The Power of One
I caught an episode of Curiosity on the Science Channel last night (Saturday May 5, 2012) in which they repeated the (in)famous Milgram experiment on obedience to authority conducted at Yale University 1961-62. In short, test subjects were told they were participating in a study on the effects of negative reinforcement on learning. In this case, that negative reinforcement was purported to be a series of increasingly powerful electrical shocks administered by the actual test subject (the “teacher”) to an actor portraying the “learner” test subject. Just pulling numbers from my head, the experiment showed that a disturbing majority of people (in the neighborhood of 70 percent) would administer what they believed to be electrical shocks as high as 450 volts to screaming, protesting, begging subjects, simply because some “authority figure” told them to.
The results of the repeated experiment closely mirrored the 1961-62 results. Do an internet search on Milgram and you can read all you ever wanted to know about the results. People were genuinely distraught over what they believed to be torturous treatment they were giving to another person, but continued to do it because some guy in a lab coat told them that they must continue.
One woman in the Science Channel repeatedly refused to participate. Once understood that she would be shocking another person, she refused. One man refused to continue when the “learner” screamed that he wanted to stop and that he was experiencing heart discomfort (the subjects were led to believe that the learner had a mild heart condition). His reason was not repugnance, but legality. He cited the document that they signed which indicated that either subject could end their participation at anytime. Most others, however, kept administering “shocks” right up to the moral moment of truth built into the test at 150 volts, when the learner screamed that he was having chest pains and wanted to stop. They protested to Dr. von Labcoat, but after receiving his monotone “you must continue,” they did, sending a heart-warming 165 volts down the line, or so they believed.
The Science Channel then conducted a variation of the experiment. This time there were two people at the “teacher” table from where the shocks were administered--the test subject, and another actor. The actor refused to continue past the point where the learner said he wanted to stop. When that happened, the real test subjects spoke up that they too wanted to stop. Up to that point, they had participated in administering the shocks in spite of obvious moral conflict.
We have all heard “one person can make a difference,” or some similar positive, feel-good platitude. In this case, one person can make a difference. The time may come when some authority figure will expect us to “continue” their experiment in spite of the protests or pleas of the subjects. It probably won’t be administering electrical shocks to somebody. Instead, it might be ratting out your neighbor to whatever secret police with which we have been saddled. Maybe you will be expected to stand idly by while somebody is rounded up, or abused, or violated, or robbed, or tortured, or killed because of some twisted authoritarian pogrom. When times get ugly, and the jackboots begin the “three o’clock knocks,” standing up--standing out--is the last thing our survival instincts want us to do. Maybe this time it won’t be you or me that is being hustled out into the streets by government bullies, and we’ll thank our lucky stars. Next time we may not be so lucky, and it will be our turn at the “learners” table. As Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller so eloquently pointed out, the life you save by standing up for others just might be your own:
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.
The results of the repeated experiment closely mirrored the 1961-62 results. Do an internet search on Milgram and you can read all you ever wanted to know about the results. People were genuinely distraught over what they believed to be torturous treatment they were giving to another person, but continued to do it because some guy in a lab coat told them that they must continue.
One woman in the Science Channel repeatedly refused to participate. Once understood that she would be shocking another person, she refused. One man refused to continue when the “learner” screamed that he wanted to stop and that he was experiencing heart discomfort (the subjects were led to believe that the learner had a mild heart condition). His reason was not repugnance, but legality. He cited the document that they signed which indicated that either subject could end their participation at anytime. Most others, however, kept administering “shocks” right up to the moral moment of truth built into the test at 150 volts, when the learner screamed that he was having chest pains and wanted to stop. They protested to Dr. von Labcoat, but after receiving his monotone “you must continue,” they did, sending a heart-warming 165 volts down the line, or so they believed.
The Science Channel then conducted a variation of the experiment. This time there were two people at the “teacher” table from where the shocks were administered--the test subject, and another actor. The actor refused to continue past the point where the learner said he wanted to stop. When that happened, the real test subjects spoke up that they too wanted to stop. Up to that point, they had participated in administering the shocks in spite of obvious moral conflict.
We have all heard “one person can make a difference,” or some similar positive, feel-good platitude. In this case, one person can make a difference. The time may come when some authority figure will expect us to “continue” their experiment in spite of the protests or pleas of the subjects. It probably won’t be administering electrical shocks to somebody. Instead, it might be ratting out your neighbor to whatever secret police with which we have been saddled. Maybe you will be expected to stand idly by while somebody is rounded up, or abused, or violated, or robbed, or tortured, or killed because of some twisted authoritarian pogrom. When times get ugly, and the jackboots begin the “three o’clock knocks,” standing up--standing out--is the last thing our survival instincts want us to do. Maybe this time it won’t be you or me that is being hustled out into the streets by government bullies, and we’ll thank our lucky stars. Next time we may not be so lucky, and it will be our turn at the “learners” table. As Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller so eloquently pointed out, the life you save by standing up for others just might be your own:
First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Andrew
(new)
Jun 26, 2012 06:26AM
An insightful look into the minds of our sheep. I wonder if we looked more closely at those that refused if it was for moral reasons or if they were strong enough to disagree. I would also be curious of the sample, since those that participate in studies do not necessarily reflect a true sample of the general population. (Or do they?)
reply
|
flag
Those are good questions. I don't know if the sample was selected to be representative of the population--part of me is afraid to see what that result might be. As far as the motivations for refusal, I would speculate that there is something above mere moral objection at work. Most of the test subjects experienced some kind of ethical or moral conflict while pushing the button. From my personal observations and experiences, a person needs something that empowers them before they will take that extra step of "going against the flow." Rarely are numbers with a person in such a fix, so the resolve to act must arise from the conviction that they are right and/or what they oppose is wrong. And I think this is what makes the dearth of critical thinking in our society so dangerous. Without the ability to critically evaluate what we are being told, we lose the ability to arrive at those empowering conclusions ourselves. In that light, the "dumbing down" of America is all the more nefarious. It appears that we are being intellectually disarmed.
