The Root of all Evil?

[FireGarden]

Milgram, Behavioural Study of Obedience

I began thinking about this because of StamenFlicker's thread about ridding the world of evil. But the experiment has huge implications, so here is a new thread.
I'll quote the results for those that don't have the time to read the whole paper.

[Shocks were marked from "slight" to "danger", then vaguely with "XXX" Every wrong answer meant that the shock increased in 15 volt jumps] Psychology undergraduates were asked what percentage of subjects would continue to give shocks up to the maximum of 450 volts. The mean percentage given was 1.2%. In fact, 26 out of the 40 subjects continued to 450 volts. Only 5 dropped out at 300 volts when the pounding on the wall was heard. A further four dropped out at 315 volts. [more pounding]
On a 14 point scale, subjects indicated that the intensity of shock was 13.42 (mean), which was labelled 'extremely painful'.
Many subjects became extremely nervous. Evidence for this was: sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting lips, groans, digging fingernails into their flesh. Fourteen subjects demonstrated nervous laughter. Three subjects had seizures. Further qualitative data reported by Milgram were the comments made by the subjects. In short, although many subjects administered shocks up to 450 volts, they experienced acute stress. It is interesting to draw a parallel with the Nazi execution squads, who were given extra rations of alcohol, presumably to counter the stress that their terrible acts produced within themselves.

Discussion points
It would seem, that it is the situation that has produced these results and not the disposition of the subjects. The Yale undergraduates who predicted that only very few (perhaps psychopathic) individuals would administer shocks of 450 volts, were guided by their understanding of the morality that guides human behaviour. They were not in the situation. Observers looking at the experiment in progress, could not believe what they were seeing; Again, they were not in the situation. We judge people outside of the situation surrounding their action(s).
[...]
We should consider whether the experiment was ecologically valid. The subjects may well have obeyed the experimenter because they accepted that he knew best. Remember the subjects were reassured that the shocks were not harmful. A more ecologically valid experiment by Hofling et al, 1966, suggested that Milgram's results were valid. In Hofling's experiment, nurses in a hospital were asked over the phone by a bogus doctor to administer an overdose of a drug without obtaining authorisation. Twenty-one out of twenty-two nurses attempted to administer the drug (which, unknown to the nurses, was really glucose).

Much is made about the subject not being reminded that they can leave. In a real "army" situation no such reminder would have been given.

To remove evil, we either have to be very careful who we put in authority. Or else remove obedience.

The only thing worse than a lawless mob is a mob that follows orders.
Where is the sane middle ground?

Here are the results of variations in the experiment.
source: MacMillan Work Out A-Level Psychology
by Diana Dwyer and Jane Scampion
(1) Original : 65% went all the way to 450V
(2) Subject in same room as "victim" :- down to 40%
(3) Subject had to press "victim's" hand down to administer shock :- down to 30%
(4) Experiment conducted in run-down office building (instead of at Yale University) :- 50%
(5) Women as subjects (originally all male) :- stays at 65%
(6) Subject only asks questions, confederate administers shock :- up to 95%
(7) Experimenter left room, gave instructions by ~telephone :- down to 20%

(7) and (4) indicate the need for authority
(2) (3) and especially (6) indicate the need for some distance from "victim"/responsibility
It's all bad, but I find (6) very depressing.

 

[evildave]

Yup, listen to those authorities.

Especially the "ultimate" authorities, that need some creepy human with a book, a lot of makeup and a bad haircut to speak for them.

 

[panduh]

Great experiment. One great thing they discover is that the more you delegate and segregate the act into a chain of seperate tasks, the easier it is for each person to perform their task.

I was recently watching a variation of this experiment on television, for a prank on a "Candid Camera" type show, where a mark is hired as a night security guard for a factory, but later comes to realize that he is there to prevent "workers" from escaping a sweatshop and is told to pull a lever to electrify a fence if they try to climb over it. They showed 3 different people caught in the prank and only 1 out of 3 of them protested (who knows how many people actually participated in the prank). The other 2 followed the orders and "electrocuted" the workers despite looking very uncomfortable and in a large amount of internal conflict. One older guy followed the orders without verbally complaining much at all. The other younger fellow apologized profusely to the "workers" while he is rounding them up after electrocuting them and ushering them back into the sweatship disclaiming his actions by saying "Hey I'm sorry about this, but I am being paid for this job and I gotta do a good job." In any other circumstance, he'd probably be a trustworthy and dependable employee, but in this instance it works against him. Where does the true root of evil lie in this scenario?

