Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
The Milgram Experiement and Obedience
Compliance towards authority is not the sole reason that genocides occur. There are a multitude of factors that impact them, and cause these strings of violence. However, authority still has a large impact on individuals. As discussed in the article “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” Joshua Bajaras mentions how Adolf Eichmann, a Holocaust organizer and low level officer, was “just following orders.” While some may view this as some sort of explanation and justification, there are many other systematic and psychological factors that impact their decision making. Despite being someone in a lower position, Adolf Eichmann still went to great extents to participate in the Holocaust. Ones that mere citizens would not go to. For example, he actively participated in teh Wansee conference, one that heavily encouraged the continuation of the genocide. It is clear that his actions were not done out of fear of obedience, when he went to such great lengths. There are still many psychological matters that we also must take into consideration. When discussing the Stanford Prison Life Experiment, they tested out the difference in people reaching out with Prison versus without prison. They noticed that the initial group had “significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.” This impacts people's willingness to be cruel and violent towards others. Even if the discrimination against Jewish people was not something many of the officers necessarily agreed with, their participation in this was a result of possible psychological factors. We also have to consider things such as the environment people grew up in. Trauma is an extremely impactful thing that can follow people around for the rest of their lives. Grouping up surrounded by things such as violence, hate, and strict protocols can result in individuals mirroring these exact things later on.
People are always everchanging, meaning the way they treat others is also as well. I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. There are still many nuances involved in this. For example, we must consider the situation one person may be in. Sometimes violence is used as a strategy of self defense, and the only option available. Sometimes it is performed professionally, such as activities like boxing. Some things are accidents or playful, like lightly hitting someone when laughing, or accidently smacking someone in the face. At the same time, some people are to some extent forced. For example, in South Korea it is required by the law for men to join the military for a period of time. A lot of the time there is no strong backbone on the coercion of violence. There are still many sectors of the military you can join that don’t involve violence. I believe that it is important to view everything from a bird's eye perspective. To some extent, violence inevitable. Being a part of violence does not automatically make someone a bad or violent person. It is sort of unempathetic to determine your opinion on limited information. That is something you wouldn't want others to do to you. You can never fully understand someone's situation or reason for violence until you're in the same position. However, it is important to say that these things are not always applicable. For example, towards mass genocides or other violent crimes such as murder. The question really is what determines actions as too cruel or inhumane to be justified? That is for individuals to decide.
Brighton, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Even with strong morals and beliefs, people can be easily manipulated by outside factors in order to bring the violence. This was shown in the Milgram experiment where people in power were able to convince others to inflict pain on another person. The experiment showed to what extent humans will go to in order to obey orders. Human behavior is extremely intricate, with the idea that people will betray their morals and values just to follow the rules. An example is seen in the original Milgram experiment shown in class, where the teacher knew what he was doing was wrong, and that he believed the learner was already harmed, but he still followed through on the shocks when asked. The experiments demonstrated that humans' needs to follow instruction are greater than their needs to do good. It also goes along with a person's ease into trust. Again in the Milgram experiment, the teacher blindly followed the instructor's words, even when he had doubts. I believe that this is a deep dive into questioning the real morals of people, as said in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, “Milgram’s early research has come to serve as a kind of all-purpose lightning rod for discussions about the human heart of darkness.”
I think experiments such as Milgrams explain a great amount about ordinary people's active participation in violence, because they show how easy it is for people to follow suit. They took regular people and put them into a situation where they had to choose between sticking to their morals, or following authority, and they chose it. I think following orders has been the easy way out for people, because it is definitely harder to stand up for yourself and other people than it is to stand with the crowd. Other factors that could come into play would be a person's beliefs that are similar to the movement. Some people, sadly, believe that certain groups are lower than others, and think that it is right for them to be punished, or harmed. This was shown in the Holocaust, where it was both the influence of Hitler, and the fact that some people genuinely agreed with him. Another factor could be peer pressure, not by authority, but by other people who are involved.
