learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by jumpingfrog1635 on September 23, 2025 19:08

At the end of the day, I do believe that any person, no matter their past, can become a perpetrator of violence against others. No one can predict the future and our experiences. Any one person, no matter race, ethnicity, or gender, can use any sort of violence to harm a person. Violence doesn’t discriminate, and nor does trauma. That is the main factor that contributes to my belief regarding this topic. The majority of historic perpetrators have had a traumatic experience of some degree that contributed to their violent decisions/decision-making. Milgram’s experiment with the learner and teacher proved this idea that you grow increasingly motivated to do things, even if previously unaware of them, once they are right in front of you, involving a person or not. And, anyone or thing that can get in the way of this new act can now be harmed unbeknownst to the participant. This is also increasingly more likely when there is an outside pressure to continue in your ways. An extreme example would be a situation of murder where one person is told that if they do not kill another person, they will be killed themselves. Obviously, this is broad and rare, but if put on a lower, less harmful scale, it can relate a lot to Milgram's shock experiment, where the teacher couldn’t stop hurting the student because it was “part of the experiment”. The outside pressure prohibits one’s brain from continuing to do what they are told, even if harmful to the recipient. Some things that could contribute to some people’s willingness to inflict pain on others, different from the pressure of an authority, are prior wrongdoings against them, from one person or a group of people. This can create a motive of revenge, especially violence. In the case of Jeremy Strohmeyer and Sherrice Iverson. Sherrice’s mother had full intentions to avenge her daughter's death upon David Cash, indirectly for Jeremy. In a different case, people may intend to seek power and are willing to do so maliciously, even without any psychological or physical trauma, assuming that it is the only solution. Whether it’s over one person, like a terribly abusive relationship, or a group of people, like President Trump vocally attacking both President Biden and VP Harris in recent presidential debates. One represents the physical, one represents both mental and emotional, yet all serve the same purpose, to scare the opposition. Now, circling back to the experiment, important factors and personality traits that led these teachers from Milgram's experiment to rather disobey the experimenters including demeanor or tone of the experimenter, feelings of respect towards the experimenter, and levels of shock from the experiment specifically. If harsh and stern in their ask, the experimenter's point or ask should get across much easier and quicker to the teacher, limiting the harm. This leads into authority and feelings of respect, for teachers may have wanted to continue and did not feel pressured to stop for they felt the experimenters had no authority. Lastly, more related to this exact experiment, the levels and changes in levels of shock. If the teachers were fascinated with the experiment and its results, it was easy for them to continue even with the notion of stopping, for the levels of shock increased in relatively small increments, making the decision for the brain easier to continue for any sort of motive. Evidently, there is extreme danger in all of it, for losing control of any person in a violent situation can lead to uncontrolled harm to all involved, from this experiment, to something as extreme as the Holocaust.

In my peer's post, I appreciate the connection made between people's trauma and the pain they inflict upon others- the common "hurt people hurt people" idea. My assumption is that this idea stems from the idea that these people take these negative feelings from their trauma and displace it, though I do wonder where exactly in the experiment this idea can be pinpointed, or if the idea of trauma contributing to violent behavior connects to a different idea from the experiment. The example of a murder in which the person influencing is threatening their life is definitely interesting to bring up, exploring the ranges this pressure can take on and putting into perspective how low stakes defying the "experimenter" was, further highlighting how fascinating it was for them to continue following orders nonetheless. I definitely agree with their point on the importance of tone when communicating with the teacher. I do not think the experiment would've gone as far with a weaker voice, which also ties into the groupthink idea of following whoever seems the most confident. I think the comment on the impact of pure curiosity is very interesting and wasn't something properly discussed with the experiment. It also raises the question of where that line between curiosity and fear is in such uncharted territories.

Originally posted by chicken on September 22, 2025 09:22

Anyone can inflict violence against others, either because they wanted to or because they were told to. Even though some people might not want to do something violent against another person, Milgram’s experiment explains why ordinary people participate in violence because when people are confused or don’t know what to do, they would find who they think is a leader and follow their directions. People follow a leader's direction even if it’s bad because people think leaders know what they are doing so they feel justified in doing the commands the leaders give out. When people do the bad commands that leaders issue, they don’t care about the consequences that could happen since they think they are just doing what they are told to do. Joshua Barajas, an article writer for Scientific American, further expands on the fact that people feel less responsible doing bad actions the leaders tell others to do by saying, “In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” and, “when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves, Haggard said”.

Some important factors that lead the teachers in the experiment to disobey the leader’s command to continue shocking the learner are the morals that the teacher had. When the electric voltage for the shocks got higher to around 150 and 200 volts, the learner started to scream loudly after every shock. The teacher started to stress out and say things like how he doesn’t want to do it anymore. However, the teacher still continues to shock the learner anyways since the leader of the experiment told him to do so. Even though the teacher doesn’t want to keep shocking the learner, he still does because he thinks the leader is always right and he cares less about the consequences that can happen since he was just following the leader’s commands.

