The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted in 1963 by Yale University psychologist  Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

In the study Milgram proved that certain people will inflict increasingly greater pain on a human subject when directed to by a person they see as authoritative.  This punishment was doled out because the subject had answered a question wrongly. (more...)

Brian McLaren, in his article Why Do Evangelicals Dislike Me So Much? has applied the Milgram experiment to modern day religion:

"Many find it increasingly unconscionable to believe that they are among the elect and their non-Christian neighbors (and in many cases, their doctrinally-different Christian neighbors as well) are damned, awaiting eternal conscious torment in hell for their failure to convert to the Christian faith. They realize that this belief has a wide range of negative psychological, social, and political impacts, and they have questions and doubts about the whole system, but they remain silent.

Many have lost confidence in a violent God who punishes people for the sins of their ancestors, who uses tsunamis and earthquakes to visit wrath on the disgraced, who blesses wars of choice, and so on. But they publicly defend this view of God in spite of their private misgivings.

Many continue to oppose full human rights for Palestinians because they believe end-time Bible prophecies mandate their underdog status, and because they believe God has granted special privileges and ethical exemptions to the Israeli government. When they hear about the injustices being suffered by Palestinians, they still keep silent. The day-to-day political power of the Christian Zionist lobby in the United States (which has enormous control in the world of religious broadcasting) thus becomes a kind of daily repeat of the Milgram experiment.

Many are afraid to admit that they voted for Barack Obama, or believe in evolution, or are concerned about global climate change, or are OK with their friends being gay or priests being married, or use birth control, or wish women could be treated as equals in their church, or don't take every word of the Bible as having equal authority and historical accuracy. If they speak up, they will be shunned by their religious authorities -- and zapped by their fellow Christians who have been told to press the punishment button when anyone dares to differ by giving the "wrong" answer. So they comply."

When I think about growing up with the peer-pressure-type tactics used by family, friends, neighbors - all with the encouragement of the local pastor - to guilt those who don't conform to locally accepted religious beliefs, I can understand the analogy used by McLaren.  I am no longer susceptible to such pressure because I let my conscious dictate my actions.

But, when I apply this concept to how people in society treat people who are simply different (TGs come to mind  ) in ways that are truly cruel and often times inhumane, I see the authoritative figures in the background telling them to push those buttons.  And in the process, innocent people are being hurt.

The recent postings here by Zythyra about "The Dirty 30", a term the Traditional Values Coalition group is using to describe the "30+ bizarre sexual orientations listed by the American Psychiatric Association", exemplify how easily some people justify harming those they don't even know just so they can remain in positions of power.  (After all, if there isn't an evil to fight against, what would these people be doing?)  And they get their followers to "zap" innocent people, even if it's against their conscious.

Maybe we need to focus on pointing out to the "normal" people of the world how they are being ordered to inflict pain on innocent people, using the Milgram experiment as an analogy.  And they have the right to refuse to do so without incurring the wrath of becoming the objects of conservative ire.

We'll first have to get them to stop and think..   Not an easy task.

We'll first have to get them to stop and think..   Not an easy task.

Perhaps not even possible, they were never taught to think in the first place, so they often wind up lost in thought because it's pretty much Terra Incognita to them.  They have been taught, not to think, but to just believe. If they were thinking, I doubt they would believe most of what they do in the first place.

Why do you think they call themselves Shepard and that their congregation is their flock.  A flock of sheep that are not allowed to think for themselves.

They talk about the "Gay agenda", but what about their "Dictatorial agenda".  They would prefer to ban all religions but theirs, and put all who do not follow in camps.  Sound like something that we had before?

Now don't get me wrong, I love Christians.  Just not their bigoted leadership.  Most Christians really could care less about others "lifestyle".  What happens in your home is no business of mine.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on April 09, 2010, 12:20:46 PMNow don't get me wrong, I love Christians.  Just not their bigoted leadership.  Most Christians really could care less about others "lifestyle".  What happens in your home is no business of mine.

But, as McLaren pointed out, they go against their conscience when told to do so by their religious leaders.

People who are so easily led astray are just as threatening as the people who lead them.

It's not just the leaders, but the instinct to conform and the loudness of the other members of their community. The presented majority oppresses itself to a degree.

Quote from: Miniar on April 09, 2010, 03:59:22 PM
It's not just the leaders, but the instinct to conform and the loudness of the other members of their community. The presented majority oppresses itself to a degree.

