learntoquestion ltq discussions

I believe that experiments such as Milgram's do to some extent highlight how an ordinary person, who considers himself to be moral, would o awful things, all in the name of following orders and obedience. Obviously, we can see this happening all throughout history, whether it was with the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, and Soviet Russia, where people would blame atrocitites on their leaders, when inr reality, they had just as much to do it. The most famous case of this was the Nuremberg trials, where we saw Nazi leader (yes; leaders), say that their atrocitites commited during the Holocaust were to blame on them “just following orders”. As we learned however, this is a justification for what is indeed remorse that you played a part in something that was truly horrifying, that you knew to be wrong, but did nothing to stop. By saying, “I was just following orders”, you effectively justify, in your mind, allow yourself to be free of blame, as you shift all that blame towards your leader, and allow yourself to follow orders to a more thorough extent, without dissenting from the group. Factors that come into play for this is just how much you believe in your leader, whether you have a strong sense of self, and if the one giving you orders comes from a standpoint of power. We saw that happening in the Milgram Expiriment, because we see people who aren’t necessarily bad people, go to extremes because someone with “power” told them to. We saw the example of the man who kept asking if he would be liable for his actions, and then when reassured by the doctor he wouldn’t, he felt much safer following orders. We as humans want to follow the group, follow orders, as it’s a part of our nature, but that’s dangerous, as the Milgram expiriment highlights. Joshua Barajas states “In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas 1). Besides just the willingness to follow orders from humans, I believe the Milgram experiment does overlook some key details that came into play with creation and following through of the Holocaust. While many didn’t speak up in order to remain part of the group, I firmly believe that many members of the Nazi part, Fascist Party, and others, had truly been brainwashed to believe the principles put forth by the party, allowing them to see the victims as animals, and allowing them to be the perfect executioners. In the case of the S.S. especially we can see that they were hand picked by Hitler for a reason; they were the perfect Aryans, brainwashed from youth to see themselves as part of the elite German group, and to hate Jews. So when slowly asked to exterminate them, many of them didn’t see problems, they thought they were doing the world a good. So, at the end of the day, the Milgram experiments do show us a lot about how mass atrocities may happen due to the willingness to follow orders, but at the same time, it doesn’t account for beliefs that align with actions, or psycopathy.

Originally posted by cactus on September 23, 2024 07:13

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.

I think the most compelling idea in this post is that although everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, that doesn’t necessarily make them a bad person. A common generalization is that the individuals who acted in such ways must possess more negative traits, and must be inherently awful or evil, but the Milgram experiments also show a broader spectrum of how authority can impact obedience. As this post noted, those who dissented from the experimenter and stopped administering electric shocks didn’t always have to be better or moral people; they simply had a strong self-concept and more rigid ethical principles, whereas those who continued to administer shocks generally also showed concern and disapproval for the experiment, but felt as if they had to continue because of the experimenter’s urging. That doesn’t necessarily place all the blame upon the teacher, but rather the experimenter that continued to encourage the teacher. But then again, the teacher indeed could have walked out at any moment. Therefore, I think that it’s important to build this self concept that will prevent incidents in the future where people must choose between whether to continue or stop. I agree that it’s difficult to draw a perfect line between “good” or “bad” people from the Milgram study, and that people feel as if they can do horrible things by simply deflecting their responsibilities onto their superiors. Overall, this post was very detailed and informative, the quotes were very well-integrated and analyzed, and I enjoyed reading about this differing perspective on the Milgram experiment.

Originally posted by TheGreatGatsby on September 22, 2024 17:48

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.”

I think The Great Gatsby's most compelling point is the impact of societal pressures when told to “ follow orders”. Society is built entirely around confirmation and our subconscious need to be accepted, making the participants in the experiment feel compelled to continue. The experiment really made me think about what would have happened if there were multiple teachers in the same room and one of them resisted, making the others feel strong enough to resist as well. The teachers were practically alone in the room, since everyone else was in on the experiment, and the learner was out of sight. This alienation made it easier for the teachers to concede to the experimentors demands. I definitely agree with this idea. I also think TheGreatGatsby makes an interesting point regarding the ramifications of what happens when we do say no and resist something, although, I do not know how this would apply to the Milgram experiment. Maybe the experimenter could have threatened the teacher’s jobs, even though I think this experiment was a volunteering or incentivized event.I think The Great Gatsby makes a ton of excellent points in this post. The only thing I would add/change about this post is that the experimenter did not actually tell the participants they would take full responsibility, which was included in TheGreatGatsby’s post.