A historical example of people listening to leaders even though they were bad was Adolf Eichmann’s role in the Holocaust between 1933 to 1945. The German Nazi government put millions of Jewish people into concentration camps and millions of people died in those camps due to the camp’s brutal and harsh conditions. The Holocaust ended in 1945 when Germany fell after the end of WW2 but people in charge of the concentration camps didn’t claim responsibility for their roles and an example of this was Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was an officer in charge of the camps and he was put on trial in 1962 after Israeli police caught him hiding in Argentina. Eichmann said that he was forced to be a camp officer because even though he morally knew the camps were wrong, he still chose to be an officer because the government told them to do so. Eichmann’s reasoning for why he participated in the holocaust is an example of how people can do violent things against others even if they knew it was morally wrong.

My peer had a lot to say about the guilt from consequences and how most of it disappears under the orders of a leader. This is a really interesting idea to me because on the other side, I imagine most leaders feel the same way. They believe that what they are doing isn’t bad because the leader isn’t the one actually doing it; he or she is just using the people as a tool. This idea leaves me wondering, if the people don’t feel guilt and neither does the leader, then who does? Chicken goes even further with the idea, citing how even in circumstances where the experimenters tried to make the “teachers” feel pressure, their need to do the task overrode their morals telling them to stop. I agree with Chicken that the Milgram experiment has many real life examples that had their own real world impacts. Eichmann is a great example because he was one of the largest offenders during the Holocaust, yet even after years to reflect, he stood by his point that he was put into this position and that we didn’t actively desire it. When scanning through other posts, this same idea of a lack of responsibility can be found all over the Milgram experiment and in the voices of many modern groups today. Another post by Steinbeck uses MAGA as an example of this and I find that there are plenty more examples in other posts too.

Originally posted by Hibiscus on September 20, 2025 15:01

I’d like to believe that if someone were telling me to do something that went against my moral obligation, I would follow my moral compass rather than obey the wrongful command. After learning about the Milgram experiments and reading A Matter of Obedience, I realized that even with good intentions, the inclination to obey “authority” can sometimes overpower our intent. The Milgram experiments collected hundreds of people who thought they were being part of a study to assess the relation between punishment and learning, but in reality, the experiment was conducted to test their willingness (or inadvertent willingness) to obey commands that went against their principles.

The tests were conducted in a multitude of different settings and exchanged variables deriving from the original. The initial experiment was with two men, one the teacher and the other the learner. The learner was really part of the experiment, but the teacher didn’t know. With each question, the learner answered wrong, the teacher would have to electronically shock the learner, who was not visible, but could be heard from the other room. The learner would shout in pain from the shocks, but even if the teacher objected to continuing the experiment, the experimenter would persist that he go on. The following version of the experiment would change the proximity of the learner and the experimenter.

Through the study and according to the reading, 62.5% of participants followed through to the extreme shock. This is a wild statistic, or is it? The further away the experimenter was and the closer the learner was, this percent dropped significantly. This then changes the perspective. When removing authority and substituting it for humanity, people start to be more likely to follow their own values.

What this study shows about human nature and behavior is that we have an inclination to obey. This could be for a multitude of reasons: maybe we don’t believe we are responsible for what we’re doing if we just obey orders or that the person instructing has more knowledge of the subject or many more reasons. The factor of being with a stronger self image (meaning they won’t disregard their dissonance) may also come into play. As the reading suggests, a change in instruction from distanced infliction of pain to “direct physical force” may change people’s behavior (A Matter of Obedience).

What this study really helps reveal is why or how people in situations of genocide and atrocities, like the Holocaust for example, acted with such violence. Here, factors of fear of disobedience, absolvement from responsibility, being deceived and looking to authority, or other reasons proven by the Milgram experiments may explain such brutal behavior. This leads us to the conclusion that humans should try their best to keep their moral compass strong and stand against the commands of others, but the issue with that is how morality is subjective. While one person may think that killing hundreds of thousands of people is wrong, another person may think that is the right thing to do. Here lies the issue with pushing people to follow their own principles because they are not objective. In fact, this very way of thinking is what most likely led those who start mass violence to follow through.

Finally, another point brought to light by A Matter of Obedience is that the Milgram experiments do not “fully explain the behavior of perpetrators in the Holocaust” who “chose to go beyond the orders they were given” and “act out of their own hatred.” My interpretation of why this could be is that those certain people, when given the opportunity to do something bad, used their aggression or malice they already had and took this permission of atrocities to pursue their own hatred. I also think the more dissonance pushed away during following orders, the higher a chance anyone could continue to act on hatred since they already justified it.

Post your response here. I read the post by Hibiscus and it basically summarized what happened in the Milgram experiment. The most compelling subject in this person’s post is that they suggest in order to combat obediance is to keep your moral compass as strong as possible. I disagree with this stance as keeping your moral compass strong isn’t that easy as seen by the Milgram experiment. Furthermore, a better way to think about disobedience is having differing views as maybe all the people in the experiment were taken from a certain state which could have impacted certain views and such. In every post I read most of them talked about how the milgram experiment was really messed up. Additionally, this experiment and this learning question allowed people to think about how the milligram experiment taps into the human psyche.