Aye, that conformity study explains it better than I but explain it does. The pressure to fit in is strong. I wonder if peer pressure is the dark side of the force.

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 09, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
But, as McLaren pointed out, they go against their conscience when told to do so by their religious leaders.

People who are so easily led astray are just as threatening as the people who lead them.

The sad reality is that very few Christians have ever read the Gospels for themselves.

I have pointed out to so many that we don't have to attend church, that overt displays are prohibited and the response is generally disbelief. Many have claimed that I've been reading a different Bible.

But I'm sorry to say I am not in the least convinced by the Milgram experiment. The conditions are more akin to a video game than a real life concentration camp.

Quote from: spacial on April 09, 2010, 04:56:28 PMBut I'm sorry to say I am not in the least convinced by the Milgram experiment. The conditions are more akin to a video game than a real life concentration camp.

Not at all.  Milgram used live subjects.  The "zappers" believed they were delivering an electrical shock to the "subject" (an actor pretending to be zapped), sometimes to the point of passing out.  You have to endure a lot of pain before you pass out from a non-lethal electrical charge.  That's a far cry from sitting in front of a screen controlling computer animated characters.

The concentration camp connection was Milgram's curiosity about those working the concentration camps.  Did they inflict pain and suffering against their wills because an authority figure ordered them?  You can't get that answer unless the test subject believes they are actually inflicting pain on a live person, one they could see endure the pain.

I've seen this not only in religion but in many other situations where there is a perceived authority figure doling out orders.  Sometimes the punishment is physical pain, sometimes emotional pain and sometimes it is something effecting their life or livelihood (such as in employment).

When I was nursing, I was sent to work in a locked ward for a while.

I knew most of the other staff there and they were a bunch of good blokes, mature, generally calm and easy going. But the place had a reputation for violence and poor standards.

Since I was only due to be there for about 3 months I decided I would try my best to maintain my standards. As a nurse, I needed to be part of a team, especially with people who are severely psychotic.

I saw things happening in there that would make most people cringe. But I did my best to avoid becoming involved, even to the extent of being unpopular.

Near the end of my stay there, a man of 6'6" who weighed about 700 lbs took his clothes off and wandered around the ward. I had been attempting to bring him under some control. His size governing my approach.

He walked up to another man who was quite small and lived in continual fear. The smaller man, seeing this huge pink blob coming toward him began screaming in fear. Real screams. Blood curdling screams. To be honest, he sounded like a pig.

I laughed. No, it wasn't nerves. I found it funny. I even called for another staff member to come and see.

Before any holier than thou start wagging their fingers, let me say this: Guilty. No mitigation. No excuses.

Recently, a huge number of perfectly decent and normal young men and women were given heavy armaments and fired with the insult of 9/11 walked into Iraq.

One group of young men broke into a house. They tied up the family, including children then gang raped a teenage girl. They then shot dead everyone.

A number of years ago, many perfectly decent and normal young men and women were sent to Vietnam. They were told that if Vietnam fell to the communists then the freedom of America would be lost. My Lai was an example, where an entire village of women and children were destroyed to 'Save it from Communism.'

The point of these is that any of us, including you, can and will act in quite disgraceful ways when faced with disgraceful situation.

The camps set up by the Nazis were intended to hold those deemed to be degenerate to the good of society. Most were not Jews, though Jews were the largest group.

The treatment of those people was a consequence of putting otherwise decent people into intolerable situations.

The power element is significant in as much as consequences govern our actions.

The Milgram experiment attempted to discover the extent of how far individuals might go, if they believed there were no consequences. But the setting was a lab, in a university, in the US. No matter how much you try to convince ordinary people, in a university lab, in the US, that there will be no consequences, it is preposterous to suggest that any really believed what they were doing was real.

But to discredit the matter further, the subjects were encouraged.

I was under no such encouragement. The otherwise decent young men and women in Iraq and Vietnam were under no such encouragement. And, inspite of all the propaganda in films and articles that come out about the so called holocaust, no such encouragement was given to the soldiers guarding the inmates of those camps.

Those soldiers were ordinary men and women. When most available military people were sent to fight on the various fronts, these were sent to guard inmates of camps, set up to house those deemed degenerate to society. If the only outrages that occurred in WW2 were in these camps then something could be drawn. But outrages occurred everywhere.

