learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by star fire on September 20, 2024 08:43

I think that experiments like Milgram’s do explain ordinary people’s active response in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. In Milgram’s study in particular, it showed that even when they know that they are actively harming somebody else, they will still continue to participate in the act. They might turn around and question the orders and show concern for the person, but more often than not, they still defer to the perceived authority figure and commit harm towards the other person. However there is a part that the Milgram experiment did not touch on, another factor that comes into play, the brain. In the article “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” written by Joshua Barajas there was a second experiment that they mentioned by Patrick Haggard which was written in the journal “Current Biology” they studied the effect coercion had on the brain when following orders that could harm others. What they found was that there was a disconnect between the person and the action that they were doing so they felt that as long as they were not the one actively causing the harm, they were “just following orders”. What they also found was that while receiving the orders, brain activity was dampened which also correlates to the disconnect that the participants felt. What does this mean? It means that people aren’t thinking clearly when obeying orders. They’re doing rather than thinking and when they come to they will actually realize what they have done. I’ve seen this happen in many psychological thriller movies or crime shows where somebody does harm to someone else without thinking and when they come to, they start to have a mental breakdown or try to rationalize what they’ve done because they can’t comprehend that they actually did that to someone else. Some people simply block it from their memory which is their brain's way of protecting themself.

And there are other factors that come into play: fear, self-preservation, and power. Like my classmates pointed out yesterday, the tone of the “experimenter” in Milgram's experiment was a bit strange. It was monotonous and devoid of emotion which I feel, elicits a kind of fear in the “teacher”, fear of disappointing the “experimenter” thinking that they may ruin the experiment or in other cases where this tone is used fear of being harmed if they were to disobey the command. This ties into the next factor: self-preservation. When it comes to their life and someone else's, people are more likely to choose their life because who in their right mind would want to be harmed while trying to save others? Whether we like it or not, many of us will choose the self-preservation route, because we all want to live. The last factor that I came up with is power. Many of the people that obeyed Hitler’s commands during the Holocaust had nothing to lose and were just obeying the orders because they craved power. They craved the feeling of inflicting fear and pain on others because it made them feel like they were “above” the people that they were harming. That, I feel, is the scariest one because how do we prevent that?

I think you worded this very accurately and I agree with you! I think your reference to thriller movies is a great example because when someone is under the influence of someone and they continue to carry out their actions, but as soon as they are tapped out, they begin to think and contemplate what they have just done. This really shows how the dehumanization of the other side makes it easier to disassociate with your emotions making it easier to be influenced and to carry out their actions. The tone of the Experimenter is something that I hadn't paid attention to at first, but reflecting back, its a big part of the experiment. He was very monotone and continued to repeat the same thing every time showing no human emotion. When the authority had a lack of emotion, it caused a disassociation in the teacher too. Another interesting part was how the people who had a strong sense of self took longer. Adding onto your self-preservation portion, it really shows how every action we take no matter what has some kind of selfish connotation. For example, giving gifts is to make yourself feel good that you did something, or stopping the experiment was to make sure that the teacher didn't feel bad about their actions. Lastly, in terms of preventing people from causing harm to feel power, it is almost inevitable. Since the beginning of time, there have been hierarchies and oppression and unfortunately we are conditioned to believe that is the way the world works. Although this is a horrible thing to realize is true about our society, I don't know or think there is a way to stop it because no matter what there will always be that one person who has a strong sense of self and stands out.

Originally posted by mrgiggles!! on September 24, 2024 19:55

While I don’t believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, the Milgram Experiment certainly shows that the vast majority of people can get really close to becoming one. Although it is a bit optimistic to think that there are a number of people that absolutely wouldn’t follow orders just for the sake of “following orders,” I think that external circumstances play a huge role in how people respond to authority and for some, these circumstances trump either do or do not trump their moral compass. In the video shown in class, one of the “teachers” was adamant in stopping the experiment early despite the incessant and urgent orders of the experimenter. That participant valued his own morals and beliefs more than the orders set in place. This person demonstrated that it is possible to resist authority if it is morally wrong and expects you to act as a perpetrator of violence against others. For many others, however, this clearly wasn’t the case. I think that this experiment highlighted how one’s environment contributes to their willingness to inflict pain on others when told to do so - the “teacher” is set up at Yale, an authoritative entity on its own, and is accompanied by a researcher in a white lab coat monitoring the experiment with his pen and clipboard. Though these details seem to be of little importance, they all contribute to the “teachers” perception of the environment he’s in and the people he’s with being a credible place. It’s difficult to question the authority of someone who seems to know what they are doing, especially at Yale of all places. I think that this relieved some people of their initial concerns about the experiment, and they quickly resorted to the “just following orders” mentality as that seemed to be the most sensible decision. The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Maria Korrinkova discusses the role one’s surroundings play in shaping people’s willingness to obey by, as demonstrated by the Stanford Prison Experiment, a similar experiment done to assess human behavior regarding obedience. Korrinkova describes how the participants of the study all strived to act as they thought they were expected to act - the guards thought they should “behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion,” as a prison induces those preset expectations that typically have a negative connotation. The guards acted in reprehensible ways, but yet, their behavior wasn’t innate. It was rather a product of their preconceptions of the institution. Like the Milgram experiment, we see how easy it is for people to quickly conform to the environment they’re in and act accordingly - the “teachers” blindly followed the experimenter’s orders because they already had preset expectations of the institution they were in. These preconceived notions of places and people magnifies the chances of being a perpetrator of violence. Aside from environmental factors, I think that the Milgram experiment didn’t take into consideration both emotional distance and the personal excitement someone may get from following orders that they know are wrong. In the Holocaust and various wars, perpetrators of violence were told that the other side deserved to be harmed and that they were doing the right thing for the sake of the nation. Of course, while this isn’t true, it becomes much easier to dehumanize others and sacrifice your moral compass to do terrible things to “terrible people.” In the Milgram experiment, the “teacher” was a complete stranger to the “learner” - this emotional disconnect made the teachers more willing to inflict pain on the learner because they wouldn’t feel as bad if the learner was perhaps their lifelong best friend or mother. I also think that the opportunity to have some sort of authority and control over others excites people to some extent. The ordinary person isn’t typically in a position of power, so I assume that some people unfortunately have no issue following extreme orders. For instance, the guards in the Stanford experiment were “normal” college-guys given the freedom to do whatever they want, and they were quick to abuse the limited power that they had. It isn’t unlikely that, similar to these men, many people choose to just “follow orders” and take it to the extreme, as they were merely given the “opportunity” to. All of these factors ultimately shape an individual’s capacity to obey authority and maltreat others - it is simply up to the individual to decide what matters most to them and where they draw the line.