Originally posted by promotes on September 22, 2025 17:27

I thought that your point that “Milgram’s experiments suggest that regardless of our personal morals or well-held beliefs, we are able to willingly inflict pain or harm onto others due to natural instinct to obey authority figures— especially in groups” is interesting. Although I agree with it, I would point out that we learned about how a greater self esteem and/or opinion of one’s self makes them less susceptible to pressure in situations such as these. In that regard, I think that one’s beliefs, particularly relating to one's self, do actually impact their willingness to inflict pain.

Moreover, I really like your connection to the Heavens Gate cult that we have touched upon a bit in class. It is an interesting example that takes this from the responsibility of inflicting violence on others to our responsibility for inflicing violence on ourselves. I am curious as to how the numbers would turn out in the Milgram experiment if the person were to, let's say, shock themselves. Would they be willing to inflict violence on themselves or does the personal responsability become greater when you are putting your health on the line not someone elses.

This was really great and gave me lots to think about!

Originally posted by greywatch on September 23, 2025 20:06

It is very possible for anyone to perpetrate violence on others. When people cannot see who they are hurting, it is easier for them to commit acts of violence because they don’t witness the effects. For example in the Milgram experiment, the participants who had limited interaction with the person getting shocked carried out the experiment. As the level of interaction increased between the participants and the person getting shocked, the experiment was carried out for a shorter amount of time. The presence of an authority figure also changed the participants' willingness to inflict pain. When the experimenter was present and exhibiting authority, the participants felt like the blame was not on them and made them more willing to complete the experiment. When the participants didn’t have someone telling them that they must continue, but a robot instead, then they were less likely to do so. This experiment, although has its flaws, generally depicts how people might think when participating in violence, mass atrocities and even genocide. If the effect of their actions is not obvious to them, it is easy to convince themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Another component of the experiment included one participant being studied in the presence of many other volunteers. In these situations the participant was even less likely to stop the violence. When in the midst of others, the blame distribution allows people to feel less guilt for their actions. And when the majority, or all of the group members have one idea, it is very challenging to put forth an opposing idea. There is fear of ridicule and fear of isolation that invokes silence and compliancy. Many disagreed with the methodology of the Milgram experiment, and therefore it was carried out once again by psychologist Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University. They only had the voltage level reach 150 and measured the data that way instead of up to a hypothetical 450 volts. Rethinking one of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments says that, “At the end of the experiment, Burger was left with an obedience rate around the same as the one Milgram had recorded—proving, he said, not only that Milgram’s numbers had been accurate, but that his work was as relevant as ever.” And even though the experiment had its flaws, that data was still accurate and the evidence is still revealing itself in people today.

If the teacher in the experiment didn’t go through with the complete experiment it could have been for two reasons, they empathized with the learner or they felt guilty. The learner was yelling and moaning out of pain and when they heard that they felt bad for him. The learner had expressed that he had heart problems and they had felt the low shock, so they could imagine what the higher voltages may have felt like. Or the teacher didn’t want to accept the blame for their actions so they stopped. If the teacher was a very empathetic person, they would not have let the learner be in pain. If the teacher had a firm belief that hurting people in any capacity was wrong, then they would have not carried out the experiment.

We can attempt to create societies that disobey unethical authority figures, but it is challenging. It raises questions like, who decided what is ethical and unethical, who are the authority figures. We also have to think about the consequences. There are downsides to both. Being obedient causes someone to be unethical, disobeying orders can bring their own consequences. It is dangerous to disobey authority figures because they have authority for a reason, and they may have the power to harm us instead. That brings a person to decide between themselves and someone else, and they usually will pick themselves.

I thought this person’s point at the end about how people choose themselves when they feel threatened by an authority figure was really interesting, and I agree that this is a human tendency. This is interesting because it also connects to this person’s previous point about deciding what is ethical and unethical and who chooses that. Would someone think it’s more ethical to do something that saves themself or others if they had that choice? The answer is probably something that can’t be answered because there are two many variables and fine lines to really determine a concrete answer in every situation. I do think that the answer to the question “who decided what is ethical and unethical” is that ultimately, each person decided that for themselves, but sometimes doing that is not necessarily ethical is the safest option. For someone to do the perhaps more ethical thing of choosing to save/protect someone else is hard, especially if it affects your safety.

I liked this person’s further comments on the experiment and readings, but I think they could have expanded a bit more and dived deeper into their thoughts. I felt like there was more background than insight. A few minor grammatical changes (like including question marks where there are questions) but other than that, great writing and great hook.

Originally posted by Olympic on September 20, 2025 17:14

The Milgram experiments suggest that the more someone knows a person, the less likely they are to inflict violence upon that person. That being said, if we are completely separated from someone–we don’t know anything about them or we have never even seen them–we are much more likely to willingly inflict pain upon this person. Everyone could become a perpetrator of violence against others, but the causes for someone to do these things may range greatly. As is seen in the Milgram experiment, some people will be a perpetrator of violence if a symbol of authority repeatedly, calmly urges them to continue, however, the requirements might not be similar for different people. Everybody has a breaking point, but it is different for everybody; some people will never become a perpetrator of violence unless someone has caused a mental change in their mind whether through physical violence or other methods, others will act while completely in their sane mental state and still take orders from people.

