Dr. Stanley Milgram defined obedience as “the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose.” What do you think encourages obedience? Is it fear of punishment; a desire to please; or is it a need to go along with the group? As some students watched the film
Obedience, they laughed at the people receiving the shocks. How do you account for that laughter? Is it because something was funny or was there another reason? Those who study human behavior say that laughter can be a way of relieving tension, showing embarrassment or expressing relief that someone else is “on the spot.” Which explanation is most appropriate in this case? How did some of the volunteers act as they administered the shocks? What pressures were placed on them as the experiment continued? How and when did they decide to stop? Did you identify with any of the volunteers you observed in
Obedience? What did you learn that you didn't know before you watched this film?
42 comments:
This experiment was interesting in the sense that it showed how far a person was willing to go when harming another human being. Many of the "teachers" laughed while administering these shock treatments. I think they were laughing because they didnt know how to respond, to them it was absurd, being paid to hurt someone else. Many of the "teachers" said they did not want to go on, but with prodding from the test administrators, they continued with the "punishment". I think the combination of dissasotiation (not having to see their victim in pain), along with pressure from authority figures, and an incentive (money), allowed these ordinary people, to harm another so brutally. The film was interesting, and I learned alot about the sociological impact that authority figures can have on those with no authority.
I think that a fear of punishment and a desire to please is often what encourages people to be obedient. People automatically shy away from any punishment, so even the threat of a punishment could be enough to make someone perform a task. Because the authority figure was telling them what to do, I think that some people decided to go along with it in order to please the scientists/keep the experiment going.
When people laughed at the “student” being shocked, I think it was more of a nervous laughter than a funny laughter. People aren’t sure how to react in situations like that, and the scenario wasn’t exactly a typical event, so some people reacted by laughing simply because they weren’t sure what else to do. I think the explanation that laughter relieves tension is most appropriate here because it was clear that the participants didn’t know what to do and laughing was how they dealt with it.
Some of the volunteers seemed to have moral objections to shocking the other person. When they could hear the screams and when the man shouted that he had a heart condition, most of them at least considered stopping. Those that did decide to stop were defiant and would not back down from their decision, despite what the scientist told them about finishing the experiment. One “teacher” started to cry when he heard the shouts. I think those that decided to stop did so once the man was silent or when his screams were too much for them.
Hearing the man scream was one of the main pressures that I think the volunteers faced. Knowing that you are voluntarily causing someone harm and that you could stop hitting the switch must have been a pressure that they had to deal with. Confronting the scientist who repeatedly told them to go on to the next phrase/continue with the experiment/give the person the shock was an added pressure from a person that was not directly involved in the experiment.
I identified with the volunteer who cried when he was giving the man the shock. I think that if I was in that situation, I would have a really difficult decision to make as to whether or not I should continue. I was surprised that that volunteer continued with the shock despite his clear moral struggle with what he was doing.
From the film, I learned that a surprisingly high number of people were able to go through with the experiment. This told me that a lot of people in society are willing to do something if they a) are told to do it by an authority figure, or b) do not have to accept responsibility for it. The film made me think about what I would do in that situation, which taught me more about my self and how I might react in the future if something like that were to happen.
I agree with what James wrote about how being dissociated from the learner made it easier to punish him. If they had been able to see the man, I think more would have decided to stop.
I found it interesting how these people actually hurt others just because they were told too. I believe the people were laughing to relieve tension. The “teachers” were probably tense about administering these shocks and hurting others. Laughter being a way to relieve tension was most likely why some “teachers” were laughing. As the experiment continued a few began to question what they were doing. When the “student” began to complain about the shocks, the “teachers” were worried. When they showed concern the observer told them everything was alright or that it was essential to the experiment.
I think that it is a combination of fear of punishment, desire to please, and a need to go along with a group that all encourage obedience. Not only do the administrators or teachers in this case not want to be in the place of the learner, but they also feel that if they go along with what they are being instructed to do, they will remained unharmed. Similar to the desire to not be punished was the desire to not be blamed. One man in the experiment only continued when the instructor told him he would not take any of the blame that accompanied what could happen to the learner.
