learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Kvara77goat on September 23, 2024 08:51

From watching the Milgram experiments, I think I learned a lot about society. I was upset to see the “teacher’s” willingness and refusal to disobey the experimenter, even though he clearly understood what he was doing was wrong. The teacher is an everyday man who signed up for an experiment. He did not go into the experiment intending to harm someone, yet in 65% of cases he was willing to give the learner, a complete stranger, a fatal shock. This is a powerful and scary trend. Yet there are multiple ways to explain the phenomenon. One is the pressure and closeness of the experimenter to the teacher, and the lack of connection between the teacher and the learner. Even when the teacher expressed serious qualms about continuing to shock the learner, the experimenter would brush them aside, saying nothing would happen, even when something clearly was happening (the man was screaming, even saying that more shocks would kill him.) By the end, the learner fell completely silent and didn’t answer the questions. The experimenter would tell the teacher to keep going, and the majority of the time, the teacher would oblige, even though he knew he may have just killed a man, or was about to kill him with more. In one example we watched, the teacher repeatedly asked the experimenter if he would take any responsibility for the consequences of the experiment. After the experimenter said that he would assume all of the blame, the teacher had little trouble continuing the experiment, despite it having not changed that he may administer a fatal shock to the man. This shows a high level of dissonance; if the man felt no responsibility, he would not have an issue doing something morally wrong. However, it appears that a major cause of the heavy influence of the experimenter on the teacher is their close proximity. The experimenter would be upset with the teacher if they did not continue the experiment; meanwhile, the learner was distant, and that made the teacher more likely not feel sympathy, compassion, or a connection with the learner. If the roles were reversed, and the experimenter was giving instructions on the intercom while the learner was in the room with the teacher, I believe that the experiment would have gone very differently. The teacher would have been able to feel the learner’s pain, and relate to him more having had a face to face interaction. However, this still says many bad things about people’s tendencies to inflict pain on others without a justifiable reason.

Additionally, there are more shortcomings within Milgram’s experiment. The subjects were all men, middle aged, and working class. From what I could see, the men were all or mostly white. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this experiment took place over 50 years ago. Australian author Gina Perry wrote a book in which she criticized the experiment, saying some of the data was untrue and that the experimenters went off script. She also claimed that some participants knew that the experiment wasn’t real. This would lead to the experiment being discredited. These are issues in the experiment, but they still do not change the fact that a person will still inflict pain on someone. For this reason, the experiment shows how people are willing to comply with societal pressure and do something they normally would not support under the smallest amount of pressure.

I do agree with your point that when someone else takes the blame for the actions that one commits, it allows them to ignore the consequences of their actions and view them as someone else's fault. I remember in the Milgram experiment that when the Teacher was asked why he didn't stop when he knew the learner was in pain he kept on saying that "he couldn't" it's as if he gave up control of his body to the Experimenter and allowed him to do what he pleased. The Teacher could've stopped any time but he himself thought that he was unable to.

As for the overall post I do feel that there could’ve been more depth in your assessment of the accuracy of the Milgram experience. I wonder more about your opinion on how having people of different races and backgrounds could’ve changed this experiment. Would having an African American there change anything? Would they be more or less likely to continue harming the Learner and does their history with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade contribute to that? Would having a richer person as the Teacher change anything? Would he be more confident in himself because he knows that he’s worth something and would that make him stop harming the learner in comparison to the middle aged man?

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.

I think that one of the most compelling ideas in your post is the example given about soldiers and how they commit atrocities that are difficult to live with due to the fact that they are “just following orders.” I think that this analogy is very accurate and could show a real life application of the Milgram experiment. The idea that they would sign up for glory is also very interesting. This could explain the reasons for why some join certain mass movements, in order to feel validation and try to be a part of “something bigger.”

Our views on this topic are very similar. I agree with your analogy as explained above as well as other opinions that you expressed in your post, for example the possibility of humans disobeying an authority figure. The quote that you included was interesting in the sense that it implied that disobedience was a learnable skill rather than the default. This could also connect back to the idea of self confidence, if someone has worked toward personal understanding and growth they have most likely also gained the ability to disobey authority when it goes against their values. However others that do not have a strong sense of self fall back to the default of obeying orders.

I think that in general your post is very thorough and informative however I also think that you have elaborated on points that you made such as that about soldiers and the natural need of humans to be part of a group as it relates to the circumstances they were under in ancient times.