Some important factors that could have affected the teachers ability to disobey the instructors commands are their past, their experiences, and who they are as a person. For instance, if there were a person who themselves or a family member had been hurt before, and they had to hear them in pain, that could be an immediate no for them, because they know what it's like. Similarly, if someone is a doctor, they would most likely understand the gravity of the situation. These are rare chances, but like these scenarios would most likely be ways to disobey certain orders. Creating a society where many people disobey unethical authority figures would be difficult, because as we can see, the majority of the people in the study obeyed, and it explains how easy it is for people to give in to authority figures' orders. It would also be dangerous, because it could bring about things like riots, mobs, and violence if a large group of people went against someone or something.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on Obedience and the Milgram Experiment
I don’t think that absolutely everybody would necessarily be able to become a perpetrator of violence against others, but a vast majority of people still possess that potential, as evidenced by the results of the Milgram experiment, where 65% of people were willing to administer life-threatening electric shocks. It has become clear that, by the very nature of human beings, individuals are willing to act or think in certain ways because they listened to instructions that were to them by a figure of authority, despite what the subsequent effects may be. Certain factors that may strengthen this tendency also includes the belief that the perpetrator will lack responsibility for their behavior, especially since they act under the pretense that others will suffer the consequences, as well as the fact that people are more willing to listen to harmful commands if they are given incrementally. This was clear in the video of the Milgram experiment, where many “teachers” transitioned slowly from giving mild electric shocks to deadly ones, by their own voluntary initiative, although it could have seriously injured the “student.” Therefore, I think that the Milgram experiments are somewhat accurate reflections of genuine human behaviors, such as in mass atrocities, violence, and genocide. Under authority or charismatic leaders, a normal person could be easily swayed into harming others if such behavior was being authorized or even encouraged. In Joshua Barajas’s article “How Nazi Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” he asserts that “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act,” and that people experience their actions as “‘passive movements than fully voluntary actions’” when they follow orders. This increases the likelihood of them committing highly atrocious acts. In reality during the Holocaust, some individuals even went above and beyond by choosing to act out of personal hatred or material gain without responding to orders. Although some might dissent and refuse to harm someone, the Milgram experiments show reveal a broader scope of how the human mind perceives violence. Besides from blindly following authority, however, some other factors that explain people’s willingness to inflict pain on others include periods of confusion or chaos, in which people are more likely to seek stability and reassurance by following the policies of an authority, and physical or emotional distance. When perpetrators are not in close proximity or emotionally connected with their victim in some way, they are more likely to engage in a rationalization process of self-deception to dehumanize them. It would be much more difficult for someone to harm another human being in such a way if that person were to be their family, friends, or loved ones. Additionally, the Milgram experiments found that “teachers” who had touched the “student” or were in the same room as them, and able to see or hear the “student,” showed increasingly low levels of obedience to the authority, whereas if the “student” was far away, and unable to be perceived, obedience almost reached full levels. When the authority was farther away, the ‘teacher” was less likely to obey.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Obedience and the Milgram Experiment
I believe that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide since it demonstrates how an authority figure and emotional and physical distance play major roles into how a person acts. As seen in the experiment, the teacher, despite knowing that the learner was in pain and thought to have even passed out, continued to administer electric shocks. What this tells us is that an authority figure is able to influence a person’s actions, similar to the Holocaust, where many people followed orders that were extremely inhumane. Having an authority figure to follow not only increases societal pressure to accept the rule, but also makes such actions like violence and genocide easier to commit since a person is able to believe that their actions are their leader’s responsibility. In Milgram’s experiment, we see how the experimenters repeatedly told the teacher that they would take all responsibility if the learner suffered harm, thus making the teacher more likely to continue with the experiment. Although the teacher did feel conflicted on if he should continue the experiment, he still continued when asked to do so by the experimenters. This is reflected in mass atrocities from history, where people will say that they were “just following orders.” Other factors that come into play are societal pressure. When the majority of a population agree to a leader’s rule, most of the outliers agree as well to lessen their dissonance with society. However, some people still refuse to accept a rule, leading to force being applied. During Hitler’s rule in Germany, it was dangerous to not follow Hitler, thus another factor would be force. Back then, it was the norm to follow Hitler, those who didn’t were questioned why they weren’t. Besides the blind following of authority, many people are made to believe that what they are doing isn’t so bad. In Milgram’s experiment, we see the teacher saying “I heard that the shocks weren’t too bad,” trying to justify what he thought he had done. The teacher also says when questioned, “I told him no, but we had to keep going,” however, the teacher was free to leave or stop administering shocks whenever he felt, but he kept on going. In Barajas’ “How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” Barajas explains the “Sense of Agency” everyone has, being “one’s awareness of their actions causing some external outcome.” Barajas explains how in the experiment, the teacher often suggested a reduction of agency. These findings demonstrate that an authority figure often reduces a person’s thinking ability, making them follow orders without fully thinking about what they are doing. In conclusion, when an authority figure is present, there is societal pressure, or lessened responsibility, it makes people more likely to follow orders and commands without fully thinking about the consequences. Most importantly, when people perceive a lessened responsibility when doing actions, they are more likely to act recklessly due to their perceived lack of consequences, in the end, most of those people justify their actions with “I was just following orders.”