The main factor that made the Milgram experiment have such results is that the violence started out minor, and everything seemed normal, however, it would be interesting to see how the results change if the learners were required to start from a higher voltage. This definitely factors into people’s active participation in mass atrocities and genocide. While most people aren’t willing to begin killing from the start, mass genocides don’t start over night. Instead, they build up over a long period of time, so the people involved in mass atrocities have a similar experience to the subjects of Milgram’s experiment, except on a greater scale. In particular mass genocides like the Holocaust changed over a period of time to have less direct contact between the soldiers and the victims. When people weren’t actively watching themselves committing the act, like shooting someone, they were less psychologically damaged by the results. Additionally this helped them remove their own responsibility from it if they didn’t see themselves do it. As Joshua Barajas says in his article “How Nazi's Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” in the Scientific American, “In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” A combination of complying with orders and removed visual responsibility makes ordinary people more willing to participate in violence, which we can see in the results of the Milgram experiment: the only thing the subjects had to do in order to inflict pain on the victim was flick a switch, so it was less mentally taxing for them.

Money can be an important factor if the ‘teacher’ decides to disobey the experimenter. While at the beginning of the exam the experimenter mentioned that the money would be given to the people no matter what happened in the experiment, the subjects could have thought it wasn’t entirely true or they could have simply forgotten. In greater context this part of the experiment relates to if people are likely to be perpetrators of violence if they are receiving a reward. Perhaps the results of the experiment would have changed so that more people were willing to inflict pain on the ‘victim’ if they were told they only get the money if they do everything the scientist asks. Unfortunately, during mass genocides the people committing the atrocities are probably getting some kind of reward for their actions, and this could cause a rise in the existence of such violence. So many factors can play into how the experiment may work: age and gender of the subject or the experimenter could play an important role. Teaching children things from a young age greatly shapes their understanding of the world around them, but so much focus is already put on children valuing their moral values above all else. Instead, perhaps we should push to teach them that while authority figures are often good to listen to, sometimes the better thing to do is disobey them.

I agree with what you said in your post. I do believe that we all have breaking points and the command that the experimenter gives the teacher does wear you down quite a bit. The repeated mention of the necessity to complete the experiment puts the teacher in a position where it feels like there is no going back. When they have participated in the experiment for long enough, they forget that crucial bit that they can leave at any time and still receive the money they were promised for signing up (which you also mentioned). I do like that another poster mentions the necessity of the money for some who are less off and are in desperate need of the money. There are many variables that go into the experiment and the money is just one of them that can affect how far the experiment will progress. I like that you mention that in genocides like the Holocaust, there is a detachment of soldiers and the deaths of the Jewish population. Straight into my mind, I can only think about the gas chambers. For another commenter, user927 mentions that the detachment of harm makes it easier for us to continue to inflict it, similar to what you stated. The experimenter often would state to the teacher that the death or harm of the learner was the responsibility of the experimenter and not that of the teacher. By taking the blame away from the teacher, they were able to detach themselves from the inflicted pain and feel less guilt for continuing the experiment. Your response was very detailed and goes in good length and I felt like you hit on every detail I also thought about. Good job.

Originally posted by 123456789 on September 23, 2025 22:00

Throughout history, we can observe people who are capable of committing horrific acts of harm when influenced by powerful leaders. In the simplest form, Milgram’s experiments suggest that most people can be led to inflict pain on others with pressure from persuasive authority figures who they feel they can shift responsibility onto in order to avoid consequences. Therefore, one of the most significant factors of this theory that any person can be led to harm others is the fact that they lose their sense of personal accountability because they become justified under the illusion that they are simply obeying authority and often are unsure or confused about the situation they are in. This leads them to defer to the figure in power. In “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” Barajas writes, “According to Milgram’s experiments, 65 percent of his volunteers, described as “teachers,” were willing (sometimes reluctantly) to press a button that delivered shocks up to 450 volts to an unseen person, a “learner” in another room” (Barjas 10). This is significant because it demonstrates that the majority of average participants did harm others even while knowing it would cause them serious pain which portrays the extent of humans susceptibility to the obedience theory. As the article continues, Patrick Haggard’s research, “a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London (Barjas 3),” also reiterates and supports this claim as people believe their actions to be passive when under orders which enables the harmful behavior. Another pivotal part of why this experiment works is the gradual escalation such as small shocks that increase over time which make harmful actions easier to justify. This can be observed in mass movements as figures lay the groundwork for larger changes within a society. For example, Hitler started his anti-Semitic policies with discriminatory laws and then progressed to large-scale violence. In modern day society, Trump also began his mass movement with harsh language and normalization of hatred toward minorities and groups he disagreed with which allowed his supporters to continue to follow him even as his actions became more harmful and extreme.