Originally posted by questions on September 23, 2024 17:31

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.

The most compelling idea I read here was that the author of this post believed that the fact that the teacher could've known or figured out what was happening wasn't taken into account. Although when I wrote my post, I agreed with the claim, I agree with this reasoning too, I believe that the teacher might have been able to figure out what was going on. While we didn't necessarily see this in the video shown in class, where the teacher fully believed that the man being shocked was in pain, some may have been able to find out what was going on. The idea is interesting because I've never thought about an experiment like this, where the teacher could've known about it. As seen in other posts, the author did agree that a figure of authority did have an influence on the teacher’s actions, describing how despite the discomfort they felt with harming the learner, they continued to do so. In my post, I also agreed with the claim that an authority figure actively caused the teacher to be more willing to harm the learner, however I also believed that this experiment explained people’s actions in mass atrocities. In this post, the only thing that I found that wasn’t clear was how would the teachers find out the true nature of the experiment? And if they did find out, would the experimenters not just invalidate the experiment for that person? Other than that, this was a very interesting post.

Originally posted by charsiu on September 22, 2024 13:09

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.

The most compelling idea in this post that stands out to me is that not everyone is capable of becoming a perpetrator of violence. However, I think in a way the author here counteracts that statement. Putting my own beliefs aside, that everyone does possess the capability of being violent, it’s interesting to hear Charsiu’s perspective and interpretation. They explain that, “I think that the Milgram experiments are somewhat accurate reflections of genuine human behaviors, such as in mass atrocities, violence, and genocide.” This idea is similar to that which I’d written about, which is that the Milgram expiermens show that when faced with the choice between doing what we believe is right, or following obedience, we obey. However, I do think that this post does a good job of explaing our feelings towards authority, and how we as humans, like to find a leader and follow them. Critically speaking, I think this author could’ve added more analysis, along with explanation. While a lot of the evidence used is really helpful, and expands the points made, I think further analysis or opinions would make this post even more meaningful. Also, not too much of a worry, but there are many grammatical errors, which is why proofreading is always important. That being said, while I don’t agree with the points made in this post, I think Charsiu has done a good job proving that many people still possess the power to be violence perpetrators, according to the Milgram experiments.

Originally posted by 01000111 on September 23, 2024 09:02

I believe that most people, if not all, have the potential to become a perpetrator in certain environments that they might find themselves in. I believe this because people generally have a natural instinct to protect themselves, so when, for example, an authority figure with a lot of power tells someone to commit bad actions against other humans, the perpetrator might be driven by an instinct making him think that he may be severely punished or even killed if he does not follow orders. In these types of settings, the vast majority of people would go to extreme levels to keep themselves safe from any harm, despite causing a lot of harm to others. Even when someone is not in any danger of harm themselves, the authority figure being present in the same room could have enough influence on a person to continue causing harm to others, even if they feel morally guilty or regretful of their actions. This was seen in the Milgram experiment where one of the teachers was extremely worried about the learner when he first started complaining and demanding to be let out of the electric machine. Although the experimenter wanted to stop as early as around 190 volts and check up on the learner, he continued to electrocute the learner after constant insisting from the authority figure (experimenter). The teacher was able to go so far as to continuing the experiment and electrocuting the learner at 450 volts several times after he did not speak or grunt or give any sign of being awake for a long time. One of the ways I believe the “teacher” thought he had to continue with the experiment is because the experimenter insisted so much to continue that he was able to convince the teacher that he had no other option but to continue, despite the fact that he had an actual choice to leave despite the experimenter’s objections. Lastly, I believe the teacher’s actions were further fueled when he constantly asked the experimenter if he would have any responsibility on the learner and if anything happens to him, which the experimenter reassured him that he would have no responsibility and would only be placed on the experimenter if anything were to happen. After this, although feeling worried and guilty at times, the teacher went on to the maximum level of electricity. The Milgrem experiment helps show how almost anyone is able to commit harmful actions towards another human in certain circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, the experiment showed higher levels of people going to the maximum level if, for example, the learner is in another room, if the experimenter is present in the room with the teacher, and if two experimenters are at conflict for the potential consequences the electrocution could cause. Due to these circumstances, if a person is in the perfect setting where they are very pressured to do as they are told, the majority of people would commit harm to others, even if they don’t want to and feel guilt for doing it.