I think that laughter is a way of relieving tension. Similar to a nervous laugh, those who were teachers laughed when they were unable to fully comprehend what was going on and they were so uncomfortable with the situation at hand. A lot of the volunteers were visibly uncomfortable acting as the teacher and many wanted to quit. Those who felt they were unable to quit reached the point where they even cried. Very few volunteers stopped on thier own accord and told the instructer that they could not force them to continue.
As the experiment continued there was two opposing pressures that were placed on the teachers. On one hand, they did not want to harm the learners but on the other they were being told that they had to continue. By being told that the experiment required them to continue and that the person would be fine, there was added pressure to simply continue. They only decided to stop when they heard the learner yelling and complaining about his heart problem. At this point a few stopped completely and said they would not continue on any accords while others were convinced to press onwards. They could only decide to stop by physically refusing to continue.
I agree with Sarah in the fact that I am shocked that so many people, over fifty percent, decided to continue with the experiment. As long as they will not be blamed, many people will simply go along with a group and be obedient to no ends. Even when people are physically causing pain to others, they will continue especially if they do not realize that it is their right to say "no" and stop at any point they want. I never knew how strong human nature could be in this sense and did not realize that something like this could occur to people who have not been taught to think this way, as the Hitler Youth once were.
I think that all three reasoning’s of the fear of punishment; desire to please; and need to go along with the group encourage obedience. Especially when the peer pressure comes from an authoritative person, growing up being obedient was showing respect to my parents and other adults. So the desire to please is always there in the back of my mind regarding authoritative person. I don’t think they were laughing because it was funny but because of something else. This laughter is caused by a nervous laugh that is caused by someone feeling awkward or in an uncomfortable position. The explanation of laughter relieving tension is the most appropriate in this case. Some volunteers refused to continue with the shocking after reaching 105 volts and stood up to the authoritative figure. While others laughed and continued until they realized how much it was hurting the other person. In one case, we saw a man who tried to stop the experiment but because of the pressure from the authoritative figure he continued until the end of the experiment. I am the person who has the tendency to laugh in tension and awkward situation but that does not mean I would not of stooped the experiment after it showed the pain and fear of the person getting shocked. I learned that you always have a choice no matter what others say or how much pressure they put on you.
Just like Sarah and Molly had mentioned, I am shocked to see how many people decided to continue with experiment. I also beleive that the lesson to be learned here of always having a choice is important lesson for young childern to understand while growing up.
I think the authority of the man encourages obedience. The fact that he is the one who has set up the tests and is the one in the lab coat. I feel like in this example the teacher is trying to please the man who set up this lab. For some people laughter is a sign of nervousness. His laughter might not have been because he thought it was funny but because he was nervous and didn’t know what to do. It also could have been that he was happy he wasn’t in the learners spot. All of the people were different some went longer then others and in one situation the man went all the way to the highest voltage and then back down again. What he said was if it’s on your shoulders then I will keep doing it. He thought that if the man died it wouldn’t be his fault but on the other mans shoulders. He didn’t care if he killed the man he only cared if it wasn’t his fault. At points he stalled but as the man said keep going he did. However other teachers sopped at different voltages, one stopped immediately at the point were the learner said stop I have a heart problem and others stopped the second time the learner didn’t respond with an answer. As they tried to stop the man kept on telling them that they had to keep going and they couldn’t stop. I learned that even though a person might think something wrong they will keep doing it because a person in higher command tells them that it is ok. I also learned that in some situations people would kill another but only because the leader says that the death will be on their shoulders.
