The psychologist Stanley Milgram created an electric ‘shock generator’ with 30 switches. The switch was marked clearly in 15 volt increments, ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
He also placed labels indicating the shock level, such as ‘Moderate’ (75-120 Volts) and ‘Strong’ (135-180 Volts). The switches 375-420 Volts were marked ‘Danger: Severe Shock’ and the two highest levels 435-450, was marked ‘XXX’.
The ‘shock generator’ was in fact phony and would only produce sound when the switches were pressed.
40 subjects (males) were recruited via mail and a newspaper ad. They thought they were going to participate in an experiment about ‘memory and learning’.
In the test, each subject was informed clearly that their payment was for showing up, and they could keep the payment “no matter what happens after they arrive[d]”.
Next, the subject met an ‘experimenter’, the person leading the experiment, and another person told to be another subject. The other subject was in fact a confederate acting as a subject. He was a 47 year old male accountant.
The two subjects (the real subject and the con-subject) drew slips of paper to indicate who was going to be a ‘teacher’ and who was going to be a ‘learner’. The lottery was in fact a set-up, and the real subject would always get the role of ‘the teacher’.
The teacher saw that the learner was strapped to a chair and electrodes were attached. The subject was then seated in another room in front of the shock generator, unable to see the learner.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
RESEARCH QUESTION
The Stanley Milgram Experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question:
“For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” (the dependent variable)
Remember that they had met the other person, a likable stranger, and that they thought that it could very well be them who were in the learner-position receiving shocks.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
THE EXPERIMENT
The subject was instructed to teach word-pairs to the learner. When the learner made a mistake, the subject was instructed to punish the learner by giving him a shock, 15 volts higher for each mistake.
The learner never received the shocks, but pre-taped audio was triggered when a shock-switch was pressed.
If the experimenter, seated in the same room, was contacted, the experimenter would answer with predefined ‘prods’ (“Please continue”, “Please go on”, “The experiment requires that you go on”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”), starting with the mild prods, and making it more authoritarian for each time the subject contacted the experimenter.
If the subject asked who was responsible if anything would happen to the learner, the experimenter answered “I am responsible”. This gave the subject a relief and many continued.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
RESULTS
During the Stanley Milgram Experiment, many subjects showed signs of tension. 3 subjects had “full-blown, uncontrollable seizures”.
Although most subjects were uncomfortable doing it, all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts.
25 of the 40 subjects continued to complete to give shocks until the maximum level of 375 volts was reached.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
CONCLUSION - OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY
Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so.
Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks. None stopped when the learner said he had heart-trouble. How could that be? We now believe that it has to do with our almost innate behavior that we should do as told, especially from authority persons.
A 3-part video of the Stanley Milgram Experiment (Not the original 1961 experiment, but a new one based on it)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Put everything in spoliers so my post isn't so big.
The Stanley Milgram Experiment always interested me. The experts at the time only estimated 1%-3% would go to the max voltage level. When i first heard about the ex[eriment, i assumed similar percentages too. I though there was no way it could be any higher. What a shocker it was when it was found out that 65% of the participants would go to the max voltage level. I thought there was no way people would just ignore their morals and continue on potentially hurting people. Have you not always wondered how the Nazis could have forced the German people to commit such horrid acts?
I had always assumed after firsting reading about the Holocaust and such that there was no way my country's people could have done that. I just didn't think people would abandon their morals so quickly. This experiment really showed me just what affect authority has on people. About how authority can get people to commit even the more horrible acts. Then i ask myself. What if i was one of those participants in the experiment? Would i have gone all the way? Or would i have stopped?
Very curious to hear what people's opinions are about this.
Last edited by Vanoi; September 26, 2011 at 08:02 PM.
As long as authority remains legitimate in the eyes of the population, why refuse to follow it's directions?... in a country like the Germany of the late 30's there was not enough information, pluralism and communications to allow for the critical thinking that inevitably leads to the questioning of authority.
It's a matter of possessing information, whoever can prevent the other from gaining it has made a big step toward exercising unquestionable authority. In the Milgram experiment more or less the same applies, an isolated individual being told to exercise a rather questionable task(basically torturing another subject) will do it if the right conditioning can be set, a large part of said conditioning lies in the Authorities ability to withhold information from the executioner, the subject acts because he seems the task as a legitimate one, and said task is seen as legitimate because info is being withheld.
Last edited by Claudius Gothicus; September 26, 2011 at 07:56 PM.
As long as authority remains legitimate in the eyes of the population, why refuse to follow it's directions?... in a country like the Germany of the late 30's there was not enough information, pluralism and communications to allow for the critical thinking that inevitably leads to the questioning of authority.
It's a matter of possessing information, whoever can prevent the other from gaining it has taken a big step into exercising unquestionable authority.
In 1930s Germany, many people trusted the government. They felt "great" again. Their country had gotten back on its feet and was doing as good was it was before World War I. Why not trust the government? I am sure though propaganda played a role in people's choices during that time.
Last edited by Vanoi; September 26, 2011 at 07:59 PM.
In 1930s Germany, many peopel trusted the government. They felt "great" again. Their country had gotten back on its feet and was doing as good was it was before World War I. Why not trust the government? I am sure though propaganda played a role in people's choices during that time.
The ''feel good'' spirit and atmosphere was key in maintaining the legitimacy of the regime, but the restriction of info and the persecution of criticism was as important... they were both mechanisms of the regime, one generated confidence from the masses the other made sure their backs were systematically turned toward ''other issues''.
