[Link] Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show

Here is a paper in PLOS Biology re-considering the lessons of some classic psychology experiments invoked here often (via).

Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show

To me the crux of the paper comes from this statement in the abstract:

This suggests that individuals' willingness to follow authorities is conditional on identification with the authority in question and an associated belief that the authority is right.

Plus this detail from the Milgram experiment:

Ultimately, they tend to go along with the Experimenter if he justifies their actions in terms of the scientific benefits of the study (as he does with the prod “The experiment requires that you continue”) [39]. But if he gives them a direct order (“You have no other choice, you must go on”) participants typically refuse. Once again, received wisdom proves questionable. The Milgram studies seem to be less about people blindly conforming to orders than about getting people to believe in the importance of what they are doing [40].

Here is a paper in PLOS Biology re-considering the lessons of some classic psychology experiments invoked here often (via).

Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show

To me the crux of the paper comes from this statement in the abstract:

This suggests that individuals' willingness to follow authorities is conditional on identification with the authority in question and an associated belief that the authority is right.

Plus this detail from the Milgram experiment:

Ultimately, they tend to go along with the Experimenter if he justifies their actions in terms of the scientific benefits of the study (as he does with the prod “The experiment requires that you continue”) [39]. But if he gives them a direct order (“You have no other choice, you must go on”) participants typically refuse. Once again, received wisdom proves questionable. The Milgram studies seem to be less about people blindly conforming to orders than about getting people to believe in the importance of what they are doing [40].

The claim made by the OP is "if people believe in what they're doing, they will hurt people;" the claim made by nigerweiss is "if people use system 1 thinking, they will hurt people." To differentiate between them, we need a statement intended to make people use system 1 thinking without relying on them believing what they are doing.

It's not clear to me that nigerweiss's division is more precise than the OP's division, or has significant predictive accuracy. I would have expected "you have no other choice" to evoke 'keep your head down, do what you're told, they must know what they're doing'; that is, the system 1 thinking that nigerweiss claims would lead people to push the button, when it led to less people pushing the button. Why is it a status attack that awakens system 2 (huh?), except because we know what we need to predict?

16

[Link] Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show

16

16

16

[Link] Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show

16

16