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
The Milgram Experiment and Obedience
According to “Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” by Cari Romm “ordinary people, under the direction of an authority figure, would obey just about any order they were given, even to torture.” Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others but that doesn’t classify them as a bad person. In Milgram's experiment, the majority of “teachers” continued to administer shocks to the “learner” until instructed to stop. Although the majority of people complied with the ‘experimenter's’ commands, some disobeyed them and decided to stop the experiment early. I don’t think this makes them better people compared to the people who finished the experiment, it just emphasizes their strong ethical principles and unwillingness to keep going in an unethical situation. Everyone had the power to stop the experiment and walk away whenever they wanted but only some were strong enough to do so. At the end of the experiment, all of the ‘teachers’ were asked why they kept shocking the learner, and what motivated them to do so. When watching the experiment it was clear that the teacher was not comfortable with shocking the learner, they were frequently questioning the experimenter and asking to go check in on the learner. Despite their questionable actions, the people did not administer shocks with evil intentions, they never meant to hurt anyone but they were just being compliant with the rules. They felt as though they needed to obey their superior because the experimenter kept emphasizing the need to keep shocking the learner and complete the experiment. This shows how even though the majority of people decided to obey the order to continue torturing the learner they didn’t do it without doubt.
Milgram hypothesizes that “people’s behavior is determined largely by what’s happening around them. They’re not psychopaths, and they’re not hostile, and they’re not aggressive or deranged. They’re just people, like you and me”. This theory suggests that humans are more likely to obey an authoritative figure in situations like the Milgram experiment. Although the teachers have morals and are physically uncomfortable with shocking the learners, they continue to obey because they feel like they are forced to do this. The ‘teachers’ are being indirectly controlled by the superior figure. I think that the only way for the person to keep obeying the other is if they have some view that the other person is of higher power and is legitimate. They obey this authority figure because they believe that the authority figure will take responsibility for their horrible actions. They keep on going because they have this idea that it isn’t their fault for doing this bad thing, it is the fault of the experimenter because they put them in this situation. By just watching the experiment you might think that these ‘teachers’ are horrible awful people but, in reality, it wasn’t their personality that shaped the behavior but it was the situation they were put in. This theory proves true with other’s participation in violence and mass movements, they think they can just deflect the blame for their actions to their superiors.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
LTQ Post 2: Reflections on the Milgram Experiment
I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator because we as humans are so easily manipulated into doing the wrong thing. In the Milgram experiment, the man/teacher who continues to shock the learner has his own concerns about the learner’s conditions (such as his heart and him potentially being dead) throughout, proving that the teacher is not a bad guy but that he is being manipulated by the experimenter to avoid the mans obvious pain. Experiments like Milgram's do explain, not justify, people's active participation in violence and mass atrocities because it shows that most human beings care more about acceptance than their own moral principle. Even when we know what we are doing is wrong, we often act against what we know is right if we feel we are alone in our feelings. Other than exploiting his authority, the experimenter makes the teacher feel conflicted by consistently assuring him that “ the shocks may be painful but they're not dangerous”. This shows the power of language and brainwashing and the affect it can have on people, leading them to participate in mass atrocities, violence, and even genocide. The experimenter eventually begins to call the teacher “ teacher”, rather than his name, which makes the teacher begin to refer to him as “ sir”. This shows how the experimenter is being put into a position of authority by the teacher, explaining his choice to continue with the experiment. Additionally, the experiment was advertised to be about “memory and learning” which would make the teacher in the experiment feel like the experiment was for the greater good, despite the torture being afflicted on the learner. In mass atrocities, such as the Holocaust, people were brainwashed into thinking the genocides were for the greater good, showing a connection between the teacher in the Milgram experiment