Modern-day replications of one of history’s most disturbing social psychology experiments, the Milgram study, reveal what makes ordinary people obey an immoral order – and how to resist.
“One of the main factors that distinguishes rescuers from genocide perpetrators is the presence of role models in their early childhood,” [Emilie Caspar, a professor in experimental psychology at Ghent University in Belgium] says, based on her team’s research. “So, for instance, rescuers are more likely to have witnessed their parents or other relatives helping other human beings.”
Refusing to demonise a group of people, and cultivating a belief in shared humanity, may help fight persecution in those early stages, she says.
I don’t know whether this study is still taught as example in high school, which is where I learned about it. I doubt it.
It’s definitely taught in intro psych classes in college, and echoed for particular emphasis in later ones.
I get the feeling that some people learned the opposite lesson from it than they were supposed to.
The intended lesson was “this was an unethical experiment for reasons X Y and Z”. The lesson I got from it was that some people came out of the experiment with a newly awakened sense of empathy, and maybe we should be looking into ways to kickstart empathy in those who don’t develop it as they should. Just, maybe a more ethical way of doing it.
And probably not bullshit like the Stanford prison experiment
Nah it was bullshit. They are both unethical experiments that should not have been performed.
What I meant was, unethical or not, the Stanford prison experiment outcome was planned and influenced. There is no good data to be found in it
Most ethics boards cap how far you can go, since the original caused participants distress. It’s not too hard to replicate the effect without being a monster.
I would argue that the distress was a crucial component of the awakening of empathy that some participants experienced in the wake of the experiment, and that if you want a more empathetic society you’re going to wind up considering some “necessary evils”.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained as it were.
Milgram was certainly unethical by today’s standards but, at least anecdotally, I have yet to find a good replacement for intense emotional distress in training the kinds of behavior I want in humans.
If I want a society of thoughtful, empathetic, and psychologically strong individuals I expect that will come with an education system that’s willing to put people through some hardship.
Well, no, putting people through distress in this manner isn’t a necessary step to producing empathy, nor is hardship a way to reliably produce empathy. I thought so for a while, too, except there’s far too many people who suffer hardship only to turn it around and want to cause it to others.
What is shown to be effective is an educational approach, as learning about power dynamics and injustice tends to reduce obedience. Authoritarians fear education because it creates that kind of person, hence why “colleges are woke” and such persist. That, and finding common ground with “outgroups”, as people are much more empathetic to those they identify with.
I didn’t learn about this until my psych classes in college.
then again I’m in my 50s, so it’s been awhile.
I remember seeing a shorr video on it in my psych class in junior year of high school. But it was an advanced placement class.
It is as of at least 2016 🤷♀️