Originally posted by map on September 20, 2024 13:26

In the Milgram experiment, distance played a huge factor in the obedience of the teacher to continuing causing perceived harm to the learner. If the learner was forced to hold the hand of the learner onto the shock plate, few went all the way to 450 volts. But, if the teacher was not next door to the learner and therefore the screams and protests of the learner could not be heard, obedience soared to almost 100%. On the other hand, when the experimenter was no longer in the same room as the teacher, almost nobody went all the way.

In society, this distance can be emotional. Atrocities are easier to rationalize in the minds of the perpetrators if the victims can be alienated and subsequently dehumanized. Cultural gaps create a sense of otherness that makes these types of horrible things easier. This is multiplied when authority is present as the perpetrators feel less responsible as they follow orders.

To create a society where this can’t happen, we would need to either bring ourselves closer with outside groups or farther from authority. Bringing ourselves closer together eliminates the ability to rationalize following orders to harm others, since there is no “other” being harmed---only someone we identify as being among our own. However, this creates a strange paradox: in order to see outside societies as part of the ingroup, we need to have a diverse society. This creates a problem, though, because now the group lines are defined within our society; we create infighting and hierarchies of discrimination. Completely homogenizing our own society to solve this new problem socially separates us from other societies once again.

It’s a good thing, then, that we can instead separate ourselves from authority to also reduce the urge to obey. If those giving orders are seen as alien or untrustworthy to our society, we can more easily disregard them. Once again, though, this isn’t without its consequences. If the gaps were too large between us and our superiority---such as in a physical gap across a country, a gap in age, or an exorbitant gap in wealth (sound familiar?)---we would begin to lose faith in our leaders (again…sound familiar?). This can lead to the collapse of a society or social hierarchy, at least in its current form---though sometimes this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. That’s part of how this country was created, after all. But the cycle seems to inevitably repeat.

Does this mean we are doomed to endlessly repeat the violence of history’s darkest atrocities over and over again? I don’t think so. As the saying goes, “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it.” This suggests that we can avoid repeating history simply by learning about it---though this is not convincing either. Learning why the Holocaust happened is so much more crucial than learning what happened during the Holocaust.“Why?” has always been a better question than “What?” The result of cognitive dissonance when it comes to harming others results from a disconnect from who we perceive ourselves to be. The people we think we are wouldn’t shock a man to death. The people we think we are wouldn’t participate in the Holocaust. Yet, as the Milgram experiment suggests, the deflection of responsibility alleviates this dissonance: “I’m not responsible; the experimenter is.”

We keep committing these atrocities because we are sure we never would. But as the Milgram experiment shows and as Bauman writes, we could. We have to understand that it could be us. People read this and feel the dissonance without even having done the action. “I would never commit genocide” is dissonant with “I am capable of committing genocide.” Therefore we seek to justify this dissonance before any action has been committed. We absolve ourselves of blame before we are even put into a situation where we could be at fault. Thus we condition ourselves---doom ourselves---to obey, when the situation demands we fight back. In our heads, we already aren’t responsible. By learning to examine these processes in our minds, we can learn to sit with our dissonance. If we learn to take responsibility and come to terms with the idea that, under the right circumstances, we could be coerced into committing terrible deeds, then maybe, just maybe, we would be able to make the right choice when the time actually comes.

As the user ‘ Map’ suggests “Learning why the Holocaust happened is so much more crucial than learning what happened during the Holocaust”, which is very interesting in putting into perspective how essential it is to know the reasons that caused it rather than just what exactly happened which can help individuals reflect on their true chances of harming. This user then explains the major factors that play in people’s being obedient and eventually leading to mass movements. One is the physical and even emotional distance between the authority figure and the participant, and participant to learner. This aspect has been the center of many other peers as well, for example, ‘bostonlatin1635’ states “ 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”. In agreement, I believe that the presence of the person we see as the controller will automatically make us participate in this societal norm of following demands, as we learned in class. However, what I find most compelling about this user’s response to the Milgram experiment was the discussion of how we can as a society reduce the same mistakes. That wasn’t something I considered as I was more fixated on the various amount of factors of blind obedience and how that made everyone at the same level of potential for harm. The possible solution is the need to ‘bring ourselves closer with outside groups’, this relates to our previous class insight on Henri Tajfel’s theory of ‘Us vs. them’. Suggesting people need to have membership in a society, so when an individual has become a part of any type of group, they will differentiate themselves from another group. The results are explained by the ‘map’ that our ability to hurt someone else will be higher because it's someone we don’t consider one of our own. These solutions mentioned will not promise a completely fixed society, as there will always be a flip side that leads to consequences. Overall, my peer had stated many agreeable pieces in response to the Milgram situation, that align with my views on the experiment and even gave me a newer perspective that I didn’t realize.