Although Milgram’s experiment does recognize many of the factors that influence obedience it doesn’t illustrate the full explanation of mass atrocities. This experiment isn’t able to effectively portray factors such as the dehumanization of victims, propaganda, personal gain or desire for change, or aspects of groupthink. Groupthink is partially demonstrated in Milgram’s experiment because it can be caused by strong leaders which the “teacher” acts as. However, it doesn’t fully address how groupthink is intellectual or academic conformity that hinders critical thinking that would likely stop the average person from inflicting pain on others which is why it is extremely prominent in mass movements. Another significant aspect which can’t be encapsulated by this experiment is how ideological such as religious or nationalist beliefs can make violence feel morally justified.

Although the vast majority of participants in the experiment complied with the teachers' requests, those who didn’t conform and didn’t obey are particularly interesting. These people can often be characterized as having strong moral convictions, empathy for the victim, or higher sense of personal responsibility. Non conformists are such a significant part of society because it helps to promote critical thinking and questioning of authority. This balance between obedience and nonconformity is essential in society because it allows for there to be debate while also keeping necessary authoritarian structures in place.

Learn to Question: Peer Response

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post is the first sentence that says “throughout history, we can observe people who are capable of committing horrific acts of harm when influenced by leaders”. Not only is it compelling, but it is also a statement that I deeply agree with. Influence and persuasion are very impactful on people in today’s world, and go a long way. I find this idea interesting because I see the connection to the idea of conformity, and how people often stray away from what they think is right just because an authority figure is telling them to do something else. Additionally, it connects to the idea of moral corruption, and how easily people can be blinded to act, representing their low sense of self. It’s not to say that all authority figures steer their people on the wrong path, but we must err on the side of caution when determining what we are going to follow.

Furthermore, the aspect of people who are capable of committing horrific acts when influenced by leaders was shown in the experiment. For example, the second guy was starting to feel guilty about carrying on with the assessment after being told that the learner had a heart condition, but the experimenter told him he had to carry on until the end, and he complied. Although he remained obedient to the experimenter, he was obligated to carry on with the experiment itself. The first guy had a strong sense of self, and good sense of morality, and was able to rise against this persuasive authority figure because he knew continuing would be wrong, but the second guy proved that he had a poor sense of morality and self, and carried on just because he was being ordered to.

On the other hand, my views on this topic are remotely similar to what I read in my peer’s post, and were definitely expanded upon. I was appreciative of the real-life examples that they included to elevate their argument, such as the mass movements created by Hitler’s speech, as well as Trump’s discrimination of minorities sparking mass movements. In terms of improvements, I just wish that my peer would have expanded on their ideas in the second and third paragraphs because this first one is significantly longer than the others and is definitely supported with thorough evidence.

Originally posted by Champ on September 22, 2025 21:42

2. Do you think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide? What are the other factors that may come into play? What else, beside the blind following of authority, contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others?

The Milgram experiment explains the individual perspective on Mass Movements, specifically when discussing personal responsibility, authoritative power, institutional pressure and conformity. It shows how all of these ideas, factor greatly into the thoughtless obedience done by groups in mass movements, and how it occurs on an individual level. While exploring these factors we can make further assumptions about genocides, recognizing a pattern of human obedience and stopping it before it goes further. In “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, he explores this idea further, directly relating how the findings of the milgram experience relate to the very real, very horrible acts of the Holocaust.

The first being intimacy with someone can cause a greater responsibility to care for them. This is shown by the different experiments Milgram conducted, when the "learner" was closer and more familiar to the "teacher" the "teacher" was more likely to object to harming them. In “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas it explains where when people had little to know familiarity with the “"learner"” they “were willing (sometimes reluctantly) to press a button that delivered shocks up to 450 volts to” them. This adds a greater context to how a genocide can be accepted into someones life, if they do not intimately know the person being harmed they feel less empathy for what they are going through. This can also affect how we see governments use propaganda, as they often weaponize and dehumanize certain people when they want people to not care for them.

The second being, how the institutional context of the experiment can cause pressure on the "teacher" to obey. The main experiment was conducted in Yale, where around 50% of the "teachers"s followed through with the experiment. This adds speculation, that if people were able to harm someone in that way for a simple experiment for a college, what would they do with the immense pressure put on by a whole government and more than just one person telling you to obey and continue.

The third, how the people around them can impact their decision to obey. With another part of the experiment they held another experiment with 5 "teachers" (four being actors familiar with the true experiment, and one not), in this they pushed either all the actors to obey or all the actors to walk out, and see how this impacted the true "teacher". The experimented was much more likely to disobey, if the other "teacher"s did as well. This shows how the power that the people around us have can force us to conform with the group, regardless of what authority says.

Along with these ideas of personal responsibility within the government, the experiment also shows how less likely people are to act when they feel that the responsibility can be, and should be put solely on the experimenter. Again, putting that finding into a greater context of genocide, it can show how people feel less likely to disobey their government, if they feel that they are seperate from them. Joshua Barajas explains this as “people actually [feeling] disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act,” in “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind.”

These ideas add a lot to the discourse surrounding peoples abilities/obedience to harm others during violent Mass movements, and supports many ideas we’ve covered in the past few weeks.

