I strongly agree with Digital Stimulus here, uglybeech. Sure it was always known that some people would act abominably under certain circumstances. But how else could we have known scientifically that apparently everyone (not just 2/3 of people) would (albeit uncomfortably) torture another human being just because they were told to do so by an anonymous authority figure? And that most of them would continue to do so at the maximum level until they were told to stop?
And what about the questions I raised in the OP and elsewhere? Do you honestly contend there is nothing more science can tell us qualitatively?
I’m well aware of the first 2 experiments, but I have never heard of the third one. The third one was really sad.
I have and will struggle with this issue, ever since I bought a copy of Milgrams book about 7 years ago.
The sad part is that yes, we are obedient to authority, but there are ways to resist that urge to be obedient. In the Milgram experiment it was discovered that
-multiple contradictory authority figures could drastically decrease compliance as opposed to a single authority figure
-close proximity of the victim decreases compliance
-far proximity of the authority figure decreases compliance
-conformity saying an experiment is wrong (multiple people refusing to partake in the experiment) decreased compliance
The thing about Milgrams experiment is that it has been carried out all over the world and it always comes out to about 2/3rds of people who obey no matter where or when you do it.
Milgrams experiment showed people have morality as virtually all felt unease about torturing someone, but they didn’t act on it. The Stanford experiment is worse because people started to morally enjoy being bullies and tormentors.
There is another book called the manipulated mind that talks about situations simiilar to the Stanford experiment (this experiment was started by the Navy to deal with issues of POWs). What seems to help POWs to resist is
-having an authority heirarchy that everyone followed
-using humor to laugh at captors and torturers
The reality is we humans will destroy ourselves and each other rather than disobey conformity and authority. How much of our emotional pain and suicidal urges come back to something that makes us different in one form or another?
There is no solution. That is the worst part. Nothing I can think of we can do about it really. The best we can do it have benevolent dictators as opposed to malicious ones in our social and political organizations. That is about the only option I know of. Luckily most people will not be in a situation where they are required to torture a friend or neighbor, that is about the only option we have. That is one of the reasons Rwanda is hard to deal with, because friends and neighbors became murders of each other overnight.
These experiments are deeply necessary. Most of us, myself included, have illusions about how indepdent or good we are. When the Milgram experiment was thought up Milgram interviewed many psychologists. Most felt that only 1/10 to 1/100 of people, who they felt would be sadists, would willingly torture someone up to 450 volts. These experiments turned psychology on their head and are still shocking to people who see them. We need these experiments to shatter our illusions and to build meaningful defenses.
One good thing that does come from experimental data and discussions like this and incredible movies like Das Experiment is that they keep on reminding us to be watchful of ourselves.
I was fully an adult before I realized that the Germans in the 1930’s and 1940’s weren’t an exception to the rule. But what was much harder has come since my mid-forties. I am no different and can still become that which I detest most.
We certainly have a lot of opportunities to be moral cowards in modern day America and elsewhere too.
Yes, people are and were still moral, they just weren’t in control of their behavior. Virtually all of the Milgram experimenters wanted to quit but didn’t,and most/virtually all of the people in the fast food situation watned to quit but didn’t. That may sound meaningless (wanting to quit but not doing it) but when millions of people feel the same way, over time it means that enough discontentment will build up and a rebellion will occur. So yeah we are sheep, but we still maintain our sense of indignity and rebellion and as a result the world is full of dictatorships that didn’t last more than 50-70 years. China is constantly liberalizing its social and political rules. Imagine a society of people who are obeying authority but disgusted and disgruntled the whole time. It is only a matter of time before people rebel. And rebellions use the power of conformity in their own best interest. In one of Zimbardo’s books he talks about how the power of conformity helped the people in nations opposed to dictatorship work and come together, they see some people marching and then they join in, then others join in. Arguably the movements towards liberal democracy and science that are going on in a global scale (the Europeans live like this, so so should I) are a form of conformity.
I don’t know. What I do is try to remember that just because we are obedient to authority and conformity that doesn’t make it morally wrong. These forces can be used for good too. Zimbardo wrote a book on social psychology where he tries to address positive uses for authority and conformity, like promoting environmentalism. I guess the best we can do is say ‘ok, we are sheep who will destroy and torture ourselves and each other rather than stop following orders, how can we use that fact to improve everyone’s life’. In todays world we reward things like liberal democracy, humanitarianism and scientific advances. The people working on cures for AIDS and cancer or promoting agricultural science the world over would probably be Nazi prison guards in another lifetime, but if you build a society where they are compelled to do something positive instead they will.
