Obedience to authority
As we enter our final unit, the social sciences, I challenge all of you to answer the following questions on Lessing and Ashe. After answering the questions, choose one more additional prompt from the list below (either Milgram/Baumrind/Parker or Zimbardo/Fromme/Brooks).
All:
1. Explore some of the difficulties in applying this "hard information" about humankind that Lessing speaks of. Assume she is correct in claiming that we don't incorporate our knowledge of human nature into the running of our institutions. Why don't we? What are the difficulties of acting on information?
2. Ashe's experiments, conducted in the early 1950s, involved groups of "seven to nine young men, all college students." To what extent do you believe that the results of the experiment would be different today? To what extent might they be different if the subjects had included women, as well as subjects of various ages, from children to middle-aged people to older people? To what extent do you believe that the social class or culture of the subjects might have an impact upon the experimental results? Support your opinions with examples and logical reasoning. (Beware, however, of overgeneralizing, based upon insufficient evidence.)
NOW, choose one other prompt:
1. Milgram/Baumrind/Parker: Reread Milgram paragraphs 29-81, the transcript of the experiment in which Mr. Prozi participated. Appreciating that Prozi was debriefed, that is, was assured that no harm was done to the learner, imagine what Prozi might have been thinking as he drove home after the experiment. Develop your thoughts into a monologue, written in first person, with Prozi at the wheel of his car. Do you agree with Baumrind that the subjects were “entrapped” into committing unworthy acts? Explain. Parker quotes Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of Hitler's Willing Executioners , to the effect that, "If you think certain people are evil and it's necessary to do away with them--if you hate them--and then someone orders you to kill them, you're not carrying out the deed only because of the order. You're carrying it out because you think it's right." In other words, people who commit evil acts do so less because theyf eel compelled to obey external authority figures than because they are following their own cnsciences, their own sense of who is the enemy. To what extent do you find that this theory accounts for many of the evil acts in the world?
2. Zimbardo/Fromme/Brooks: Zimbardo suggests that we might “choose to remain prisoners because being passive and dependent frees us from the need to act and be responsible for our actions” (paragraph 62). Do you agree? What are the burdens of being disobedient? Fromm writes: “If man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary).” Explain Fromm’s meaning here. Explain, as well, the implication that to be fully human one must have the freedom to both obey and disobey. Brooks writes that as a result of educational reforms during the 1980s and 1990s, "the emphasis [in top schools] is on testing accountability, and order." Later, he says that "schools are much more efficient and productive places [than they were a decade or so earlier], geared more than ever toward projecting children into the stratosphere of success. Authority and accountability have replaced experimentation and flexibility." To what extent does your own experience bear out this contention (or not)?
posted by DrEmmerling at 9:56 AM
18 Comments:
1. It seems to me that the two factors which most interfere in applying hard information to institutions are firstly that different people will hold different information to be true; secondly, that those in control of institutions, while having hard information, may not be interested in applying it. When it comes to the first issue, different groups of people will have received their information from different sources with different viewpoints, approaches, and methods. If these two groups of people attempt to apply hard information to an institution, there will almost certainly be conflict, and the institution is unlikely to resemble what either of the groups wanted it to be. Furthermore, those who directly influence how institutions are formed and run may, if they have information on how an institution can be run, how an institution can benefit them, and how to convince people how an institution should be run, may choose to guide the institution towards a form most beneficial to them, using their hard information on how to convince others to side with them.
2. I think that the result of the study would be almost exactly the same when conducted at a different time or with different groups of people. While different groups of people at different times may follow majority or authority decisions to different extents, these are complex decisions. For example, a political movement involved in civil disobedience, such as the African American civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement, is motivated by a variety of viewpoints, people, and, most importantly, the strong community and personal interests of the people involved. However, the activity involved in Ashe's experiment, judging the length of a line, is a simple, almost knee-jerk choice. While different groups of people may change their attitudes towards following groups when it comes to complex, important issues, it seems very unlikely that different groups of people would change their attitude towards a simple, unimportant task such as judging the length of a line. The only exception I can think of is a group of people who have been carefully trained to check every inconsequential decision they make to check if it is being influenced by other people; however, since no know group of people is known to exist today, the results of Ashe's experiment would be the same.
Zimbardo/Fromm/Brooks
I do agree that the choice of following a role, such as a prisoner, guard, or shy person, is largely a choice of passively fulfilling that role. I would bring up the question of how anyone at all can divest themselves entirely of a role – it seems that nearly every human being has to take up a role in a society – and if they do not, they are simply taking up the role of the bandit or rebel.