The show was supposed to be funny, but it turned out to be more disturbing to say the least. It would have been even more disturbing if the third guy didn't protest and refuse to pull the lever, and threaten to alert the authorities as he was quitting the job. Gives me some hope.

 

[FireGarden]

Panduh,

In any other circumstance, he'd probably be a trustworthy and dependable employee, but in this instance it works against him.

This was exactly what they were trying to find out.
After the horrors of WWII people thought it could only have happened because the Germans (in general) were intrinsically bad. People have the habit of blaming outside sources for their own bad behaviour ("I was provoked" etc) but to blame the intrinsic nature of others when they observe others behaving badly ("How rude! You have no manners" etc)

But these experiments tend to shatter that illusion.
Circumstance is important to the behaviour or us all.
You could say that they were all set up to fail. (Though Hofling's nurses experiment is as close to real life as you can get)

I remember an experiment (can't find a reference) where they have mothers calling young babies to them. The infants (only old enough to crawl) had to cross a piece of transparent material laid over an "abyss". Many of the children were wary (they already knew - perhaps by instinct - that they would fall) but many also crawled to their mothers.

Without the details of the results, I can't say whether or not any overcame their fear of falling due to their trust of (read "obedience to the authority of ") their mothers. But if it starts this early, how can it stop?

 

[Gregor]

Authority

Evil:

You said we should follow certain authority:

"Especially the "ultimate" authorities, that need some creepy human with a book, a lot of makeup and a bad haircut to speak for them."

Are you talking about Gene Simmons of KISS?

 

[Plutarck]

You know I'd thought about making a thread on this same subject! I read about this in a book called "Influence: Science and Practice". It was put alot more dramatically...and damn, it really did read like a kind of "True Horror" novel. Except that it was even more graphic and horrible. One of the "actors" even complained of a heart condition, and some even feigned paralysis and being unconcious - but this did not keep the volunteers from following orders!

For the full story about this and related items get that book. It is one of those other really interesting books that have led me down the road to the non-existance of free will.


It also goes on to note more things such as about experiments on monkeys. Paraphrased:

The researches introduced caramel to young low-ranked (in the rigid hierarchy) monkeys who developed a taste for it, and as the monkeys introduced it to each other it slowly worked it's way up the chain.

But 18 months later only 51% of the monkeys were eating caramels, but none of the leaders!

But when they introduced it to the leaders in a different group, caramel eating was spread throughout the entire colony of monkeys in only 4 hours!

Very much the same thing happened in 1995 on the Cicago Bulls basketball team when the acknowledged leader and star, Michael Jordan, began eating three Energy Booster bars before each game. According to substitute player Steve Kerr, "BJ Armstrong [another non-star player] and I were the only ones eating them before. Then Michael eats some, and now everbody's eating them. (Shappell, 1995)

In another mention from the book MEdication Errors: Causes and Prevention (1981), much of the problem with errors they state get through to patients because nurses and pharmacists will not argue with a Doctor's prescription no matter what - even if they know or think it to be wrong!

In one anecdote:

Take, for example, the strange case of the "rectal earache" reported Cohen and Davis. A Physician ordered ear drops to be administered to the right ear of a patient suffering pain and infection there. Instead of writing out completely the location "Right ear" on the prescription, the doctor abbreviated it so that the instructions read "place in R ear". Upon receiving the prescription, the duty nusrse promptly put the required number of ear drops into the patient's anus.

Obviously, rectal treatment of an arache made no sense, but neither the patient nor the nurse questioned it. The important lesson of this story is that in many situations in which a legitimate authority has spoken, what would otherwise make sense is irrelevant. In these instances, we don't consider teh situation as a whole but attend and respond to only one aspect of it.

And another, far more horrifying:

For those whose doubts remain, the story of S Brian Willson might prove instructive. On Sept 1 1987, the protest US shipments of military equipment to Nicaragua, Mr Willson and two other men stretched their bodies across the railroad tracks leading out of the Naval Weapons Station in Concord, California. The protesters were confident that their act would halt the scheduled train's progress that day, as they had notified navy and railroad officials of their intent three days before. But the civilian crew, which had been given orders not to stop, never even slowed the train, despite being able to see the protesters 600 feet ahead. Although two of the men managed to scramble out of harm's way. Mr Willson was not quick enough to avoid being struck and having both legs severed below the knee. Because navy medical corspmen at the scene refused to treat him or allow him to be taken to the hospital in their abulance, onlookers - including Mr Willson's wife and son - were left to try to staunch the flow of blood for 45 minutes until a private ambulance arrived.