Like what sara said it was very interesting to see how close to death a man could bring another too. the one example that really stood out was the man who went to the highest voltage and then went back down again because the leader said that if he died it would be his fault
I think authority and or authority figures encourage obedience, being help to a monetary gift in return for obedience and seen in the film, potential consequences to oneself, their family or friends if they are not obedient, and along with that fear. I think that all three of these examples encourage obedience but it depends on the person and what is most important to them. I think some people do not know how to take in these situations and that can be accounted for as nervous laughter. One man was laughing at the beginning but as it got more serious he put his foot down and would not administer any more shocks. Another man was crying probably because he could not accept that he fact that he was doing harm to another man. By being able to hear the screams from the other room made the teachers uncomfortable and some of them refused to keep doing the shocks because they did not want to be responsible for hurting another human being. This was a common question among the teachers, were they going to be held responsible for the health of the student or would Dr. Milgram be. Once they heard that Dr. Milgram would be they were able to do another round or so of shocks but many of the teachers stopped when the student complained of heart problems. When the teachers refused to continue most of them said that they would given the money back because they did not care about the money. I was surprised to see how many of the men continued to administer shocks after they found out that they would not be held personally responsible for the heath of the student. I would have thought that if they wanted to stop because they heard the student was in pain they would stop no matter who was responsible for the health of the student.
I also agree with James and Sarah that by having the students behind closed doors it was easier for the teachers to disassociate with the students who were receiving the pain. If the teachers were able to see the students receiving the shock I think they would have stopped even sooner. Though many men talked about going in there and seeing if the men were okay none of them physically tried to get up and go in the other room which surprised me.
What I think encourages one to be is obedient is the desire to be liked and to belong in a group. I think the "teachers" in the experiment that were laughing weren't laughing because it was funny but because they were nervous and didn't know what to do. They wanted to go along with the experiment because they were told to go on by an authoritative figure but didn't want to continue because they knew they were causing harm to another person. Some of them were regretful and when the "student" wouldn't answer they would encourage them to at least try. The authoritative figure would pressure the "teachers" to keep on going on with the experiment, even when the student was pleading with them to let him out. Most decided to stop when THEY thought the voltage was too high or when they would hear the student scream and plead with them.
I agree with Emily Humphries on how shocking it was that the "teachers" would only ask if the student was alright, but they wouldn't physically go and find out for themselves.
I think that obedience is a combination of a fear of punishment and a desire to please. This is because just like an obedient dog, they want to do what you want them to, but they are also afraid of doing something wrong and having a punishment.
I thought that the laughing of the teachers was a nervous laugh and a laugh to kind of say “Alright when is this going to stop”. This laughter according to psychologists is because of someone else being on the spot. This is because they are not the ones being shocked and they are laughing at someone a little bit less fortunate. Besides laughing many people were concerned, after they realized that the person was not having a good time and could have been in danger they changed from laughing to being concerned for the other person.
They people were under a lot of pressure during this experiment. They were being told to keep going by a greater authority figure and they were being paid to do this. If you have someone that probably knows more than you saying it is harmless, you may continue. Being paid may push people as well, because they may think they have to earn the money and not just take it and run.
The people stopped once they thought they heard enough pain to stop. Once they reached their limit, most of them stopped, with few continuing, once they felt they could seriously hurt him, they stopped.
I learned that many people are willing to do something if told by a higher authority and especially if they say it is harmless even if they hear the agony. People with power have so much more power than I thought on people that can’t think for themselves, because they can do things like this.
The Milgram experiment was a great way of showing how some people aren't affraid of facing authority while some people listen and are affraid of standing up for what is right, regardless of the authoritative figure. The scientist tried to convince all of the people asking the questions that even though the person answering the questions was getting hurt, that the shock would not cause any health issues. That worked for some people but not all.
Some people laughed because of how insane the experiment was, some laughed because of how irrational the scientist was, and some laughed because they didn't want to feel embarrased in an awkward situation. The people asking the questions didn't want to upset the scientist but also didn't want to hurt the man answering the questions. It was ridiculous how far one man went with the shocks. He was crying at one point but kept on going because the scientist told hime to.
I agree with Molly because the people were pressured to keep going regardless of whether they wanted to and they were being told they didn't have a choice. One of the best words of advice I heard from Mr. Gallagher today was that you always have a choice no matter what. A lot of those people didn't want to face authority and do what is right.
Like Karli, Sarah, and Molly I was shocked to see how many people would go along with it even if they heard someone in agony on the other side.