First off, this was a very well written piece, and I did enjoy reading it. Your thoughts on the Milgram experiment were for the most part correct. The teacher was most definitely fueled by that constant asking, and the willingness to obey orders. A lot of people wrote about similar effects, and how the outside influence of the doctor/experimenter definitely came into play. However, I can't help but notice that the Idea you truly made us think about the most was invoking fear into people in order to have them obey. While this is definitely true in many scenarios, especially in mass atrocities world wide, I believe you should have specified it doesn't apply to the Milgram experiment. If you think that it does, then you would be mistaken, because the Milgram experiment made sure to invoke no fear on the teacher. They stated many times that the money would remain the teachers money no matter what, and they don't threaten the teacher, they just tell him to proceed. I believe that the experiment would focus less on Coercion, which is what you say is happening, and more on how much humans are pack animals, and the lengths they go to to feel themselves a part of the pack. If I was to do one thing differently I would have quoted one of the articles, and I also would have brought up specific historical events to refer this back to, as theres just so much more you could have done. Despite that, the topic got me thinking and debating whether its fear or willingness that causes obedience, and that is the most important thing.

Everyone, if inattentive enough, has the capacity to become something unlike their own personality. I feel that we see this daily, not only through the idea that when influenced by mass movements we act as to do bad things, but rather have more often than not the so-called “bad samaritan” effect. There is so much wrong happening by many mass movements around us, and by doing nothing to regulate them, we only further empower them, and make ourselves no better than the perpetrators. This can lead us to do horrible things, especially on the premise if we are convinced that the victims are lesser than ourselves. We can take the concept of hatred in the Stanford experiment for example: “the Stanford experiment underscored those findings, revealing the ease with which regular people, if given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors.” (Korrinkova). We take this into account it is starkly apparent with the results of the experiment that when a person is convinced that someone is lesser, or conversely that they are greater, they are much more inclined to commit bad deeds because supremacy can suggest to their psyche otherwise. The teacher-student relationship shown in the Milgram experiment expresses how in base it is that complex of superiority that so often defines the divide between horrible actions. Now on a non-academic note to the reader I have been doing extensive studies and readings into the psychology and theories surrounding the topics of racism and discrimination. So from now on in these writings, in order to formulate a larger work at the end of the year, I am going to connect learnings with class whenever possible to this central theme. Moving to said topic, we can think about these central beliefs in the historical context of enslavement and later discrimination particularly in the US. Hatred, above all things, whether taught, unknown and subconscious, or even to the level of pressure in the context of racism and wrongful justification of enslavement is very apparently a main driver. Due to the early and still widely unfortunately existing European/American based idea that lighter skin allots a level of superiority, the justification of awful acts during enslavement, segregation, and to present day were morally defined by the means of "greater purpose" or "lesser purpose" in social complex. By no means does the faults of how we are wired and manipulated to receive and interpret information and how we choose to direct our so-called “moral compass” create an excuse for this topic, but it's important to understand. As I stated in my previous essay, discrimination, unlike racism, is systematic, and if so, then our system is definable as one built of hatred. We exist in an economy, social environment, physical environment, linguistic environment, the examples are endless, built on the concepts of our past. This is undeniably so, one of the many byproducts of natural societal progression. However, we can see through the system of discrimination that we exist in that a problem described as getting “better”. However, especially one of this scale, is not something to settle as a factor in life and to allow to fester. It should not be getting just "better" and we should more actively seek for it to be fixed with every passing day. Now progression of a solution to a problem in society is a good thing, but we can see so commonly in daily life that we often tend to ignore the discriminatory system around us, and sometimes even the blatantly racist comments or actions that occur in our presence. In a different lens, we may not fully ignore these issues, but recognise them and express a feeling of helplessness to their scale, or a sense of apathy based on business or disassociation. All of these, based in the unconscious to be natural to us or even regarded as no longer as hateful to us boils down to a problem in modern society: desensitization. Now again as I outlined previously, if you were to ask a person on the street if they were “racist” the answer would likely be no. However we do have to consider that if we are actively bystanders in a system so starkly defined by its injustices, are we not just all “Bad Samaritans” to the larger complex of the often wrongdoing world we live in? Now, that question surely is a kicker, but to dig more specifically, does that basis in which many often do nothing to combat the forces at hand who seek to demean others, does that not make most of us, to a certain degree that we may not realize, a bit racist in ingnorance? To clarify, there are two things we have to recognise as true. Firstly, many people daily combat racism, discrimination, and the like, and that active contribution is something that in itself keeps balance to those who may just as actively seek to diminish others, something that we should all seek to participate in. Secondly, it is important to recognise that the common definition of racism we have is blatantly wrong. We view someone in our minds widely only as racist if they are what is “actively racist”, such as someone who goes around and is known to be, or quite publicly does things that are racist in nature, and occasionally with an unfortunate amount of purpose. But racism is a game of 4d chess in which we don't realize that being subconsciously racist, saying phrases that may unknowingly have discriminatory origins, and even as described: being a bystander to active or inactive racism is still wrong on a multitude of levels. One of the best ways to combat this, is educating ourselves, seeking to get rid of the “common” phrases, to be brave enough to act when we see or hear blatant racism, and always be ready to challenge the foundation of the society we live in. Growing too comfortable in the culture of anything in any form without questioning is a dangerous feat, and provides an unhealthy environment built on that feeding of hate. While the term "bad samaritan" can be viewed as too strong an accusation to the common inactivity we express to all systems of hate, I argue that we certainly cannot be considered "good samaritans" if we do nothing. Overall, it's time in America that we truly wake up and look around us, because the gilded cage we live in is poisoned from its immoral roots, and we need to clean the toxins seeping into our society before it becomes far too late.