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.

I believe your argument is compelling about the influence of authority upon peoples behavior. The idea that people are more likely to follow harmful orders when not able to exactly see or know what they are doing to the other people is interesting. "Just following orders" is a good example of this and you brought it up well. The other idea I found interesting was the one about how people are more willing to inflict pain upon others if they know they will face no consequences for doing so. Free will in itself could also counteract obedience.

While societal obedience can lead to a proper use of a authority and peace, it enables a barrier to actually evaluating the commands that they are given. Like you said, some people are more strong-willed in regards to their beliefs and morals and are able to resist the commands to inflict harm upon others. I acknowledge your point that more resistance to authority can take the wrong path in society. It can potentially cause chaos and disorder, but can also be beneficial like you said. One suggestion for improvement would be to make the balance between critical thinking and the potential dangers of disobedience more clear.

Originally posted by WoahWoah on September 20, 2024 13:05

I don’t think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because some people have a strong moral compass and wouldn’t hurt another person without them feeling like they are in danger. However I do think that even people with strong moral compasses, when they face a situation where they are punished or face consequences for not completing the tasks given to them they may complete the order out of fear for what would happen to them. This connects to the Milgram experiment in which the person feels as if they have no choice but to follow the order that was given to them. This tells us that we feel obligated to follow orders from people that we perceive to have authority over us. Also the feeling of getting orders to inflict pain can make people feel guilty but as long as the person feels as if they are not responsible for what happens to other people they will follow the order. With the absence of responsibility they are able to justify to themselves that they are nice people and that they are not the reason behind the violence even if they are the direct cause of it.

I don’t think that the Milgram experiment actually explains ordinary people’s active participation in mass atrocities and genocides because in most cases there is some type of bias or mass agenda that the government and citizen both believe in. In these cases the people carrying the murder don’t have remorse or guilt for their actions because they actually believe in what they are doing. Unlike the candidates in the Milgram experiment they didn’t really know what they were doing and they felt a lot of guilt for the their actions. They even multiple times throughout the experiment question what they are doing and try to stop. There are the rare occasions where the people actually do stop inflicting the pain to the learner. This isn’t the case in mass atrocities and genocide, the people are so motivated by their cause that they continue to murder and cause other pain until they view the job as complete. Bias is a huge determiner for people to be willing to inflict pain on others. If they have some reason for them to believe that the people they are hurting are bad people such as murders, rapists and etc. people would be more likely to think that they deserve it it makes it easier for people to decide to cause them pain.

The people that decided to disobey the experimenters and decided to no longer shock the learner are people that have a strong moral compass and are people who are very empathetic towards others. Knowing that what they were doing was wrong since they were hurting him and that the person back there didn’t deserve to experience the pain because they had done nothing wrong. We can attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures by introducing a curriculum into schools that can keep kids engaged and actually learning how to be empathetic towards others. We had these type of classes at my elementary school but kids weren’t really interested because the styles of the video were like videos for 5 and 6 year olds while we were like 10 and 11 years old. There is a danger in that because kids can be taught this in school and decide that they don’t care to learn about being empathetic and that idea of empathy may be stupid. Children and teenagers have dumb thoughts all the time and if those were to develop on the topic of empathy that would be terrible.

While I disagree on the point that not everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, I think the author makes a lot of good points. For example I agree with the author saying "we feel obligated to follow orders from people that we perceive to have authority over us." This is shown in the Milgram experiment and through many social movements throughout history. I think the most compelling point the author makes is "We can attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures by introducing a curriculum into schools that can keep kids engaged and actually learning how to be empathetic towards others." because it clearly and powerfully outlines the entire point of the piece while also forcing readers to think about and understand what is being said. I agree that introducing curriculums into elementary schools to teach empathy and good morals is a good cause. The idea is interesting to me because my elementary school had some lessons about empathy but nobody really listened because we thought it was boring. I am curious to see if there is a way to create lessons about empathy and make them fun and engaging for elementary schoolers and middle schoolers. My beliefs are very similar to the author's aside from their point on not everyone potentially becoming a perpetrator of violence, I agree that the Milgram experiment doesn't do a great job of explaining all ordinary people's participation in mass atrocities and genocides because of the fact that all humans are individual with their own thoughts and feelings.

