Milgram Experiment

[Storm]

In light of the recent discussion, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not sure I would have stopped.

 

[lilithu]

In light of the recent discussion, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not sure I would have stopped.

lol Storm, I got that from your first post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... with the occasional Schindler cropping up to throw a wrench into the works.

And it is disturbingly presumptuous to count ourselves among their ranks until tested. Such an attitude is prelude to a very dangerous cascade ...

It's disgusting that they could act that way.

I would never do such a thing.

It can't happen here.​

Yet it does - repeatedly. And if we do not persistently guard against the "tyranny of the majority" it will continue to occur.

 

[Alceste]

And it is disturbingly presumptuous to count ourselves among their ranks until tested. Such an attitude is prelude to a very dangerous cascade

There are no "ranks". The Schindlers, Mandelas and Gandhis of the world are ordinary people. Just like the Hitlers, Maos and Stalins of the world. Feel free to "count yourself in the ranks" of the world's Nazis "until tested", but it's utterly ridiculous to assume everybody is in the same boat as you.

Anyway, we have all been "tested" already. We've all been pressured, threatened, been expected to submit to hierarchies, convinced, coerced and manipulated and we are all acutely aware of our reactions. We all have enough information at our disposal to rationally determine whether we are more of a Gandhi or more of a Himmler, and if our innate self-knowledge is not enough, the internet abounds with personality tests you can take to "scientifically" affirm what you already know about yourself.

 

[Alceste]

I think coming at obedience as you appear to be is to come at it from the wrong angle. In the west we overemphasize personality in explaining behaviour while at the same time underemphasizing situational influences. I think you are making the fundamental attribution error in attributing to dispositions rather than situations.

Hi. stephenw. I agree that situational influences are more important than the west gives them credit for. I didn't mean to imply they're less of a factor than personality - in fact I think personality is largely a product of situational factors, including my own. Would I have a built-in resistance to authority if I had not been raised with an insane, arbitrarily authoritarian father? Probably not. I learned to scrutinize, analyze and be skeptical of the behavior of authoritarian figures in this way. Would I have developed a habit of ethical self-discipline and critical thinking if he hadn't also instilled in me the understanding that my intelligence and integrity are the most valuable qualities I possess, and the only attributes that can not be taken away? Probably not.

Anyway, I'm only making this about me because the question was, what would you do. And I know myself, so I answered honestly. If we're going to talk in general terms, though, I can make the same point by simply saying Ani Difranco (for example) has a different conception of and relationship to authority than Britney Spears. We should all be able to agree on this and extrapolate that both would react differently to pressure from authority to do something unethical, and Milgram's experiment doesn't challenge that proposition in any significant way.

This is because the results are conveyed in a statistical / sociological manner, whereas Britney Spears and Ani Difranco are individuals. Statistical probability in and of itself does nothing to suggest where each would fall on a scale of compliance to defiance. Observing the type of lives they lead, the subject manner they sing about and their public reaction to authoritarian injustices around them gives you this information. Milgram's experiment does not.

 

[lilithu]

And it is disturbingly presumptuous to count ourselves among their ranks until tested.

AND... to go back to what Stephen said earlier, it's not like Schindler just stood up on strength of character and said, "I am going to stand up against oppression." He was put in a circumstance where he had the opportunity to help some people at some risk to himself but not much. Once he did that, and then made a connection, he helped a little more, risked a little more... until finally he was neck deep in it.

I am not trying to take anything away from Schindler. What he did deserves all the accolades in the world. Most people would not have taken that initial risk, or would have turned back as it got more dangerous. I'm just trying to point out that for most of the ethical decisions that we face, there won't be a sign telling you that this is a major decision that will define your life. Most of the time it's small decisions that add up. A person's "character" is defined by his or her actions over the course of a lifetime.

Feel free to "count yourself in the ranks" of the world's Nazis "until tested", but it's utterly ridiculous to assume everybody is in the same boat as you.

That's just it. You can point to Hitler, Himmler and Mengele, but the vast majority of the "Nazis" were ordinary people.

I can tell you stories told to me first hand by family of Japanese soldiers who raped women and bayonetted babies and skinned people alive. And afterwards, they cannot explain what why they did what they did. When I look at the faces of these now old men, I see human beings, not monsters.

Similarly, I have friends who fought in Vietnam (who were drafted btw, they did not go seeking the military) who say they did terrible things. Not so terrible I guess so as to be prosecuted as some were, but terrible enough that it haunts them so many years later.