I think what makes someone be obedient is fear of punishment and then also fitting into society or a special group. Like in the film the teachers were put on spot and at times some did not feel comfortable doing it and kept stopping.The experiementer had power over the teachwr and kept telling them to finish the experiement. This shows that most people will follow what authority says because they do not want a punishment and want to fit in with a group.Which i thought it was interesting how the teachers would keep going after the student was in pain. When some of the teachers were laughing i thought this showed that they were uncomfortable with situation, and did not know what else to do. I also think that the crying had to do with this too the teachers had felt bad but had to continue. I thought that was interesting and figured they would stop and not continue with the experiment.It is just shocking that people will still go on even when they hear someone in pain because someone else is telling them too. This again shows how people do not want punishment and do not want to go against authority.
I also agree with Emily and Nancy on how they would
not get up and check on the student. They would hear cries and screams and would stop but would not check.
i thought it was interesting to see how some of the teachers actually kept going on with the experiment after they heard some of the screams of the patients. also it was shocking to see how some of the teachers were laughing after administering a shock. i think they were laughing not because it was funny to cause others pain but i feel that the teachers didn't know what to do because they were in an awkward situation. i think in this case the best explanation for the laughter is how the were relieving tension. they were purposely shocking these people and they didn't know what to do so they managed it by laughing. i think that the teachers decided to stop when they realized what they were doing was wrong and they they were truly hurting someone, with the exceptions of a couple teachers. from this film i learned just how powerful and controlling people with authority can be towards those without power/authority.
i agree with Sarah that its the fear of punishment and a desire to please that encourages people to be obedient, which was shown in this film, when the authority figure kept telling them to go on, and that it was vital that the teachers keep administering the shocks
This film showed the power that figures of authority are able to obtain simply because individuals instinctively feel less than them and lose their sense of independence and personal will. It was shown when participants kept continuing with the experiment even when they were skeptical of the logistics and safety conditions of the student. Those teachers that began laughing were probably in disbelief that this was actually being performs at a prestigious university. It was almost as if they didn't believe it was legitimate because it was so bizarre and cruel. However many still continued supplying the students with the experiment. I found it interesting that not one questioned the motive of the experiment. It was when the student was shouting out in pain and concerns of his heart condition that the teacher felt remorse but they struggled with their own moral compass and the orders being given to them.
I agree with Sarah that I would've probably cried and been completely torn what to do in that situation. I'd like to say I would have been strong and would've refused to continue because of my guilty conscious and doubt, however, after seeing adults fail to do so I can imagine it was a struggle for them. It's like the saying if being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You want to please both parties but it is human nature to be obedient to higher power even when it takers against your beliefs and values.
In terms of the number one thing that really stuck out to me, was just how far some of the teachers would go in order to please the creator of the experiment. In some cases, the teacher would realize that what he was doing was harmful to the student, and that it needed to be stopped. When confronted about this, the teacher always seemed to say that he did in fact, "Have a choice." Thankfully, the choice was made on their behalf to stop the experiment. However, in some cases, the teacher kept going. In one case, a teacher even began laughing. I believe this was mainly as a result of the teacher being nervous, and then not really understanding what the student was enduring. What I learned and think was the moral was just how if people are given a position of power, they can abuse it, and others not in power may feel obligated to listen to what the individual with power says, regardless of any circumstances.
The Milgram experiement really challenged people who were "selected" to be the teacher. They had the challenges of whether or not to continue giving the electrical shocks or to stop participating in the ecperiment all together. I believe that it is about going along with a group. Each teacher who would say "is he ok in there" and other things regarding the "learners" well being and then they were told to continue with the experiment and that the electrical shocks were just a little painful and not dangerous, that goes along with people listening to authorative figures and doing as they are told. regarding to the laughter aspect, i believe that when the teachers did laugh at first it was because that is basically a normal reaction for anyone when we see pain. Just like most comedy movies today are funny because we see people get injured. it was probably funny for the "teacher" to see the first shock or two but then they realized that the "learned" sounded to be in pain. I believe this was a laughter that relieved tension from the "teacher" being in the stress of having to shock the "learner". Some volunteers had no problem administering the shocks to the "learner" because they kept being told to continue giving the shocks and that it was required in the expirement meanwhile other volunteers did not want to continue giving the shocks even though they were told to do so. i had watched this film before in another class but i had not realized how pressured the "teachers" were into administering a shock that they were put in to.