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.

Post your response here.

The most compelling idea in this post is the idea that the Milgram experiment highlights the issues between moral agency and authority obedience, which is ultimately the most interesting idea in this passage. According to the text and this response, people are often motivated to commit violent or harmful deeds, especially if they know there won't be any consequences. The author does hold the opinion that not everyone is as prone to this obedience, portraying that most have the ability and strength to stand up against immoral behavior. People learn how to question authority, which then leads to societal change. Although this also raises concerns that then result from undermining authority too much. Understanding human behavior in this context, balance between deference, to authority and moral independence is essential. The ideas in other students' posts as well as mine relate to the main point made of moral agency and authority obedience and their impacts and affects, here. This peer also mentioned the idea of people being more willing to commit wrong and harmful acts if they know there will be no consequences in the end. I made and discussed this same point in my response as well. Overall this response was well thought out and well written. Every point made had evidence either from the texts or evidence from the other sources such as the video we watched in class. The response was organized and flowed nicely.

Originally posted by asianwarrior27 on September 24, 2024 21:21

The Milgram experiment, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, exemplified the dynamics of human obedience and mechanisms that lead individuals to obey unethical authority. The results demonstrated that a significant number of participants continued to deliver shocks, highlighting the tendency to obey authority figures. However, some participants chose to disobey the experimenter's commands, and understanding the factors and personality traits that led to this disobedience is crucial for knowing how societies can be created to perform ethical dissent. Several traits influence individuals’ decisions to disobey the experiments, including empathy, critical thinking, and social support. Empathy plays a vital role in moral decision-making because individuals with a strong sense of empathy often prioritizes the wellbeing of others. In the Milgram experiment, teachers who expressed concern for the learner’s suffering were more likely to not administer shocks. Critical thinking also plays an essential role in obedience to authority. Critical thinkers are less likely to accept commands because they're more likely to evaluate the potential consequences of their actions. Additionally, when individuals observe others expressing discomfort in the face of unethical commands, they are more likely to join in on that. The presence of peers who share similar moral concerns can create a group dynamic, encouraging ethical behavior and challenging authority. This dynamic demonstrates the importance of community in fostering a culture where dissent is encouraged.

Role models who have disobeyed unethical commands can serve as a source of inspiration. While promoting these traits is crucial, there are dangers in encouraging dissent without balance. Unchecked opposition to authority can lead to chaos. Not all dissent is ethical, therefore it's vital to create a criterion that distinguishes between justified dissent and rebellions.

As stated in How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind (Joshua Barajas 2016), the defense of "just following orders" has historically been used to excuse unethical actions. This highlights the need for individuals to develop a strong moral compass that exceeds obedience to authority. Fostering a culture of dissent can create environments of distrust. If individuals consistently challenge authority without an understanding of ethical principles, it will undermine collective goals. Therefore, encouraging ethical dissent and balancing it with respect for authority are both equally crucial.

The Milgram experiment offers insights into human behavior, encouraging us to reflect on how we respond to authority and abide by moral values. This balance of valuing ethical dissent and being grounded in moral clarity is crucial for promoting a society where individuals can challenge unethical authority while having the common goal of achieving the greater good. It’s possible to create a society that encourages dissent. By fostering empathy, critical thinking, and social support, we can create a culture that values courage, ensuring that dissent is a helpful element for societal progress.

The most compelling idea of this post is that when people challenge authority it undermines the collective goals. I agree very strongly with this idea and think it is great to point out the effects of the teachers disagreeing with the instructor. I wish this Idea was expanded upon because within itself there could be very interesting studies made just on it. I also found your point about how seeing others uncomfortable can encourage people to join in ethical actions really important because it shows how group dynamics matter.

The only point of yours that I disagree with is that “Empathy plays a vital role in moral,” your stated that “teachers who expressed concern for the learner’s suffering were more likely to not administer shocks,” but in the experiment it was for that even many of the teachers who showed discontent with their actions still followed through. I think it would be better to point out that the instructors' demands made the teachers better at following instructions.

One suggestion would be to explain more clearly how society can balance encouraging dissent without causing chaos. This is one of the most important aspects of this whole experiment and I would love to see what you have to say about how we can balance the harms and benefits.