Situations such as the camps of the 30s and 40s, Vietnam, Iraq and others happen because we send perfectly decent young men and women are sent to do what no human should ever do.

These are the consequences of war.

War is a disgusting practice that achieves nothing. It happens because we let it happen. It is a controlled and permissible breakdown of civilisation. The soldiers who are sent to fight are as much victims as the people their rape, persecute and laugh while they torture them. And they do.

To emphasise this point further. One of the groups that was horribly persecuted in WW2, the Jews, left Europe and set up their own state, Israel. They then set about doing exactly what had happened to them. They attacked the local population. They stole land and property. They exiled millions. They maintain a slave population in enclosed camps where they regularly shoot at them, throw bombs at them, torture and starve them.

The Zionists are not evil, any more than those guarding the WW2 camps were evil. The Zionists have been fired up with stories of imminent mass murder of them. Of being enslaved, or drowned in the sea.

It is just more brainwashing. More lies. the lies the Nazis told the German people. The lies the US tells its soldiers going into Vietnam and Iraq. The lies the Zionists tell their people and those elsewhere.

And they are lies.

The Milgram experiment didn't promise "no consequences" and wasn't on that topic.
It was on the question of whether authority figures could make you go further than your moral values suggest.

The actor was convincing enough that some subjects complained about the man's obvious fate, but they didn't stop, they merely needed a slight reinforcement of their "job" from the authority figure and they were willing to turn the dial up to a fatal setting.

Actually it was dead on topic, because what happens here is that you get to blame someone/something else, rather than take the responsibility - and taking responsibility is a HUGE consequence - for what you are doing.

I was only following orders. (Also known as the Nuremberg Defense)

is pretty much the same as

I was doing God's will.

Those students - and lets not forget, because it's part of what makes this so special - is these are not some low-rent, trailer trash - their frickin' Yaleies, among the best in the nation.  Repeat across the country, some 3,000 miles away and no less privileged as The Stanford Prison Experiment.

Point of all of this is not that people would do it - its that just about everyone would do it.

It provides and excuse for those that behave in this way. But it is still an excuse.

People behave in disgusting ways because that is the consequence of sending otherwise decent young men and women to war, any war.

These behaviours happen in every war. That they have become pecliarly associated with WW2 is perhaps the most worrying aspect. Because they grant to leaders the excuse to sent yet more young men to war.

The Milgram Experiment was contrived and the outcome utterly predictable. It's association with the so called holocaust makes disagreement or discussion difficult.

When you live a life being told how to dress, how to act, how to speak, what's right, what's wrong - the programming is already done.  Imagine a world where everyone is encouraged to be who they want to be, without social consequence.  Now take reality, which is in stark contrast, and one begins to see just how ingrained in all of us taking orders is.

Is there a solution?  Something that would wake people up and make them realize they are puppets?  Yes.  All you need is for every parent in the world to begin teaching their children diversity is a good thing, being true to yourself is an admirable goal.  Shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 10, 2010, 08:36:02 PM
Imagine a world where everyone is encouraged to be who they want to be, without social consequence.

Not a very good world. A lot of social norms are there for a reason.  So if I want to be a murderer, I should be able to murder with encouragement instead of consequence?

Apologies if this is off target.

People need to make positive decisions, I believe that none of us are without the ability to do harm to others and can find ways to justify it. Take simple examples beyond spacial's example. How many 'men' rape women? How often is it not rape when she was saying no but really meant yes. After all she is your girlfriend. How many men would try and have sex if they could under anonymity. I remember over 40 years ago being at a party, there was a queue of guys at a bedroom door.  I asked what was going on and was told that one of the girls was so drunk she didn't know what was happening so she was having sex with anyone. I didn't. But I didn't call the police either. People in uniform again are often anonymous, one of the reasons uniforms are used in war. I can kill without recognition. I doubt that there are many combat soldiers who have not committed and atrocity of some sort, probably legally, 'I'll make sure they are dead by blowing his head off.' Common citizens again in anonymous packs will kill, I remember the images of the soldiers caught in Iraq and brutally disfigured and murdered, beyond any reason.
How many people have embezzled for the boss. How many of us have dreams of making the big steal. People are, I believe, fundamentally capable of any wrong doing, and can morally justify it. However most of us don't because we make the decision not to, or we do not get the opportunity to do so.
Psychopaths are different, they don't have moral conscience. But how about the interrogation people at Guatamalo and Baghdad prisons  (sorry maybe incorrectly spelled)  fine young Americans doing their jobs as directed, to torture people. And if in doubt shift them off site and let some one else do it.