I agree with Kurtis in the lines of how it was really interesting to see how the volunteers kept going since they were told to do so. It just goes to show how much power one person can have when they have some authority over you.
I side with Amy in terms of who people who aren't in power lose a sense of independence, and definitely freedom, when faced with situations where he or she is given orders. In cases such as this, people are always faced with a moral decision, as to hurt another person, or follow through with the instructions he or she was given.
I think that when you are put in a position where someone who seems to have more knowledge than you about the situation is directing you, you are more likely to do what they say because you, for the most part, blindly trust them because you assume that they know something you don’t. In this case, I think the ovedience was a need to go along with the situation. If I were the teacher in that situation, I would be afraid of disrupting an experiment that was being conducted by a well-established institution that obviously would know what it was doing. I think the laughter was disbelief of an incredulous situation; I know that I laughed because the idea of someone being willing to shock someone like that seems so ridiculous. I also think it was a way for the teachers to relieve tension over an uncomfortable situation. Some volunteers laughed or cried. I couldn’t believe that they would get to the point of crying before they would get to the point where they would stop. It really supported the idea that they didn’t think they had a choice. Some stopped when the learner started yelling that he wanted to stop, but others kept going until the person stopped responding; I think, at this point, they realized that they might be responsible for something terrible happening to that man. The guy that went all the way to the end, at a certain point, seemed to decide that it was easier to get it all over with as quickly as possible, kind of like what Thomas said in Swing Kids about it being easier to just give in to the Nazis. I think a lot of the teachers felt like they were obligated to keep going because of the money and because an authority figure was telling them to continue. I learned that it isn’t so uncommon for people to do outrageous things just because someone in power tells them to. I used to think that it was a sign of weakness, but I think now that it just displays a low level of certainty in our beliefs. In order to stand up to others, we need to be confident that what we believe is right.
I agree with Sarah in that it is hard to believe that in a situation where the volunteers are really free to leave or stop the experiment, they are willing to potentially kill someone.
I think that fear of punishment and a desire to please often encourages obedience. Fear of punishment or even the idea of potential punishment often turns a person away. This fear alone could be enough to make a person preform a certain task. People also have the desire to please others, whether it's to respect an authoritative figure or to satisfy their own image. The film demonstrated the influence and power an authoritative figure has over an individual. In the film, the scientist was the authoritative figure telling the people what to do. Because he was a figure of authority, some of the people went along with the experiment in order to please him and to obey the instructions they were given.
As some students watched the film Obedience, they laughed at the people receiving the shocks. I think this laughter was on account of nervousness. Because the people felt uncomfortable in the situation and didn’t know what to do, they naturally laughed out of nervousness. In this case of students laughing at the shock, I think that the most appropriate explanation would be a way of relieving tension and expressing relief that someone else is "on the spot".
When the volunteers administered the shock, they laughed and cried of nervousness, pressure, or other similar emotions. As the experiment continued, pressures to send high voltages to the learner and potentially cause the learner to suffer troubled the teachers. They didn’t want to question authority or refuse to follow through with the experiment, but eventually the majority of their natural instincts took over and the teachers had to stop. Once the voltages were high enough to cause the learners to verbally express their pain, most of the teachers came to a stopping point and refused to go on in fear of hurting the learner.
From this film, I learned that a surprisingly high number of people were able to follow through with the experiment because they were told to do so by an authoritative figure. This proved that many people would do something solely because they were told to do so by a figure of authority and because they did not have to take responsibility for it. In the film, many of the men continued when told they were not responsible. This took off the pressure and they were able to continue.
Like Sara, this film made me think about how I might react in this situation. It makes me want to question the motifs of authority more thoroughly in the future. Just because someone told you to do something, regardless of his or her entitlement, doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. Every action should be thought through rather than just jumping into it. Also, doing something because you don’t have to take responsibility for it is not a good enough reason to do it. The factor of responsibility shouldn’t play a role in whether or not you preform an action. This film was eye opening such that it clearly demonstrated the influence of authority and the origin of obedience.