Originally posted by greenzebra on September 21, 2024 21:34

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.

Hi greenzebra! I really enjoyed reading your post and I totally agree with a lot of these points. However, you mentioned that historically, many people may have condoned social movements because their personal opinions aligned with the outcomes, and your example was of the Holocaust. I can see peoples support for social movements coming from their personal beliefs (like the pro-choice and pro-life movements), but I think in such extreme levels, people don’t support the movements because they think it’s right. Milgrams experiment was more proving that people follow orders even when it goes against what they believe in, like even though the teachers in the experiment were visibly hesitant about what was happening, they didn’t do anything to actually stop it. I also think this was an interesting foil to how you mentioned people with different experiences would react and behave differently. Though people with different backgrounds may have responded differently to Milgrams experiment, people with different beliefs tend to have similar views at such extreme levels. I also really liked your point about the different types of pressures on people, besides just the experimenter. I neglected to think about how in similar situations people may have had other sources of peer pressure.

I think everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others because we all have things that we don’t like or agree with. All it takes is for one thing to tick us off and we find ourselves harming others. Many people who are in jail right now for murder or assault would say that they didn’t mean to or something just went off in their head, causing them to do what they did. They could even be influenced by other people who hold a lot more power than they do. For example, we often look up to and follow our older siblings because they are role models to us. If they told us to go beat someone up– for no reason at all, we’d do it both out of fear and also out of the desire to be liked by our sibling. We want to be as cool as them. The quote from Bauman saying that we don’t like the idea of bad things happening to us but we can do it to other people reflects how we wouldn’t want our older sibling to beat us up for not doing what they said so we inflict harm on other people to save ourselves. That applies to big leaders today, out of fear or the desire to be liked by or be like those around us, we tend to do what they say without much question.

I think Milgram's experiment accurately depicts ordinary people’s active participation in mass atrocities to a certain degree. The “teachers” were given orders to inflict pain on other people and chose to listen to the experimenter most likely because of the experimenter's role in the experiment. They probably thought that he knew what he was doing and chose to not question the expert. They also most likely listened to him because he is a higher power than them and his tone was very firm, suggesting that he was not going to change his mind about experimenting. The experimenter also kept referring to the teacher as a teacher instead of referring to them by their name. This could have given the teachers more of a reason to not stop the experiment. If they know that they are the teacher and that they hold higher authority than the learner, they are more likely to keep on going with the experiment. In mass genocides like the Holocaust, the “good side” is praised for their obedience to the leader or the “good side.” These incentives and words of affirmation give them more of a reason and justification to feel okay with the violence that occurs around them. I think one factor that could come into play is if there is violence being inflicted among the people on the “good side” if they don’t cooperate with the leader. In many fictional dystopian societies, there are consequences when people don’t listen or help those on the “bad side.” Another factor could be their mental health. For example, if they are a sociopath and/or they don’t feel things for other people. While many factors and personalities vary, we will always be influenced by a higher authority in one way or another.