When Fromm says “If man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary)” I believe him to mean that objecting anything presented to oneself and objecting the instructions of any authority will prevent one from ever creating or living with anything positive: while a revolutionary seeks to tear down an authority the revolutionary sees as wrong for some reason, presumably to replace it with a positive authority, a rebel compulsively rejects the very concept of an authority, and therefore can never be a part of the positive replacement of a bad authority with a good. When Fromm goes on to say that be to fully human one must have the freedom to both obey and disobey, I believe he means that either disobeying or obeying at all times makes one merely an automaton which mechanically takes an input – authority – and gives a binary output – either “yes” or “no,” obey or disobey.
I find myself unable to match Brooks' contention as to schools to my own experience for two reasons. Firstly, I attended a very small school district, in it's entirety currently enrolling about 1,130 students from kindergarten to twelfth grade. I believe that at this scale, institutional intentions are made quite hard to see by the familiarity of all the individuals involved. Secondly, I am unaware of schools in this country ever being considered particularly experimental or flexible.
1. Lessing, like the other authors in this unit, speaks of group obedience. She presents the point that if a group is asked a question, their response may be extremely different than an individual in that group's own response if asked alone. This is because that individual feels pressure to abide by the group's response, even if he or she does not consider it to be their own correct answer. Lessing mentions that standing out amongst a group is one of the hardest thing for a human to do: "Many agree that among our most shameful memories is this, how often we said black was white because other people were saying it" (9). Very much like Lessing, Asch's experiment proves on a more psychological level that similar people will be influenced by a group in responses. Imagine being a college male in his experiment and hearing many people give an answer to a question that you think is wrong. Personally, I would have the hardest time answering against what the group unanimously proposed. I would question my thoughts, even if i was sure that my answer was right. However, if this group included a different demographic of people, I may not be as influenced because they could have different education levels. I conclude that we are more influenced by our peers (especially in groups) than by anyone else. This influence can even cause us to make different decisions than we would individually.
2. I agree with Zimbardo that if we remain passive, we will remain prisoners. In general, I support obedience because it is more effective in administrative terms (getting things done). However, the one major thing that was taken away from the prisoners in Zimbardo's experiment was their individuality. Is it possible to be obedient and an individual at the same time? I think that it is necessary to disobey the rules sometimes when you (as an individual) beleive that they are wrong or inhumane. This is exactly Fromm's meaning in his quotation. It is necessary to obey the rules, but question them and possibly disobey when they are wrong. The American public has done this with our country's laws, and Congress as well when amending the Constitution. In general, for success in a society or community it is necessary to be mostly obedient.
Lessing discusses the idea that when people are in a group they will act differently then if they were alone. There is too much pressure to stray from the group’s beliefs and to make a stand on their own. The individual may choose to not disagree. The hard information about humankind may be difficult to apply because sometimes the hard information may not want to be applied depending on the situation. Even if certain things about human nature are known, it is hard to follow through with running institutions that way because it would be so hard to make the circumstance perfect. Everyone is different and people would all respond or act differently.
I think to some extent the results would be similar. The same “rules” of society’s behavior will apply and people will conform to the group and even go against they’re true beliefs. In the test that Ashe ran, the student that went last was the student truly being tested because all the others knew about the experiment. At first, the student felt embarrassed when he gave his answer because it was different then everyone else’s. This happens today in classes when someone may disagree with what people are saying. After the student was wrong constantly he began to wonder about his own answers. This however also purely depends on the subject’s personality. If someone was really confident and did not care what anyone thinks, they may be able to constantly go against the group. Also teenagers have a lot of pressure to fit in, adults may be more able to handle being different. If the study did include women, the results may be different and it would be worth testing more. I think the problem would be the subjects may figure out the experiment since this experiment is popular. If the subject grew up in a culture where you should speak your mind or be assertive etc, then they may be better able to stand up for what answer they think is correct. If varying social classes also did this experiment, there may be different confidence levels in the different classes which may affect the results. The most important aspect though, is the ages. I think that the study targeted an age group already known for a high amount of peer pressure. This would greatly affect the results.
Yes I do agree with his statement. I feel that sometimes being the prisoner is the easy way out. You don’t have to be blamed for any actions if you are not doing anything out of the ordinary. By being a prisoner, people could escape responsibility for the situation. When people are disobedient, they face ridicule from peers (the prisoners had to repeat “prisoner 819 did a bad thing”) and they face problems with authority (guards punishing the disobedient prisoners). You have to take full blame for your actions when you are disobedient because you are going against the group and being independent.
