learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by seltzersareawesome on September 23, 2025 11:06

Zygman Bauman’s claim that “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it,” forces us to consider something that we don’t want to. That cruelty isn't only limited to monsters and sociopaths. It is something that ordinary people are capable of doing. It's tough to realize but the video we watched in class on the Milgram experiment makes it more apparent. Regular people still went along with the experimenter's instructions and delivered shocks that they believed were painful to another human being.

This causes us to wonder if everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. Milgram’s research points appear to be in favor of that idea. What struck me in the documentary was that these people were not happy to do this. They were clearly torn up inside. Yet they kept flipping the switch. The uneasy mix of reluctance and obedience is what Hannah Arendt meant by the “banality of evil”. Horrors are not always committed by raging fanatics but by normal people handing their judgement over to authority. Milgram’s conclusions aren't the end of the story. In her Atlantic article, Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, Cari Romm points out that newer research complicates the picture. Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam, for example, argue that people don't obey blindly. Instead they comply when they identify with the authoritative figure or believe in the cause they represent. In Milgram’s lab the participants saw themselves as contributing to science. That belief made it easier to keep going. When you really think about it it means that atrocities like the Holocaust are not committed because people are wired to obey but rather because they convinced themselves that they are helping a greater good.

This makes Bauman’s warning sharper. If obedience is tied to identification then it isn't just about authority forcing us. It is about choosing to see ourselves as a part of a cause. In Nazi Germany many perpetrators believed they were protecting the nation. In Milgram’s experiment they believed that they were helping advance science. Both people did not see themselves as cruel. They saw themselves as playing a role in something larger.

There's still another side to this. Romm also discusses research from Matthew Hollander which shows that resistance is possible and that it can even be learned. The participants who managed to stop the experiment often used firm direct protest strategies. The others who wanted to stop but could not lacked the right words or confidence to push back. This is important because it shows that obedience and disobedience can be shaped by context and authority. People can be taught how to resist unjust commands.

Bauman’s warning still feels urgent today. The threat is not that unimaginable horrors could arise again someday. The threat is that under the right conditions normal people can be persuaded to carry them out all over again. What makes Milgram’s experiment so scary is that it doesn’t point a finger at other people, it holds up a mirror. In that mirror we see ourselves as potential perpetrators. Once we recognize that we also recognize the ability to push back.

Post your response here. An interesting idea mentioned here is that people don’t necessarily contribute to terrible things because they are wired to obey, but because they believe that they are contributing to something beyond their understanding. This reminds me of the intellectual conformity theory that we discussed in class, where people follow crowds doing a certain thing not because they know every reasoning behind it, but because they believe that the people they are following know something that they don’t. That could be a contributing factor as to why people follow orders that they are unsure about, because someone is showing them the certainty that they themselves lack. This could explain why they continued after the scientist’s interference. Another thing that I found interesting in this reply was where it stated: “If obedience is tied to identification then it isn't just about authority forcing us. It is about choosing to see ourselves as a part of a cause.” I interpreted this as saying that a factor behind obedience is whether or not someone wants to associate their identity as a whole with a cause. Instead of saying that obedience disconnects us from an action due to whether or not we would bear responsibility to it, this person is saying that it is based on if we would want to associate our person with it. I don’t necessarily agree with this because when you are following an authority figure, you may lose some of your rationality and, in your head, believe that the blame won’t be upon you, but your identity is still connected to all of your actions at the end of the day.

Originally posted by eruditepenguin on September 22, 2025 13:13

When speaking of people in general, yes, I do indeed believe that everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. However, it’s important to make the distinction that each individual will have their own varying degrees of susceptibility to be persuaded by others to commit harm. Some will be very easily persuaded, some will stand by their morals even if it means their death, and some are in the middle. It was very interesting to read the Bauman quote because it put the Milgram experiment in context for me and changed my perception of how we should think about forms of violence like the Holocaust. I frequently hear that phrase “How could it be done to us?” and the quote resonated with me because I now realize that everyone has the capability to do harm, especially after watching the Milgram experiment.

The results of the Milgram experiment suggest that we tend to ignore our own values because someone that “knows better” is giving us commands. It reminds me of intellectual and normative conformity, another concept that we learned in class. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the informational conformity is that the experimenter knows more than the teacher, and the normative conformity is that the teacher doesn’t want to disobey the experimenter and/or ruin the experiment. An aspect of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others is our desire to be accepted. Everyone wants to know that they are doing the right thing so that they don’t have cognitive dissonance. In the Nazi Defense article, it says, “...when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves...” The agency over their actions then becomes part of the group, and they feel part of the group. I am very intrigued by 20th century history, particularly the Interwar Period (1919–1939), the Great Depression (1929–1941), the Nazi Era (1933–1945) and World War II (1939–1945), and as a result, I know a lot about these time periods, since I think they were some of the most important parts of human history. I know that Hitler would frequently claim responsibility for his actions when asking someone to do something. Kristallnacht was a state-sponsored massacre, so people would naturally feel that they have no responsibility since the government is telling them to do it. January 6th was incited by Trump, and I think that people attacked the Capitol because they may have thought Trump knew better (like the teacher with the experimenter). This is further emphasized by Trump’s pardoning of January 6 rioters in 2025. It sent a message that people don’t have any agency for violence.