Anyway, we have all been "tested" already. We've all been pressured, threatened, been expected to submit to hierarchies, convinced, coerced and manipulated and we are all acutely aware of our reactions. We all have enough information at our disposal to rationally determine whether we are more of a Gandhi or more of a Himmler, and if our innate self-knowledge is not enough, the internet abounds with personality tests you can take to "scientifically" affirm what you already know about yourself.

If by "tested" you mean we've all had to make ethical choices between going along with the group and standing up for what's right, I suppose so. I have been tested and the results are mixed. I am neither Gandhi or Himmler. (Might I add that as much as I revere the man, Gandhi himself is not without blemishes.) And frankly, it is often those times when I failed that convinced me to "stand up" the next time. To be the person I want to be.

But if you mean by "tested," having to make a choice that would have a direct and major impact on others, at significant inconvenience or risk to myself, no I have never faced such a test. I have been sheltered in that regard, as I bet have most of us here. I do not know for certain how I would respond. But I do know that if I were to "pass" the test, it would only be because I know I have failed before in smaller circumstances and have had to live with it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have fought against discrimination. I have been billy clubbed and jailed. I'm more than comfortable with my track record of standing up against bigotry. But I have also stood at Yad Vashem and read the tributes of the Righteous, and anyone who can do so and be certain that they too would act in such a way as to warrant such an honor is either saintly or delusional. I am neither.

 

[Alceste]

You can point to Hitler, Himmler and Mengele, but the vast majority of the "Nazis" were ordinary people.

Hitler, Himmler and Mengele were also ordinary people. I bring them up only to define the outer edges of what is (probably) a bell curve with ordinary people dispersed throughout, from Suharto to Sitting Bull.

I can tell you stories told to me first hand by family of Japanese soldiers who raped women and bayonetted babies and skinned people alive. And afterwards, they cannot explain what why they did what they did. When I look at the faces of these now old men, I see human beings, not monsters.

I agree - people, whatever they get up to, are all ordinary human beings, not monsters or heroes.

If by "tested" you mean we've all had to make ethical choices between going along with the group and standing up for what's right, I suppose so. I have been tested and the results are mixed. I am neither Gandhi or Himmler. (Might I add that as much as I revere the man, Gandhi himself is not without blemishes.) And frankly, it is often those times when I failed that convinced me to "stand up" the next time. To be the person I want to be.

But if you mean by "tested," having to make a choice that would have a direct and major impact on others, at significant inconvenience or risk to myself, no I have never faced such a test. I have been sheltered in that regard, as I bet have most of us here. I do not know for certain how I would respond. But I do know that if I were to "pass" the test, it would only be because I know I have failed before in smaller circumstances and have had to live with it.

Nah, I mean boring, ordinary stuff that gives a clear indication of what kind of person you are. Reading labels and such like. My theory is that you can make a good guess based on these things what you would be like in more extreme circumstances.

 

[sandandfoam]

My theory is that you can make a good guess based on these things what you would be like in more extreme circumstances.

Zimbardo wrote
"For many, that belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability. Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to manipulation by failing to be sufficiently vigilant against attempts of undesired influence subtly practiced on them."

 

[Alceste]

Zimbardo wrote
"For many, that belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability. Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to manipulation by failing to be sufficiently vigilant against attempts of undesired influence subtly practiced on them."

I don't doubt that for many, that's true. But according to this, I only score two on the F-Scale. If the fascists took over, I'd be rounded up in the first sweep and sent to the re-education camps. (I don't find that particularly "reassuring" or feel "invulnerable" because of it, though.)

 

[Sunstone]

The Authoritarians

 

[Alceste]

The Authoritarians

Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in

their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and​

3) a high level of conventionalism."​

Thank you Bob Altemeyer. I rest my case.​

Edit: I took the test in the book and came up with a RWA score of 20. How very not surprising.​

 

[Alceste]

I've been thinking about this thread lately, and the experiment, and have finally figured out what has been bothering me about it. When I said I would not follow through with such an experiment until the bitter end, others responded by assuming I must be kidding myself. To me this seems ridiculous, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out why my answer was presumed to be "delusional" while other answers (ie. "I don't know what I'd do") were accepted at face value.

Here's what I've realized: When we consider the results - that 60 to 65% of the participants followed through to the end - many people here are assuming that tells us we ALL have a 60 - 65% chance of doing so ourselves. This is a misinterpretation and a misrepresentation of the findings. In fact, 60 to 65% of us (as individuals) are capable to surrendering to the influence of authority in spite of our morals, while 35 - 40 % of us (as individuals) are not.

