Is Anti-Obedience Training Either Necessary or Possible?

Well, I was the one that asked Handle to start this thread, so I should throw in my two cents worth.

What I want to share is the result of an experiment that was designed in direct contrast to Migram's Obedience experiment. It was designed to test the conditions under which people will spontaneously decide to resist what they perceive as an unfair action on the part an authority. As a result we know precisely under what conditions people are most likely to obey against their own better judgement, and when they are most likely not to. I offer you Gamson, Fireman and Rytina (1982) otherwise known as the "Encounters with unjust authority" experiment, summarized here.

And here (scroll down to the bottom of page 10)

"It can be concluded that groups are more likely to resist obedience than individuals, provided they have a chance to discuss the implications freely with other group members."

See, the thing was in Milgram's paradigm the subject was always facing the authority figure alone. In the Gamson et al. scenario, a group of subjects were allowed free time to exchange views. And that's all it took.

This is similar to the Asch conformity experiment in which a group of confederates agree on something that is obviously objectively not true. Lone subjects often convince themselves to agree, but adding even one other subject to the experimental condition and the rates of conformity greatly reduce.

It's not quite that simple of course. In the real world various other factors come into play. But the key to resisting unfair arbitrary authority apparently comes down to the opportunity for collective action.

While critical thinking on the part of individuals acting alone is important, the main challenge is communication and consensus building within the members of a group who are subject to an authority.

That training is already available, and it works.

Dude, why'd you only mention that at the very end of the post?! Which, by the way, was awesome.

The first objection I already adressed, do pay attention. To the second objection, I will say that it is up to the people who are offered the training to decide that. I would certainly take it, as I don't want to find myself betraying my own morality, not because of blackmail or threat, but because of a stern look.

Just one thing, in regard to this:

"And so the Stanley Milgram Experiment or the Stamford Prison Experiment aren't taught in school."

Well, they kind of are. I've encountered them being mentioned both in English classes where dystopian fiction was discussed as well as in Sociology courses. In the case of the former, the book/movie The Wave is also discussed either separately, or in conjunction with those experiments.

By school I mean "before college". You had Sociology before college?

And yeah, The Wave should definitely go with those, although that experiment was an amateurish disaster.

I could have, but I ultimately picked psychology over sociology. Sociology does show up in high school as a choice one can take.

Covered both Milgram and Zimbardo in my AS-level psychology class in senior school (age 16-17), along with some really ghastly experiments on monkeys from the 1950s. They're pretty ground-floor.

edited 5th Sep '12 10:21:48 AM by Iaculus

The Asch Conformity Experiments are rather interesting. There are other older studies that did something similiar - hidden cameras watching the one subject get into an elevator with five actors. The five actors all, on some hidden cue, turn around 180 degrees and stand there. Usually, the subject will conform and turn around also, so that everyone is facing the same direction. The actors put on their hats, the subject usually puts on his hat as well.

It was pretty interesting. Apparently, we have hard-wiring to conform.

This probably plays a part in obedience and deferrence to authority figures, although don't ask me exactly how that it.

You know, Candid camera shows are also a pretty good, usually more humorous, example of this same thing. Put someone in a position that is just weird, and see what cue they take.

@pvtnum 11: Because people look to authority figures to provide the guidelines to conform to. That's basically what authority figures are for.

This isn't exactly resistance to obedience, but I think they are on topic. The so called "Robbers Cave" study was about developing, and then overcoming inter-group prejudice. It involved a group of kids at a summer camp. The experimenters played the role of camp counselors. First they divided the children (pre-teen boys) into two rival groups, and got them to really hate each other. This is what a lot of authoritarian conformity is about, so I see it as relevant. Then the experimenters found a method of bringing the two groups together and helping them like each other again.

Read about them here.

A lot of authoritarian oppression is directed toward rallying people around the leader against some hypothetical enemy. It's may be the classic dictator tool. It's not what was used in Milgram, but it's very common (it was the basis of the Zimbardo prison study). Another psychologist named Gordon Allport summarized this and other similar studies with a formula for overcoming inter-group prejudice: Equal status contact in cooperation toward common goals, with institutional support.