In general, I think that the Milgram experiment does in fact explain people’s participation in various kinds of atrocities. Although the conditions might not be the same, I believe the core principles are the same. For example, during the Wannsee Conference in 1942, Hermann Göring told Reinhard Heydrich to allow for interagency cooperation in regards to the creation of a system that would be known as the Holocaust. Hermann Göring was a top level Nazi official, so the meeting attendees may have felt they were just discussing an issue that concerned their superiors, and did not think about how it would mean the murder of millions.

You wrote a highly compelling essay. The idea of being persuaded by authority is a theme with various examples throughout the essay and is the most compelling concept critically analyzed. I agree with your ideology very much. I loved how you used examples in today's world. Not only in Nazi Germany, but you also related the Milgram experiment to the January 6 insurrection. This helped me (and I'm sure other readers) visualize how theories developed from the Milgram experiment are shown in current events.

My reflection relates to yours when you said that the Milgram experiments relate to our class topics of intellectual and normative conformity. These strategies used by the experimenters not only convinced some of the “teachers” to potentially kill someone, but these tactics also potentially helped kill 6 million people. I talked about this as well in my reflection. Many other reflections also hold this idea that these tactics played huge roles in other mass atrocities.

I disagree that “everyone” has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. I disagree because in the Milgram experiments, it was exemplified that “teacher 1” stopped immediately, and did not become a perpetrator of violence. Now, with the conditions of the German government, I agree it might be different, but for now, I don't think it's fair to say “everyone” has the potential to be a perpetrator against others.

The essay is filled with excellent ideas, amending the run-on sentences, and developing the points that you made. Many ideas that you had could be isolated and expanded, because when put together, they get all jumbled up. If you separate your ideas, then this will make a lot more sense. However, in the end, this is a great reflection, and I learned a lot and loved reading it.

Originally posted by josh allen on September 20, 2025 10:42

Many people attribute the Holocaust’s great extent of destruction to Adolf Hitler’s charisma and powerful, convincing methods of manipulation and mob construction. This generalization is well-supported by the Milgram experiment, with statistics proving that participants were more likely to shock the “learner” fully if the “experimenter” was nearby and providing repeated, forceful commands.

Although Hitler and the Milgram experimenter were quite different with respect to tone of voice, charisma, and overall message, the mere presence of a foreboding authority figure seemed enough to convince “good” people to do “bad” things.

Joshua Barajas’s piece on the science of obedience provides a relevant example of Hitler’s manipulation, when he quotes Adolf Eichmann’s plea that him and other Nazis were “‘forced to serve as mere instruments’” to justify his assistance in carrying out mass genocide.

If we put together the many pieces of evidence seen from Milgram’s experiments and Hitler’s manipulation of Nazis, it seems easy to conclude that ordinary people’s active participation in violence is caused by an innate tendency and feeling of necessity to follow orders, usually orders from a charismatic or powerful leader.

However, I believe that there are other reasons for popular participation in genocide or otherwise horrific acts. There are many other factors at play here.

One hypothesis that comes to mind for me is existing hatred of the oppressed group that is released by some sort of crisis, compelling someone who was otherwise seen as “good” and “normal” to commit the unthinkable. Essentially, a human shock doctrine.

In the example of the Holocaust, antisemitism was essentially the embers burning under the unlit fire of post-WWI Europe. One event, or crisis, that may have stoked the rise of antisemitism and the Holocaust was the Great Depression. Although not as widely talked about in Europe, the Depression certainly had an immeasurable effect on Germany. Germany relied on the U.S. economically in many ways and the Great Depression led to a huge recession, as well as widespread unluckiness with inflation at an insanely high level. Jewish people were the scapegoat for economic troubles, as they had been for centuries — and economic troubles and general unrest provided a perfect opportunity for blaming the Jews. Maybe this was the reason for a “good” population to suddenly start committing atrocities. A shock had occurred, and something needed to be done to rid Germany of the supposed “problem”.

When we are angry and in disbelief, we want to do something to remediate the situation. For example, when I get a bad grade on a test, I often get angry at the teacher — they graded me too harshly, I might say, or they didn’t teach me well enough. I don’t see myself as a person that is mean to teachers; in fact, I really appreciate my teachers and respect them. But when we are in a situation that doesn’t agree with our ego-concept, basically, we feel some sort of dissonance, we want to fix it immediately which often requires taking out our anger on the “logical” perpetrator of the issue.

I believe that this phenomenon causes good people to do bad things. How can we remediate this? Well, if we mitigate large shocks and crises in the first place, scapegoating and hurting innocent people might be prevented. For example, the Reichstag Fire in Germany had large significance. The shock of the fire caused Hitler to persuade the German government to enact policies which severely restricted civil liberties. How would the world be different if the fire had not occurred, or, even, if we had dealt more calmly with it?