Amazingly, Mr Willson, who served four years in Vietnam, does not blame either the crewmen or the corpsmen for his misfortunte; he pounts his finger, instead, at a system that constrained their actions through the pressure to ober. "They were just doing what I did in 'Nam. They were following orders that are part of an insane policy. They're the fall guys." Although the crew members shared Mr Willson's asessment of them as victims, they did not shrae his magnanimity. In what is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the incident, the train crew filed suit against him, requesting punitive damage for the "humiliation, mental anguish, and physical stress" they suffered because he hadn't allowed them to carry out their orders without cutting off his legs.

The entire 6th Chapter largely consists of similar stories and research. Indeed, after reading it is hard not to see the truly incredible deference to authority with either no questioning, or complete obedience regardless of their beliefs or feelings.

 

[FireGarden]

Regarding: rectal treatment of an earache
Please tell me this is an Urban Myth!

Do you remember Sou's CULTured thread?
Why do cults go to so much trouble?
A white coat would do very nicely.

 

[Plutarck]

Regarding: rectal treatment of an earache
Please tell me this is an Urban Myth!

Do you remember Sou's CULTured thread?
Why do cults go to so much trouble?
A white coat would do very nicely.

LOL! I wish!

According to the book it was reported in this book: Medication Errors: Causes, Prevention, and Risk Management


Though if it would have been me I'm pretty sure I would have inquired as why I had to take my pants off to treat my earache. Then again, it would depend on what the duty nurse looked like...

 

[stamenflicker]

To remove evil, we either have to be very careful who we put in authority. Or else remove obedience.

An excellent statement. Which of the two do you think is better?

Flick

 

[evildave]

Re: Authority

Evil:

You said we should follow certain authority:

"Especially the "ultimate" authorities, that need some creepy human with a book, a lot of makeup and a bad haircut to speak for them."

Are you talking about Gene Simmons of KISS?

Him, too.


I'd say remove *BLIND* obedience. If someone wants you to do something, they had better be able to explain WHY they want you to.

Certain jobs require split-second decisions and actions for CERTAIN situations.

MOST of the rest of the world does not.

Teaching people to THINK about consequences before they act in the most common situations would do a lot of good.

Teaching people to ALWAYS question authority as well.

Even in the military, there are illegal orders, and you're not supposed to follow them. Knowing the difference between "Pick up that cigarette butt!" and "Murder that family!" is a vital bit of military training.

 

[FireGarden]

Plutarck,

Though if it would have been me I'm pretty sure I would have inquired as why I had to take my pants off to treat my earache. Then again, it would depend on what the duty nurse looked like...

I'm sure Benny Hill had a comedy sketch about this kind of "doctoring" of nubile, trustingly naive, female patients.
Did I say comedy?
I meant bawdy!


Flick,
I did follow that "excellent statement" with: "The only thing worse than a lawless mob is a mob that follows orders. Where is the sane middle ground?"

Need I tell you that I have no way of moving forward on this?
I don't think anarchy would be good.
Maybe people should just have more courage to stand up to authority when they disagree. Judging by the degree of anxiety they felt during the experiment, I think those that took part in it as test-subjects have probably learnt to do that.


Evildave,
When do you start "Teaching people to ALWAYS question authority." When you're teaching them to cross the road? Teaching them not to talk to strangers? Unless it's a policeman of course! Or is that teaching them who is in authority?

And if your a bomber pilot and your nation is at war, do you really think it is military procedure to argue about which targets you bomb. I do remember a story of an Israeli helicopter pilot who refused to follow orders to bomb a target where civilians could get hurt. So I suppose it does happen. I wonder what happened to that pilot?

And here it is!
Peter Beaumont in the Guardian on the 18th of April 2002

An Israeli helicopter gunship pilot reportedly refused to fire a missile at a Palestinian house, the latest sign of growing unease among some Israeli troops over the conduct of the fighting in Palestinian cities of the West Bank.