Overall, it was really interesting to read your post and I thought you had some great ideas to point out. Expanding on how to balance dissent with maintaining order and developing critical thinking would make your points even stronger.

Originally posted by EX0 on September 21, 2024 13:36

While the Milgram experiment does give insight into the effect of orders on an individual, thus shedding insight into a possible factor of the Nuremberg Defense, there are many holes in the study. The study suggests that over half of people would carry out orders and inflict pain upon other people to extremely devastating results. It seems like when humans follow orders, they dissociate themselves from the action both emotionally and neurologically. A follow up study to the Milgram experiment was conducted by Patrick Haggard which backed this idea. In his study, he looked at brain activity in response to willingly giving electric shocks to a “victim” compared to how they responded to doing it under orders. He indeed found that brain activity was “indeed dampened when being coerced.” (Barajas 3) The Milgram experiment, however, didn’t measure for other factors that lead people to act on violence. A large aspect that allowed the Nazi regime to rise to power and indoctrinate so many people was their use of fear and racism. They convinced millions that Jews were going to take their jobs and ruin their livelihoods. If the Milgram experiments had tested situations in which the “teacher” felt to be under threat by either the “learner” and/or the “experimenter,” the amount of people who continued all the way to 450 volts would likely go up significantly. On top of that, the amount of brainwashing and propaganda used by the Nazi regime made it even easier for regular people to dehumanize their victims and do such awful things. The west’s response of villainizing the entire German population, including those regular people who found themselves living under Nazi control, is a way for the people of the west to themselves dehumanize and separate the Germans from themselves because, as Zygmunt Bauman said, The most frightening thing we could imagine is that we could do what they did too. We as humans are hardwired to value ourselves over others, leading to anyone having the ability to harm others if it protects our social or physical safety.

To try and prevent atrocities like the Holocaust from happening again, it is important to not simply villainize the German populous and throw them out as the epitome of evil, but to understand how they could get to a point where such a thing happens and recognize how we could do it too. Creating a society that is vigilant towards our own psychological weaknesses and aware of the ability of charismatic leaders to convince us to do bad things is the best way to protect from genocide. Education is probably the only real solution to create such a society, however, the studies have shown that people are willing to follow orders at roughly the same rates regardless of education level. Fundamentally it seems as if we as humans are hardwired to follow orders even if we don’t want to be doing what we are ordered to do. We don’t want to disappoint or fail others, so our brains work to reduce the dissonance we feel when following bad orders by shifting blame to the leader and psychologically removing ourselves from the action. Because humans are so good at shifting responsibility, it is extremely difficult to change society enough to prevent mass atrocities.

I thought that this reflection on the Milgram experiment was extremely thought provoking, as there was a large emphasis on the psychological mechanisms that allow individual to follow harmful orders. I found it extremely interesting that you referenced the Nuremberg defense and the ideas of dissociation when someone is under authority because it emphasizes a crucial aspect of human behavior. I also thought that the study you mentioned by Patrick Haggard allowed me to have a deeper understanding of how coercion can dampen emotional responses.

The exploration of how propaganda is such a strong but quiet force was very interesting, especially considering how it can influence innocent humans. It sheds light on how many person can be manipulated into committed atrocities. This made me think about the many influences behind one's actions when committing an atrocity, because I do not think it is always right to assume they are just a horrible human. There are many social, psychological, and situational pressures that play a role in decision making. I think understanding the motives behind people's actions can help us as a society stop labeling people immediately as "good" or "bad".