I don’t know. I don’t think it is possible with the revulsion we feel for those who disobey authority. What do you think of people with criminal records who assault police officers or who have been in prison? What do you think of people who are extremely creepy? We have alot of revulsion for non-obedience and non-conformity in this society, so it becomes hard to question these things. Perhaps we can’t change it anytime soon w/o some kind of massive neurological intervention that won’t happen for 200 years.
Suffice it to say, yeah we are grossly evil. But we maintain our morality and even if it takes 100 years our morality will get the best of us someday and we will rebel. The best we can do it try to promote blind obedience to benevolent projects and ideas instead of destructive ones and perhaps hundreds of years down the road we can rewire the human brain to make ourselves more independent and humane.
I’m posting alot because this issue means alot to me as I have and also struggle with the whole ‘how can humans possibly be good’ mentality because of it. I have probably read more books on this subject than 99% of the people here.
What is important are
-how can you help people who want to rebel find ways to rebel
-how can you use the power of obedience and conformity to promote good things instead of bad things
For point one it has been shown that things like the internet and cell phones are making it much easier for people to rebel against political establishments. It may make it easier to rebel against social establishments as well. It is easier to be disgusted with a social rule when you have access to people who feel it is ok to be different.
So find ways to fight back. As I posted earlier, Milgram tried to find out what made people disobey authority as well as what made people obey. In one of his experiments he switched the roles of learner/authority so the authority figure was in the chair getting shocked and the learner was the one calling the shots. Once the authority figure got to 150 volts he said the same thing the learners said in all the experiments ‘this is starting to hurt, let me out’ and when he did I think 96% of people stopped immediately and even went in the other room to help release him. The learner kept protesting saying ‘the experiment must continue’ but the subjects just ignored him. When the roles were reversed only about 0-5% stopped at 150 volts and of the hundreds none got up to go help the person out of the chair. If you have 2 authority figures with one saying ‘lets continue’ and the other saying ‘we should stop’ what happens is about 95% of the time the person stops when the learner wants to quit. So we are still moral, we just don’t act on it unless it is conformist and obedient to do it. But even if it isn’t, sooner or later these moral urges will overcome our obedience drives and we’ll fight back even if it takes decades as politics shows.
Asch has shown it only takes 1 non-conformist to give others permission to also non-conform. And Milgram showed that if 2 people chose to non-conform to torturing someone that about 95% of people wouldn’t torture either (if it was reversed and 2 conformed, then about 95% of people would torture someone to 450 volts).
So conformity can lead to torture, or it can be used for something positive like group therapy and group support. Luckily, in the modern world, we try to use it more for things like group therapy or spreading human rights than to torture people. AIDS was a problem in Uganda, but when the president started talking about it attitudes changed. In the US it became an issue when Rock Hudson got it. So conformity and authority figures (political and social) can be used to make people aware of problems and risks. Right now Bono uses his social authority to promote helping Africans avoid famine and destruction.
I could probably post on this subject alot longer but right now I’m out of ideas.
Thank you, Wesley Clark, for your fine and thoughtful posts! In fact, I’m pleased with all the responses, so I thank all of you for your ideas.
I’d still like to discuss your replies, though. If you’re burned out however, I can understand that.
That strikes me as very much a contradiction, I’m afraid. Morality means nothing if it is not put into behavioral action. No matter how badly you feel about it, if you agree to torture someone so readily, I contend that you lack morality. Sympathy should not be confused with morality.
Well, I don’t want to quibble much over what you said about the Milgram subjects. I’ll simply say that I would describe them as being sympathetic to the suffering of the “learner” but lacked the moral resolve to stop torturing him early enough. However, I can recall no reason to believe that the fast food managers wanted to stop. What did I miss? And what about the “guards” in the Zimbardo experiment? He wrote that they were clearly very disappointed that he ended the experiment early!
Another good point.
Certainly true, but as you know, the point at issue is that we all apparently lack at least the ideal of morality since we will so easily countermand our moral feelings when told to act contrary to them by an authority. So acting morally when an authority tells us to do something that does correspond to our moral feelings is self-evidently good.
Again, an excellent point. Thank you.
Agreed. I would be the very last person to deny I’m any different/better than others in this respect. But that’s exactly why I’m so horrified by all this! While I am completely certain I would have never gone along with the fast food hoaxer, I greatly fear what I might have done in the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. And I think it would be profoundly beneficial for every person on earth to share such fear and thus to learn to fear even mildly abusive authority and even mildly excessive conformity.
