Imagine playing a friendly game of Simon Says. “Simon Says: touch your feet. Simon Says: move your chair forward. Move it back. Oh! You’re out! Simon Says: punch your neighbor in the eye.” Whoa there…Simon seems to have gone way off the deep end. I would never hurt another person just because someone told me to, you’d probably think. Only, there is someone who proceeds to punch their neighbor. “Why’d you do that? What’s wrong with you?” the neighbor would wail in anguish. Now the game is ruined. Everyone is scared of Simon because although he didn’t physically commit the foul, he was the power that brought pain.
People in positions of power have the ability to control the actions and thoughts of others, while maintaining absolution for anything that happens as a result. Just like in the game, Simon instructs all the players on what they should do. Despite what their leader instructs, each player is fortunate enough to have free will over what they do and don’t do. Because of the individual free will, Simon can never shoulder
…show more content…
Observed during the Holocaust and studied later at Yale University, authority can be used to manipulate people into doing just about anything. In a study of obedience, the Milgram Experiment tested how individuals would respond to being forced to administer high voltage shocks to a person behind a wall. Even when the unseen person would scream and beg for the shocks to end, the experiment overseer would tell the test subject to continue giving shocks. The results of the study showed that people were willing to bypass their morals in attempts to follow orders from an authoritative figure. Unfortunately, many outsiders would assess this situation and fail to realize that the terror does not lie within the people who submitted to the viscous instructions, but within the person who commanded them and watched the ordeal unfold from the
The study measures the willingness of ordinary individuals to adhere to an authority figure who told them to commit acts on another individual which may conflict with their personal morals. The experiment found that 65% of the individuals completely obeyed the authority figure and made it through to inflict the final shock of 450 volts on another human being for an incorrect answer. These findings shocked me and led me to believe that it would have been entirely possible for a seemingly ordinary person such as myself to commit horrible acts against another person if I was instructed to do so. I sincerely hope that through being educated on such experiments and the holocaust itself, I would now have the strength to stand up for what I morally believe in and refuse any order outside of my
Ernest Hemingway once said, “When writing a novel a writer should create living people; people not characters. A character is a caricature.” In a good book, one will connect with at least one fictional character. In the book The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, one will be able to relate to with several. A character that the reader will be able to connect with from the start is Simon.
Put yourself in Simon’s shoes and think about it. Would you have done things differently? What if someone killed one of you relatives? Or a friend? Would you forgive someone for that?
(What does the study add to our understanding of the phenomenon?) People are much more likely to obey someone of authority than expected, even if it is against their beliefs or morals. Something such as Hitler’s rise to power could have been just as possible in the United States because Americans are just as likely as the Germans to continue to do something that they know is
Title (psychology #7) In the Abu Ghraib Torture and the Milgram experiment even though they had different reasoning behind it, the same concept is behind it. The obedience to authority people tend to have is either to obey or disobey authority and do what they think is right. In both this situation many people decided to obey authority and break their morals.
With the boys worshiping him, he felt the that he dominated the other boys. The last reason the boys became savage was due to self-defense. When they were killing Simon they thought he was the beast which was self-defense. The boys also wounded themselves up like when they were dancing.
“The Perils of Obedience”, written by Stanley Milgram in 1973, explores how her experiment demonstrated people’s affinity to obey orders even if it means someone will get hurt. Milgram is a leading social psychologist who disproved previously considered notions about obedience and authority. Her work demonstrates how obedience trumps morality and gives support for this phenomena with examples from history. By using different participants’ reactions, the author is able to analyze the meaning behind the experiment.
Milgram himself concluded how easily ordinary people ‘can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority". (Milgram 1974) As this report has highlighted the research is not without controversy with many questioning to what extent Milgram’s experiment is true to real life and has been criticized for not highlighting further situational variables in determining obedience to authority. Regardless of this, there is no doubt Milgram highlighted a rather troubling phenomenon.
Since the beginning of the human existence, man has always dominated and ruled over one another be it empires, corporations, or small groups. Authority and obedience has always been a factor of who we are. This natural occurrence can be seen clearly through the psychological experiments known as The Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Both of these studies are based on how human beings react to authority figures and what their obedience is when faced with conflict.
Conformity and group mentality are major aspects of social influence that have governed some of the most notorious events and experiments in history. The Holocaust is a shocking example of group mentality, or groupthink, which states that all members of the group must support the group’s decisions strongly, and all evidence leading to the contrary must be ignored. Social norms are an example of conformity on a smaller scale, such as tipping your waiter or waitress, saying please and thank you, and getting a job and becoming a productive member of society. Our society hinges on an individual’s inherent need to belong and focuses on manipulating that need in order to create compliant members of society by using the ‘majority rules’ concept. This
In “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror”, Crispin Sartwell argues that the average citizen can be convinced to commit atrocious crimes under the right circumstances from the premise that the traits to become a genocidal killer are not that uncommon, using examples from recent history such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the Rwandan Genocide. Sartwell clarifies that although most people delude themselves into thinking that they wouldn’t partake in genocide if they were placed in a similar situation as many have before, it would take a “moral hero” (Sartwell 118) to refuse the opportunity given the circumstances. On the other hand, in “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You”, author Theodore Dalrymple claims that people's response to authority in respect to their obedience is what leads the average man to kill countless others. While both authors address the fact that it doesn’t take a malicious person to engage in genocide, Sartwell focuses more on the qualities that people who commit genocide commonly share, Dalrymple seems more concerned on how people react to authority in
Ian Parker, author of “Obedience”, provides accurate depictions of the immediate and long-term effects of Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Experiment. In addition, he includes that under complex situations, individuals are easily induced to react through a destructive manner (Parker103). Americans commonly underestimate the influences of a situation; however, Parker thoroughly delineates the consequences behind blind obedience (Parker 104). Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton, authors of “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience” construe the atrocity of blind obedience committed by the United States Military. In March of 1968, crimes of obedience occurred due to an elusive order commanded by a higher ranked officer (Kelman&Hamilton 131).
This shows that the boys are only afraid of themselves, because they are their own worst enemy. He is the first to figure out that the beast is not an actual beast, and how it is only the boys becoming savage, and starting to be afraid of one another. As Simon began to explain this to the doubtful boys, he was the only one who died knowing the
At this time the boys did not know that it was Simon, they simply beat him because they were afraid and they assumed it was a monster. The godly figure that the boys fear in “The Lord of the Flies” is shadow on the mountain. The boys begin to fear the shadow. The boys begin to fear this shadow, and treat it almost as a God, they even begin to leave it offerings. In the chrysalids this figure is their God.
The experiment set up at Yale University was to measure how much pain an ordinary citizen would mete out onto another person just because an authoritative direction or instruction to do so was given. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.” Agency theory says that people “will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.” This idea is reinforced by some characteristics of Milgram’s evidence in his