I've also came to realize that it has a lot to do with the ''Isolated Individual vs Legitimate Entity'' nature of the experiment, the guy who's ordered to act is alone, with none else from where to draw support against authority... the same goes for Nazi Germany(The Regime had started disarming the opposition from 1933 onwards, first the Social Democrats, then the Communists, the Newspapers and the Academics) it takes a rather singular type of person to act against autorithy all on his/her own, it's what real rebels are made of and Sophie Scholl comes to my mind... specially taking into account that the one you are rebelling against is a supposedly legitimate entity(the Scientific or the State).
Last edited by Claudius Gothicus; September 26, 2011 at 08:09 PM.
This just goes to show you that a majority of people are sheep, bleating for instruction from their shepherds.
Being a functional imperative of society... communities need for a majority of conformists/sheep otherwise the productive processes that keep us alive would be systematically disrupted and we wouldn't have survived the Ice Ages, the Plague of Justinian, the Great Depression or other disasters.
Being a functional imperative of society... communities need for a majority of conformists/sheep otherwise the productive processes that keep us alive would be systematically disrupted and we wouldn't have survived the Ice Ages, the Plague of Justinian, the Great Depression or other disasters.
Very true!
Originally Posted by Azoth
Who says you couldn't have been one of those "sheep"?
Originally Posted by Azoth
" In 1930s Germany, many peopel trusted the government. They felt "great" again. Their country had gotten back on its feet and was doing as good was it was before World War I. Why not trust the government? I am sure though propaganda played a role in people's choices during that time."
As I see it both Germany's were built on a militaristic basis, everything geared for war. The strange thing is that the people on whom this nation was financed were the very people that were blamed for the first catastrophe, abused in the second, and today still finance modern Germany making it what the Kaiser and Hitler couldn't.
I wouldn't be too sure of yourself. I am sure many people would say they wouldn't go all the way like these people did in the experiment with the electrical shocks. The majority of people do infact go all the way. Like i said who say you couldn't be apart of that majority?
I wouldn't be too sure of yourself. I am sure many people would say they wouldn't go all the way like these people did in the experiment with the electrical shocks. The majority of people do infact go all the way. Like i said who say you couldn't be apart of that majority?
This is devolving into a moral debate but... whatever, the poblem is why would being a conformist be in any way a ''bad thing''??
I'd probably go with it more because I want to shock someone than because I'm a blind follower...
A better thought experiment is to send someone out of the room to do something legitimately (like bring attendance to the office) and tell the class that when he comes back you're going to ask him and obvious question then tell him his right answer is wrong and everyone has to go along with it to see if he'll bow to peer pressure. I'd be like "I think I ought to be teaching this class."
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
Its a byproduct of being a social animal with natural hierarchies.
The doctor is a high status individual, if he tells you do to it with authority and confidence, most people will. If the night janitor was doing the same thing, I'd expect far less compliance.
Originally Posted by Nevins
A lot of it has to do with the physical and emotional distance assosciated with the act. If you read On Killing (which you should) you see that astoundingly low numbers of people are willing to even fire their weapons without enormous amounts of intense indoctrination and desensitization. For instance, only some 15-20% of combat infantry in WW2 (Americans, similar rates are expected in other armies but not confirmed) fired their weapons at all, while many of those who did deliberately fired over the enemy forces.
When you turn the people who are suffering into a voice, and have an authority figure on hand to order you to do it, the human mind has much, much less resistance than even in a life or death combat situation. Its fascinating stuff.
I've heard this but its one of those things I'd want strong proof of. Once you throw in 'life or death' I think people are quite capable of killing, especially with the rather impersonal weapon that a firearm is. By proof I'd want to see actually proof of them missing on purpose, not after the fact saying they were shooting over their heads which would be the sort of morally correct response.
Last edited by Phier; September 26, 2011 at 10:02 PM.
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
A lot of it has to do with the physical and emotional distance assosciated with the act. If you read On Killing (which you should) you see that astoundingly low numbers of people are willing to even fire their weapons without enormous amounts of intense indoctrination and desensitization. For instance, only some 15-20% of combat infantry in WW2 (Americans, similar rates are expected in other armies but not confirmed) fired their weapons at all, while many of those who did deliberately fired over the enemy forces.
When you turn the people who are suffering into a voice, and have an authority figure on hand to order you to do it, the human mind has much, much less resistance than even in a life or death combat situation. Its fascinating stuff.
I don't know too much about that. there is a difference between killing an unarmed regular civilian than to killing a soldier whose job is to kill you.
Originally Posted by Phier
Its a byproduct of being a social animal with natural hierarchies.
The doctor is a high status individual, if he tells you do to it with authority and confidence, most people will. If the night janitor was doing the same thing, I'd expect far less compliance.
Pretty much this. It won't work without an authority figure. But i do not see how a jainitor could not work in some cases. Though this would be with children not adults. Children perceieve pretty much msot adults as authority figures.
A lot of it has to do with the physical and emotional distance assosciated with the act. If you read On Killing (which you should) you see that astoundingly low numbers of people are willing to even fire their weapons without enormous amounts of intense indoctrination and desensitization. For instance, only some 15-20% of combat infantry in WW2 (Americans, similar rates are expected in other armies but not confirmed) fired their weapons at all, while many of those who did deliberately fired over the enemy forces.
When you turn the people who are suffering into a voice, and have an authority figure on hand to order you to do it, the human mind has much, much less resistance than even in a life or death combat situation. Its fascinating stuff.
The Stanley Milgram Experiment
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Claudius Gothicus