As I said probably off the topic.


Cindy

I think your points Cindy, are on target.

As humans, we seek to conform to a norm. Those young men, queueing outside that door were justifying what they did by the presence of others. They all wanted it. She was giving it away.

In the case of soldiers, however, including, but not only, those guarding concentration camps, in Nazi Germany, in the Boer war, In Sri Lanka and in Palestine, I contend they are affected by an insanity.

Those boys were raping that girl. But it didn't conform to their preconception of rape. She wasn't protesting, she wasn't being held down. It was all quite open and possible funny.

In conflict, soldiers are told to kill other humans. This, I suggest, goes against our most basic instincts. I don't accept that we, as individuals, seek harm to strangers. If we did then we would all be attacking each other all the time.

I've tried to imagine what must go through the mind of a soldier when he sees the consequences of his first killing. As he looks down at the lifeless body that, but for his action would continue to have life.

Does he wonder what sort of person that was or would become?

Does he wonder about that person's relationships, those that will feel grief?

Or does he try to think in terms of that person simply as an enemy, no individuality, no function other than to oppose his values?

The uniform of a soldier does more than give anonymity to the killer, it gives anonymity to the dead. The German soldier, marching like an ordered, soulless robot, no feelings, no individuality.

What if the dead is a woman, or a child?

I recall, in the 50s, being brainwashed with the notion that all communists are godless slaves living a grey existence. Never to be trusted. They would be better off dead and at least they wouldn't be trying to impose the rule of their masters onto us.

The Arab, who is a babbling idiot. The Chinese, inscrutable and cold.

The teenage thug who pushes a knife into someone is seeking social dominance. He's a child, attempting, as we all did, to establish his position in the social hierarchy. The soldier is not seeking social dominance. His position, within the hierarchy, is established and secure.

The soldier is only motivated by the rhetoric, defending his freedom, avenging some hurt, be it 9/11 or Pearl Harbour. That rhetoric feeds his first kill. Gradually, the protection of the rhetoric will diminish to be replaced by hatred and insanity.

There is a basic rule in economics, that, following a war, there will always be a recession. The expectation being that, following the end of hostilities, huge numbers of troops will return to civilian life, seeking work.

This rule is a nonsense. If these troops were simply seeking work, many would also seek new opportunities, creating work. Moreover, the influx of all those demobed men would bring huge amounts of spending, stimulating demand and moving the money supply around.

The reality is that, these men returning from war are depressed and disturbed. They seek orders, someone to tell them what to do. They cannot break free of the security of structure simply because that structure has prevented them from facing the reality of what they have done.



Note: I have made a number of references to US troops and US wars in this and previous posts in this thread. I have used these simply because they are well known. US troops and US wars are no different from any others.

Spacial,
I understand your reference to the USA is purely a reference, as it is with my own observations. I remember my teenage talks to my father, when we were not discussing my 'problems'.  A very fine honest and charitable man. He wasa fine example of what a man should be, for example he had heard about a family in the street that we lived in were the father and husband had died. The wife and family were struggling. They were going to lose their house because they could not pay the mortgage. He paid it.

He was a commando/ paratrooper in WWII. He killed and killed. He told me sadly, because I was the age when such stuff was exciting , that he hated doing it. He saw the pictures of the persons family (he had to search the bodies for information). He knew he had killed someones father, someones husband, and killed them in close combat. He felt them. He held them as they died. It did not affect him except possibly for being religious and charitable.

I live in a place as many of you do, where youth carry knives, slash and maim, and sadly kill; for the glory of their manhood. Again, sadly, I think one of the precepts of manhood is to be capable of killing. 'I will protect my girl. my family, my country. How often do you hear some of these A**holes use the argument ' They didn't respect me' so I fought them or even killed them.


I'm sorry Spacial, you are more forgiving then I. I think the gap between civilization and the wild is narrowing and not widening. Sadly, I think when children can watch movies and games in which  killing and mutilation are a prize, we are de-humanizing ourselves. We are paying for it and will continue to do so.



BTW I like discussing stuff with you, you have a solid point of view and are a good debater. That is not a condescending comment, but one from a mod who actually believes this board is a great place for people to express opinion in an adult and intelligent fashion, rather than trading silly insults.