I really agreed with the idea that this experiment could be applied to mass atrocities. I thought that was the most compelling idea because I see how an authoritative leadership could compel someone to commit actions that they might not fully agree with. I think this idea is really interesting because it puts into perspective just how easy it is to manipulate a person. It also demonstrates how this place of guilt allows someone to follow orders against their beliefs. I also think the separation from the victim or the dehumanization of the victim, plays a huge part in the ability to commit harmful acts. This author claimed that the teacher could feel less “empathy” for the learner, which I agree with completely when someone is able to detach a person’s pain from themselves. It is easier to relinquish guilt. When someone is able to detach a person‘s pain from themselves. It is easier to relinquish guilt. I noticed a lot of overlapping ideas between posts specifically regarding the Nazi text, explaining how this experiment allowed them to gain insight as to how a person could commit such horrible crimes in this specific answer, however, I think the author could touch on the validity of the experiment. However, I really agreed with the claims they made.

Originally posted by PurpleGiraffe87 on September 23, 2025 09:15

I think that anybody could be perpetrators of violence against others, especially from what we saw in the Milgram experiments where multiple people were continuing to press the button, after hearing the audible noises and I would have been that exact person. It ultimately suggests that in the realm of the unknown, where we have no knowledge, we’re more likely as humans to take the leadership of one person, which is the psychologist for example. As for why do we continue actions that harm others? It’s because to some degree, we as humans are mechanized to shut off our brains from time to time. It’s because of the fact that we want our lives to be easier, and put simply, taking orders and going through the motions are a hundred times easier than intellectually thinking and actively making decisions.

I think that Milgram’s experiments symbolize and actually explain now just individually of the crowd, but the entire public to begin off with. Imagine the experiment, where each participant was likely to shock the person next door, despite their cries, and it’s a domino effect over a population and this is the situation that you get with such as the Nazi’s. Following WW2 from Joshua Barajas article on “How Nazi's Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann claimed that the deaths that he had caused were due to “just taking orders.” But as we take viewpoints from an outside perspective from the experiment, and after the rise of the Nazi’s, we as humans have to recognize these things. From the eyes of the psychologists at Yale and Milgrim, we understood that shocking the person that was the learner was wrong, however we kept repeating it over and over. As intellectual animals and one of the smartest animals on Earth, we have to avoid the actions of “just going through the motions.” Because as we feign our actions, our rights, and our morals, then we allow people like the psychologists in the Milgram experiment to continue to control and further take advantage of us.

There weren’t many character traits of any of the teachers, the psychologists had just said bluntly that the “experiment must go on.” It really reflects the state in which humans are given orders, where neither an appeal to morals, or wellbeing but just authority can make us hurt each other. And this is all due to what I had said earlier about humanity’s appeal to easiness, and not thinking properly. And there is a place for people to disobey higher authoritarian figures as well, for example with Nepal and Gen Z, completely uptaking the government because of social media bans and general corruption in the country. But there is also some hurt to this as well, with no central authority or people who follow them, society ceases to exist. It all relates to things that we’ve learned in ELA 12, about Freud’s theory on the Id, Ego and Superego. Without one of the 3, society will collapse and the superego, the in-between, is the golden zone for society to thrive between instinct and social pressures.

The most compelling idea in this post, to me, was that the human brain is mechanized to shut off from time to time because it is easier for us to just go through the motions from the guide of someone else than consciously deciding whether to or not on your own accord. I do agree with it and find it extremely evident in school. Certain classes we find less compelling than others. If you were to take notes in that class, just going through the motions and copying down what the teacher has written or spoken, odds are high you don't retain that information very well. I think when we are awake, we assume that we are always conscious, or as it has been defined. This point creates an idea that there are 2 types of consciousness in the sense that we are awake. One would be the aware/alert conscious, making your own decisions, with the other one being the sort-of lazy conscious, needing direction to function. I think all of the posts reflect a similar idea that we are led into a distinct thought process because of certain pressures, altering how we make our decisions in return. What I personally disagree with is the idea of the domino effect as a result of a process like this. Just because one person or a small group of people fail an experiment of this nature, doesn’t mean that when put into real world context, like with the Nazis, that a whole society will do the same. I think it serves as a major factor, but we can’t underestimate the mind as well. Besides that, with some mechanical changes in structure, this response was very well said and reflective.

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 could be a stronger sense of self, and a desire to follow one's own morals. Someone with a higher self esteem and stronger sense of morals would be opposed to something that goes against their personality, and would distance themselves from the experiment. I think we can attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures by educating them on past instances of unethical behavior, and why it is important to have a sense of individuality. Encouraging good behavior at a young age can also help to create stronger morals throughout the individual's life, ensuring that they stand against unethical authority figures. I don't think there is a danger, per se, but a sensible risk in encouraging strong individualism, as some may be encouraged to not work and cooperate with others, but it is worth it to create strong morals and good values.