I think that the most compelling point in your post is your emphasis on the fact that they were at Yale which posed an authoritative figure within itself, making them more prone to succumb to the orders they were given. I really agree with this idea because, when people think of renowned institutions like Yale, they assume that everyone there has an intellectual superiority over them therefore an overall superiority. This idea of superiority can definitely be used by many to justify authority causing extra pressure on whoever they are ordering. So I think that your point about knowing the institution they are in is a really important and compelling point. I also think your point about people having an easier time justifying actions if they dehumanize the people that they are harming, is a really accurate and interesting argument. As you pointed out, that pattern of dehumanizing and harming people is not uncommon so I think it is a really important topic to bring up and have discussions about. I also think that using examples from perpetrators of violence in the Holocaust is an incredibly strong example of this dehumanization considering it is one of the most prominent examples in history and one of the most catastrophically inhumane moments in history.

Everybody has the potential to instill violence against others depending on the situation and how the person may be manipulated. Some people can inflict harm on others if it would benefit them or if they believe that imposing harm on others would not make them morally wrong. This is the situation in the Milgram experiments where the participants felt they were not responsible for their actions because they were carrying out other instructions. Since the instructions were not their own, neither was the guilt, As "people feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act"(Barajas). This is the case of the person who went all the way with the experiment. At first, he was very hesitant about giving the electric shocks but when the instructor accepted all the responsibility for the outcome of his actions, he could carry them out. The instructor's acceptance of responsibility also created cognitive dissonance and helped the participants distance themselves from their actions. Also, the harm gradually escalated in the experiment. In the beginning, the shocks weren't terrible but as the experiment moved, the harm worsened. The gradual escalation helped the participants justify each step rather than the harm as a whole. The experiment also suggested that physical and emotional distance between the participants and the victims affected whether the participants could harm the other person. The more physical distance and emotional distance there was the more likely the participants would harm the victim. This phenomenon would also explain why people can hurt others in mass atrocities and genocide. If a group of people is dehumanized and ostracized that would create a huge emotional distance between the participants and the victims making it easier for people to commit terrible crimes. For example, In the Holocaust, Jewish people were blamed for Germany's terrible condition and dehumanized which made it easier for people in Germany to carry out the Holocaust. Groupthink and conformity are also factors, as people can justify crimes better when more people are involved since they can distribute the blame to others and don't feel as responsible for their actions. Individuals also may commit these crimes for validation from society and their safety. In places where these atrocities happen, people are brainwashed with extremist ideas and are encouraged to turn to others who go against them. For example during the Great Revolution of China, many were encouraged to turn against their family member if they didn't support the cause,therefore to avoid harm many took place in extreme behavior or didn't oppose it for their safety. Also, people's devotion to leaders plays a factor in their ability to participate in extreme movements. When people worship leaders they can follow any orders given by them no matter how terrible they might be. For instance, during the Cultural Revolution, people worshipped their leader, Mao Zedong, so much that they accepted everything he said and treated him as a god, despite the millions of deaths he was responsible for. Some were even able to turn against their own family due to the extremist ideas indoctrinated into them.

The factors that led teachers to disobey the instructions were their critical thinking abilities and their ability to question authority rather than blindly follow it. To create societies that value and encourage these traits, we need to encourage others to be more empathetic, have more moral courage, and take personal responsibility. We also need to create societies that encourage debate and allow questioning of authority without any consequences.

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on September 24, 2024 17:31

I think you hit the nail on the head about the circumstances that cause an atrocity and how ordinary people, as proved in the experiment, have a trait that can be harnessed for evil in mass movements. How someone removes themselves from the decision making process is an interesting idea which you got at through Barajas’ article.

Your commentary on how cultural aspects of a person's identity, or certain ideologies, beliefs, or customs can make a person more or less likely to follow orders is very prescient to the Hoffer’ excerpt on leadership and the situations that cause calamities. In that article, Hoffer used the catastrophes of WWI and the following economic collapse to explain how the frustrated people made rash decisions in an attempt for comfort. A combination of your ideas might deal with how people that had war ingrained into them makes them more obedient and violent. Also, I do not know how propaganda lasts on a population. Does that attempt change the culture or does it fade with war? If one group is dehumanized by a population does that encourage further dehumanization? Once again, great job, I don’t know if I get to know your responses to these questions but I look forward to the possibility.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by RW1107 on September 24, 2024 19:28

"...It is the lack of responsibility that allows for people to commit such terrible actions, because they don't have to answer for what they've done, but their supervisor does. If people are able to separate themselves from their actions and remove the humanity from their victims, then they are able to justify everything they do. The promise that they are losing their own individuality and embracing an authority figure's will removes the burden of self-reflection and morals..."

