such pain, I am also left with a lot of disdain for how we as humans are hard-wired. It's a bittersweet feeling, knowing you're hurting someone, but saving face rather than taking the liberty to leave the "in-group" and seem like a rebel. Something I also mentioned in my response was how much the Teachers would pass on their guilt and culpability onto the Experimenters. Our thoughts were actually quite similar, as I also chalked this feeling down to cognitive dissonance. I also like the way you analyzed the Stanford Prison Experiment, and explained more of the quote and how it personally felt to you -- I think that's what Facing is all about. As we learn our history, we are able to "turn the script back" (to quote a genius!), and analyze how we as humans are flawed. It allows for sympathy but also self-reflection and growth. Overall, super great analysis!

Originally posted by username on September 22, 2024 20:36

As shown in the Milgram experiment, everyone has the tendency to commit violence under the right circumstances, especially someone in a position of leadership ordering someone to commit violence and the person following committing it. The results of the Milgram experiment show how anyone can commit violence when being told to, and even more when being told to under the pressure of things like stress or fear. It suggests that people are very susceptible to making wrong decisions when they feel they are going against what they are told to do or what is the norm at the time. Following orders especially can encourage violence as it allows others to shift the blame as they experience “their actions more as “passive movements than fully voluntary actions” when they follow orders.” (Barajas, 1). It seems that people tend to have their dissonance tell them they are often unable to fight back against a leader or that they are infallible if it is not their idea, allowing them to remove themselves of any guilt they may feel when they do something bad at the hands of someone else. I feel that Milgram’s experiment can explain how some people committed the atrocities, although it does not explain how one can first think to do atrocities without any leader present or why some people did so unhesitantly and committed them even more cruelly than they were ordered to. Other factors that can cause people to commit atrocities can be to associate someone with a bad deed or be made to believe that that person is your enemy. Maybe if the Milgram experiment was taken where the “learner” was portrayed as a Russian, the United States’s greatest enemy in 1961, the year the experiment was performed, or a criminal, the results would lean to even more people committing harm. This could explain why many Nazis committed the atrocities so eagerly - because they were made to believe that the Jewish people were bad people and their enemy. Some important factors on whether one commits the atrocities can depend on whether you have a strong or weak sense of self. If the “teacher” has a strong sense of self, they may believe in their own expertise over the “experimenter” and be more likely to stop shocking the “learner”. I believe that we should encourage people to think for themselves so they are not susceptible to authority figures telling them to do wrong. While it is hard to fully encourage this as there are various life moments that can impact one’s personality and ability to disobey, I think that it is important that we encourage others to look inward on how they may react in situations like this so that they use their best judgment for what they are told to do by a leader. Those who have a strong sense of self are typically those who fight back against atrocities being committed and are more likely to lead movements against the unjust leaderships that commit atrocities so we should strive to have a strong sense of self and have a clearly defined set of morals.

I agree with your focus on the importance of having a strong sense of self. I agree that those with a clear moral compass are more likely to resist harmful commands, due to them experiencing more dissonance when having to follow through with these actions. You see examples of this all the time throughout history where leaders give people a skewed idea of who the enemy is in order to manipulate the masses. It's like the quote we talked about in class of mass movements not needing a god but needing a devil. Ta-Nihisi Coates talks about this in one of his books about language and how it can help with following through with atrocities. Back during the slavery times, they couldnt just call the people they were dehumanzing and terrorizing people, or men and women, or by name so they came up with slurs and all types of other things to make them less than human. It's easier to beat a racial slur than it is to beat a man. This same concept comes up in your piece in a broader way and I found that to be something that stuck out to me the most.

Originally posted by rose on September 24, 2024 08:56

After watching and reading about the milgram experiments I believe that under the right circumstances , or wrong in this case, the majority of people can be pressured into doing bad things. The experiment showed how someones rational and moral compass can be altered by an authoritative figure. I think that Milgram's experiment provides insight as to why mass atrocities and genocides occur. There is a difference in saying that you are a violent person and you have the ability to inflict violence. When a person is told, encouraged or forced to commit a violent act there is a diffusion of responsibility that takes place in order to protect their conscience and decrease dissonance. For example during the holocaust the people who were tasked with turning on the gas chambers to murder people, would then blame their commanders for the deaths because they were just doing their job. If there is a person who tells you to carry out an act of violence persistently people will eventually crack under pressure. When you add additional layers to this pressure, like the threat of violence if you do not follow through, or exclusion from the group it is almost guaranteed to work. I think that this also connects back to Social conformity theory which states that most people are willing to forego what they know is right to fit in with the majority.

I think that the artificial environment that Milgram's experiment created is not the best one to determine for sure given the many variables that are at play. The “teachers” who disobeyed the “experimenter” show clear signs of being a dissenter. The ones that resisted have a strong sense of self identity. They believe strongly in what is right and what is wrong and they respect their morals too much to be swayed. As a society we should encourage people to have a strong sense of self. Personally I think the way things are set up for children now does not accomplish this. Children are told to obey without question. In school we have to sit, file in single lines, talk when told, etc. Instead of encouraging children to be curious and different we punish them for stepping out of line, and oftentimes punish them for asking why. I think as a society we should reflect on how we instill behavior into people from a young age.