Originally posted by Orso on September 22, 2025 07:48

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, particularly when they don’t have to directly confront the consequences. The Milgram experiments suggest that a huge part of what keeps people from committing acts of violence is a sense of responsibility. Once that responsibility is taken away by someone like an authority figure, the potential perpetrator becomes far more likely to act. This seems to relate to cognitive dissonance, since people can add the idea that they are not at fault for whatever injustice occurs, relieving themselves of at least some guilt. According to Barajas’ article “when people act ‘under orders,’ they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves.” This lack of agency is used to justify deplorable actions that people otherwise would not commit.

While this sense of agency and responsibility have a large impact on people’s participation in violence, atrocities, and genocide, it’s not the only factor. Figures of authority often employ tactics like fear mongering and scapegoating, which are effective at convincing people that others either do not belong or are a problem. After being persuaded that this is the case, people can more easily rationalize injustice and harmful behaviors. Another important factor is that of power. If the figure of authority had placed you in a powerful position like the teacher, it feels wrong to let go of it. When people are put in positions of power they believe it’s by their own merits, and they will take full advantage of it. Disobeying authority would mean not living up to expectations of a meriting individual. There might also be a fear of the government or authority figure itself that comes into play. Under authoritarian regimes, punishments for dissent or disobedience are often severe, so people might contradict their personal values in order to avoid these consequences. There might also be a lack of understanding when it comes to the severity of the action. In the Milgram experiment, the teachers had never felt the shock they were giving, so it was difficult for them to understand the real gravity of the situation. It’s probable that people would avoid putting other people through negative experiences if they themselves had suffered the same before. People might adopt the “I wouldn’t wish this upon anyone” mindset after a difficult experience.

It’s interesting to consider that the split between teachers who obeyed and those who didn’t was about an even split, indicating that there is no “normal” way to act in this situation. The teachers who were most invested in the experiment and receiving payment were probably the most likely to obey. Those with a strong sense of self probably struggled the most with cognitive dissonance, and some of them definitely were the ones who did not carry on with the shocks. There may have also been teachers who sympathized with the student’s supposed heart condition because of a personal experience like with a close relative. There is likely no perfect way to cultivate disobedience towards unethical authority, especially because society so highly values government authority and law. A thorough understanding of different situations can be developed through education, which is the most realistic method. I have often thought about how far removed the American people are from the horrors of war after some of the things we hear in conversations day to day. I think of the impact and fear caused by the attacks of 9/11, which was the event of mostly a single day, and compare it to ongoing wars across the world. If people really understood the consequences of their decisions, they would almost certainly be more capable of disobeying unethical authority. If there is a danger in this, it’s exposing people to truly horrific events and harsh realities, but if it’s what we’re seeing every day, it’s probably worth whatever mental sacrifice it takes to prevent similar events from happening.

he most compelling argument that Orso wrote about were their ideas towards how to more effectively teach the world about how to recognize corrupt authority and how to counter it, and how to have a better understanding of current events. I agree that something like this is necessary - as a society, we cannot expect others to innately know what is and isn’t an authority with bad intentions in mind, especially because such leaders are often charismatic and portray themselves in such a way that only further incentivizes you to follow them. Some ideas in Orso’s post that were similar to mine were their statements on the powers of an authority and how anybody could potentially commit violence against another, in spite of their morals. An element that they added on was the fact that the “presence” of an authority was not the only factor that could lead to somebody committing genocide; there is also fearmongering, creating in and out groups, and other psychological factors that can subtly hardwire your brain into thinking a certain way. However, I respectfully disagree with their idea that “the teachers who were most invested in the experiment and receiving payment were probably the most likely to obey”. As far as I know, most people got paid, but more importantly, the footage and research notes suggest that many people who did seemingly “obey” also protested against going further with the experiment. However, overall, the post was thoughtfully written out and I thought it was very well done.

Originally posted by kdj729 on September 22, 2025 22:03

Experiments like Milgram’s have the potential to evoke human obedience in its purest form. I believe that if I were to be ordered to do something harmful to others, I would not comply, but that really might not be true when confronted by a powerful authority such as the one fabricated in the Milgram Experiment. This experiment proved that the majority of people would follow orders to harm another when instructed to do so by a leader. While on the surface, this seems to suggest that humans will carry out violence when there are no consequences, in reality, there’s more to the story. As How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind puts it, “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act”. Doing what someone else tells you seems to take away the sense of responsibility that one would naturally have for their actions. This is because one can justify what they did by arguing that they only did it because someone else said so. Even though Milgram’s experiment tells us a lot about human behavior, it’s not necessarily fully accurate because it does leave out certain factors. One of the most important pieces that is missing in this experiment is the factor of peer pressure. Milgram could have gone further by bringing in other “teacher” actors that had different reactions for different tests. This would help to distinguish whether the reaction to “follow orders” is because a leader told you to or because the people around you are. I imagine that the results could have been entirely different had there been a test where more teachers fought the orders from the leader. Maybe that would have influenced the “teacher” being tested to act differently.