It’s difficult to connect this to daily human behavior — something which we often see as on a totally different level than large-scale crises and genocides, but we have to start small. If humans are able to resist letting their emotions take control of them in the midst of large crises, we might be able to think more logically about if we want to conform to new laws and doctrines that come up as a result.

Although obedience to an authority figure is something that is hard to shake our innate tendency to do, logical and basic morality is something to take into account when we hear orders. It’s easier said than done — if our life and prosperity is on the line, sometimes we have no choice but to obey. We are human, and our emotions get the better of us. What may create a more moral and just society is if we learn to think with both our brains and hearts.

I strongly agreed with this response and found overlap between my own reflection and this response’s views on the impact of charismatic leaders on society. I also liked the application of the Holocaust to further demonstrate how the ideas discussed in the reflection were relevant in our history. One unique feature of this post that was not part of my response was the inclusion of ways humankind could strive to improve as a whole, and prevent harm to other humans. To summarize, the response discussed how it is easy for all members of society to become frustrated at small events, but at a larger scale, suppressed and directed anger is a cause for humans to inflict harm on each other. For this reason, the reflection discussed the idea of getting less frustrated at small parts of one’s life, because on a larger scale this could promote peace, calmness, and kindness within communities and one’s own life. Once again, the reflection referenced the Reichstag fire, which created a tense atmosphere before the Holocaust. If this fire were dealt with more calmly, the author argued that there could have been fewer feelings of anger towards a certain group, the Jews, coming from society as a whole. I have no disagreements with the opinions of this post, but instead wonder if the author did any research on their claims about the political atmosphere after the fire, and whether there is any literature discussing what could have happened if it were dealt with differently.

Originally posted by Citydog18 on September 22, 2025 16:43

Im quite mixed on Milgram’s experiments, but I lean slightly more towards no. Yes, its truly tragic how groups of people watched and participated in the Holocaust, and its a big mystery as to why they did that. Were they really just evil deep down or were they simply following orders without thinking for themselves or maybe they were completely forced into doing it with no other option if they wanted to live. Its hard to to really know the exact reason, but either way its still such a massive number of people all committing that one act with little to no revolt, very little disagreement, and almost no pushback at all. Thats the part that makes it so disturbing. The lack of resistance shows that so many ordinary citizens gave into the situation around them. For me, I think most of the ordinary people who participated were just following the crowd and trying to survive in a world where saying “no” can get you killed.

People had to be at least aware of what they were doing and the harm they were causing to others, but awareness doesn’t mean you have the balls and courage to do so. They might have known it was wrong, but still went along with it. Things like serving your country, protecting your family, staying alive, and blending in with the crowd all played a major role in why the people of Germany carried out these atrocious acts. Its not to excuse them, but to understand the pressures that were put on them at the time.

That’s why I dont think the experiments really match up to something like the Holocaust. I believe the experiments were pretty one sided, because most of the people who signed up probably thought it was going to be safe and that the scientists running it knew what they were doing. At the start, no one expected they’d be pressured into shocking somebody over and over again. Yes, its questionable that they continued with the shocks even when the “learner” seemed to be in pain, but I honestly dont think that means they had evil intent or wanted to hurt someone. They trusted the present authority in the room and assumed it was fine. I think that’s very different from what Nazis did. The Nazis knew exactly what they were doing in the concentration camps and their goal was to kill. In the shock experiment, people were tricked into thinking it was safe and scientific, yeah, you can argue that the experiment still shows how far people are willing to go when they’re told to, and how much weight authority has on our choices, but i just refuse to believe its the same thing at all. You could even compare it to how a very small percentage of people in the shock experiment refused to keep going, while an estimated half a million Germans actually fled the country between 1933 and the start of the war. Some of those people even enlisted to fight for the Allies later on. So, just like the few who stopped the experiment, there were also Germans who resisted, but they were clearly the minority.

I agree with the fact that societal pressure played a big role in genocides like the Holocaust but I think that the role of authority played an equally as large role in it. When people are lost, or confused, or don’t know how to act, they will look for instruction. I also agree with your point that the Holocaust and the Milgram experiment are not comparable in the slightest. In the Milgram experiment, people were told that it was only an experiment and that they had to continue, while the Holocaust resulted in the death of millions. I do think that the same principles apply, though, like how people are more willing to hurt others if they aren’t being held accountable. The most compelling part of your post I think is the idea of pressure at the time. During the Holocaust, there was fear about being killed, hurt, or taken away from your family. This is what makes people most willing to do bad things. Overall, the people who participated in the Milgram experiment as the shocker are still normal people and I don’t think that just because they’re willing to shock someone they’d also be willing to participate in a genocide.