I like that you highlighted the impact of peer pressure to do something a certain way. Many people have their own views of how to do things, but when questioned about it so openly the person tends to hesitate. It is especially common in people who have lower self-esteem as they can not convince themselves that what they think is right in some sense. Instead, they succumb to the influence of another person and change their ideals to validate the beliefs of another person. Because they were urged to change themselves, people chose to blame the “enforcer” and avoid taking accountability for anything they did. However, I think the Milgram experiment did gather helpful information because it made people choose for themselves, but it was lacking in certain parts when it came to the exact details. It was a one on one battle against the “experiemnter” rather than having the pressure of a large group. There will always be some people who will stick to their word, but the conditions of the experiment did enforce more realistic options, such as a prize fund at the end of the project. It is likely that some needed the money to support their family and were willing to achieve it by any means necessary, utilizing the bystander effect to justify their means. Decisions like this influence younger generations as they look up to their family members and consider their choices to be the right way in life. Too often in our youth are we taught to prioritize solely ourselves and not consider how we can thrive as one group; we need to have the validation of various social experiences become the norm and learn from them.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit on September 24, 2024 21:08

Some factors or personality traits that could have contributed to some ‘teachers’ disobeying the experimenters are a strong sense of self or moral compass. While we can attempt to create a society that values these traits and the ability to disobey unethical figures of authority, a lot of problems arise from that seemingly simple idea. The main problem is how we handle differences of opinion on what makes an authority figure ‘unethical’. For example, imagine someone steals food from a grocery store to feed themself since they have no means of making money, however, they are caught and asked to give back the food. While some people would argue that this authority figure is unethical because they force this person, who was only trying to feed themself, to give back the food, on the other hand, many would argue that this authority figure is in fact ethical since the person should know better than to steal. This gets even more complicated when factoring in the personal biases and experiences these groups of people may have. As an example, the group that advocates against the person stealing may make the claim that they should instead get a job, they may assume the person to be lazy or even self-destructive. This would pose a great problem in a society that incentivises the ability to disobey ‘unethical’ authority figures since we don’t have universal rules on what makes an authority figure unjust, and, even if we have general guidelines, they would be easily abandoned given the right circumstances.

Even though there are some people who are far less likely to follow authority no matter what, I do think that anyone could have the potential to be coerced into hurting another person. Many people who generally would be opposed to hurting people could very easily resolve their cognitive dissonance if they were told to do so by a figure of authority. According to Joshua Barajas in his article ‘How Nazi's Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind’, “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas, 1). The involvement of authority allows people to resolve their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that they had no choice in the matter and that the authority figure is really the one to blame. This could be even further compounded if the person who is being coerced believes that something horrible will happen to them or someone they love if they do not follow orders. If a person feels threatened by the figure of authority they would be far more likely to commit an act of violence against another person as a way of protecting themself or someone they have a deeper emotional connection to. This further allows them to resolve their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that they were performing these acts to protect themselves or someone else they love.

Post your response here.

I really enjoyed and agreed with your post and the most compelling part to me was the scenario to strengthen your idea. I wrote about something similar about how people actually can disobey authority if they have a strong moral compass. I also agree that society tries to value these traits, yet many people do not have it as well as implement it in real life situations. It is a big problem when we do not know what makes an authority figure “unethical”. A lot of times, personal bias plays a role in situations that are very complicated on what type of punishment is appropriate, like the scenario you gave. The person did steal the food because they were hungry, but that doesn't take away the fact that they stole. It makes it very complicated on what to do in those types of situations because many times people either go too harsh or do nothing at all. But a lot of times when people go too hard, I feel like people will accept it because the decision was made by an authority figure, even if it was not right. I personally think that in this situation the person should be punished, but not too hard and also be given the help they need.I also do think most people can have the potential to harm another person, but I do disagree a little and think that there are some out there that actually would never do it, since they have a strong sense of self.