Originally posted by facinghistorystudent on September 24, 2024 13:25

As demonstrated by the Milgram experiment, anyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. The people that were selected for the Milgram experiment came from various different backgrounds, yet this did not seem to make a difference in their willingness to obey the orders of the experimenter and willingly inflict pain on the learner. Through their willingness to comply with the experimenter’s orders, we can see that being ordered to do so by an authority figure makes humans much more likely to inflict pain on others. When the experimenter was put into a different room and the teacher could no longer see them, it made them much less likely to continue with the electric shocks. While I do not think that these experiments provide accurate reasoning for why ordinary people participate in violence and mass atrocities, I do think that the obedience theory reflected in these experiments plays a part in people’s likelihood of participating in violence. In “How Nazi’s Defence of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” Patrick Haggard claims that, “his team’s findings do not legitimate the Nuremberg defense and that anyone who claims they were ‘just following orders’ ought to be viewed with skepticism” (Barajas 3). I agree with this because, while knowing that they were only following orders and the responsibility would not be on them for perpetrating violence might have made it easier for them to do so, this does not explain Nazi soldiers’ willingness to repeatedly harm others. Even in the Milgram experiment, several of the teachers tried to fight back against authority, telling them that it was not right to continue, and others even refused to continue with the experiment despite the experimenter ordering them to go on. This push back against authority was not demonstrated by Nazi soldiers or in any other mass atrocities. Therefore, there has to be other factors that contribute to a person’s willingness to inflict pain on others beyond just following orders. In some cases, this factor might be hatred. But in other cases, it is possible that perpetrators are threatened and told that if they do not follow the order that an authority figure is giving to them, they will be hurt or even killed. This might be enough to convince someone to harm someone else. One major factor that led teachers to disobey the experimenter in the Milgram experiment was empathy. They were told before the experiment that began that the learner had a heart condition, and as they continued increasing the voltage of the shocks, the learner began yelling and saying that his heart was starting to bother him. In many cases, once the learner began complaining about their heart, the teacher began to push back against the experimenter’s orders, saying they should stop because the learner has heart problems. Other factors that led teachers to disobey the experimenter include distance between the teacher and the experimenter and distance between the teacher and the learner. When the teacher was further away from the experimenter and could not see him, the teacher was more likely to stop the experiment despite the experimenter's orders. When the distance between the teacher and the learner was decreased so that the teacher could see the student, this same result was found. We can attempt to create societies that encourage traits of empathy and persistence, but this could have good and bad effects. As a result, people would probably be more likely to disobey unethical authority figures. However, there is no way we would be able to limit people to what they can and can’t disobey. Everyone in the world has differing opinions, and sometimes we have to learn to be able to work together with people who see things differently than we do. But a society where we value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures might also create a lot of disorder. People would be much more willing to push back against things that they are told to do by others, which might create rebellious children and chaotic work environments, where children disobey parents and employees disobey their bosses simply because they see a situation differently.

I strongly agree with your statement that the obedience theory was present during this experiment. I like how you brought up the complying soldiers of Nazi Germany and acknowledged that following authority orders wasn’t the sole reason why they were committing evil acts toward Jewish people. I also briefly touched on the fact that there has to be many other factors that come into play depending on the situation. You mentioned empathy in your response, which contributes to the discontinuation of the experiment. I think it was a great add-on, going further to mention the emotional versus physical distance we discussed in another assignment. I understand your point on how training people to disobey unethical authority figures might encourage disorder, but I personally disagree. I think the key word to focus on is “unethical”. I believe motivating people to go against others who are morally incorrect would just keep the same cycle going, resulting in the world becoming a better place. I don’t exactly agree with chaos suddenly springing from the encouragement to do what’s right. Although, I do see how your opinion that disobedience wouldn’t be able to stop at just unethical orders, I predict the opposite would occur.

Originally posted by glitterseashell1234 on September 23, 2024 15:42

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?

The most compelling part of this post is the focus on the teacher's behavior, going in depth about what is going through his mind, and what makes him act the way he acts. Glitterseashell1234 explained how he was being manipulated by a person of authority, and that he is not a bad guy, just someone who is forced to obey through learned behavior or genetics. I agree with this idea, much of it is similar to what I put in my LTQ, because it is all about the environment that can impact someone's choice. Something else I found really interesting was when they said that “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.” I really related and agreed with that, and how much that idea is shown in the Milgram experiment because many people feel a need to fit in with the crowd, and feeling different can change that, so they don't want to be different. I also enjoyed how they ended it with a question that really got me thinking. It said “if multiple teachers did this experiment in the same room, would the amount of people refusing to continue increase?” If there are more people that also agree it is wrong, then one is more likely to stop, because one is not singled out. I think my peer could potentially expand on some other questions presented in the directions, and it would make it an extremely compelling LTQ.

