In the short story The Milgram Experiment by Saul McLeod a man named Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment focusing on conflict between authority and personal conscience, he did so by drawing straws to determine their roles. The roles were already fixed so the volunteer would automatically be the teacher and the experimenters would pretend to be a leaner. They told the 'teachers' to release volts of electricity into a electric chair every time the leaner got a question wrong to see how far the teacher would go because an authority told them too.
Most 'ordinary' people would obey an authority and risk an innocent persons life. We know this because it stated this by saying "people are likely to follow orders given by an authority to the extent of killing an innocent human being." I think this is accurate yet despicable at the same time because if you know your hurting someone why would you continue but if someones standing over you I guess you feel that pressure a lot more.
I think its "normal" that ordinary people are more likely to follow an authority figure, because if you were told to do an action that you may not 100% agree with its still easier to continue what you've been told to do rather then stand up and make a fuss about your opinion. We know that more people obeyed the authority because it said "65% of participants continues to the highest level volts".
I don't think that it was necessarily wrong and or "evil" of the participant to continue the course and obey the authority because even if they did hesitate to shock a innocent person the exterminator would read a series of "prods" to ensure they'd continue. For instance they would say " please continue" then " the experiment requires you to continue" and that "it was essential you continued" because "you have no other choice but to continue", thus putting more and more pressure on the teacher to administer a shock.
This physiological experiment made me think about how people act on their own verse's when they have a bigger authority and or a bigger group of people to follow along. It also made me annoyed to think how easy it is to just do what your told because you feel its just easier to do as your told then make a fuss over something that's potentially a minor issue just because their in a higher position then you.
I really like how you went into a lot of detail about Milgrams reasoning for the experiment and the outcome.One thing I think that would make it even better is if you said what you would do in that situation or link it back to the question Milgram wanted to answer about the holocaust.I would love to know whether you would have continued on with the experiment or not. Overall it was a very interesting read.
ReplyDeleteYour opinions about the participants decisions are very good and detailed on why you think that way. I think the only thing that could make it more amazing is if you commented on how you would react or do in the moment. But well done Alyse :)
ReplyDeleteI think this is the best you have written Alyse. Your opinion on the participants is very well detailed about why you think this. I think you could of added on what you would do in this situation but another than that it was good.
ReplyDeleteKa pai Alyse. Your opinions are clear and concise, and supported with ample evidence from the text. To improve, consider the criteria for Merit -
ReplyDeleteForm convincing personal responses involves demonstrating personal understandings of, engagement with, and/or viewpoints on texts which are generally meaningful. This may also include responding to links between:
• text and self (eg personal contexts and prior knowledge)
• text and world (eg connections with knowledge, experience, ideas and imagination from social, cultural, literary, political or historical contexts).
You could achieve this by discussing the historical context that inspired this experiment.