If someone always obeys, then they are never an individual and never do anything for themselves. If someone constantly disobeys, they are only seen as a rebel and are often punished for their actions. You cannot be either one all the time. As humans, we have the ability and opportunity to make choices. If we never made choices, then it would be hard to have any integrity as a human being. People should exercise their ability to make choices and conform/be independent. Fromm states that when people obey they often feel safe. People must have both in order to feel safe, yet stand up for what they believe in.
I find that to be true. In schools there is hardly any attention on art, music, and free-thinking. It has turned into a very rigid system. I disagree with this change and I think it has negative affects on students. The attention is constantly focused on grades, competition, and test scores. Maybe other things should be considered. I can definitely see how rigid our school system is and everyone seems to be in a race to succeed. I think that this is going to be hazardous to other ways of thinking.
Human nature has a broad scale. What comes naturally for some may not be the same for someone else. Everyone is different. Also, the situations are different. This “hard information” is not applicable to some institutions. Lessing shows that people do not respond the same way even depending on who they are with or if they are alone.
Today the experiment outcome would not change. The experiment would still have the same rules and some people will still be afraid to be different or stand out. The experiment would be more accurate with different subjects and different ages. People change throughout their life. I think as people get older it is easier to stand up for what you believe in and stand apart. Different cultures have ways of looking at being different. In some cultures it is looked down upon, but in a culture like ours individuality is promoted. It would be interesting to see the outcome of this experiment with these kinds of variations.
Yes, I agree with this quote. It is much easier to be a follower, or simply be passive, rather than taking a stand for what one believes in, or in a sense, be a leader. If you follow the crowd, you do not individually stand out, and therefore cannot be responsible for your actions. When one chooses to be disobedient , whether he is acting as a rebel, or standing up for what he believes in, consequences usually follow. In our present society, depending on the circumstance, the burdens of being disobedient can range from standing out as a rebel to being imprisoned. “If man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary).” In my opinion, this quote is quite self explanatory. If all a person can do is obey and do what he is told, he really has no freedom to be and express himself. If all that person can do is disobey, he is not expressing himself either, and is therefore a rebel. There must be a balance on the figurative obedience scale. In order to be human, one must be able to express himself according to what that person’s views are. In my opinion authority and accountability plays a large role schooling. I went to a private school until sophomore year and it was much more strict, especially with authority, than the public school I transferred to.
1. Doris Lessing writes "If we know that individuals will violate their own good common sense and moral codes in order to become accepted members of a group, why then can't we put this knowledge to use and teach people to be wary of group pressures?" and this is a great example of hard information. My answer to her is because a person's atmosphere affects them in every way possible.
Lessing makes some great points about how an institution won't take in the knowledge of human nature, and use that to run their institution but if they did that their would be boredom. She goes on to say that it is hard to have obedience in the group, and one's opinion is very important. When you are forced to make opinions with a group, the outcome typically is "large, vague, ill-defined collections." If everyone was forced to make such decisions, nothing would ever be challenged, and discussion of others opinions would cease to exist for everyone would start having the same boring old thoughts.
2. Asch states "For psychologists, group pressure upon the minds of individuals raises a host of question they would like to investigate in detail." His experiment with the college boys was ingenious. If this same experiment had been done today I think it would have had the same results based on human emotion. It's why conformity and cliques happen everyday...people don't like to be alone.
For example, the one college student with the different results, he was getting more and angrier because he wasn't like the rest of the group. Now, there is an exception to every rule. If the experiment had been done with younger children, I think the results would show children expressing the truth, and not worrying about the other kids answers based on the innocence of their age. Also with elder people, I think they would be more opinionated and supportive of their answers and less likely to change, because some are very stubborn. It all depends on the person you are dealing with when it comes to this experiment.
The family had a lot to do with one's character. If a child was born into a very opinionated or hostile environment, I would think that child would likely go through life with these opinions affecting his or her daily life. They would more likely stick up for their opinions and their results in the experiment than others.
For the Milgram/Baumrind/Parker:
Monologue:
I can't...I can not believe that was fake. I just didn't know what to do. How can I explain my actions in that room? I just thought the entire time this is wrong...this is wrong...what am I doing? The experimenter told me that it was okay, that he would be responsible but still. I would have really let that man die. I would have let him die? What is wrong with me? I am a sick man. No...No. This is bad. I need help. I need help.
I both agree and disagree with Baumrind in his statement about the victim feeling that they were entrapped into doing destructive acts. The story about Gretchen Brandt and her courageous act to say no to the experimenter and not go through with the experiment shows that some people are in control of their lives. They don't question themselves or show nervous symptoms. On the other hand we have people like Prozi or Mr. Braverman who snap under the pressure and just go along with whatever the experimenter tells them to do.