Originally posted by 01000111 on September 23, 2024 09:02

I believe that most people, if not all, have the potential to become a perpetrator in certain environments that they might find themselves in. I believe this because people generally have a natural instinct to protect themselves, so when, for example, an authority figure with a lot of power tells someone to commit bad actions against other humans, the perpetrator might be driven by an instinct making him think that he may be severely punished or even killed if he does not follow orders. In these types of settings, the vast majority of people would go to extreme levels to keep themselves safe from any harm, despite causing a lot of harm to others. Even when someone is not in any danger of harm themselves, the authority figure being present in the same room could have enough influence on a person to continue causing harm to others, even if they feel morally guilty or regretful of their actions. This was seen in the Milgram experiment where one of the teachers was extremely worried about the learner when he first started complaining and demanding to be let out of the electric machine. Although the experimenter wanted to stop as early as around 190 volts and check up on the learner, he continued to electrocute the learner after constant insisting from the authority figure (experimenter). The teacher was able to go so far as to continuing the experiment and electrocuting the learner at 450 volts several times after he did not speak or grunt or give any sign of being awake for a long time. One of the ways I believe the “teacher” thought he had to continue with the experiment is because the experimenter insisted so much to continue that he was able to convince the teacher that he had no other option but to continue, despite the fact that he had an actual choice to leave despite the experimenter’s objections. Lastly, I believe the teacher’s actions were further fueled when he constantly asked the experimenter if he would have any responsibility on the learner and if anything happens to him, which the experimenter reassured him that he would have no responsibility and would only be placed on the experimenter if anything were to happen. After this, although feeling worried and guilty at times, the teacher went on to the maximum level of electricity. The Milgrem experiment helps show how almost anyone is able to commit harmful actions towards another human in certain circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, the experiment showed higher levels of people going to the maximum level if, for example, the learner is in another room, if the experimenter is present in the room with the teacher, and if two experimenters are at conflict for the potential consequences the electrocution could cause. Due to these circumstances, if a person is in the perfect setting where they are very pressured to do as they are told, the majority of people would commit harm to others, even if they don’t want to and feel guilt for doing it.

I found the most compelling part of my peers' post was the idea that people have a natural instinct to protect themselves. They related it to the fact that people are terrified of the possible outcomes when they don't follow orders from those in power. They fear that they are putting themselves in danger if they don’t follow direct orders or stray from them. I agree with this idea, but I also thought of it in a slightly different way. When I initally read that line, I thought that they were referring to the idea that people will do anything to protect themselves, even if that means sacrificing others. The immense power that fear has on people, not necessarily obedience. This can be seen through the Milgram Experiment as they were still willingly hurting others, as long as they themselves were protected. I think that we have similar ideas, just a slight difference in direction. I found this idea very interesting because of where they decided to focus. Most responses and articles I saw focused purely on authority, however this person chose to focus on the individual's priorities. It is not really about the figure in charge, but how the person in the experiment deals with their own uncertainties and fears.

I would suggest for my peers’ next post, to organize it a bit differently. Maybe create different paragraphs so it is easier to digest. It also helps to separate different ideas.

Originally posted by Camellia on September 24, 2024 20:08

Many philosophers have hypothesized that humans are inherently selfish and any system, whether it be government or social, that doesn’t recognize and account for this will fail. This idea is the main reason communism has failed over and over again, people can't help but think of their own interests first. This also means that people, when given power, will use it more selfishly rather than give it up for others. Although people want to believe that they are the best versions of themselves, the truth is that most of them are not, which is why I think that most people do have the potential to become a perpetrators of violence against others. In the Milgram experiment, the majority of people chose to hurt people for the preservation of their money and time. It wouldn't make sense for them to stick their necks out for a random person with whom they had no connection, because it would be a too much of a hassle to continue to fight with the experienter who had the expertise. This idea of it being too much work for not enough reward as well as them not wanting to overstep their place also contributes to peoples willingness to hurt others, since they wouldnt feel like they could make a difference alone or they don’t know what they’re talking about. Additionally, the experiment was set up where the experimenter was higher in authority and seemed to know more about the topic, making it hard for the teachers to stand up further than most of them did.