For those who want a fourth example, I recommend The Heist, where Derren Brown convinces a number of middle managers to engage in armed robbery. Part of the way through, he replicates the Milgram experiment.
Speaking for myself, I probably would have cooperated with the authority figure had I been subjected to the Milgram experiment in the 1960s (assuming that I was of the proper age, etc). Having studied it though, I would hope that I possess sufficient character to resist such automatic inclinations.
----- And I think it would be profoundly beneficial for every person on earth to share such fear and thus to learn to fear even mildly abusive authority and even mildly excessive conformity.
I disagree. What’s necessary is that those with character exercise it every once in a while, by showing assertiveness at appropriate times. Armed with such skills, appropriate steps may be taken when true moral problems present themselves. Don’t sweat the small stuff: rather prepare for the greater challenges.
The documentary mentioned in the OP can also be seen on the Sundance Channel. The parallels between the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib are striking and chilling. To be aware of the human tendancy to submit to authority is troubling, I think. I would hope that awareness of this flaw (at least it seems a flaw to me) can give people the ability to resist it.
Indeed, the parallels are as you say. However, it seems to me that you only address half of the point – it’s not just the tendency to submit to authority, but the willingness of average people to assume that authority (and exert it) is just as troubling. What’s the phrase – recognizing that a problem exists is the first step to fixing it?
The interesting thing about Abu Ghraib is that whistle blower Joseph Darby had a reputation in high school of being a trouble maker, someone who didn’t take authority at face value, and was in trouble with the law from time to time over various minor infractions.
Hypothesis: Whistleblowers, snitches, and stoolies are resented not just because they ruin others’ fun or jeopardize business as usual. They’re also resented on other, deeper, and perhaps conflicting levels:
a) They disturb people’s conditioning that authority, however unreasonable, is not to be questioned.
b) They trigger guilt and resentment in people who have had urges to act against authority that they can’t deal with or acknowledge.
I think a lot of people admire Darby. IMO, he’s the only good thing about the whole sorry Abu Ghraib affair. He sent a couple of low-level thugs to jail, which is better than nothing. He’s gotten death threats from idiots, but I’d wager these are the same idiots who send death threats to the Dixie Chicks and Al Franken.
My point is that in normal circumstances the type of people who would rejects an unjust order are people who often come into conflict with authority. Unfortunately these people will have a difficult time in society, because so much of what is required for even minimal success is conformity and obedience.
This is an interesting article about Darby, especially page three.
I was thinking about a fundamental difference between life in a primitive tribe or village versus life in modern times. The primitive village was small. Generally, in the times prior to civilization, we were looking at communities of a few hundred or less. In a group so small, each individual knows every other individual. If they’re not really friends, they’re at least close enough to be aware of each other, know each other’s personalities. That gives them the motivation for treating each other with dignity. Hence no torture and murder within the community.
Jump forward a few thousand years, and we’re in a society where such things no longer hold true. People don’t know everyone in their nation, nor even everyone in their city. Increasingly, if you did a survey in a typical suburban neighborhood, you’d find that most people couldn’t name everyone who lives on their block. Hence no need to respect the dignity of all human beings in any local group, since the human beings are no longer known.
I think that to understand the true nature of the problem of authority, you have to stop analyzing cases of how one individual reacts to one authority and start thinking about how people’s whole understanding has changed. And I mean their understanding about everything. This is an issue far too big to cover in one post or even one thread, but people have changed over the last century and a half. The focus has moved away from individual people, towards social groups. People now evaluate actions according to their effects on groups, and think more about human society as a collection of social forces. The entire shift works towards obedience towards authority, because we’re no longer thinking about that scientist as a scientist. We’re thinking about him as a representative of the rational scientific worldview. Because we feel that the rational scientific worldview can’t be wrong, therefore the scientist can’t be wrong.
To clarify, I’m not talking about primitive religions, which first sprang up to deal with questions of the physical world, such as: “Why are we having a drought, and what can we do to stop it?” I’m thinking about why the modern religions continue to exist and why people stick to them. If you’re only seeing the people who make up the world, then you soon grow depressed about the lack of proper behavior among those people. Religion solves the problem by pushing the blame for that bad behavior onto Satan (or something comparable), and then portraying human existence as a struggle against Satan. That allows the believers to continue obeying “love thy neighbor”, while acknowledging the neighbor’s moral weakness.