Originally posted by juice_lover on September 22, 2025 22:02

Sigmond Freud’s theory of the superego states that part of our mind is unconsciously controlled to represent societal standards. This is the embodiment of Milgram’s obedience experiment. As the teachers sit in the control seat and shock the learners, they are not acting out of choice, but rather in fear of disobeying the experimenter. The issue with this mentality is that listeners often ignore the unethical requests that are being expressed. As seen in the experiment, moral standards are thrown out the window as individuals worry more about following the rules. In order to combat this, society as a whole must be more acceptive of those who disobey unethical authority figures. However, there is a fine line for this as promoting disorderly behavior can be dangerous for the overall safety and well being of society. Still, the Milgram study does highlight the importance of those who resist unethical commands. Traits like moral courage and independent thinking were important in an individual’s decision to resist orders.

The Milgram experiment suggests that nearly everyone, in some shape or form, has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence if they are placed in the right situation. The ordinary person, when faced with forceful authority figures, may feel pressured to obey orders despite moral standards telling them not to. This shows a dark truth about human nature. We are very quick to conform to the majority, quickly overriding our empathy. The mind can be manipulated when authority figures frame us to believe that obedience is “correct” behavior.

That being said, Milgram’s experiments alone cannot fully explain the reasoning for mass atrocities. Large scale conformity and violence often involve many different factors, such as propaganda and fear. For example, during times of war, many individuals are convinced that violence is necessary for survival or justified against a perceived enemy. Blind obedience to authority plays a major role in these mass atrocities, but hatred and social pressures make the problem so much worse.

Furthermore, recent re-examinations of Milgram’s work offer both a hope for the future, but also a warning. In "Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments”, Cari Romm says “the ability to disobey toxic orders…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” (Romm). This suggests that disobedience isn’t just a personality trait, but rather a trained ability to notice when authority is being unethical. Moral education and skills training could help people overcome blind obedience.

Similarly, Maria Konnikova in “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” argues that “while it’s true that some guards and prisoners behaved in alarming ways, it’s also the case that their environment was designed to encourage…those behaviors” (Konnikova). Thus, it’s not just that people are inherently evil or cruel, but rather expectations and societal pressures can push people into becoming someone or doing things that they normally wouldn’t do.

These perspectives strengthen the idea that not everyone has a fixed potential to become violent, but they certainly can get to that point under the right pressures. What matters is the environment that they live in and the authority figures that they are surrounded by. For societies to reduce violence and mass atrocities, they should focus not only on curbing authority figures that display abusive tendencies, but also building up systems of moral justice and empathy. People need to escape the restraints of obedience, and become morally responsible.

I really liked this post and believe that you connected your ideas well. I think that your best idea was about Freud's superego and the Milgram experiment.It was a great connection that I agree with. The voice of the experimenter is kind of like societal rule in someones mind. The rule overrides their personal morals and thats very interesting. It shows that the conflict is internal and happening inside their head. Your conclusion was good. Situations are powerful but they don't explain everything. You correctly identify that factors like propaganda and fear compound the problem of blind obedience. Your integration of the Romm and Konnikova articles strengthens this position significantly. Romm says we can learn to disobey which supports your idea about moral education. Konnikova talks about environment which matches your point about building better systems.

One thing I would suggest is that since your conclusion talks about building systems of moral justice . Its a good idea that you can make stronger. You could give some real world examples like ethics trainings for jobs that would help people see what you mean.

Overall this was a very good post and it's great to see different povs from our classmates.

Originally posted by CapeCod2343 on September 23, 2025 19:03

Experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide because for example one of the teachers in the experiment kept going over and over again even after the student stopped responding his questions yet the teacher continued and when he hesisted to continue but when he was told that he would not be responsible for the student if something were to happen the teacher continued till the experiment ended. In the article “How Nazi's Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” Joshua Barajas states that “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they are the ones committing the act.” When the teacher was told that he would not be responsible for the student if something were to happen to the student, the teacher continued without hesitation. When the experiment was finished the teacher was asked some question he was asked why he did he continue to shock him after the student stopped responding the teachers response was that he was told to continue this where the quotation I added comes into play when the teacher was relieved from any responsibility he continued without any issue hence the teacher was disconnected from his actions and followed the orders to continue the experiment.

The factors that come into play are the tone and the words the person that is managing the experiment says for example when the teacher began to hesitate the person running the experiment told him that it is crucial for the experiment for him to continue in a normal tone when the teacher hesitated again the person running the experiment used a commanding tone and said the same thing but with the inclusion of the words that the teacher would not be responsible for the student if something were to happen to him the teacher stopped hesitating and continued with the experiment.Another thing that contributes to the blind following of authority is the fact that they could not see the person they were inflicting pain on, they could hear them yes but not see them and their reaction when they receive the electric shocks. This made me think about how Nazi officers stood outside and turned on the gas chambers that killed jews inside. How they could have felt some type of remorse against them but did not do anything about it because they were following orders, they could not see the faces of the children and the people they killed, and how they felt disconnected from their actions because they were not going to be responsible for the jews that they were killing. The Milgram experiments suggests that when humans are disconnected from their actions they are capable to do almost anything when they know that there are no consequences for their actions which reminded me of the movie The Purge where people are allowed to do whatever they wanted including murder and there are no consequences for it so everyone does whatever they want without a second thought.