Originally posted by orangemindss on September 24, 2024 10:30

I believe that everyone does have the potential to commit to violence on other people. It is not solely based on how they feel about people though. It can stem from a multitude of things: trauma, peer pressure, anger, sadness, and much more. Many of the actions people play out can vary depending on the circumstance, but the Milgram experiment highlights what pressure can lead a person to do. They will attempt to excuse their motives by blaming another person involved, especially when it is in a group setting. Our instincts as humans are to look for ways to make ourselves feel better about what we do, even if that means gas-lighting another person to prioritize ourselves. We believe ourselves to be the victims prior to others; a selfish conscience that can place others in harm’s way. As concluded from the theory regarding the bystander effect, where a person chooses to deflect the responsibility onto someone else to save themselves. It is a selfish method of basic “fight or flight” that can unconsciously bring harm to others in the process, as physically highlighted in the Milgram experiment. Although the experiment was exaggerated in certain details, it still provided the viewers with a clear understanding of what would happen if things like this were real. For some critics, however, it was “difficult to ascertain whether participants are really deceived or not in such situations” as they deemed there was not enough realistic proof to make the experiment accurate. It should still be noted of how the people did react in the situations, whether they believed it to be fake or not. Reasons for them recognizing the fabricated details of the experiment should not be the focus, but rather how much they chose to value another human being’s life in the scenario. Some that recognized the misleading information still had a strong response to defending the alleged victim, which was the “learner.” These good sumeritans were able to place themselves in the role of the “learner” and treated them like a person with feelings, not just a ragdoll that they could profit from. Others in the experiment allowed their conscience to be tainted by the person enforcing the rules, verifying how people will often seek alidation from another source to provide themselves with comfort in their decisions, as noted by the man who continued until the end of the “shock treatment.” He continued to deflect his reasons for continuing, but it became evident that he did so to not be judged or shunned by the rule enforcer, convincing himself that the person on the other side would be fine or that the worst had already happened.

I admire how you talked about other factors that may play a role in how people could commit to violence on other people. I hadn’t actually thought about all of those different things like trauma, anger, and how that would tie into their decision making process. I really just thought of that controlled situation and I didn’t take into account the individual’s own experience. I agree with how the Milgram experiment shows that people will blame another person involved, likely the authoritative figure, because as I mentioned in my post, humans were born with being instructed. Ever since birth we have been led, listening to our parents, our teachers, the government and the laws placed, etc. I would say however, I don’t believe that the actions of the “teachers” were a selfish method of “fight or flight”, they weren’t really in much threat or danger which needed them to act quick on their feet and “fight” or flee. They had a good amount of control within the situation and decided themselves that by continuing to shock the person, they would be doing good by obeying the “experimenter”. I think you should elaborate on why the “good samaritans” chose to disobey the authoritative figure, aside from placing themselves in the position of the “learner”, what other factors could have played into this. A part that I really enjoyed reading was when you said “not just a ragdoll that they could profit from”, this was a line that really stood out and stuck with me.

Originally posted by Pistachio on September 24, 2024 07:24

The Milgram experiment revealed that many people don’t care about hurting people as an action, but rather the feeling of guilt from hurting others, the idea that you were connected and responsible for another’s pain. Ordinary people are willing to do the most vilest things as long as they personally feel like they are not the one who wants the pain to befall the person. The teacher during one of the experiments, showed the teacher saying that they wanted to stop, but after a little pressure from the instructor and the instructor stating that he will “take all responsibility”, immediately, the teacher continued the shocks. The Milgram experiment demonstrated that although people do feel remorse for shocking the learner, they often will continue to do so if they insert this idea in their mind that they have no choice in the decision, that they are just a cog in a machine. They feel disconnected from the pain they inflict, hence making them more able to do so. This reflects the ideas and findings in “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, in which individuals doing heinous acts felt disconnected from the harm of the actions if it were done under a commander’s orders. He said it makes people feel less responsible for their actions, no matter how damaging so much so to the point that when acting under orders, brain activity is reduced, insinuating that there is less thinking involved in the person performing the action, hence less guilt. The only time a teacher stopped from shocking the learner more, had nothing to do with external factors, as the experiment was a replica of the ones where the teacher continued to shock, but had more to do with the strength of the individual. The man that stopped shocking the individual did not give into the demands of necessity, he did not view the person of authority as the one in power. He was conscious of the fact that he was the one truly in control, the one who pushed the button, and he had such a strong sense of self and morals that he refused to pass that threshold even if it was someone else making him do it. He refused to make any excuses or shift the blame, and in his mind he would take 100% accountability for his actions. Creating a society in which this sort of thinking and mental strength is prevalent is very difficult and would require people to be brought up in environments that complement self thought without the fear of what other people think. However, with humans being social creatures, how the world built its education system to have its students regurgitate what they are taught, and how parents teach their children what they believe is right all contribute to the extreme difficulty of this feat. Additionally, if people are raised to think for themselves and trust their own instincts over the words of others 100%, then often no one would be able to agree and everyone would stay rigid to their own opinions. It would create a non cohesive society.

I feel like the most interesting part of this post is the part where you say that having a community filled with strong minded individuals who are unwilling to bend to the opinions of authority of others would lead to a dysfunctional society. I completely agree with you. I feel like while the idea of having the majority of people not act like “cogs in a machine” seems nice on the surface there would be the issue that you brought up of nobody listening to each other. In order to maintain some order there has to be some sort of authority figure to make sure things don’t go off the rails. Apart from that I also like how you stressed the fact that people are more likely to do horrible things to others if they’ve been convinced by themselves or someone else that what they’re doing is not their fault. I feel like most people would like to view themselves and their morals as pretty decent. The Milgram experiment did an excellent job of displaying that dissonance felt when we do something that isn’t right and goes against our morals. I think this was a great post and you did an amazing job at explaining your thoughts.