Originally posted by KWR26 on September 24, 2024 20:10

I think that all humans have potential to perpetrate violence against others. Will everybody? No. But can everybody? Yes. This is shown time and time again through Milgram's experiment and many mass movements in history. As discussed in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments by Cari Romm, we hear that modern researchers are trying to disprove or shift the "true meaning" behind Milgram's experiments. While maybe misreported the study shows one thing above all. Humans follow orders. Regardless if harmless or harmful, we are programmed from birth to follow orders. The school system from ages 4-18 urges you to listen to every order and follow it as directed. Local, regional, national, and global leaders compete for moral superiority and public support. They tell you what to do and think and they win if you listen. Milgram's experiment shows that more often than not, human's, if given the chance, follow the orders they are given until they are told to stop. Whether pressure has an affect or it is about the comfort we experience when the pressure of being in charge of ourselves is lifted off our shoulders. Examples throughout history have proved this true. The nazi's forced obedience through fear but most people seemed ok as long as they were unaffected. High ranking generals even tried to say they were "Just following orders" to justify their actions because we don't want to take responsibility for our actions. The Soviet Union, forced obedience through silencing opposition. But the people who were blissfully ignorant and obedient? Perfectly fine. Some factors that led to "teacher's" in the experiment continuing the torture was the comfort that they were not responsible for any damage incurred on the "learner". Another factor is the continued emphasis that the experiment had to be completed and it was imperative that the teacher continued to question the learner. Now some people had solid moral and ethical reasoning and stopped the torture when the patient began to complain, regardless of what the experimenter said. They questioned the necessity of hurting another human for the purpose of "the experiment". I think Milgram's experiment can actually explain ordinary peoples' role in genocide and violence. While factors like political affiliations, and ethics, or religion might come into play. While blindly obeying orders is common, other things can impact decision making such as, implicit biases, grudges, and mob mentality, as well as propaganda may sway an individual's feeling about a movement. To summarize, while blind obedience and the comfort that comes with it is common, other factors not included in the experiment can change individual to individual. The study was made to generalize groupthink and simplify it to a personal level, without factoring in personal feelings. While flawed the experiment is a decent indicator of how people act when posed with hard decisions like participating in mass movements of violence or discrimination. While the experiment may not have been as perfect as originally thought, statistics showed 63% of participants going all the way. Superiority complexes, moral or positional authority and lack of care for others contributed to individual decisions, so did ethics, morals, and personal beliefs of decency and sympathy.

I agree with this person's perspective. Everyone has the ability or capacity to incite violence against other, whether they choose to or choose not to. I feel that often times people mistake the first "teacher" not continuing the experiment with him lacking the ability to perpetuate that violence, but he had that ability and did perpetuate that violence up until a point where he thought it was "too much". This poster also made an interesting point regarding how this mindset of obedience is taught to us from a very young age, at home or in schools. As kids, we're living through a state of life where we're very impressionable, which is why people say things such as racism or certain beliefs are taught rather than naturally inherited. This same thing can be applied to nationalism, you can't just enter the world and know about nationalism or how extreme it can get, you are taught those kinds of things.

This comes into play during the Holocaust scenario, as Germans were used to obeying their ruler, or the person in power. They had no reason to question Hitler, because they knew the consequences of doing so. Avoiding negative consequences through obedience is the main drive ras to why many people partook in the holocaust.

Originally posted by EastCoast11 on September 22, 2024 20:34

Zygmunt Bauman creates a disturbing realization of how willing our society is to fall under any orders of an authority figure, in relevance to the Holocaust period. Pointing out the truth about our human nature: that we often worry about these occurring events happening to us, and not the fact that we are the same people who are creating these experiences. I believe that everyone holds the same amount of potential to becoming perpetrators of violence, as Milgram's experiments back in 1961 have proven the significant number of participants who fall easily to inflicting pain on others. However, we must reflect on what factors play a role in a person’s capability to induce pain, as Zygumunt challenges our involvement. A significant part of our ability to cause harm is our readiness to obey an authoritative command. Whether that figure may be as simple as an experimenter who started to prove a concept in Milgram's experiment, or a rather more influential leader such as Adolf Hitler during the Holocaust. Whatever the social level may be, the thought that our brutal actions will be excused and no longer our responsibility under the conditions of a commander increases obedience instead of reducing the idea of stopping. Milgram's results revealed “a “small, but significant” increase in the perceived time between a person’s action and outcome when coercion was involved” ( Barajas 2 ). Revealing the big influence a little persuading can do, in the case of Milgram's evaluation, the shocks are intended to be proving the study of memory. Therefore stating a purpose for the experiment to continue, despite the screams of agony heard by the ‘learner ’ in a different room. Milgram also suggests that the empathy of the participants lay in the hands of distance. Emotional and physical distance can play a part in the participant's ability to continue the rising waves of shock. Ultimately, the trial prompted an aspect of human behavior that makes each person possible to willing to fulfill such orders, stating that it “may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders” ( Room 4 ). Explaining that Peoples active participation in mass atrocities such as the Holocaust requires the complicity of others, which can be reasoned by the aspect of being put in a situation like that. Though, a factor that isn’t directly mentioned I believe propaganda and mass manipulation are key when being put in place by a leader can convert people's perspective into a negative view of others, leading to an active response of violence. In conclusion, Zygmunt Bauman’s quote gives insight into a new perspective, encouraging us as a society, to confront what is uncomfortable, but the accurate reality of our human nature to follow those who seem ‘higher’ than us. The Milgram experiment showcases the chances for people to continue harm is not just present, but is activated by certain characteristics, reflecting our behavior of blind obedience, as many of these dynamics mentioned will shape our actions without registering it.