I find the part where you say "the promise that they are losing their own individuality...removes the burden of self reflection" in the second paragraph to be very compelling. It's an interesting idea that people would find a loss of individuality desirable, but to some degree I actually agree. Individual identity is extremely complex and can be difficult for some people to think about, so the “reward” of not having to consider it at all by defining oneself by a group actually makes sense. It’s easier for people to latch onto other people’s opinions and ideas than to think critically and formulate their own.

This reflects back on society to a great degree--as mass movements around the world in the past century have grown increasingly more radicalized and polarized, there has been a decline in critical thinking and nuance in every conversation and conflict. In this country, political ideas and discussions have been so polarized that it seems we are expected to fully and blindly agree with one side or the other on each and every issue, when this just isn’t realistic. Both sides are too radical here or there, yet being moderate or centrist is almost seen as not caring. This applies back to historical events like the Holocaust where unique and individual opinions about how to handle Germany’s economic crisis were steamrolled by accusations of disloyalty or disinterest in the fate of the country and its people.

Originally posted by make_art_not_war on September 24, 2024 18:52

As sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes “The most frightening news brought out by the Holocaust . . . was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” This dark potential that all humans, in my opinion, possess is further supported by the Milgram experiments which shows that ordinary people have the ability to seriously harm others if acting under the orders of an authority figure. In the Milgram experiment the obedience theory, which states that humans are socialized to obey authority, is tested on ordinary people selected on the street and the results of the study ultimately support the theory. In the article “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, study co-author Patrick Haggard states that “acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused.” This notion of disassociation from personal behavior and actions can be seen in anyone and is very harmful for self awareness and analysis. In the Milgrim experiment certain “teachers” who were tasked with shocking other participants constantly sought validation from the authority figure, the experimenter, by asking who was responsible for any harm that was inflicted upon the person they were shocking. After learning that they were not going to be held accountable or responsible they were more likely to continue to shock the other participants, putting the dangers of this disassociation on display. By thinking that we are not responsible for our actions we are more likely to create justifications for what we are doing in order to carry on obeying the social norm of following the rules.

While Milgram’s experiment does give a generalized explanation of why ordinary people might participate in violence, mass atrocities and genocide, it deos not take into account many other factors that could influence if someone decides to participate or not. The Milgram experiment supports the obedience theory by using factors such as how close the “teacher” is to the “learner”, how close the experimenter is to the “teacher”, and the location of the experiment however it does not take into account emotional connection between the “teacher” and the “learner,” the way in which the pain was inflicted, and other reasons that the person inflicting pain would have for disliking the person that pain was being inflicted upon. The conscious or subconscious biases that the ordinary person might have towards a group of people can also affect this person's perception of others in that group and play a part in whether or not they are more likely to harm them.

Some of the important factors and personality traits that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters commands to continue to shock the “learner” were a strong sense of self. This sense of self gave them the confidence to be sure of their decision and reject the orders of the experiments which they deemed to be wrong and/or harmful. Despite the ability of humans to obey harmful orders from an authority figure we all also have the ability to reject negative leadership. We can enforce this by creating societies that value and encourage individuality, confidence, and a strong sense of self rather than conformity. Despite the benefits that these reinforcements have they can also lead to the possibility of creating an environment where individuals feel the confidence to go against essential rules and laws that protect the well being of a society.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post is that “Despite the ability of humans to obey harmful orders from an authority figure we all also have the ability to reject negative leadership”. I agree with this idea because as we’ve seen from the Milgram experiment once the “teacher” felt as if they were no longer responsible for what happens to the “learner” they were able to continue with the procedure knowing that the other person was still feeling the pain. This idea is interesting because it shows how some of us can be influenced to do bad things to another just by simply feeling as if it isn’t our fault even when it clearly is. Our views were similar because we both mentioned how bias can come into affect when determining whether or not someone deserves the treatment that they are getting. However they were different because the idea that if we taught people to defy authority that it may later make people think that it’s valid to defy the laws that society has put in place was a great idea that I didn’t think of. I think that this is a great point and something that should be paid attention to because some people genuinely do feel like they don’t need to listen to authority and just do whatever they want to do and this is detrimental to our society.

Originally posted by shirleytemple on September 20, 2024 08:25

Milgrims experiments do not only go as far to show the effect of authority, and how far some people are willing to abide by it, but the influence people have on others. The small idea of a person being smarter, or higher up in authority can change the way you view and do everything. While I do believe everyone has the potential to go through hurtful orders due to blindly following obedience, but I also believe everyone is capable of defying authority and saying no. It can be hard but it can be done. It was seen in the Milgram experiment, where the first teacher refused to go on with the test once he heard that the student was being harmed. This is an example of how people can stand up and realize that what they are being told to do is wrong, and that it’s not impossible to defy orders. While I do think Milgram's experiments show how people were able to be ordered to do atrocious things, it doesn’t excuse the actions. At the end of the day, everyone has free will. Or do they? It’s not all one thing, but a multitude of layers I would play devils advocate to say that some people can be forced/threatened to do something they know is wrong. An example could be authority threatening the lives of someone they love to make them do what they want. In Nazis Defense, they argue that “If people acting under orders really do feel reduced responsibility, this seems important to understand. For a start, people who give orders should perhaps be held more responsible for the actions and outcomes of those they coerce,”. Meaning we should focus more on prosecuting the authority and not the people who commit the actions. While it is important to recognize that we need to hold the people who give the orders accountable, we also must hold the people doing the orders accountable as well. While they might have been coerced into doing the actions, it still doesn’t excuse it. As humans, we need to be able to realize when to follow orders and when not to. In order to avoid blindly following orders and then committing crimes. As well as people could simply deep down enjoy what they are doing, they could be narcissistic, psychotic, un-empathetic, etc. In class, a point was made that similar people are naturally drawn together, while we were watching the video about Kash. While this certainly doesn’t apply to all people, it could to some, and thats enough. When analyzing who should be prosectuted, it is important to factor in personality traits. They play such a big factor in how we act, and we can use them to explain why we do the things we do. In the Real Lesson of the Standford experiment they talk about how sometimes we get so attacted to our label in society, that we lose all our values and independence. As seen from the text; ““majority” of participants found themselves “no longer able to clearly differentiate between role-playing and self,” …experience of imprisonment undid, although temporarily, a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged…ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced.”” It rings the question, are we naturally good or bad? Orders sometimes allow us to do things without consequence, and people love being able to do things without punishment. For a kid, this could be as simple as being allowed to eat extra candy before bed, or a grownup that gets to skip work for a week without any faults. So, this way of thinking could explain why people do such horrible things, because they know they won’t be punished for them. However, all of this, the experiments and the research, shouldn’t excuse someone from punishment for committing a crime.