In order to establish that there is a 60 to 65% probability that each of us (as individuals) could succumb at any given time, the experiment would have to have been designed very differently.

That's all, folks.

 

[sandandfoam]

Here's what I've realized: When we consider the results - that 60 to 65% of the participants followed through to the end - many people here are assuming that tells us we ALL have a 60 - 65% chance of doing so ourselves. This is a misinterpretation and a misrepresentation of the findings. In fact, 60 to 65% of us (as individuals) are capable to surrendering to the influence of authority in spite of our morals, while 35 - 40 % of us (as individuals) are not.

In order to establish that there is a 60 to 65% probability that each of us (as individuals) could succumb at any given time, the experiment would have to have been designed very differently.

That's all, folks.

That is not an accurate representation of Milgram's findings. He found he could manipulate compliance between 10% and 90%.

 

[Alceste]

That is not an accurate representation of Milgram's findings. He found he could manipulate compliance between 10% and 90%.

All I had to go by was the wiki article from the OP.

Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place.

 

[sandandfoam]

All I had to go by was the wiki article from the OP.

In the Lucifer Effect p.267-276 Zimbardo gives a very good discussion of Milgrams experiments. What you are quoting is correct, but is not the whole story, over the course of a year Milgram carried out 19 different experiments , the data from which "clearly revealed the extreme pliability of human nature: almost everyone could be totally obedient or almost everyone could resist authority pressures. It all depended on the situational variables they experienced. Milgram was able to demonstrate that compliance rates could soar to over 90 percent of people continuing the 450 volt maximun or be reduced to less than 10 percent - by introducing just one crucial variable"-Zimbardo (2007, p.272)

 

[Storm]

In the Lucifer Effect p.267-276 Zimbardo gives a very good discussion of Milgrams experiments. What you are quoting is correct, but is not the whole story, over the course of a year Milgram carried out 19 different experiments , the data from which "clearly revealed the extreme pliability of human nature: almost everyone could be totally obedient or almost everyone could resist authority pressures. It all depended on the situational variables they experienced. Milgram was able to demonstrate that compliance rates could soar to over 90 percent of people continuing the 450 volt maximun or be reduced to less than 10 percent - by introducing just one crucial variable"-Zimbardo (2007, p.272)

What would that "one crucial variable" be, Stephen?

 

[Alceste]

In the Lucifer Effect p.267-276 Zimbardo gives a very good discussion of Milgrams experiments. What you are quoting is correct, but is not the whole story, over the course of a year Milgram carried out 19 different experiments , the data from which "clearly revealed the extreme pliability of human nature: almost everyone could be totally obedient or almost everyone could resist authority pressures. It all depended on the situational variables they experienced. Milgram was able to demonstrate that compliance rates could soar to over 90 percent of people continuing the 450 volt maximun or be reduced to less than 10 percent - by introducing just one crucial variable"-Zimbardo (2007, p.272)

I'm not familiar with this info, but I see even with the highest rate of compliance the data would indicate "9 out of 10 people can be obedient in certain circumstances". Not "all people are obedient 9 times out of 10 in certain circumstances". So I think the same point still stands. There's no more reason to doubt my statement that I am not an obedient person when it conflicts with my ethics than there is reason to doubt somebody else's statement that they don't know.

 

[Sunstone]

What would that "one crucial variable" be, Stephen?

Roughly speaking, "peer pressure".

 

[Mojopalin]

What do people think about the Milgram Experiment? Some people call it the most important psychological study of the twentieth century.

​

I think it's important. And worthless. If a majority of people don't even know what the Milgram Experiment is then it's worthless. Or if a majority of people can't look at themselves in the mirror long enough to see if they are a Nazi, a brutal dictator, or an obedient follower and try to figure out if they are comfortable with that or if they want to change themselves then it's worthless, right? I mean, most people I talk to say they don't even know what the hell the Milgram Experiment is. And it SEEMS like most people won't look at their ugly side. What's a girl to do?

Bonus Question: If you were involved in a similar experiment, do you think that you would do what the majority of the participants did?

Oh, hell yeah. Eh.. Well, give me a target. Are you Black, Arab, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Redneck, or what? I can't shock the hell outta just anyone. I need a target! You know, I'm not some peon who will do your bidding for no good reason. Give me a target that society has told me to hate and I'll gladly fry the guy/gal.

Anyone see where I'm going with this?