The rightwing Israeli newspaper Hatzofeh said the Apache pilot refused a direct order for fear of hitting civilians. The disclosure follows widespread condemnation of the use of such gunships during the operation.

[...]


Hatzofeh claimed the pilot's refusal came after a regimental commander's order to fire at a Palestinian house to "liquidate" five alleged terrorists apparently hiding inside.

The commander told the pilot that the terrorists could be exactly pinpointed in the house and again ordered him to shoot. Again he refused.

The helicopter then left the vicinity. When it returned, the commander told him that the terrorists had disappeared, but ordered him to fire at the house nevertheless. The pilot again refused, the newspaper claimed.

How often do you think they send THIS guy out now?
Helicopter pilot 'refused order to blast Palestinian house'

 

[evildave]

Does it matter? At least he didn't have to go home and read about how HE killed a building full of women and children after some terrorists ducked inside and then slipped out the back door. If the building was so well surveiled that they could tell that the terrorists had gone in and CERTAINLY hadn't left, they could easily have waited for the terrorists to leave and sniped them.

Israel appears to be forgetting the lesson the Germans learned from WWII. Orders, such as "shoot civilians" are not absolute. It's nice to see not ALL OF THEM have forgotten the difficult lessons taught in the 1940's.


When indeed to teach them? You know, I think you should teach them as soon as they can learn. You tell a child NOT to cross the street BECAUSE he'll be killed. You teach them HOW to cross the street so they will not be.

So many people don't want to cut those cords, but you have to let the children develop a robust capacity for thinking and judging FOR THEMSELVES, or they may never develop that skill. What good is teaching a child to "follow orders ... for your own good" when peer pressure can be a lot like the same thing? If you set yourself up as an "absolute authority" and stay that way until your children are teens, they'll disregard your authority anyway, and resent your attempts to reinforce it. Better to have taught them to be good and independent people BEFORE this time.

 

[FireGarden]

Evildave did a good job of wrapping up this thread and deserved to have the last word. But....

I've decided to bump this old thread, since in a more recent one I'm being accused of encouraging people to mindlessly obey authority.

I'm fully aware that that is a bad thing.
But I'm obviously having trouble expressing myself. All I can say is that I am not an anarchist, and neither am I in favour of mindless obedience.

I do recognise that governments of all types are never completely honest. None of them could function if they did not have some means of encouraging the support of their people. While reasoned argument is certainly the best method, sometimes they will resort to methods like patriotism and religion. Good governments use these methods and bad governments use these methods. Neither method is entirely honest. But a government can remain good (in my opinion) inspite of using them.



In case it's not obvious, the other thread is this one: (would you ever resort to religion)
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19516
(There's no reason to change the venue of the argument, I just bumped the thread to help explain my position)

 

[Yahzi]

the protest US shipments of military equipment to Nicaragua, Mr Willson and two other men stretched their bodies across the railroad tracks leading

Oh good point. Instead of letting our actions be controlled by a handful of military leaders, we should let them be controlled by a handful of protestors.

Hey here's a novel thought: how about we have rules, and we pay attention to the people that follow the rules?

 

[Yahzi]

But a government can remain good (in my opinion) inspite of using them.

Yes, of course. Just as police can remain good despite the fact that some are bad.

But can a government remain good if it is founded on irrational beliefs?

 

[Guest]

Yup, listen to those authorities.
Especially the "ultimate" authorities, that need some creepy human with a book, a lot of makeup and a bad haircut to speak for them.

Listen up scoffer.

That experiment proved that even people who don't use "books" do this type of thing.

Ie. religion is not the cause. The way people think is.

Deny away.

Sincerely yours,

S. H.

 

[jj]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by evildave
Yup, listen to those authorities.
Especially the "ultimate" authorities, that need some creepy human with a book, a lot of makeup and a bad haircut to speak for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen up scoffer.

Why the ad-hominem, Franco? Oh, sorry, you're not Franco, you didn't call us a-theists.


That experiment proved that even people who don't use "books" do this type of thing.

Well, yes, so why are you responding so defensively?

Ie. religion is not the cause.

Once again your logic is suborned. You have shown that religion is not ALWAYS the cause, not that "religion is not the cause".

The way people think is.

Case in point, Sherlock Holmes.

Deny away.

Did you forget A-Theist?

Sincerely yours,

S. H.

Annoyedly yours,

JJ