I found your idea comparing the Milgram experiment to the gas chamber quite compelling. Like you said, the people shocking the learners weren't able to see the victim's face, so how could they face some guilt when they're just looking at a blank wall and the Nazi's turning on the gas chambers filled with Jews. Both comparisons are quite similar and could be used for a great argument but I don't believe both work the same. In the gas chamber, nazi's knew exactly what they were doing with full intent, which was killing Jews, while the people in shock, the experimenters weren't quite fully aware how'd the end result would be and Im sure none of them were expecting anybody to die. While yeah, they probably knew the shocks were painful but knew it wouldn't be fatal, the Nazi's ideology were deeprooted with hate and indoctrinated within them for so long so they couldn't feel empathy against their "enemy" I like closing point how you referenced The Purge (which is a great movie btw) I think the Purge is quite different because people go out their own way to kill people for their enjoyment but the holocaust was something different entirely.

Originally posted by eruditepenguin on September 22, 2025 13:13

When speaking of people in general, yes, I do indeed believe that everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. However, it’s important to make the distinction that each individual will have their own varying degrees of susceptibility to be persuaded by others to commit harm. Some will be very easily persuaded, some will stand by their morals even if it means their death, and some are in the middle. It was very interesting to read the Bauman quote because it put the Milgram experiment in context for me and changed my perception of how we should think about forms of violence like the Holocaust. I frequently hear that phrase “How could it be done to us?” and the quote resonated with me because I now realize that everyone has the capability to do harm, especially after watching the Milgram experiment.

The results of the Milgram experiment suggest that we tend to ignore our own values because someone that “knows better” is giving us commands. It reminds me of intellectual and normative conformity, another concept that we learned in class. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the informational conformity is that the experimenter knows more than the teacher, and the normative conformity is that the teacher doesn’t want to disobey the experimenter and/or ruin the experiment. An aspect of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others is our desire to be accepted. Everyone wants to know that they are doing the right thing so that they don’t have cognitive dissonance. In the Nazi Defense article, it says, “...when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves...” The agency over their actions then becomes part of the group, and they feel part of the group. I am very intrigued by 20th century history, particularly the Interwar Period (1919–1939), the Great Depression (1929–1941), the Nazi Era (1933–1945) and World War II (1939–1945), and as a result, I know a lot about these time periods, since I think they were some of the most important parts of human history. I know that Hitler would frequently claim responsibility for his actions when asking someone to do something. Kristallnacht was a state-sponsored massacre, so people would naturally feel that they have no responsibility since the government is telling them to do it. January 6th was incited by Trump, and I think that people attacked the Capitol because they may have thought Trump knew better (like the teacher with the experimenter). This is further emphasized by Trump’s pardoning of January 6 rioters in 2025. It sent a message that people don’t have any agency for violence.

In general, I think that the Milgram experiment does in fact explain people’s participation in various kinds of atrocities. Although the conditions might not be the same, I believe the core principles are the same. For example, during the Wannsee Conference in 1942, Hermann Göring told Reinhard Heydrich to allow for interagency cooperation in regards to the creation of a system that would be known as the Holocaust. Hermann Göring was a top level Nazi official, so the meeting attendees may have felt they were just discussing an issue that concerned their superiors, and did not think about how it would mean the murder of millions.

I agree with the point about how anyone can become a perpetrator of violence. I think it all depends on the situation they are put in and if they are mentally strong enough to understand what is happening or not. Something I think this response touches on strongly is the connection that the experiment can make to the past, but also the present. I liked how they connected Nazi events to things such as Trump and January 6th. I think it puts a perspective and understanding about what is happening right in front of our faces. This response does a really good job with evidence and showing examples. It is interesting to think about the Nazi because you would think for sure there has to be some good explanation for those things, but really the only explanation has been being under orders. That really makes you question at what point is it too much, and I agree with this response that everyone can end of in that situation based on situation, and I feel like some of those people might just not understand the gravity of their actions. This whole topic shows us that we have to be thoughtful about people’s reasoning for actions and be weary of our own actions.