Post your response here.You made some strong points regarding the complexities of obedience and authority. Especially in the context of the Milgram experiments. I agree that the experiments highlighted how easy it is to coerce people and have them commit harmful acts. And the example of the teacher who chose to not continue the experiment shows how morality can emerge in highly controlled environments. However, I think it’s important to note that many individuals may genuinely feel that they lack agency to resist authority. If we’re talking in the context of history, it can be guaranteed that many people had the fear of retaliation. Additionally, the influence of situational factors also played a significant role: people may act differently under conditions that enforce obedience, such as military regimes or fascist regimes, which also suggests that their moral compass can be significantly altered. While you advocate for accountability, the effectiveness of punishment is debatable because harsh measures may reinforce the cycle of fear rather than fostering ethical understanding. I think individual ethics shouldn’t be singled out; instead it should be considered in the broader context. Ultimately, we both can agree that human behaviors and ethics are layered and requires a fine understanding of obedience and authority.

Originally posted by bostonlatin1635 on September 23, 2024 09:43

Obedience is one of the fundamental pillars of psychology, and for many has been ingrained in them through different power imbalances, such as a boss to his employee, a teacher to student, or parent to child. It is known that authority or appearance of authority is very persuasive in getting people to obey, and the Milgram experiment set out to see just how far someone would obey an experimenter who has no inherent authority over the subject. However, the experiment showed that over fifty percent of subjects will administer a deadly shock at the expense of being obedient to the experimenter. However, I do not believe that this can be adequate evidence of why soldiers of the holocaust and other mass atrocities throughout world history. This is because I believe soldiers are very influenced by the “mob theory” which says that behavior is more exaggerated and undisciplined in a group of many. For example, there were millions of nazi soldiers during the holocaust, which may have caused them to act purely evil. Sure, Adolf Hitler was seen as a very authoritative figure, which caused nationwide obedience to his horrific policies, but since there were so many soldiers, it could’ve prompted them to act so unhinged. In addition to this, there was also some social conformity involved, as, since the soldiers were in a group, might’ve not been prompter to stand up as everyone else was doing it. Another angle of this is described in How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, where it says “The study, published in the journal Current Biology, described this distance as people experiencing their actions more as ‘passive movements than fully voluntary actions’ when they follow orders.” This is another thing that is contrary to the Milgram experiment, as the subjects of the milgram experiment were very present and the experiment lasted minutes, while the Holocaust lasted years.

I think that the Milgram experiment has very interesting and enticing results, but it is not a direct parallel or explanation of the decision making of the nazi soldiers. This is in part due to the feeling of a crowd, whereas the Milgram experiment is very much individual. However, the Milgram experiment is definitely a baseline for the behavior seen during the holocaust and other mass atrocities, as if subjects are willing to go to that extent of harm by themselves, they would do so much worse when in a crowd, as they have much less responsibility for their actions and can hide in the crowd of people. Also, the commands given during the experiment were very similar to that of a war official, in its “matter-of-fact” and urgent tone. All in all, although many nazis experienced many of the thoughts as the teachers in the MIlgram experiment, but since the were in a crowd and surrounded by more authoritative figures who seemed to be much more intelligent than the soldiers themselves, it could have prompted them to commit such heinous atrocities.

The thing I found most interesting about this person’s response is that they actually challenged the obedience theory. Although it is true that over 50% would administer the deadly shock, this person writes that this is not what they believe caused the mass obedience of German soldiers during the Holocaust, or many other people’s roles of violent atrocities committed throughout the years. This response challenges that theory by saying that “mob mentality” has more to do with the soldiers’ obedience to the Nazi regime. To quote them, “Adolf Hitler was seen as a very authoritative figure, which caused nationwide obedience to his horrific policies, but since there were so many soldiers, it could’ve prompted them to act so unhinged.” Essentially, this means that one person, or a small group of people, cannot influence a crowd of millions. This is a fundamental difference to the Milgram experiment, since there was an intense pressure on one singular person, from one singular person, to comply. However, mob mentality, which is the pressure of thousands, or even millions, is a much stronger force. I agree with this because it is unreasonable for one person, far away, to be able to sway the minds of millions; there would need to be more pressure, coming from all sides. I notice that in many of my other peers’ responses, many people question the authority of the Milgram experiment, but do not go as in depth as to compare it to Hitler’s. I also tend to lean on the side of the person I am reviewing– they are both dangerous and thought provoking experiments/events, but I cannot draw a direct parallel between them. Overall, I enjoyed reading this person’s response and thought they went in depth with some interesting topics. I think that maybe the mechanics could be sharpened to make it flow a bit better, but overall I believe this response covered a lot of important topics and ideas.