I think that what encourages obedience are all that were mentioned. Fear of punishmen, a desire to please,and a need to go along with a group. Each one influences us to do things that we might not think we would do. In some ways it's just our human nature, but we always have the choice. The laughter while watching the movie Obedience may have been from the disconnect that the viewer would have felt from the movie. Perhaps they had already seen the movie before. Either way it is a very distinct reaction. In some ways it could be a way to mask a different reaction, like disgust, or true worry. This could be more prevelant in men because there is the social pressure to always remain composed. Some of the volunteers laughed our of nervousness or from feeling uncomfotable. Many of them felt pressure from the "doctor" who continued to say that it was important that they continue for the sake of the experiemnt whenever they refused to stop. Some of them stopped once they realized that the man was in pain, others when he stopped responding, and in one instance it took him all the way to the highest shocks to stop. The one I identified was the man who almsot went to the highest shocks. Not because of that, but because he began to cry. I find that even when I watch the experiment, after already watching it in Mr. Cullens class, that my eyes begin to tear. Even after finding out that the voice that was crying out in pain wasn't real, I still feel myself becoming so upset that all I want to do is cry. I think that my reaction to anything tends to be to simply cry. It doesn't do anything to help the situation, but it's my first instinct, especially when I know someone is being hurt because of my choices. I learned more about how the experiment. As I mentioned I did see it in Mr. Cullen's class, but we only saw the part with the man who administered to almost the highest shocks. I did not know that other people had refused, which was shown at the begining. It was interesting to see that perspective because I was wondering how people had refused and stood up for what they believed in.
In response to Molly Burke:
I agree completely with the idea that obedience is encouraged by a fear of punishment, a desire to please, and a need to go along with a group.
I was in the library the day that we watched this video.
In this experiment it is clear that the deciding factor for the teacher's obedience in administering the shock to the patient is the authority figure that is watching over them telling them to continue and saying it's fine. Many of the teachers find that it is fine to go along with the experiment even if it is painful to the patient so long as the experimenter takes the blame for anything bad that happens to the patient. In other situations it is just as common for someone to obey on threat of violence since they themselves would not like to receive any punishment. Other times someone may just want to fit into a crowd in fear of being cast astray from society or a person may have a person connection with an authority figure and is too mesmerized to recognize his/her faults.
In my opinion I think that the laughter was a way of showing that they teachers were very uncomfortable with the situation the experimenter put them in and is trying to relieve the tension with a nervous laugh. One of the test administers was asked why he was laughing, which he answered "I guess I thought it was funny," but by his facial expression in the video he was clearly disturbed by the test.
Some of the volunteers stopped at the beginning levels, because they were concerned for the other man's health and felt like they had a choice not to comply with the experimenter. Others went further, but stopped for the same reason or didn't stop the testing, but consistently asked about the man's well-being. The most surprising thing was that a total of 50% of the test administers gave the full 450 volts. While some teachers gave full 450 volts and some did not the ultimate deciding factor was over the persons morals. Would they be willing to give into the peer pressure from the tester or would they stop short by request from the patient?
Although I do not know for sure what I would do in a situation like that; I would like to think that I would not continue with the experiment after first signs of discomfort by the patient. Since I am not 100% certain of what I would do, I give a lot of gratitude to the folks that stopped on the earlier voltage levels.
This film very clearly illustrates the logical fallacy appeal to authority in the sense that just because a an authority figure says that something is true does not make it true.
I think that authority encourages obedience, and the unknown punishment that would occur if you were not compliant. I also agree with Sarah that it is a desire to please. Personally, I know that I always am eager to please people and so I can understand what the people in the experiment think they are doing. The laughter might have been a part of how they were feeling. I think it was nervous laughter. They were not sure what was going on, nor what was right in that instant. They doubted themselves and the integrity of the experiment. I think that in this case, it was a way of relieving tension. Some of the volunteers acted in disbelief, others tried to block out all thoughts and concerns, only focused on completing the experiment as told by the scientist, and others were really upset. They were told that the experiment had to be continued, otherwise it wouldn't work. Also, they could hear the "test subject" screaming as the shocks intensified. The man getting shocked would also cry out for help and yell out that he had a heart condition as the shocks got worse. They usually stopped once they heard the screams intensifying and the man cry out for help because of his heart condition. They didn't want to seriously hurt him. I could really identify with the man who was really shaken by the whole ordeal, but continued for about two more shocks until he finally stood up and refused to continue. I think that I would have done the same because I am eager to please, but have my limits as to what I will agree to. I learned how easy it is to comply to authority, and how eagerness to please was an ingredient in how people became Nazis.