Originally posted by dudeman18 on September 23, 2025 20:07

The Milgram experiment was designed to test what people will do to each other when they are told to do so by a “higher” individual. The experiment consisted of pressing buttons that each had a specific shock value associated to them and that would then shock the person on the other side. Many people were seen to completely and fully listen to the higher up scientist and keep pushing the buttons even though inside they did not feel like going along. I think that this experiment shows that everyone does have the ability to harm others and cause violence but many would need someone to push them to get there. This is what we see countless times in history where people are pushed to violence by a higher figure. Of course in these instances there are other circumstances that also stir up violence in a person such as mob mentality and such but primarily it shows that when a higher figure tells us to do something many people listen. The experiment enforced the idea that we will do it willingly if someone tells us but we justify it by saying it is out of control. For example, in the video the man who was the subject of the experiment clearly was conflicted in continuing to press the buttons but did it anyway and was eventually informed after. The man then went into a spin realizing that what he did was completely done on his own free will because even though the scientist told him to do it the final choice was his. I think that experiments such as these do show a large part in what leads ordinary people to violence. The presence of one big authority figure can push people to do things they otherwise would be very uncomfortable with. However, I also believe that there are many other factors at plan in those scenarios. In the Stanford Prison Experiment groups were split up by some being called normal and placed as guards where others were deemed not normal and called prisoners. Within hours the prisoners were abused by the guards and violence had broken out. I believe that this underscores the idea of mob mentality and groupthink that leads to violence the same way that one authority figure can. With mob mentality and groupthink like in the Stanford experiment people commit acts of violence just to get at the other group because they think “we are good, they are bad” and violence quickly emerges from that. I noticed that the more strong willed people who were more secure in their lives were more likely to resist the authority. These traits come from a highlight on being at peace with your life and who you are which leaves one less susceptible to groupthink, mob mentality, and dangerous rhetoric spewed by figures of great authority. The danger in this is that then people may think why listen to anyone at all? If we have all people who are defiant and very strong willed it would be very difficult to maintain any form of order in society and especially if those people are encouraged to stand up against authority. Figures of authority however can be incredibly dangerous to get what they want so I believe that it is better to have a society that has more strong willed people who will stand up to this figures.

I agree with your claim that everyone has the ability to harm others. Too often, we think “I would’ve never joined that group” or “I would never give in like those people did,” but I think this has to do with our extreme self-confidence that we could never do anything wrong. People who joined mass movements and succumbed to the orders of a false and evil authority figure most likely shared this same thought. Therefore, this self-assured thought is not helpful, and only dismisses our openness to learn more about why people joined those movements. In my response, I discuss how “ordinary” and “evil” people aren’t so different after all when it comes to committing atrocities. Like you pointed out, that is because “ordinary” people are led to do bad things by mass movements while mass movements give “evil” people the resources and authority to carry out atrocities.

I think your concern “if we have all people who are defiant and very strong willed it would be very difficult to maintain any form of order in society” is a valid one, but I don’t think—based on what we’ve learned about sociology—so many people in society will refuse to conform that conformity will lose its meaning. I think this is good and bad. To your point, a moderate level of conformity provides much-needed structure in society, but it also creates a persuasive structure in which everyone feels too inclined/pressured to conform to.

Originally posted by dudeman18 on September 23, 2025 20:07

The Milgram experiment was designed to test what people will do to each other when they are told to do so by a “higher” individual. The experiment consisted of pressing buttons that each had a specific shock value associated to them and that would then shock the person on the other side. Many people were seen to completely and fully listen to the higher up scientist and keep pushing the buttons even though inside they did not feel like going along. I think that this experiment shows that everyone does have the ability to harm others and cause violence but many would need someone to push them to get there. This is what we see countless times in history where people are pushed to violence by a higher figure. Of course in these instances there are other circumstances that also stir up violence in a person such as mob mentality and such but primarily it shows that when a higher figure tells us to do something many people listen. The experiment enforced the idea that we will do it willingly if someone tells us but we justify it by saying it is out of control. For example, in the video the man who was the subject of the experiment clearly was conflicted in continuing to press the buttons but did it anyway and was eventually informed after. The man then went into a spin realizing that what he did was completely done on his own free will because even though the scientist told him to do it the final choice was his. I think that experiments such as these do show a large part in what leads ordinary people to violence. The presence of one big authority figure can push people to do things they otherwise would be very uncomfortable with. However, I also believe that there are many other factors at plan in those scenarios. In the Stanford Prison Experiment groups were split up by some being called normal and placed as guards where others were deemed not normal and called prisoners. Within hours the prisoners were abused by the guards and violence had broken out. I believe that this underscores the idea of mob mentality and groupthink that leads to violence the same way that one authority figure can. With mob mentality and groupthink like in the Stanford experiment people commit acts of violence just to get at the other group because they think “we are good, they are bad” and violence quickly emerges from that. I noticed that the more strong willed people who were more secure in their lives were more likely to resist the authority. These traits come from a highlight on being at peace with your life and who you are which leaves one less susceptible to groupthink, mob mentality, and dangerous rhetoric spewed by figures of great authority. The danger in this is that then people may think why listen to anyone at all? If we have all people who are defiant and very strong willed it would be very difficult to maintain any form of order in society and especially if those people are encouraged to stand up against authority. Figures of authority however can be incredibly dangerous to get what they want so I believe that it is better to have a society that has more strong willed people who will stand up to this figures.

The most compelling idea in your post is how authority figures can push ordinary people to do things that they would never imagine doing on their own accord, even to the point of causing harm to another person. I thought your connection between the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment was especially strong because it shows how both situations reveal power of authority and group dynamics in shaping behavior. The idea that people who are more secure in themselves may be less likely to blindly obey authority stood out to me because I agree that resistance is only possible through a strong sense of self.