The most intriguing idea of the response was the belief that people are more likely to become perpetrators of violence due to their tendency to obey authority. The post explores how an authority figure might influence people to commit harm to others. I agree with this idea because you can see the same scenario being repeated again and again in history where a leader had convinced people to commit atrocities due to the circumstances of people. Another interesting idea that my peer mentioned was how people think authority absolves them of responsibility and how it can lead to a blurred distinction between moral conscience and blindly following orders. This thinking encourages many to be bystanders and not feel responsible for their actions which would have serious consequences on others. The post also talks about how physical distance is a factor in people's ability to inflict pain on others. This is explored in other responses as well but people are more empathic when they are closer to the victims. Another important point raised was that while we can imagine others inflicting violence on us, we rarely consider ourselves as capable of manipulating and causing pain to othersIt is important to consider not only how to prevent others from harming us, but also how we can avoid harming anyone else, which is not usually considered.

Originally posted by Zinnia on September 24, 2024 20:37

The most compelling point in this reflection is how easily we are able to deflect responsibility from ourselves when there is an authority figure who is willing to take the blame for our actions. I agree with this argument, because it's clear how much we all want to believe ourselves to be good people, and how scared we are of the possibility that we are not. I think it's interesting how this post reflects on the role of a physical or understood authority figure, like in the Stanford Prison experiment, which shows the lengths we will go to when given the right resources and freedom from responsibility. Using the quote about the mindset of guards in this experiment was shocking to see, because it shows how sometimes people will commit acts of cruelty just out of curiosity for how far they can go. I had similar points in my response, as I also talked about the mindset required for people to participate in mass atrocities and genocide, and the techniques that leaders use to manipulate mass groups of people. I think in terms of the post, there could have been more in depth discussion of the role of an authority figure in these experiments, or more discussion of specifics when it comes to how we can be trained to participate in things that go against our personal morals.

Are we all capable of evil? We would like to think not—at least, not us. The Milgram experiments, however, suggest the contrary. Milgram attempts to discover how likely humans are to inflict pain on others when given the command; the Stanford Prison Experiment observes what authority figures would do when given the opportunity. Let’s find out why.

Humans are trained to follow rules and obey authority. Not surprisingly, the results of the Milgram experiments suggest that most people will harm others if ordered to do so by an authority figure. Over the course of the experiment, the norm was set to follow the experimenter’s harmless orders, which encouraged obedience when told to administer severe shocks. In addition, the experimenter stated that they would accept all responsibility for any outcome of the experiment. Thus, the teacher was relieved of blame, justifying the harmful deeds they were committing and encouraging them to continue. These results conclude that humans will deflect to an authority figure in moments of uncertainty, relinquish responsibility and blame, as well as give up their own morals and agency to follow orders.

The Stanford Prison Experiment took a darker turn. The results of the experiment suggested that many people will abuse their authority when given the chance. In Maria Korrinkova’s essay The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the guards, Dave Eshelman, stated, “‘I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, ‘How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘Knock it off?’” (Korrinkova). Though the results of this experiment may seem like people are inherently immoral, the environment of the prison also encouraged this behavior. Thus, the environments that oppressors create are direct factors in encouraging people to inflict pain on others willingly.

Experiments such as these help analyze ordinary people’s willing involvement in mass atrocities and genocide. Oppressors use several techniques in order to encourage obedience from everyday people. For instance, authority figures begin with seemingly harmless commands, later making people more willing to follow inhumane orders. They shift responsibility onto others, maintaining “innocence.” In Joshua Barajas’s essay How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, Patrick Haggard argues, “‘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,’” (Barajas). This deflection of responsibility gives rise to the “I was just following orders” argument used countless times throughout history.

However, not everyone will conform. In the Milgram experiment, some participants quit once they realized that they were putting the learner in pain, and were adamant about their decision despite intense pressure from the experimenters. These people were confident in their sense of self, assuming responsibility for their own actions and refusing to take part in something that contradicted their morals. We can all be these people. It is imperative that we hold ourselves accountable for our actions, and not give up our autonomy to the majority.