and participants in mass atrocities. Cari Romm contributes to this idea in the article “Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” when they state “In some ways, though, Milgram’s study is also—as promised—a study of memory, if not the one he pretended it was”(Romm 1). In this quote, Romm is addressing that obeying to those in positions of authority is a learned behavior, perhaps even genetic, thus the experiment is in fact a study of memory. All throughout history, people have been doing what they are told despite the further ramifications. Romm also addresses how history is keen on repeating itself, because this learned behavior will always be in play. Those who do not fall into patterns of obedience have strong personal responsibility. This is evident in the teacher who refuses to continue with the experiment, stating “ I refuse to take the responsibility”. The teacher who continued is not necessarily a person of worse moral standing than the one who refused, but is not as strong with his own self-concept, which is seen when he asks the experimenter “ you accept all responsibility?. The teacher who continued deflects the responsibility onto the experimenter because he is not as true to himself. In most mass atrocities, it's easy to make the perpetrator out to be an evil/bad person, but it becomes much more morally ambiguous when we psychoanalyze the behavior of their followers. It especially becomes challenging to discern when the effects of perpetrator, or even the follower, are unknown, such as the separation of the teacher and the learner. n conclusion, the Milgram experiment addresses our complex relationship with obedience and makes us question the inherent goodness of the human race. The one question I want to consider however is, if multiple teachers did this experiment in the same room, would the amount of people refusing to continue increase?
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflection on the Milgram experiment and Obedience
Based on the Milgram experiment, I can conclude that everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. In the experiment, the teacher was asked to shock the learner, an actor, if the learner got any questions wrong. Not surprisingly, over half of the teachers did what they were told to do and willingly harmed someone else just because they were told to by someone they thought had power over them. Although many showed some sort of discomfort in the situation, they still decided to harm the learner. This just proves that in times when there are people in power, most people are willing to do whatever they are told, even if it means harming the other person. However, this does not take into account the fact that the teacher could have known or somehow figured out the fact that this experiment was actually being conducted on them. According to Australian psychologist Gina Perry in the article, Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, there are so many problems with the Milgram experiment, ranging from participants knowing it was a hoax to experimenters going off script, that it is necessary to rethink the whole experiment. Therefore, the Milgram experiment does not actually explain ordinary people’s actions in times of violence, mass atrocities, genocide because it does not consider factors like the participant’s personal situation.
On the other hand, there were a couple participants that actively refused to continue on with the experiment. These participants seemed to be more confident and determined in their views, possibly contributing to the reason as to why they absolutely refused to injure the learner any further. People that have more self-confidence are more likely to stand up for themselves, even if there is someone with more power telling them the opposite of what they believe in. These participants could have also experienced firsthand what would happen if they didn’t do something about the situation, giving them more determination to put a stop to the experiment. I think it is important for society to teach people to not be a bystander in situations of violence. However, I know that it isn’t extremely possible for everyone to stand up for themselves with confidence in order to fight for their rights. Many are taught to keep silent since they were children to not be bothersome, especially in times when there is a central figure who everyone seems to obey. Additionally, oftentimes there are punishments for going against authority, leading to even less people standing up for themselves. Although I think a society would benefit with more people that disobey an unethical authority figure, I think it is not possible because society is taught to be silent since childhood. If social norms changed now and all of the younger generations were taught to be an upstander, it is more likely that there would be more up-standers in society years in the future. Still, there would be problems with society because if there are too many people going against central authority, it will cause instability. Ultimately, I believe that it is more realistic for society to find a balance between having too few and too many up standers.