Originally posted by questionably123 on September 25, 2024 11:56

Everybody has the potential to instill violence against others depending on the situation and how the person may be manipulated. Some people can inflict harm on others if it would benefit them or if they believe that imposing harm on others would not make them morally wrong. This is the situation in the Milgram experiments where the participants felt they were not responsible for their actions because they were carrying out other instructions. Since the instructions were not their own, neither was the guilt, As "people feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act"(Barajas). This is the case of the person who went all the way with the experiment. At first, he was very hesitant about giving the electric shocks but when the instructor accepted all the responsibility for the outcome of his actions, he could carry them out. The instructor's acceptance of responsibility also created cognitive dissonance and helped the participants distance themselves from their actions. Also, the harm gradually escalated in the experiment. In the beginning, the shocks weren't terrible but as the experiment moved, the harm worsened. The gradual escalation helped the participants justify each step rather than the harm as a whole. The experiment also suggested that physical and emotional distance between the participants and the victims affected whether the participants could harm the other person. The more physical distance and emotional distance there was the more likely the participants would harm the victim. This phenomenon would also explain why people can hurt others in mass atrocities and genocide. If a group of people is dehumanized and ostracized that would create a huge emotional distance between the participants and the victims making it easier for people to commit terrible crimes. For example, In the Holocaust, Jewish people were blamed for Germany's terrible condition and dehumanized which made it easier for people in Germany to carry out the Holocaust. Groupthink and conformity are also factors, as people can justify crimes better when more people are involved since they can distribute the blame to others and don't feel as responsible for their actions. Individuals also may commit these crimes for validation from society and their safety. In places where these atrocities happen, people are brainwashed with extremist ideas and are encouraged to turn to others who go against them. For example during the Great Revolution of China, many were encouraged to turn against their family member if they didn't support the cause,therefore to avoid harm many took place in extreme behavior or didn't oppose it for their safety. Also, people's devotion to leaders plays a factor in their ability to participate in extreme movements. When people worship leaders they can follow any orders given by them no matter how terrible they might be. For instance, during the Cultural Revolution, people worshipped their leader, Mao Zedong, so much that they accepted everything he said and treated him as a god, despite the millions of deaths he was responsible for. Some were even able to turn against their own family due to the extremist ideas indoctrinated into them.

The factors that led teachers to disobey the instructions were their critical thinking abilities and their ability to question authority rather than blindly follow it. To create societies that value and encourage these traits, we need to encourage others to be more empathetic, have more moral courage, and take personal responsibility. We also need to create societies that encourage debate and allow questioning of authority without any consequences.

I really liked how you emphasized that everybody has the potential to instill violence against others depending on the circumstances and I completely agree with you. Everyone wants to believe that they’re truly a good person and is incapable of any type of cruel or inhumane behavior but as you stated, people inflict harm on others when it has the potential to benefit them or when they believe that their participation isn't morally or ethically wrong.

Specifically, I liked how you used the Milgram experiment as an example and connected it to previous lessons regarding cognitive dissonance and how the subjects used it to help the participants distance themselves from their actions. I also especially liked how you drew attention to the context of physical and emotional distance between the participants and the victims. I think this context is extremely important and helps people to better understand why the participants might be more likely to harm the victim when there is physical distance and emotional distance. This also helps us better understand how perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocide were and are able to distance their self perceived notions of themselves from their horrific actions and blatant mistreatment of others.

The most compelling idea to me which you introduced was definitely about how the dehumanization and ostracization of a group of people can create a huge emotional distance between perpetrators and victims which unfortunately, ultimately makes it easier for people to commit unthinkable crimes and human right violations. The example you provided, with Jewish people being blamed for Germany's condition and the dehumanization of them built on centuries of antisemetic blood libels and how that ultimately made it easier for the people of Germany to carry out the Holocaust, was also a great addition to your reflection. The given example lets your audience better understand the role that dehumanization and ostracization plays in mass atrocities and genocide as well as let’s them personally reflect and think about how those same practices are used today to dehumanize others.

Originally posted by Merry on September 20, 2024 08:25

I do think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in forms of violence, genocides, and mass atrocities. This is because it shows us how people react when faced with orders from a strict authoritative figure. Regardless of what they are told to do if someone is being told that they have no choice but to do something they will likely do it. Aside from the strictness of authority, the other factors that come into play are things like if the person inflicting pain knows the other person well, or if they can see them. Some people are also more likely to inflict pain on others if they know that they will not face any consequences. For example, when people interviewed Nazi’s to see why they did what they did and followed orders to blindly, one said “he and other low-level officers were “forced to serve as mere instruments,” shifting the responsibility for the deaths of millions of Jews to his superiors.” This excuse of “just following orders” is an example of how people are far more likely to inflict pain upon others if they know that they aren’t going to face as harsh consequences as the person who “forced them” to do it. The issue with these cases is that at the end of the day people have free will and can make the decision to disobey the authority figure out of respect for the person they are being told to harm and for their own morals. This is why I also think that not everyone has the ability to perpetrate violence against others. This is because I believe some people are more strong-willed in regards to their beliefs and morals and would refuse to commit acts of violence against people simply because someone with authority is telling them to. However the Milgram experiment suggests that aspects of behavior like general fear of authority, or not caring about someone we don’t know as well would lead us to abide by orders and inflict pain and violence onto people. I think that as a society we can unlearn this habit of blindly following authority and learn to take a step back and question if we are following just because we feel pressure or following because we actually agree with what the person is saying. I do think however that there is a danger in that though because people might take too much advantage of that and start to disobey authority at an extreme level which would lead to a lack of organization in society, and it could lead to large amounts of chaos in many places. However, it also could be beneficial because we can stop things from happening that would cause harm to large groups of people, if we just came to the collective decision to think more critically about what we are blindly following. Therefore I feel like we can really learn a lot from the Milgram experiment due to what it reveals about people's tendencies to blindly follow, and what the root of that tendency is.