Milgram makes a great statement by saying that ordinary people, everyday common person can become involved in a destructive lifestyle. "Moreover...when the destructive effects of their work become painfully clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few have the resources to resist authority." Baumrind does make a good point about the experiments that Milgram makes by stating "most of his subjects were concerned about their victims and did trust the experimenter." This could certainly be a factor with Hitler and the Holocaust. Why did so many Germans follow Hitler, because he seemed trustworthy, he seemed like he cared for them, and they in turn should care for him. So the Nazis and Germans might not have just been born with the blind hatred for the Jews, they could have been entrapped in this "mad situation" as Braveman calls it. When I learned about the Holocaust in junior high and high school I remember a story my teacher told me about how young German children were taught to hate the Jews in school. It was like the situation earlier, of how when people are conforming to the same ideas, opinions are lost, and it is difficult to rebel on ideas when everyone else is doing it.
-Lauren Bale
Everyone:
1) Some of the facts about human beings are well known but little attention is paid to it. Examples that Lessing mentions that show “hard information” about humankind includes:
a) Humans are by nature social beings.
b) Americans are enchanted with the notion of self-determination.
c) Most people do not understand how detrimental the “herd instinct” can be.
d) The people who do know how detrimental the “herd instinct” can be do not use this information to teach others about the dangers.
Americans probably don’t act on the knowledge that we acquired about certain trends in humanity simply because we are too optimistic. We believe that our society will foster individuals who will stand up for their beliefs. After all, we were fostered on stories of such individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., Caesar Chavez and others. We constantly glorify such figures and hope that such role models will teach future generations to stand up to injustice. Maybe as a result, we tend to believe that these lessons that we learned when we were younger will prevent the mass following of authority.
In addition, I think that our form of government, as of now, makes it hard to pass changes across the board. Even if we wanted to change our system of government to make up for the human nature, it would be difficult to do so. I think most of the politicians are more concerned with the near future rather than the far future. They are more likely to support things that their constituents find important in order to get elected. They don’t necessarily support the things that are great for the far future and is actually is unpopular with the majority of their constituents. I think one good example would be the global warming issue. Although it is a good investment for the future to slow the emission of harmful products in the atmosphere, most of the people who do vote, aren’t terribly concerned about it. Thus, ideas that are good for the future are discarded in favor of those that seem to be beneficial in the present.
One of difficulties from acting on information is being the first to do it. No is quite willing to be the first one to suggest that all humans can be easily controlled with by authority. I think most of the general population will not like the notion that they can be controlled easily. Most of them will be likely to see themselves as controllers of their own fate. This notion of self-determination dogma that this country is founded upon seems almost contrary to the findings that Lessing points out.
Another difficulty in applying information is the fact that all individuals will have different interpretations of the data. One example of this is even apparent in the cross-section of the obedience debate that is presented in our textbook. Many people will argue the true significance of the obedience experiments. This will then lead to no one wiling to do anything to apply that “hard information.” Unless something drastic happens that calls for a complete overhaul of the laws to include knowledge of human nature into our government, nothing will change.
2) I don’t think the results of the Ashe experiment would differ much if it was repeated again in the present or used a different selection sample. Although something as simple as saying one line differs in length will be difficult to speak in a group situation. The fact that fellow colleagues who are similar to you say that the shorter line is longer will call to question your own abilities. Most people are not willing to get into an argument over something that trivial. Most will just give in to the public consensus out of exasperation or just to avoid confrontation.
Special Prompt:
1) I thought this experiment would be a simple one. I would simply do simple tasks, get paid and move on with my life. I never expected something like this. When I first walked into that room, I felt I was walking on a movie set. That situation just seemed unreal. It couldn’t possibly be real, that electric chair. Any study backed by such a prodigious university wouldn’t allow its test subjects to be hurt, would they? Then, I was able to receive a sample shock from that chair. Although all my logic in my mind told me this possibly can’t be real, there was still a glimmer of doubt. What if it really was an actual test? At first the experiment seemed fairly mild, just give the learner mild shocks to encourage them to learn the words correctly. However, things changed as the voltage increased. When the learner started complaining of pain I should I should have just told the experimenter I couldn’t go on. I regret it now. I should have stopped. But for some reason, I didn’t want to disappoint the experimenter. The experimenter seemed to know what was best. So I followed his instructions. However, my conscience was yelling at me. I was feeling so conflicted that I just wanted to get the experiment over with as quickly as possible. So I read the pairs faster and faster. I couldn’t stop. I didn’t realize that I was acting completely abnormally until the experimenter told me to stop the experiment. In hindsight I know what a mistake I made. Regardless if the experiment was fake or not, if there was real voltage I would have done the same. I’m disappointed in myself. I can’t even stand up to authority for my beliefs. But there is nothing I can do about the past. I just have to be more wary of myself in the future. Yes, just be more careful.