In response to James...
I agree that when you disassociate yourself from the victim of a punishment it becomes easier to accept and combine that with an authority figure telling you it's okay is a dangerous combination.
In the case of Milner's experiment, I believe it was a need to go along with the group. A nervous laugh was common among volunteers, probably because of the need to release tension from the strange situation they had been placed in. I learned by watching this film, the ease with witch people in authority can force others to do things, even if they may not want to. As long as the victim will take the blame for his or her actions.
Like Sarah said I also think a desire to please the authority figure was a major factor to the "teachers" in the experiment. As they were being watched by the "experimenter" for the duration of the experiment.
I think what encourages obedience is an upper figure demonstrating leadership and I believe it is a desire to please. The laughter seen during the film was nervous laughter because they were scared about shocking the learner and wanted to express relief. Some of the volunteers were skeptical of the experiment and once they got up to 100+ volts, they started to worry and stopped doing the experiment because they were afraid of hurting the victim. The pressures placed as the experiment continues was the director of the experiment, Dr. Milgram, who kept stating to the teacher that the experiment must go on; it is actually “essential” that it must. They decided to stop at about 100+ volts when they realized what they were doing was afflicting pain on the learner and didn’t want to be responsible for injuring/killing them. One thing I learned that I didn’t know before the film was how the human would react to this kind of experiment. I thought it was interesting how each person reacted to the experiment and how they reacted when they decided to stop.
I was not in class for this video.
I think the experiment was wildly interesting because it showed how far people were willing to go to please others. I understand why some people would laugh because usually when I’m nervous or scared I’ll laugh to cover another emotion, I don’t believe they were laughing because it was funny, but only to cover up the pain and how uncomfortable they felt inside. I think the reason why most of them kept administering the shocks was because someone told them to. I was extremely shocked at how far they were willing to go. I learned how pressure can really me an intimidating factor in scenarios such as these.
I agree with Nancy's comment. It was eye opening to see how people would only stop the experiment once they're morals were on high alert and eventually felt too bad to continue
I think that obedience ideally should be encouraged by a person’s values and motives. This of course would only be in an ideal world with no pressures or outside influence. But since this is not the case I think that people will go against themselves to avoid uncomfortable confrontation.
The students that laughed during the film, laughed for similar reasons as the “teachers” did in the film. They were relieving the tension of not being in that person’s position, mostly because they have never been put in the same position. Some were uncomfortable with the fact that they knew they would do the same, if they WERE put in that position. Another cause may be the fact that they have been put in that situation in the past and were “showing embarrassment” about allowing themselves to be in those types of positions. Similar to the “teachers”, it is often a person’s fault for placing him/ herself in these situations.
What really stood out to me when the volunteers administered the shocks was how their main concern was who would accept responsibility if anything happened. The volunteers kept going further when they were being reassured by the professor that they wouldn’t have to face any consequences. I was impressed with the volunteers that, when told they “have no other choice”, stood up and said “I do have a choice, and I’m not continuing any further”.
What this film did for me was put in perspective just how easy it is to get manipulated into doing something you aren’t comfortable with. It also taught me how to recognize when someone feels pressured or uncomfortable so I know to stick up for the person. The film also taught the lesson of how important it is to know how to stand up for your own values, and express that assertively but calmly.
I found this experiment interesting because it was amazing how far people would go because others told them to. There were painful noises coming from the other side, yet the teacher continued perform the experiment for one main reason: He was asked to do it.
I agree with Sean that the teachers continued to do what they were doing only to please someone else, or because they were being told to do so.
Post a Comment