The most compelling idea in my opinion is “Regardless of what they are told to do, if someone is being told that they have no choice but to do something they will likely do it”. I definitely agree with this statement and it’s so interesting because we can see it all the time in day to day life. For example, say a child doesn't want to go to school. Their parents would most likely tell them that they have to go to school and they don’t have a choice. But, in reality, they do have a choice. Even though their parents told them they HAVE to go to school they still don’t have to. There's no way the parents forcing their child to go to school unless they were to physically drag them there. But, in the child's mind, since they are being told they HAVE to go to school, they accept this and do as they’re told.

Merry’s view on this topic is similar to my views on this topic as I also stated that people are willing to follow violent orders due to the responsibility no longer being on them but on whoever is giving them the orders so they’re less likely to have to face the consequences of their actions. I also had the same idea with how as a society we can unlearn this habit by thinking instead of just blindly following orders. And I also agree with how this can lead to chaos in society and make it so people believe they no longer have to follow any orders unless they agree with them.

Originally posted by mydoglikescheese on September 20, 2024 08:42

The Milgram experiment is a psychological experiment meant to trick the participant into believing not only that they are harming someone else, but that it is imperative to. While some people attempt to disobey authority, many more feel obligated to, and begin to twist the idea in their mind that the responsibility is not theirs but the examineers. Some important factors as to why a teacher would disobey the experimenter include hearing the learner scream or complaining of a heart condition. These are people that most likely have a deeper sense of understanding and empathy, and stopped the experiment to make sure the learner was okay. Cari Romm explains this idea in “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” and states, “The ability to disobey toxic orders, Hollander said, is a skill that can be taught like any other—all a person needs to learn is what to say and how to say it.” This evaluation of people shows that disobedience can occur, it just takes specific measures to do so. On the flip side, this experiment says a lot about obedience, and how people may act on something if they believe they can shift the responsibility onto someone else.

This experiment seems as though it can be a good mirror to real life. The teachers were all ordinary people, and when faced with someone of prestige, in this example a Yale experimenter, it can seem as though there is no way out. In the Milgram experiment video, one man who went all the way through stopped and questioned the experiment many times, threatening to leave. Yet it’s important to note that he never did. His lack of action to help the learner reflects to real life atrocities, and can be connected to soldiers. People will sign up believing they are going in for glory, and leave having committed atrocities. The outside threat in this scenario is much more real as it is their life on the line with those in authority, but it can still explain why people may go through with it. When feeling threatened in a group, often the best thing to do in order to maintain status is to follow the orders of the one in lead. In a way, this can be connected to conformity, and how people will do anything in order to fit in with the status quo. “If everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I?” is a mentality adopted in these scenarios.

The lack of conformity is where this idea changes. Those who feel more comfortable with themselves, or have a high esteem will probably be the ones to disobey authority because they wish to do what they believe is right, not what others want them to do. Building up this confidence to speak up for what is right is difficult, but it goes all the way back to prehuman times, when social animals would need to work together to survive. This may explain why so many people are willing to follow authority, because it’s all they know.

Post your response here.

Overall, I found this post and the way it was worded made great sense and was quite clear. The most compelling idea which I found in this post is that idea that disobedience can happen supported in “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” by Cari Romm , it's something that everyone can do, which I agree to disagree with because I feel as if it can definitely be taught and change a lot of people, but I disagree because I feel as if there are certain people in the world who merely just can’t be changed, people who have strong beliefs in what they do, and how they act, which can even be derived from childhood experiences. I believe that childhood plays a major role in how one thinks, even though it can be changed and certain childhood experiences may not completely develop a person, but I do believe that some people are completely affected by this. I wonder how you feel about this, and feel that childhood experiences play a big role in one's life as well? A big factor which I believe in, and wrote in my own post as well, is the idea that people just give in when they feel threatened, particularly when it’s someone of high status because they want to “fit in” and get that validation. Another major factor which was mentioned is how people will agree to something or give in if they don’t feel responsible or if it is said that they won’t be responsible because it eases our minds and causes that self-consciousness and guilt to go down. I see a lot of these actions in daily life, and how people just give-in which makes you think a lot and how this Milgram experiment was very accurate.

Originally posted by Vonnegut123 on September 22, 2024 23:17

Milgram’s experiment demonstrates only that a significant number of people will inflict damage on another person if ordered to do so, at least if the person causing harm believes that someone above them, the authority figure, is responsible for the harm and will take responsibility for it. However, this psychological phenomenon does not explain the root causes of hateful or harmful acts in a society because it does not explain how hierarchical institutions are formed with members who believe in the hierarchy enough to trust those with authority over them and abandon their own decisions making power. It also does not tell us about what a society can do to educate citizens to be more likely to question authority and resist immoral orders.

The “Fundamental Attribution Error” says that one tends to overstate a trait to explain an action, and a person can reflexively use this to dull the cognitive dissonance, or guilt, of doing harm to another person. In this experiment the trait is that the “teacher” is not responsible because they are simply doing what the “experimenter” told them to do and the overstatement is the use of that to neglect their own critical thinking. That said, at least one of the “teachers” we saw refused to continue giving shocks. That person seemed to think the orders were unethical because the harm being inflicted was so great just for not learning the words. It was not clear why some people made their own decision and others did not.

I believe that inherently people do not want to hurt other people because of simple self preservation, they do not want to be harmed themselves and therefore do not want to live in a society where it is alright to harm another person. However when people form into groups we often see hierarchies form and those hierarchies seem to let people feel off the hook for following orders. Other times people at the bottom continue to make their own decisions. It is not clear what makes the difference. Milgram had to justify to the “teacher” the shocks. For at least some of the teachers, the experimenter also had to say he was “responsible” for the harm that might be inflicted. This suggests to me that Milgram believed people would cause harm only where they believe the justification or reason why the harm was being caused and also that the authority figure would take responsibility for the action.