2) I agree with Baumind on some points that the subjects of the experiment were “entrapped” into committing unsavory acts. An unfamiliar setting, such as a laboratory, will cause most people to depend more on a person that has been there and has a lot of experience in that environment. In this case, it is the experimenter. This will cause many people to believe the words of the experimenter with more weight than if a random person was giving the directions.
However, I think this experiment is an indication that it is possible to do something that is against your conscience. I think the people in the experiment should have stood up to the experimenter and refused to participate any further. Although this is difficult to do, I think it shows how used we are in following orders.
3) I think the statement that Parker makes only accounts for very little of the evil that is present in the world today. I think most people who do commit crimes do it for their own benefit. Most should know that their acts are regarded as crimes but choose to commit the crime because they feel the benefits of the crime
On the other hand, this notion of allowing or extinguishing evil because it is right along the lines of a person’s conscience allows the government to commit some acts that are not clearly just. Acts such as capital punishment are considered acceptable to many because in their minds, the criminal’s actions deserve a punishment as severe as death. Normally, most people wouldn’t agree with the government killing off its citizens but because it fits with their own personal beliefs, this special circumstance seems acceptable. Even wars are supported because a country’s citizens believe that their actions are the correct course of action.
1. I believe that a reasonable explanation for not incorporating our knowledge of human nature in running our institutions because everyone thinks differently. Everyone has a different take on everything seen, heard, or smelled. When the experiment by Lessing was done we are able to see that everyone when not being influenced has a different opinion to that of someone that is being influenced. The simple task of believing or thinking that a piece of wood is larger than another is a simple way to seet he difference in behavior in people.
2. I think that if the experiment was conducted with college students from today not a lot would be different. The seven to nine college boys chosen in the 50's would probably not be very different to those of today. If women or young children would have been included I think that the results would have still been the same because women and children can be easily influenced by other people, like the men in the experiments. I think that if older people would have been put into the experiment thier results would be more valuable simply because they would follow their instinct and would not be easily influenced like that of a teenager. Social class would have a big impact on the results from this experiment because people from a lower class may feel they are insuperior to that of someone of a higher class, and feel that they have to answer a question a certain way. On the other hand I dont believe that culture would have a great impact on results.
3. I feel horrible for being willing to put someone thru so much pain. I can't believe i heard the hollering and screams and continued to shock someone that I did not know, especially when i didn't want to. I cannot believe that I was pressured into doing something so horrible. I do not agree that the subjects were "entrapped" they were part of an experiment, and went there willingly they should have had the courage to stand up to the experimentor and not continue "hurting" the subjects. Eventhough many believe that they are compelled to obey someone they should have self control to know not to hurt someone. I believe Parker is correct when he explains how people will do somethin more because they want to not only becuase they were ordered to do so. If someone wants to do something they will do it regardless if their ordered to do it or not. The order will simply give them a push toward proceding with the activity at hand. If someone is ordered to kill someone, such as Hitler, many would not hesitate to simply because they too agree that he has done bad and should be punished. In todays world many people are like this. They want to do bad and may be encouraged by their surrounding to actually go forth and do so.
1) In Doris Lessing's article entitled "Group Minds" she discusses group dynamics and the influence that groups of people can have on individuals. I believe that there are a couple of possible reasons why we choose not to apply the "hard information". One reason why it may be difficult to apply the hard information that we have about ourselves to institutions is that everybody learns in different ways. Also, I think that maybe we are not applying the hard information because may be expensive to put into place. It is also possible that the hard information may appear to work in a lab but when you try to input it into real life with a variety of types of people it might not work as well.
2) I think that Ashe's experiment would probably yield similar results today as it did in the 50's. Clearly society has changed significantly since the 50's. However, the group dynamics are human nature, which takes much longer to change. I think that the results might be a little different if women were included because women are more cooperative where as men are much more individualistic. I think that with people of different ages it might have made a little bit of a different because older people may be wiser and more experienced while younger people might be more easily influenced. I think that culture probably would not influence this experiment very much because group dynamics are human nature.