Additionally, giving any random person power to rule others goes back to the idea of humans being inherently selfish and serving for themselves. Despite how The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment tells the story of how extreme outcomes like this are brought on by extreme situations, a situation where society encourages traits of people who disobey authority figures is incredibly extreme and would have no doubt extreme consequences.

But however disheartening the results of Milgram's experiment may seem, at the end of the day it would’ve been much worse if most people had the traits to disobey orders. This kind of a society would be incredibly dysfunctional as people would be inclined to go against what's right just because it was an order. Although it can be beneficial for a strong willed person to step up if an authority figure turns to more of a dictator, most of the population lacks the ability to reason proficiently about the potential benefits and drawbacks of causing political turmoil unnecesarily. This is the very reason we have an electoral college deciding our president over the popular vote as well as senators representing us. Too many people with too many different opinions would cause more havoc and ultimately be more harmful than an authority figure. People should definitely step up against unethical authority figures, but these traits should not be encouragedin society as a whole because they come with a lot more baggage than just the ability to advocate.

The most compelling idea you mentioned was that although disappointing to hear, a society would be a lot more messy if everyone had opposing viewpoints and are rebellious. I agree with your idea, because just like discussed in class, our world goes by certain rules and policies, and if everyone was trying to undermine them then it would cause a lot of disharmony within our civilization. At the same time, I do believe that there should be some people that should step up and try to go against the rules, because some rules are unjust and need to be changed in order to build a better society. Like in the Milgram experiment, it would’ve been better if people stood up for what is right, but unfortunately, we as a society have conformed and blended too much into the rules and only follow the authority most times.

Something that you said that other posts mentioned are the factors in Milgram’s experiment, like the fact that they had been promised money, that would have effected the outcome. That because of the ‘experimenter’ is an authority figure, it was a lot harder for them to do anything, given the situation. I also agree with the idea that it’s possible that the ‘teacher’ had difficulty stopping, even at the dangerous levels of shock, simply because they’ve already invested too much time and it would be more trouble to stand up. All in all, your response was very well said and had good inputs!

Originally posted by facinghistory19 on September 25, 2024 13:34

I believe that experiments such as Milgram's do to some extent highlight how an ordinary person, who considers himself to be moral, would o awful things, all in the name of following orders and obedience. Obviously, we can see this happening all throughout history, whether it was with the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, and Soviet Russia, where people would blame atrocitites on their leaders, when inr reality, they had just as much to do it. The most famous case of this was the Nuremberg trials, where we saw Nazi leader (yes; leaders), say that their atrocitites commited during the Holocaust were to blame on them “just following orders”. As we learned however, this is a justification for what is indeed remorse that you played a part in something that was truly horrifying, that you knew to be wrong, but did nothing to stop. By saying, “I was just following orders”, you effectively justify, in your mind, allow yourself to be free of blame, as you shift all that blame towards your leader, and allow yourself to follow orders to a more thorough extent, without dissenting from the group. Factors that come into play for this is just how much you believe in your leader, whether you have a strong sense of self, and if the one giving you orders comes from a standpoint of power. We saw that happening in the Milgram Expiriment, because we see people who aren’t necessarily bad people, go to extremes because someone with “power” told them to. We saw the example of the man who kept asking if he would be liable for his actions, and then when reassured by the doctor he wouldn’t, he felt much safer following orders. We as humans want to follow the group, follow orders, as it’s a part of our nature, but that’s dangerous, as the Milgram expiriment highlights. Joshua Barajas states “In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas 1). Besides just the willingness to follow orders from humans, I believe the Milgram experiment does overlook some key details that came into play with creation and following through of the Holocaust. While many didn’t speak up in order to remain part of the group, I firmly believe that many members of the Nazi part, Fascist Party, and others, had truly been brainwashed to believe the principles put forth by the party, allowing them to see the victims as animals, and allowing them to be the perfect executioners. In the case of the S.S. especially we can see that they were hand picked by Hitler for a reason; they were the perfect Aryans, brainwashed from youth to see themselves as part of the elite German group, and to hate Jews. So when slowly asked to exterminate them, many of them didn’t see problems, they thought they were doing the world a good. So, at the end of the day, the Milgram experiments do show us a lot about how mass atrocities may happen due to the willingness to follow orders, but at the same time, it doesn’t account for beliefs that align with actions, or psycopathy.