Matthew Hollander’s thesis about Milgram’s experiment was summarized by Carri Romm that, “people in both categories (obedient and disobedient) tried several forms of protest – those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than those that continued,” (Romm 4). This suggests the experiment is a measurement of obedience. The experiment was also only done with one person and one authority figure. How this would function if there were two “teachers” or several authority figures is unknown. It is also not clear what would have happened if the “teacher” was instructed to stop or protest if the harm seemed too great or seemed unreasonable.

Where does authority come from? For the experiment, authority was given to the “experimenter” by their lab coat, payment to the subject, and by the fact that the experiment was conducted at a prestigious and well known institution, Yale. In society, authority can be given by age, degrees held and the institutions that granted them, public opinion, law, governments, religion, wealth, physical power, and more. A society can influence which institutions continue to have authority by deciding which institutions have or keep physical power (access to force or military, financial power (access to resources), legal authority (granted by governments and courts), and moral authority (which may be granted by the public or in a grass roots way). Maybe a society can reduce the likelihood of mass atrocities by granting power only to institutions that require members to use individual agency to follow only just orders, or by having some other check on the continued power of the institution.

All in all, I think the human tendency to obey proven in Milgram’s experiment can contribute to but not cause mass atrocities. I think the real cause is a mix of this tendency and a society creating institutions that limit or even punish human tendencies to protest injustice and harm. We might be able to limit mass atrocities by learning how to create societies that encourage protest of immoral orders as well as obedience to just orders.

I really enjoyed reading your post Vonnegut123! I found your thoughts on humans' innate psychology not being completely self-preservational or seeking to harm others very inspiring, especially considering the results of these psychological experiments that suggest the contrary. I also found your point very compelling on Milgram’s experiment serving as a contributing factor of mass atrocities, but not causing them. I completely agree that Milgram’s experiment helps explain why mass atrocities occur and why ordinary people fervently take part. However, I think that it may be more of a contributing factor than you described. A very interesting question was posed in your introduction: “It does not explain how hierarchical institutions are formed with members who believe in the hierarchy enough to trust those with authority over them and abandon their own decision making power.” It seems illogical for people to give up their autonomy to serve some made-up hierarchy that doesn’t serve them. In the Milgram experiments, however, the “teachers” created a hierarchy out of the situation and assumed a place at the bottom of it, following orders instead of protesting the harmful acts. Although the environment was made to feel as if the experimenters were the authority figures, they had no real control over the teachers. In this way, do people deliberately create hierarchies in which they answer to another assumed authority figure in order to avoid their own uncertainty and guilt? If that were the case, then it seems that this biological need to be a part of the majority does play a defining role in tragic historical events.

Originally posted by lilbigmacfries on September 24, 2024 21:20

From what I saw in the documentary, it’s clearly evident that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. While some people are harder to convince or draw into a plan or action that will harm others, ultimately everyone is willing to participate in violent acts to a certain degree. For example, in the video we watched in class, the first “teacher” stopped far earlier than the second “teacher”. While he stopped before the shocks got to an extremely painful voltage, he still participated in the violent act of shocking someone no matter how little the shock. In comparison to the second “teacher”, he does seem like he’d be the “better” person, as the second “teacher” stopped to question authority and be reassured, yet continued with the experiment until the very end.

Following this, the second “teacher” had to find excuses or way to justify himself, saying that he was “about to get up and walk out” or using the excuse that he was told to continue. This goes along with what we’ve talked about in class regarding dissonance, and how those with high self image will go to greater lengths to justify their actions, which is why this man goes so far as to displace blame in order to keep the image of himself he has in his head. This can also be seen in the article titled, “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments” by Cari Romm. Following the Milgram experiment, people were looking for dirt on Milgram himself, hoping to villainize him instead of putting any sort of accountability on the participants who had the free will the leave and end the experiment at any time, even if they were told not to.

This idea that someone who participated in violent acts, but doesn’t bear responsibility due to the fact that they lacked leadership, or were just “following orders” is far too common in society today and in the past. When there is any kind of authority figure present, people tend to neglect their free will whether or not the authority is only verbally or physically threating. Naturally, humans feel the need to obey authority to avoid being outcasted, but falter when obeying authority comes at someone else’s expense. This typically goes under the radar, but having sat and discussed this in class, it’s very evident that people like Nazi’s during the Holocaust and the college kid who walked out in the middle of an assault/murder hold more responsibility than they’re often given in these situations. Overall, I believe that the Milgram Experiments provided valuable insight on how the average person’s mind works, and how we differentiate ourselves from others through our actions and self image. People with a strong sense of self, like the first “teacher”, had less trouble disobeying authority to potentially help another person. At the same time, this can’t completely save him from accountability, as he still gave some lighter shocks to the “student” and didn’t stop until the “student” mentioned a potential health condition.

Post your response here.

Overall, I agreed with your post greatly. I think that your insight on the experiment, along with your quote selection from the documentary were both perfect for your argument. I think your most commanding argument was the idea on authority and how it influences decision making. You thought that people begin to lose their free will when an authoritative figure is present in the room. I definitely agree with this, and the fact that “ just following orders” is now becoming more and more common making it so that free will and individual thoughts are on the decline, and I have also seen this same idea being brought up in class, and it has been received well. Also, I saw some of my ideas from my post into yours, specifically relating to how the teacher might have been affected mentally during the experiment, and how the milgram experiment can be beneficial for some to figure out just how far people will go in a certain environment under certain conditions. Despite this, I steered my post more towards question 2, and how the experiment could be a representation of what went through the nazi soldiers mentally. All in all, I really enjoyed your post, and it seemed like you put a lot of thought into it.