Regardless of the validity of Milgram’s result, another thing that is clear is that people that act against the grain are few and far between. While it is generally a good idea to follow orders, our society also needs people that are willing to speak out. That is the only way that change is ever going to happen. Milgram’s conclusion seems to argue that, “the capacity for evil lies dormant in everyone, ready to be awakened with the right set of circumstances,” as Matthew Hollander puts it in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, but there are simply better conclusions that can be drawn from this. It’s not that all people want to do bad when they are given the opportunity, it’s that not enough people have the courage to stand against authority figures when under pressure. It’s true that almost anyone would do anything if it was ordered by someone powerful, but each of us has a different threshold for where we are willing to fight back. Societies need these people that have a low tolerance for going against their values. They are the people that end up becoming pioneers for change, creating waves that make permanent change. The thing is, it's a whole other question of whether the changemakers are going to do something for the betterment of society, or if they will exploit the inherent willingness to listen to authority that most possess, as Milgram displayed. While it is certainly beneficial to attempt to create a society where nonconformists are comfortable in their thoughts, there is always potential for society to be overrun by people who are fully unable to listen to others. In the end, while Milgram’s experiment demonstrates the human tendency to listen to authority, it also highlights the rare existence of non-conformists in society, one of the most important pieces to society.

I agree that non-conformist are essential for social change however I think categorizing people as conformists and non conformists is too simple. I believe for most people whether they conform or not is mostly situational. Milgram tested for this in his experiment. When putting people in different circumstances where authority was more or less powerful people reacted differently. We can't simply say that someone is a non conformist or not instead we can look at different peoples thresholds for conformity. Someone with a high threshold is more willing to conform under less pressure however someone with a lower tolerance for conformity is more likely to resit if they feel they are doing something against their value despite social pressures.

I agree that in a larger group it is easier to resit however in the case of the Milgram experiment I don't believe simply adding more teachers would change outcomes. In class we watched an experiment in which subjects stood up when they heard a beep. When more people, who didn't yet know the rules of the experiment, were added to the room they quickly learned and followed the same rules. Humans have an innate tendency towards following whatever is easiest. We don't want to upset anyone by breaking rule as that would be harder for us to deal with than just following orders. This is why I think in the case of the Milgram experiment if more teachers were added they would actually end up following directions more often in an attempt to not upset the leader as well as create chaos among their peer teachers.

Originally posted by Kitkat on September 22, 2025 18:52

While I do believe that anyone has the potential to inflict violence upon someone else because of orders, the matter of proximity is important to keep in mind. Milgram’s experiments often varied by the proximity to two things: proximity to initiative and proximity to victim. The cognitive neuroscientist Patrick Haggard gives insight into this distancing from initiative, saying that “In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused”. By not being involved with the idea the action feels “automated”. Having another person to shift blame onto also makes it easier to justify that dissonance. The proximity to the victim also plays an important part, as way less people go to the end of the experiment if they are in the same room as the “learner”. By having the learning in the room it is easier to see what they are experiencing and empathize with them, along with making it harder to avoid accountability.

That, however, does not account for the people that did not finish the experiment despite being separated from the “learner” and being told what to do very directly. Editors of The Journal of Social Issues tries to acknowledge this discrepancy by asking, “Do they identify more with the cause of science, and listen to the experimenter as a legitimate representative of science, or do they identify more with the learner as an ordinary person?” In other words, do they feel more comfortable with following the simple guidelines of objectivity, or the guidelines they have set for themselves as a moral and empathetic person? This also ties back to the importance of a strong sense of self, implying this compliance is reliant on not mainly on any immorality, but self-esteem and a proper understanding of oneself.

There’s also the obvious holes in this experiment, as Gina Perry found out when going through the records. While the common inclination to follow extreme orders seems to be backed up and fits nicely in our minds, it is an oversimplification- a fundamental attribution error which itself is also harmful. It perpetuates the idea that nothing can be done about human evils, which further removes responsibility. But if there is something to be done about it, what is that?

I do not believe that this active participation in violence can be completely eradicated, but I do believe there are traits that can be encouraged. Empathy and morality is clearly something that needs to be constantly instilled, but also a strong sense of self is so important. People are often conditioned to doubt themselves even in cases where it doesn’t make sense to doubt themselves. There is less emphasis on intuition especially, as seen when many of the “teachers” in Milgram’s experiment did in fact feel that initial need to protest, but eventually receded. The manipulation of “proximity” can play a part in reducing it. Making it a point that though the perpetrator did not have the idea, it is still an active decision to enact that violence on others. There is a mental gap that seems almost primal, and therefore needs to be actively fought against. Proximity to the victim is also so important. The active decision to face someone you have hurt is uncomfortable, but something that needs to be emphasized within modern-day society.

I think that the idea of "proximity" is a really interesting and consistent point throughout is very similar to cognitive dissonance, and the detachment of your morals. I agree with this statement of "proximity" because the less "close" and engaged you are with a topic, you're most likely not going to feel any attachment or feeling as in what happens. Kitkat's response was very similar to what Olympic said with being close to someone, and the willingness to do inflict pain on someone. Me and Kitkat's responses weren't necessarily contradictory but they were definitely different. I talked about human nature in wanting to not think critically sometimes because you don't want to be constantly on edge but Kitkat talked about whether or not you feel engaged or connected to something. I think that the author could maybe introduce Editors of Social Issues just to give context to readers but most likely nothing else.