I agree with your argument that authority can be dangerous when people blindly follow it, and that we need strong-willed individuals who are willing to resist unjust commands. In fact, I wrote my own discussion response saying similar stuff in this regard. However, I also think that it is important to recognize that authority isn’t always negative, so there needs to be a smart limit on when to resist authority. Without a strong authority system, as you mention in your response, there’s a risk of chaos if everyone refuses to listen. My view is similar to yours in that I believe questioning authority is critical, but I would add that the real challenge is learning how to distinguish between legitimate authority that maintains order and destructive authority that causes trouble.

Originally posted by sillygoose617 on September 22, 2025 13:05

The Milgram experiment is one of the most famous psychological experiments during its time and now, as it showcases the obedience theory and causes each of us to question how far we will follow authority. In the Milgram experiment, performed at Yale University in 1962, males of 20-50 years of age were asked to perform as a “teacher” for a learning experiment. The men ranged in education, social class, and jobs, all adding to the data of the experiment. The experiment would start out with the experimenter coming in and speaking to two men, one an actor and one the actual subject. From there they would bring the “student” into a separate room and put the “teacher” in front of an operating machine, on the wall opposite from the “student”. The premise of the experiment was to have the “teacher” read out word pairs and for the “student” to memorize and repeat back. When the student got something wrong the teacher would shock them and continue to increase the shock with each wrong answer. Now the real experiment was to see if the “teacher” would continue to “hurt” the other person over time and if they would stop the experiment from continuing. Results varied from person to person but about 50% of the “teachers” obeyed the experimenter from beginning to end and carried out the electric shocks to the highest level. When one “teacher” was asked why he didn’t try and stop the experiment, he simply blamed it on the experimenter and his constant nagging of “you have no choice,” “it is essential you continue,” and most frequently, “the experiment must continue.” Through this we see the same kind of blaming on the authority figure that was present in the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and his trials on his involvement in the planning and carrying out of the Holocaust. On another note, the participants that did refuse, can be represented as having a strong sense of self, and being able to stick with their belief of the right thing. Unlike the people who complied and had “weak” sense’s of self, the people who refused can be seen as a high point in the experiment, and that there are “good” people out there with moral strength. And so, The Milgram experiment can, to some degree, describe the thinking of these people, and show a new side to the atrocities committed. However, I do think that the experiment described in the article by Barajas, with Patrick Haggard as co-author, is a more solid representation of the whole psychological change and decision making. Some critics of Milgram's experiment found that over time the evidence in the experiment was not always the most concrete, and so Haggard's experiment does a better job. Haggard's experiments used actual shocks in his experiment, meaning that the people administering it truly understood the pain they were inflicting. This could be seen as more effective evidence because the teachers were actually aware of the pain they were causing and could be taken as a more concrete decision. Overall both experiments shed light on all the different conditions and factors that play into obedience and how each of these factors work together in the long run. Overall, both experiments give evidence that there is some truth in blaming the authority figure more than the worker bee, but this does not mean their actions are justified.

I agreed with lots of the ideas in the response but the key idea here that I think is very insightful connecting back to our in class work is the fact that the people who pressed the buttons had a weaker sense of self. This connected to our talk about cognitive dissonance and group mind thinking with people who have weaker views of themselves are more susceptible to being influenced by these things. I saw this connection as well and I think it was especially clear with the one man who was kind of unable to explain why he did it when he was informed of the true experiment. The man could have easily just not done what he was told and left the room staying true to himself but he still decided to trust the authority which illustrates his weaker sense of self. I also saw the fact that you said that it can show “a new side of the atrocities” and I thought that was an interesting way to look at it as these people are clearly manipulated but at the same time they are still committing the terrible acts. I think that this was a great and insightful response, with many connections to our readings and in class videos and slides. The only suggestion I have would be less explanation of the overall experiment and more analysis of what the results actually show us about human nature.

Originally posted by humanrights07 on September 23, 2025 16:03

The Milgram experiment was incredibly interesting especially in the shock of seeing so many people willing to kill a person for being incorrect over something as trivial as memory of a couple of words. Even bigger than that though continuing on because authority said to do so. The experimenters had very monotone voices and repeated that it was “essential” that the teacher continue with the experiment which was very effective in the fact that it was convincing. There were some very important factors that caused the teacher to either continue or discontinue the experiment. The teachers were informed by the learner that they had a heart condition of some sort which prevented some of the teachers from going higher than a certain amount of electricity in fear of harming the learners hearts. In addition, the learners made noises of pain when the teacher gave them volts of electricity causing the teacher to be more concerned as they increased the volts because the noises sounded more painful as it increased and eventually stopped once the volts hit the maximum amount. As for why they continued the experiment, it could have been because the teacher was encouraged by the experimenter to continue or the fact that the learner was in a different room causing the teacher to disconnect and not actually see the effects of their actions.