3)"Geez why did I continue I should have stopped somebody could have gotten really hurt. What was I thinking I can't believe that I just did that. What if I was the learner? I would have expected the teacher to stopped if I was hollering at him. I feel so guilty."
Yes I do feel that the subjects were "entrapped" as Baumrind put it. I think that more should have been done in order to make the teacher feel more comforatable. Some of the teachers may have been traumatized. Luckily, now we guidelines that prevent this. I think that this notion that people commit evil acts more to fulfill there own desires rather than that of a higher authority is in part correct. I think that it is more of a combination of both. I think that individuals obviously need to support what they are doing in their heads before they go out and do it or else they might not get the job done. But I think that if a higher authority just tells somebody to kill somebody there must be some connection or else they probably wouldnt do a very complete job.
There are many different factors that deal with the responses someone gives when applying hard information about humankind. One factor is the difference between a group’s decision and an individual’s decision. When someone is asked a question within a group, they are likely to an answer differently when asked alone. As Michael stated, this can be caused because of certain pressure that is put on by the group. When alone, a person can think freely, not distracted or swayed by another’s response. People today base many opinions and are influenced by an individual with power or popularity. Similar to Ashe’s experiment, if happened today, we would get a similar response, due to people’s opinions, facts, power, or popularity.
I didn’t know how to feel after going through this experiment. If other people were going through this same process, I wonder if they would do the same thing. Would people just follow orders? Baumrind makes an interesting point in that, were the Germans doing the same things? Were they just following orders to do something, or did they feel the same way about Hitler. Similar to being ordered to kill someone you hate, did the people of Germany feel hate towards the people before they were ordered to do the things they did?
1.) The difficulty of applying “hard information” arises from group obedience. As an individual one might believe in something completely different than the majority. Outnumbered, most of the time he or she will eventually give in because of the individual’s inability to change the minds of the group. When the individual already belongs to the group it becomes difficult to stand out, and he or she is pressured to accept what the group as a whole accepts.
2.) As a college student I would fall into the influence of a group of peers because I recognize that more than likely they are correct. If I had taken part in the experiment I probably would have gave in quickly acknowledging that maybe I was wrong and accept my peers answers. I don’t believe that the results of the experiment would be different today if the same number of college students was utilized. They might however already have their own ideas before taking part in the experiment, especially if they had prior knowledge of the results in the Asch’s experiment. If the experiment had included women or children it would not have affected the results because they are as easily influenced by their peers as are college students. What could have affected the experiment focus on influence, is the social class or educational levels of the participants.
3.) “What did I just do? I could have killed that man, but it would not have been my fault. I was ordered to keep shocking him at four hundred and fifty volts, and against my will I did it several times. I wanted to stop after hearing him suffering, but the experimenter would not let me. How could I drive home if this had all been true, and I really killed the “learner”? I am glad this is over and hopefully I don’t have any nightmares of sitting on an electric chair getting shocked to death.”
I do agree with Baumrind, that the subjects were “entrapped” into committing unworthy acts. Sure they went there willingly, but did as they were told even if it was against their will. In a sense the experimenter, like Hitler, had the control of the situation. Hitler dictated and gained the acceptance of the German people to kill people even if it was against their will. The experimenter basically pushed the “teachers” against their will as they questioned if the the “learners” were going to be alright. The max electric shocks were used more than expected, because the experimenter would be responsible if anything were to happen to the “leaner”.
The theory that Parker supports does not completely convince me of all the evil acts in the world, yet there is some truth to it. If people are influenced by an authority and ordered to act in cruel ways they will do so. This then generates the majority to act the same way and have the same intentions of killing who they consider as the enemy. It all begins with a leader who has the control of the situation, and as the time goes by he creates a majority to follow him. Parker leaves out the initial process, leading to his theory.
1. Lessing states that we dont incorporate our knowledge of human nature in the running of our institutions. I believe this is for one main reason: human nature on paper or in theory is quite different than in real life. It's a variable that can be changed depending on it's surroundings, and because every institution is in a different surrounding, it would be hard to apply this as everyone is different.
2. I don't believe the results of Ashe's experiments would be any different if they were conducted today. Basic human nature leans toward being in comformity with the majority, nobody wants to be the odd-man-out. I believe that for the most part the groups would still all try and agree. If women were involved they might be split, but still even in this split the women's group and the men's would try and stick together. Today's culture causes people to try and please the needs and standards of society. In these groups for the experiments, society as a whole can be looked at as the group and the individuals in that group feel the needs to conform to fit in and be accepted.