Originally posted by transcending.deer_777 on September 24, 2024 21:18

The Milgram experiments point out a massive flaw in the way that humans think and the logic which we use to justify our actions. The main takeaway from this experiment is that everyone has the capability to cause harm when we are under the influence of an authority figure. Atrocities like the holocaust and other genocides all had very strong leaders, and under these leaders there are many people who follow through on the killing much else of the actual harm. Although the followers of the leader may feel obligated to follow through on the commands of the leader in reality these followers have free will over the harm they cause. This feeling of obligation could be a way for people to reduce dissonance for the harm they cause.

I assume that, alike to dissonance, people with strong senses of self are less likely to fall victim to the Milgram experiment. What this reveals to us about humans is that they are extremely likely to just go with the flow and follow the actions of others. This makes it easier to inflict pain on others because it is assumed others are also doing it and thus it is allowed.

I believe that these experiments explain the actions of humans during mass genocides and other very public events because although people do follow the orders of others, the media influences people's choices too. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the participants were unaware of the existence of an experiment like this, but in the case of mass genocides the people committing this violence are aware of the greater scale of the mass violence going on. I believe that in the cases of mass genocides people would be even more willing to commit these act of violence because they would see that so many other people are taking part in the violence.Although this would make it more likely for people to partake in the violence, the greater implications of the harm would be well known and that may discourage more people from helping.

Under the finding of Joshua Barajas that “they felt less responsible when they acted under orders,” the aspects that made people corroborate with the terrible actions that they were committing was that they felt as if they had to. In the Milgram experiment, when teachers asked to stop they were told that they had to keep going, this aspect of being under order and feeling trapped forced many of them to keep going even when their actions were at odds with their feelings. Although this aspect of the experiment could be seen as unfair, in many scenarios it isn't unrealistic that the in genocides the retaliation would be met with great repercussions.

In many ways the pressure that is seen in the Milgram experiment is for the good of society. It is often observed in small scenarios such as getting behind all the other people in line or waiting for others to get off a train before boarding but in certain scenarios it is very harmful. It is important to realize whether the habits we participate in are beneficial and whether we are participating because we feel a need to or because we agree with the habit.

The most compelling idea of this post is that humans have a tendency to go with the flow of society and follow authority figures. This is close to the same conclusion I reached about the experiment, as this experiment shows the lengths to which we are willing to go in order to fit in with society. I found it interesting that they would argue dissonance also played a role in the experiment, with people who have low self-esteem being more susceptible to following authority figures. It seems that many other posts also agreed with this idea that people could become susceptible to being perpetrators of the violence due to the feeling that we are not responsible for the violence but the authority figures are. They also argue that the possbile consequences for not following orders are more pronounced in real life than in the experiment, possibly contributing to people being more susceptible to violence when in an evironment on the brink of mass atrocities. I would suggest focusing more in depth on certain topics instead of trying to cover all of the topics, because it makes it hard to find a clear message in the paragraphs. They could go more in depth about the responsibility of perpetrators and following society instead of covering all the questions given.

Originally posted by shaquille.oatmeal123 on September 24, 2024 10:20

I think everyone has the potential to cause harm to another, whether it be emotionally or physically. The Milgram Experiment is a clear example of this. It shows that, for a lot of people, it is natural to obey orders. I think it suggests a lot about the human psyche in this day and age. Many people follow what other people do, this can be seen with the presence of trends and other forms of social media. I believe that we as society have become very obedient, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, you have to follow the laws in place. However, when someone in authority tells you to do a bad thing (such as hurting someone) I think we as humans should recognize that it isn't right. In "How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind", Joshua Barajas connects the Milgram experiment to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust: In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act: “In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused,” said study co-author Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, in an email. 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 2). Like many of my classmates are saying, I believe that the Milgram experiment properly explains people's active participation in violence and other atrocities. The Holocaust stands as a perfect example of this notion. Beyond just the blind following of authority, many people commit these acts of violence just to social pressure. In one of the videos we watched in class, there was one lady who kept standing up to a sound in the waiting room of the dentist as all the other people in the room were doing it. This example of social pressure could also apply to the Milgram experiment, it can become normalized to commit these acts of violence if other people are doing it with you. This also ties into the ideas of dehumanization, which many Nazi's did during the Holocaust to decrease dissonance.

Some personality traits of the “teacher” that may have led them to disobey could be empathy. Many of the people exhibited worry for the “learner” and how they were doing. While some showed empathy, they did continue with shocking the “learner.” Another trait could be having the ability to have critical thinking. Some of the “teachers” questioned the authority of the scientist in the room, as well as testing the legitimacy of the experiment. This crosses over into the idea of education, we as a society can teach people when they are young the critical thinking skills needed to disobey in situations where you are causing another person harm. I think the potential of this also causing danger could be very true. A disobedient and rebellious population is bound to have some sort of violence. We as a society would have to educate those when it is appropriate to disobey and when it is appropriate to obey rules.

The most interesting idea that I took away from this post is that societies can prevent people from blindly perpetrating violence against others by simply educating them at a young age. Learning to always obey adults is ingrained in our minds as children. If we emphasized teaching how to make the distinction between right and wrong and promoted stronger critical thinking skills, people would be less likely to be obedient for the wrong reasons. While I agree with your idea, I do think that it is much easier said than done. I believe that several higher ups actually depend on people blindly following their authority as it strengthens their objectives - these kinds of leaders most likely wouldn’t want children to grow up knowing that they actually can disobey authority. Similar to what you mentioned, I also wrote about how people often dehumanize their victims to justify their acts of violence, but I attributed that only to the emotional distance present. I didn’t think about how they may actually be perceiving “a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused,” which is a fascinating point! I also found it interesting that you acknowledge how sometimes obedience is necessary, or else people wouldn’t do things like following the law. It’s important to recognize how we respond to authority figures and understand what lines should and shouldn’t be crossed. Of course, this would be different for everyone so I wonder if it's truly possible to get to that point. Overall, great points!!