I'm off to bed catch you all tomorrow

Cindy

Simple answer -"NO!" Personal position, but why should I, just because someone says to?
If there was a life or death situation and extraction of information was required, just maybe, but within the context of this experiment, I would have said "get stuffed, do it yourself!"
I am a Conservative (ie, accept responsibility for your own actions, and stand up for your beliefs), not some sort of mindless Right-Wing moron.  To paraphrase JFK, "ask not what you can do, but what Robert E Lee would have done".

Cindy.

I can't, of course, comment on your father. It is good that he was able to face up to his experiences to the extent that he was able to talk about them. From what I understand about commandos, though, they tended to be of significant intelligence and of a narrow band of personality types. I did have the good fortune to meet a few. I found them to be the sort of people it is difficult not to respect, on any level. But to be quite honest, I think I would have found a close social relationship with them quite difficult. They seemed to be emotionally capable of breaking my neck. (I don't mean that is a derogatory sense). And since I had a pretty poor impression of myself at the time, I think I would probably have thought I deserved it.

I'm sure I've mentioned before, my father fought in India WW2 along with one of his brothers. The other was in the navy.

My mother's brothers also fought, but in Europe. My mother and her two sisters were nurses, my mother and one sister working in London.

All I know about them and most other people I knew who served, was that they never spoke about it. The reasons I can only speculate. I do know my father had some anguish over what he'd done. But since he was a military policeman, it may have been related to that.

However, my thesis is directed at those who do reprehensible things, from abusing concentration camp inmates, to attacking indigenous civilians. My own, brief realisation of my own insanity, when I laughed at the torment of that very frightened man made me realise how much my attitudes had changed in the short time I was in that locked ward.

I, of course, was able to leave and did so soon after that. Moreover, I was given my assignment to develop my experience. My skills were recognised and put to the test there.

But soldiers assigned to camp duties would be those deemed unsuited to front-line fighting. We know that Germany was desperately short of front line troops at that time, this emphasises the military inadequacy of these troops. Added to that, the inmates of the camps were said to be there because their presence in society was disruptive. Homosexuals, communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews and Gypsies. I know a little of the social history of the Jews and Gypsies in Europe. I can understand, but of course not sympathise with the label that was attached to them.

In this context, their behaviour becomes more understandable. These were people unsuited to the rigours of military discipline, put into a situation that no-one should have to deal with. I can't imagine that the inmates would have been particularly friendly or co-operative.

Milgram, in this context, is seeking explanations where they are simply not necessary. Moreover, it is seeking identifiable culprits beyond those political leaders responsible for ordering these camps.

The cause of this and other war time atrocities is war. In the minds of the people of Israel, the war is continuing. These mindsets are tools, used by governments to manipulate their peoples. The consequences are theirs. But, sadly, so are the tools of justice and retribution.

Quote from: CindyJames on April 11, 2010, 04:31:46 AM
I think the gap between civilization and the wild is narrowing and not widening. Sadly, I think when children can watch movies and games in which  killing and mutilation are a prize, we are de-humanizing ourselves. We are paying for it and will continue to do so.

Cindy

I will agree with you on that point.

Young men have always joined gangs. These are generally centred around one or two particularly aggressive young men. Social history from before the 20th century is very sparse, largely because those who kept the records tended to regard the lower classes as unimportant.

I have found this record of Razor gangs in Glasgow prior to WW2. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/crimes-that-rocked-scotland/2007/10/19/razor-gangs-ruled-the-streets-but-even-in-the-violence-of-pre-war-years-one-man-stood-out-86908-19978261/

There is also evidence of Socrates, 2500 years ago, attempting to reform the youth of his day.

What does seem to be happening, increasingly, is that degenerate behaviour is becoming more accepted by individuals.

Quote from: spacial on April 10, 2010, 02:06:28 PM
The Milgram Experiment was contrived and the outcome utterly predictable. It's association with the so called holocaust makes disagreement or discussion difficult.

Discussion isn't difficult, when you understand what you are discussing.  The point of the experiment wasn't to show that people would follow authority.  The point of the experiment was to show that people would follow authority... when they have none of their own.  By using authoritative language and posturing, the confederates in the experiment were able to "convince" the subjects to perform morally questionable actions which were beyond their level of comfort.

The experiment was contrived, but the results are not useless.