Boston, Massachusetes, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on Milgram Experiment
As humans, we have all had the experience of making a mistake, but instead of taking responsibility, we instead attempt to shift the blame. As social animals, we do not enjoy feeling responsible, as it acknowledges that we have made a mistake, and instead often attempt to make excuses. The idea of cognitive dissonance at first seems obvious, however, it has some ramifications which explain some of history's worst moments. The Milgram experiment explores the idea of how we react when being ordered to hurt someone else intentionally, or possibly even kill them. The experiment's results were shocking, however, one of the most common themes we saw from the people who turned the voltage to maximum power, was that they did not take responsibility and instead blamed the scientists. During the Nuremberg trials following World War 2, similar remarks were often made by Nazi soldiers and generals, that they simply had no choice after being told to. Milgram's experiment seems to validate these claims, as over 60% of the people turned up the voltage to the maximum settings, which potentially could have been lethal. In Patrick Haggard's rendition of the experiment, he used actual shocks, and the results hardly changed. Hagggards experiment went further in-depth and was much more controlled, however, most people who were told to harm someone else did. By doing experiments on the brain, Haggard saw that when a person is being told orders, parts of their brain become dampened, leading to them being more receptive and not thinking out the implications that come with them. This leads back to primitive human tribe society, in which the humans who did not listen to the other humans who knew better, often ended up dead. Now, we have not rid of this trait, and if we ever feel unsure of our abilities, we are much more likely to blindly believe in other people. Still, humans can make choices, which is why I believe we all aren’t doomed to harm others after being ordered to. People who do blindly follow authority, are more likely to when they feel inadequacy with themselves, as they seek to be validated and part of a group. It is far less likely that someone content with their life, will harm other people due to someone else's orders, as it would cause too much cognitive dissonance and their brain wouldn't be as dampened since they are confident. However, societies such as pre-fascist Germany, who had been persecuted and stripped of all of their dignity after World War 1, are more likely to idolize leaders such as Hitler, who they believe can save them and know better. Once a charismatic leader has the trust and support of the public, they can enforce ideas of superiority to remove dissonance for those committing horrible acts, such as the idea of the “Master Race”. These ideas are perpetrated wherever violence is committed, as the creation of an “out-group” is yet again a tactic humans evolved during ancient caveman times. While these psychological ideas are true, they again do not define us, and the German generals still deserved their punishment. This idea is all the more powerful after remembering that a single dissenter, can make a massive difference in a mass movement.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on the Milgram Experiment
I do not believe that everybody has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because much like how the man in the Milgram experiment who had refused to continue the shocks, people will not give in to the societal pressures that could be enforced in a situation similar to that in the experiment. What the Milgram experiment shows us is that although not everybody, but a majority of people will be able to follow through with being the perpetrator in a situation as shown in the experiment. All it takes is simply somebody to push you forward and egg you on. Without that person, it is less likely that one will be able to continue causing another’s pain while hearing their pain. Experiments much like Milgram’s can in fact explain the reasoning behind mass atrocities, violence, and genocide because people are hard-wired to listen to authority and are capable of disregarding their moral compass to obey that authority. This can be caused by a fear of authority and a fear that if they do not obey then they will be the one to be harmed, but also the safeguard of simply having no choice but to obey creates this cognitive dissonance where you look at yourself as the lucky one in the situation instead of the unlucky one, who is receiving the pain. Patrick Haggard also states, “People actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” This proves that people will shift the blame in order to feel better about themselves, relating back to that cognitive dissonance where people create a barrier between themselves and the truth. Creating this wall can allow a person to further continue in the violation of others since there seems to be little to no resentment or guilt that could possibly prevent them. This wall can just be physical like a literal wall, or maybe a person who is telling them to continue making them believe that they are not at fault but those who are “forcing” them to continue. Other factors that can come into play are who the person is that they are committing these acts towards, the setting, and possibly the type of pain that is associated with the punishment. It is even possible that some of these people enjoy inflicting pain on others, or enjoy the idea of having the power to control another person. Much like in the Stanford Prison experiment, where one of the students wondered how far could they really push that line before somebody tells them to “knock it off”. Some possible personality traits that could lead to the “teacher” to disobey the “experimenters” in this experiment are people who are more empathetic, confident in themselves, and independent enough to be able to not fall into peer pressure and decide when enough is enough. Yes there could be a way to promote and enforce independence in each individual but it may not be super effective in a larger society. This is because without somebody to lead and set somewhat of a standard chaos can just sprout and the society could collapse.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
I think that, under certain circumstances, everyone has the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. Whether it’s for something they desire, like money or power, or due to an external force pressuring them into doing so, everyone is capable. The Milgram experiments suggest that it is easier to inflict pain on others when we are being pushed by authority. The authority’s demands allow the individual to deflect blame off of them, ultimately making them feel less sorry for their own violent actions. These experiments also suggest that the proximity of the authoritative figure to the individual affects their actions. For example, one “teacher” during the trial repeatedly tried to end the experiment and leave, but the “experimenter” insisting they had to sit back down and finish the experiment was more effective than the “learner’s” potential death. This is because of the difference in distance.
