mrlimbic wrote:

It only applies when the authority figure is perceived as somehow "benevolent to a greater cause". In the milgram experiment this was a scientist working towards the greater ends of human knowledge. It requires a good theatrical set up to work.

John,

I think this is an important distinction to make.

Phil

Yeah, thanks John, you said it far better than I was about to. :-)

If it wasn't easy to convince someone that their friends and neighbors were "bad" and "dangerous", war would be rare, if not impossible.

Again, I say that no one ever goes against their own highest values: Protect "me and mine".

Of course, how we define "me and mine" changes drastically depending on the situation...

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turil

Turil wrote:

If it wasn't easy to convince someone that their friends and neighbors were "bad" and "dangerous", war would be rare, if not impossible.

Again, I say that no one ever goes against their own highest values: Protect "me and mine".

Of course, how we define "me and mine" changes drastically depending on the situation...
l

Yes. People often assuming that "self preservation" is the strongest human instinct but we have social instincts to do with other levels you could call "family level", "tribal level" and "species level".

Otherwise, no one would ever risk their life to save someone else which is actually pretty common and a fact that gets missed frequently.

Evolution is driven at a larger scale than the individual. Indiviuals are simply the guardians of something much bigger.

Yep, the gene is more selfish than the self!

You may be interested in Mitnik from the "hacker" movement who experimented with social engineering tactics to get people to reveal and do things that they would normally not. He exploited human traits as often as technical ones in his "hacking" methods. As part of his unusual sentence when caught he was banned from using computers or even phones! After jail, as is common with these situations he became a very sought after security consultant!!

Kevin Mitnick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Engineering 101: Mitnick and other hackers show how it's done | News - Security - CNET News.com

mrlimbic wrote:

Yes. People often assuming that "self preservation" is the strongest human instinct but we have social instincts to do with other levels you could call "family level", "tribal level" and "species level".

Otherwise, no one would ever risk their life to save someone else which is actually pretty common and a fact that gets missed frequently.

Evolution is driven at a larger scale than the individual. Indiviuals are simply the guardians of something much bigger.

I totally agree.

And also, I wouldn't necessary call our tendency to
find authority figures more compelling to follow "less evolved".

Hi All,

On the subject of crowd psychology, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rciLxMnJL8"]a video[/ame] is worth a thousand words...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi all

This phenomena is the stock in trade of power structures around the world.

After reading this thread, I was reminded about a time in the Defence forces and specifically the Military justice system, or in justice, and penalties enforced. Often the penalties far outweighed the crime or the system would be used to penalise trouble makers. As an example, a soldier reports to work late to work, he get a slap on the wrist and a few extra guard duties. A soldier who is deemed a trouble maker reports to work late, he gets charged and as a result the soldier is confined to Barracks with restriction of privileges, drill practice, and kitchen duties.

Now the key point here is that since the Military organisation is based on an authoritive hierarchical structure. Orders get passed down and acted upon. Depending on the directions from the RSM, basically the man with the big stick responsible for discipline, the soldier could either be in for a hard time or for a exceptionally hard time.

I remember one time the duty officer was instructed to march the defaulter on the parade ground for an hour and that he was to perform certain drill manoeuvrers, basically work the guy till he drops . Pure bastardisation in my book. The officer had the soldier on the parade ground shouting orders at him for an hour, the soldier was doing drill in full marching order (40-50 kg on his back). The soldier did 20 to 30 about turns on the march consecutively. Obviously, it did not take long for the soldier to collapse. Considering the number of repeated turns, the extra weight, the hot summer sun reflecting off the concrete, I am surprised he only fell over. He was given a five minute break and back on the parade ground and it was repeated two more times during the one hour of drill practice. It was pure bastardisation.

Looking back from the perspective of this thread and the Milgram experiment, the officer was commanded to march the defaulter on the parade ground for an hour and that he was to ensure the soldier was proficient at about turns. A previous duty officer that took it easy on the defaulter was berated by the RSM and joined the soldier on the parade ground the next afternoon. After that the non verbal message sent out to all the other duty officers and it was rather clear, take it easy and you will be invited join in the drill or worse.

Now, I was one of those lucky people to be rostered as a duty officers during that time, and I had to decide what to do. Knowing the RSM, the next duty officer was not going to get off with one day marching on the parade ground.

Now, I am curious to know, which course of action would you have chosen, take it easy on the defaulter or follow the directive?

Fortunately, since that time there have been a few inquiries and investigations that have stamped out and exposed a lot of the covert bastardisation.



Have a great day.

Frederic

map002 wrote:

On the subject of crowd psychology, a video is worth a thousand words...

Awesome video dude ...