For Milgram:
"I can't believe it was all a fake. I mean, what was I supposed to do, I didn't know what to do, the guy just kept telling me to keep going and it was okay, so I did! I didn't know what to think of the whole thing. At first, I didn't even know if they were serious, and then I realized they were and it felt wrong but the guy said it was alright, and I didn't think they would really let me hurt somebody. Oh my gosh I can't believe this!"
I think that the subjects were in a way "entrapped". They were put in an unknown situation in which they knew to follow orders. If I was in that situation I would be looking to the researcher for instructions, and when he told me it was okay, why shouldn't I believe him. I can see how people may have worried but it is human nature to not want to break rules or do something out of line, so being in a situation that's all about being asked to do something would automatically make the subject feel under pressure to go through with it.
I completely agree with kyle as far as there being many factors that can impede us from incorporating our knowledge of human nature into the running of our institution. People are definately influenced by others, and usually feel the pressures from a group as a sign to "conform" with the groups beliefs, maybe even abandoning their own personal beliefs just so they can "fit in." Many people can be asked a specific question and when alone answer it more with their personal knowledge and feelings whereas when asked in front of a group they are more likely to say the same thing as the rest of the individuals in the group. They really don't apply their "hard information" because they are fearful of what others are thinking/feeling.
I think that if Ashe's experiment was completed today it would still yield similar results as it did in the early 1950's because society would still conform to the ideas of a group. Even though times have changed, people still tend to agree with the masses, leaving their personal opinions and judgements out of sight. Many find it easier just to conform to the ideas of a group and don't share their own personal beliefs. Agreeing with what Alexis said, when a person in a classroom, for example, tends to stand on their own with an idea or belief, they really are the " odd man out." They constantly question themselves fearing that they are wrong because the majority of their classmates have the same answer. Ashe's experimentof the 1950'smight have differed if it had included women as well as subjects of various ages, from children to middle-aged people to older people, because it wouldn't have been so biased with only men and it would have been more equal. You would be able to get a sense of all different types of people,many whom have different views on things and different knowledge on certain subjects, thus yielding a variety of answers instead of one same answer.
I think that to a large extent the social class or culture of the subjects might have an impact upon the experimental results because if it was just a group of poor people they might all agree that something is injust with the government, wheras if the group is mixed with poor, middle class, and upper class people there might be more of a variety of thought and opinion. Culture may also play a big role because different demographics yield people with different thoughts and feelings but if just one demographic was analyzed, then they might all agree on the same thing,leaving no room for variety.
I feel like a monster. To give a person so much hurt and pain. To not be able to stop when they are pleading with every ounce of effort they have left. 450 volts driven into their bodies for one measly wrong answer. And I, as sad as it sounds, had to continue to inject these volts of electricity into him as though i was putting him to death with leathel injection, over and over again. What is wrong with me? What have I done. I was assured this was a normal procedure by the experimenter. But I feel like an animal, this was so inhumane. I am a monster.....
I agree with Baumrind that the subjects were “entrapped” into committing unworthy acts because they are highly influenced by the experimenter, and when being coaxed by someone in a lab that it is ok, then they feel that they are doing the right thing. Even though they might want to act out and stop the experiments that they are conducting, if influenced by a superior person such as an experimenter that the project is safe and normal, then their reassurance is enough for them to conform and continue on with the experiment, even if it is not good.
I also agre with Rita when she said that the people being experimented on should have stood up to their own beliefs and said that they will not participate in the experiment anymore. They should see that something is unjust and not right and is even harmful and stand up for themselves and walk out on the experiment.
In regards to Parker's quote: I feel that people do do things both because they feel compelled to and because they are listening to their conscience. I do think that people can be highly influenced at times to do things because of pressures from society and from themselves but also some evil today is not just based on this. I do agree with what Jesus says about how if "people are influenced by an authority and ordered to act in cruel ways they will do so"(Jesus's blog.) Influence is a huge part of how society acts. People can be easily influence and because of this easy task, evil can advance. If enough people tell someone that another person is bad and should be killed, the chances are highly likely that people will get into their heads that the individual is bad and should be killed, regardless of if this is even the truth. Influence holds power, especially with the masses.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
People do not incorporate our knowledge of human nature into the running of our institutions because they have different value and background. It is difficult to make one common decision on the task that is given when there are various different kinds of people, because they have all different opinions and ideas of what they want and what they believe. I think that is one of the reason why most schools today do not require their students to wear a certain uniform. I feel that if we were all forced to be or think alike, we would all end up being frustrated do to the fact that our own individualities would be lost.