In Joshua Barajas How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, it is described how when humans commit these violent acts they don't blame themselves but instead the leader or person that told them to commit those acts. This in a way explains why in Milgram's experiment when the teachers were encouraged by the experimenter to continue they did in fact continue. It is also described how people “disconnect” from their actions to feel less guilt and “distance” themselves from whatever outcome occurs. In the video we watched in class it can be seen that when the experimenter is present in the room the teachers still acknowledge that everything going on is still in the hands of the experimenter causing them to disconnect and continue therefore backing up my earlier statement as to why the teachers continued with the experiment.

Through this experiment I determined that everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. If those who volunteered for an experiment while getting paid $4 to participate are able to continue the experiment after hearing the learners pain and knowing they had heart conditions, what is stopping a normal person from being violent against others if their boss or the government tells them to do so and if they are unaware of any background the person has? The Milgram experiment as well as some theories we have discussed suggests that authority plays a big role in people's decisions. The government despite there being checks and balances still controls all the citizens in the United States. They can still decide to inflict harm or take away our rights if they choose to do so. With that fear in mind, if they told certain people to be violent towards each other those people would probably listen to keep their rights.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post was that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. I agree with the idea because the people in the experiment knew that the students had a heart condition but yet they still continued and it just goes to show that with the right amount of manipulation people are capable of doing atrocious things. My own views on the topic are similar to what I read on this post because people disconnecting with their action in order to feel less guilty definitely explained what was going in the experiment. Also how in the article Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind tend to blame the leader and not themselves because they are the ones that told them to do the actions that lead them to do those atrocious things is exactly what happens in the experiment. They are ideas from other posts that are similar to my peer’s post like that idea that the guy running the experiment played a big contribution to the teacher continuing to shock the student by telling the teacher that it was “essential” for the experiment for him to continue even if the student is experiment a bit of pain and also the guy running the experiment telling the teacher that even if the student is experiencing pain that it is no dangerous just to convince the teacher to continue which he does.

Originally posted by 1000 on September 21, 2025 21:17

No simulation can completely accurately demonstrate people’s willingness to participate in real life violence. There’s a distant difference between a person who signs up for an experiment and follows through until the end and a person who contributes to a political movement that is centered about violence. The flaw in the Milgram experiment is that the “teacher” who was given the job of administering electric shocks knew that they were participating in a study. The average held perception of studies and experiments is that they aren’t real and that they need to follow very strict rules to be considered accurate. With this in mind it’s reasonable to think that the subjects of the experiment that continued to administer shocks all the way to the end might’ve acted differently under different circumstances with different consequences. The “teachers” in Milgram’s were told that the shocks would not significantly harm the other participant, so even though the recipient was complaining some people continued to “shock” them. In Joshua Barajas’ article titled “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind”, he argues that “Milgram’s studies rested on a deception: Participants were instructed to administer ‘severe shocks’ to an actor, who in fact merely feigned being shocked,” Haggard said. “It’s difficult to ascertain whether participants are really deceived or not in such situations.” In a situation like the Holocaust, the violence is very real and not “required for the experiment”. Nazis participated in acts of violence or supported acts of violence because they were biased against Jews. Some people who supported the Nazi party probably wouldn’t have committed violent acts towards other people if they weren’t told to but every Nazi was biased against Jews discrimination is bad even when there isn’t violence involved.

That being said, the Milgram experiment says something important about humans. It tells us that many are easily persuaded into doing something if there is reason behind it. People are more likely to blindly follow authority if they feel there is a bigger picture. Whether that’s an experiment or ethnic cleansing, the violence is seen as necessary in both situations. As in the Milgram experiment, not everyone will follow authority even with a reason too but in some situations it can be safer to follow authority. More people will do what they need to to protect themselves than will selflessly disobey directions. In the case of the Holocaust it was dangerous to be seen as against the Nazi party so many would turn in their friends and neighbors that were jewish just to ensure that they weren’t suspected to be aiding any jews. Many of the Nazi-supporting civilians are most likely not at fault because it was the norm at that point but the people who had a position of power in the Nazi party knew upfront what they were doing and did it regardless. In the end, I think that the majority of people will follow their empathy towards others before an authority until it puts themselves or their family at risk.

I believe that the most compelling idea in my classmate's post is that the majority of people will decide to choose empathy over an absent authority until they or their family are placed at risk. I agree with this argument and it is interesting to me because it brings about the question of what is the limit of empathy for others until one values their own well being over theirs. NLE Choppa had a similar take as my peer by believing that most people will not willingly commit violence on others without an immediate reason. However, I disagree with one of my peer’s claim that the Milgram experiment is not realistic. I disagree due to the fact that I dont believe they really understand what it feels like in the moment to have authority figures and those around you to all fight for the same goal. It is easy to look back on an experiment or the Holocaust for instance and just say “I would never do something like that”, however these same people are being influenced daily in the same way. While it may not be at the magnitude of the Nazi party, I believe that if politicians came out and blamed an individual for a random event, the majority of people wouldn’t bat an eye to it, and go along with shaming that person. However, all together I believe that my peers' post was very good, without any need for change due to grammatical errors or flawed reasoning.