I think that the most compelling idea of this post was that even though the person in power takes responsibility, the people committing the acts are just as liable. I definitely agree with this idea since that person would be the one making the choice, and consciously possibly putting others into harm's way. Self- esteem was mentioned in this post and I feel very strongly that self-esteem is a key factor of whether or not someone would be willing to go to extreme lengths for an influential figure. The example of the Nazi regime really stands out to me and makes their idea stronger. Throughout the other posts self-concept was very common among and the idea of self-concept and self-perception relates to this person's post since those words will affect how people follow orders. The issues that they pointed out with the Milgram experiment make a lot of sense since they don’t account for any disorders or core beliefs a person can hold. It is interesting to think about what would happen if we only gathered a group of people with specific beliefs to see if there was a common trend or not. The shortcomings of the experiment are not within the plan, but with the people. Each experiment leads to different reactions, and different reasonings from the participants about whether or not they should go through with the shocks. Overall, I thought this post was really interesting and made me think about some things I haven’t before.

Originally posted by bluewater on September 24, 2024 19:41

I think that most people have the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others but some are unable to. Most people have grown up in our society and have learned to be obedient to orders and to follow a hierarchy of authority. As kids, most of us listened to our parents and teachers and respected their power over us which has now grown to compliance to authority figures like the police and our boss. However, some few people do not follow orders and remain stubborn. As shown in the Milgram experiment, some people stood up to the experimenter and walked out of the experiment. This experiment suggests that when people are disconnected from their actions and feel little to no responsibility for their actions, they are more likely to do them even if it means harming others. I think that this experiment does show how ordinary people actively participate in violence and other cruel acts because they are acting upon someone else’s commands. People tend to not question authority because of society and as a result, act without thinking and obediently follow orders. Those who disobeyed the experimenter in the Milgram experiment probably had a high self esteem and a strong sense of self. They stood up for their beliefs and what they believed was right and stood against authority. It is very hard to create a society filled with these people as it contradicts society’s teachings. If everyone in the world were a leader, there would be lots of conflict because of opposing ideas and it would lead to chaos. However, it would be beneficial to question authority and stand up for ourselves without it leading to chaos. We need to get a balance of obedience and disobedience to have a “perfect” society. If there were no obedient and open-minded people, people with differing opinions would clash but without disobedience, there would not be potential for criticism and growth in society. In the article, “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, the ending states that we should hold those who give orders more accountable and I completely agree with this statement. Besides following societal norms of obedience, there are other factors to take into account. These people doing the acts could be threatened, shamed, attacked, or just doing their job. There could be negative repercussions if they refuse to do these acts of violence and are basically just forced to choose a bad scenario for themselves. Those ordering these acts of violence often faced zero to no repercussions for inaction and forced others to get their hands dirty. Most of the time, those who follow through with these acts have low self-esteem and are being manipulated. They believe that what they are doing must be for a greater good or cause so they blindly follow without a second thought.I think that they should be punished more harshly because they have to manipulate and use other unwilling people to get their dirty work done which is cruel.

I somewhat agree with the statement of how some people are unable to become perpetrators of violence despite the majority of people having that ability. However, my viewpoint is that anyone is capable of becoming a perpetrator of violence because everything depends on the setting a person is in. As the study showed, many people choose to complete the experiment when the person in power was present, or if the person they were doing harm to was in another room. It is also possible for someone to cause violence to another human without them knowing. In the video of the experiment, the experimenter mentioned how the shocks did no harm to the person which left the teacher unworried about the learner until they started hearing grunting and screaming. In a case where this experiment is made without the learner making any noise, the teacher would more likely complete the experiment as they are trusting what an authoritative figure (experimenter) told them. Furthermore, in a more extreme case where a person might be in big danger if they do not follow orders to the point where their families or they themselves are in danger, a person would be much more inclined on hurting another person as long as it meant keeping themselves and those they love safe. I do like how it was described that the people who stopped participating in the experiment have a "high self-esteem and strong sense of self" since a regular person would usually not stand up for what they know is right because they feel the need to follow an authoritative figure. I agree with this because I think that there are people who would endure the temptation of following orders from authority to different levels in order to stand up to their morals and beliefs, however, I believe everyone likely has a breaking point. Going off the statement, it also makes sense how there are only a few people who would stand up for their beliefs since having too many of these types of people could easily cause conflict among those with different views.