2. I do not think that the results of the experiment would be different today because the ways of people think and act are consistent. It is human nature. People like to please other people and feel like they are belonging into the group they can be depend on. In fact, most of our youth today feel as though they have to constantly fit it. I think that the social class or culture of the subjects have big impact upon the experimental results in Ashe’s experiments. For example, if the experiments were conducted with the groups of old people and young children, the result could be different. The young children would be more willing to take a risk to get their way and break the rules and ideas of majority. On the other hand, the old people would have ability to make their own decision regardless of social pressure; maybe they are more obedient then young children because they have been though the hard times being alone and fighting against the majority. I imagine that the older people would be more independent, and would have less need to fit in with their peers or social class.
3. I agree with Zimbardo because there are always responsibilities and punishments that people have to take when they break the regular boundary that has settled by the majorities. People want to be accepted by many groups of people and institutions because they want to feel safe and protected. Because there are certain expectation and requirements that follows in order to be accepted by the people or institutions, it is hard to be disobedient in society. People sometimes disobey the rules and the public opinions because they want to follow their belief and knowledge of human nature.
1. In our institutions we thrive on the sharing of information between one another. Groupwork is vital for the success of all institutions, and while in a group one most believe that everyone within the group is working for the best result possible. This is to say that we do not make the assumption that everyone is malicious and work together based on this for the greater good.
2. I believe that the results would be different today, because today’s college students are, in my experiences, much more independently thoughtful then in the 1950’s. I think that the close nit group of just male college students really altered the results, as all of these college students are just going along with the opinions of their close peers, rather then someone more mature. A well-educated social class would be less likely to fall for this trick, because varied social standards and cultures would all attempt to be the most “correct” in every situation and would therefore challenge all assumptions.
2. I do agree that this passiveness connects with accountability, in that you obey as to not get in trouble in the long run. If one is disobedient then consequences are the only way to get the obedient message across. In Fromm’s quote he means that slaves follow orders, while rebels always question them and therefore go against them. In order to succeed one must take orders from all type of people, if a person did not follow any orders, then serious trouble would arise. Keep in mind; our judicial system is based upon obeying a set of rules. In response to Brooks I believe that this is very much true in my experiences. Throughout high school and college I have more and more accountability. The ultimate rule of the administrator/school/teacher in the end almost always prevails, and therefore authority has become extremely important in the operation of the education system of today.
1. It is hard to apply "hard information" for us since an individual is worried of being alienated by his or her peers as Lessing states "the hardest thing in the world is to stand out against one's group, a group of one's peers."
2. The results of Asch's experiment would not change if we have it now since some people are always afraid to disagree with majority of people within their group. If subjects had included women, the outcome would not change since I believe women are as likely to yield to authority as men do. Also, I do not think social class or culture of the subjects does not have impact on the results. However, what impacts most for our decision depends on how much we think the group has cohesion. If we think we have to maintian group membership and relate with people within a group, we will conform to authority easily.
3.Mr.Prozi: Milgram is such a liar. I assumed that my self-esteem would be protected. I was so stupid.People will make fun of me since I obeyed Milgram blindly. They will say that I can kill people if I am told to do so. I hope this experiment will not become famous.
4. I agree with Baumrind's idea that the subjects were "entrapped" into committing unworthy acts because of the following reasons: 1)It probably caused trauma for subjects and they would not be able to trust their future; 2)Milgram took advantage of subjects' volunteerism; 3)In the laboratori, people seem to obey more easily than in the real world since it is an unfamiliar place.
5. We obey when we think there is ome benefits to do so. For example, in Milgram's experiment, subjects obeyed since Milgram payed them money and he said that he would accept all the responsibilities. Therefore, the subjects seemed to have nothing to lose and they thought they should obey Milgram. In Holocaust, people obeyed authority since they were killed if they did not obey. We always seek what the best way to be in a good social position. This is why I do not agree with Goldhagen's opinion of "if you hate them and then someone orders you to kill them, you are not carrying out the deed only because of the order. You are carrying it out because you think it is right."
I would have to agree with Jared when he talks about human nature being different on paper compared to real life and that behavior can change depending on surroundings. I think that people are easily influenced by their surroundings. I also agree with Jesus when he says that when someone is part of a group they are pressured to accept what the group as a whole accepts. I believe that because a group as a whole accepts or rejects something makes them a group. People with the same beliefs and thoughts are usually in the same group. I would have to disagree with Kyle when he says that a person alone can think freely because even though that person is alone they are most likely thinking what would everyone else pick. For example, when a girl goes shopping she will ask herself, "would people like this" even if she is shopping by herself.
Post a Comment
<< Home