I think experiments like Milgram’s are just one example of ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass genocide, etc. There are many other reasons why people could partake in acts like these, such as natural evilness, psychological differences, and much more. There doesn’t always have to be a “teacher” present for this to happen. The experiments should have included another trial where the “teacher” was farther in physical distance from the “experimenter” to determine how effective the experiment was. I hypothesize that if the experimenter were in another room, the teacher would have less incentive to stay and continue with the experiment. I also believe that if the teacher could see the learner, rather than just hearing them, the teacher would have stopped the experiment early. Another possibility arises from the Stanford experiment, where regular participants are given the ability to punish prisoner actors like police officers. As Maria Korrinkova states in “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment”, “extreme institutions” are also the root cause of people inflicting pain on others. Therefore, I don’t believe that The Milgram experiments provide us with the only reason as to why regular people commit acts of violence.
Some of the most important factors/personality traits that led the “teachers” to disobey the “experimenters” was a strong sense of self. If you know internally that acts of violence don’t correspond with who you are, and you are firm in that belief, you are much less likely to continue on with hurting someone else. If this were the case, right when the teacher began to hear these cries, the teacher would have immediately gotten up and ended the experiment. For example, one teacher began laughing at the learner’s cries, even though he was convinced they were extremely hurt. Regardless of his instincts, he continued harming the learner when the experimenter demanded that he finish the experiment. I only see positives in creating societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. If anything, that person would be a true hero and a leader to the people around them who suffer from the Obedience Theory and, in some cases, the Mass Society Theory.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Milgram Experiment Reflection
I think that everybody has the potential to become perpetrators, but to different extents. Some, likely those with a strong sense of self, will disobey authority and refuse to hurt others. This is because they are the most aware of their identity and have enough respect for themselves to not willingly go against their values. On the other hand, most people will know that hurting others is wrong, but still go through with it because they do not want to disobey authority and they believe that they are not responsible for these hurtful actions. The Milgram experiments suggest that there are additional factors (other than personal sense of self) that come into play. These factors include the physical and mental distance between the authority figure and the perpetrator, as well as between the perpetrator and the victim. When the perpetrator and victim are closer, either emotionally or physically, there is a higher chance that the perpetrator will sympathize with the victim and attempt to stop hurting them. When the authority figure and the perpetrator are closer emotionally or physically, then the perpetrator is more likely to commit the harmful actions because they do not want to disobey the orders of their superior to an even higher extent. Other than the blind following of authority, a reason why people are willing to inflict pain on others is because they believe that it is not their decision and they are not responsible for it. During the documentary, the “teacher” asked, “You [the professor] are responsible if the man dies?”, demonstrating that he would be willing to hurt another person if he believed that it wasn’t his fault. But, Matthew Hollander, a sociology PhD candidate, questioned Milgram’s experiment and argued that the results of the experiment didn’t demonstrate that people were just willing to hurt others, but rather that these people just simply didn’t stand up for themselves enough. In Romm’s 2015 article Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, Hollander argues, “people in both categories tried several different forms of protest—those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking.” Hollander is saying that the people who gave the 450 volt shock weren’t just blindly following authority and didn’t have a mind of their own, rather he is arguing that these people possibly did have high moral compasses but just didn’t stand up for themselves enough. This ties back into what I previously mentioned about having a strong sense of self. If one has this strong sense of self, then they are significantly less likely to do something that doesn’t agree with their values. If we teach people to value themselves, their identity, and their beliefs, then more people will be able to stand up to authority and refuse to harm others. This process can begin in schools. If young children are taught to be themselves and not be as pressured to “fit in” with other people, but instead to express themselves in the way that they choose and have their own individual opinions, then they will likely have a stronger sense of self, which will allow our society to be more kind to others.