If you want to build a society designed to undermine out-group hate and the authoritarianism that results from it, that's your formula.

edited 5th Sep '12 11:24:21 AM by DeMarquis

Exactly. Give people something to fight against that requires all their assistance, and they'll co-operate with each other. Want to stop war? Give all of humanity a Goal, a massive goal with a urgent need, and humanity should stop fighting*

Of course that's also the plot of the Watch Men, but let's not go there...

edited 5th Sep '12 11:51:11 AM by DeMarquis

It is also the plot of Warhammer 40 K. It did not succeed, for any faction, ever. But that is merely fictional evidence. Actual evidence is Arab countries never quite managing to unite and coordinate against Israel, despite claiming he is the common enemy and an enabler and exacerbator of all their own petty squabbles.

The kids in the Robbers Cave experiment were told there were vandals screwing with their stuff. They weren't actually confronted with a real force that could and would try fomenting dissent among them. A common enemy is most useful when they are distant (the USSR, Nazi Germany), actually harmless (Jews, Gypsies), or outright imaginary (Franco's Judeo-Masonic Communist Conspiracy).

No and no. Keep in mind that training people to resist instructions and views from others creates rather anti-social people.

I would question the efficacy of the training. Various situational factors can change the entire dynamic. There is also no gurantee groups will agree or work together as various issues clash.

If you can rally people around a singular cause or against a threat, once that threat is gone you need a new target. Syrian rebels having internal conflict comes to mind. Once there is no longer an Assad governmetn things have a very strong chance of going south and the limited unity dissolving.

Afghanistan suffered a similar fate after the Russians were pushed out. All it took was one segment of society (the taliban) to say no they didn't watn to participate and start a long running war against the other factions.

Any such training is a two edged sword. If a group adopts an idea internally that goes against your cause or purpose it can be extremely difficult to dislodge. Even more so if their group grows.

There is no such thing as a perfect training system. You can not gurantee human reactions or behaviour. You have some some limited degree of predicting limited actions and reactions but that is it. In a real world situation where dynamics can shift wildly there is no real way to entirely ensure trained behaviour.

The point is not to be a contrarian for the sake of contrarianism, but to be able to always keep one's ability to make an informed, autonomous choice. I cannot see how that makes one "antisocial". In fact, I'd rather that you actually went and explained what you meant exactly by "antisocial". If you use it in the Brave New World or Farenheit451 sense, then I regret to inform you that there's nothing wrong with being anti-social, as such. If it's the A Clockwork Orange sense you have in mind, I think it's a bit of a Non Sequitur.

Well, the phrase "anti-obedience" is itself a problematic phrase. It makes it sound like you want to teach someone to simply not care at all about the input of other people. That is a trait of anti social people; they just don't care. It would, in a lot of cases, lead to contrariness for contrarianism's sake. (The actual medical term means something quite negative in regards to that individual's being able to function in society.)

I think what you want in the end is to have them teach ethics or logic or philosophy or whatever earlier on so kids are thinking about this? And even then it guarantees nothing. Not "anti-obedience" so much as critical thinking skills. Calling it "Anti-obedience" isn't going to get you anywhere.

Please try reading some of the articles I linked to. They actually answer most of the objections you are raising.

If this is your goal you are best bet to ensuring the maximum coverage for the populace in general is access to advanced education. Even then there is no gurantee. Humans produce surprising amounts of variability in any given situation or setting.

De Marquis: I did read them. They did not answer for historical events that run counter to what they present. Or other events and situations that currently exist.

edited 5th Sep '12 6:38:04 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Oh, well then please share some of those, so we can understand them better.

For example no matter how hard and strenoussly you train or educate someone you can not control their life experiences, day to day events, or even absolute control over the training and education itself. Educators and trainers personalities and teaching/training styles can drastically affect the final outcome of the training or education.

You also can't really control the individuals experiences and life prior to the training or education. This is one of the reasons it is a challenge to educated people in general. If you try and force it on unwilling participants you only increase problems to varying degrees.

Another example is despite the strenuous efforts of the military to select the most ideal canidates they can from the populace, the training programs, and sustain a cultural constant it still produces a very large range of differing individuals. You can not erase individual experiences, experiences from their past, and experiences outside of the training environment.

It only takes one experience to change an individuals outlook or cause them to reject portions or all of their training. Two extreme examples. Bradly Manning and Major Hassan. Despite immersive training and education they both went a gainst the culture they were in.

You may have some similar experiences in the course of your education and training but your day to day life in general will greatly affect your outlook as much or more then your training and education.

If we want example on tropes. Barkey, Pvtnum11, Myself, cgnale, Mark Von Lewis, Blue Ninja etc. We are or were all in the military and received training specifically designed to prepare us for life in the military. But in general we all have varying views and outlooks on a wide range of issues and ideas. We don't march in lock step. We all had different experiences. Some of us are still in, some of us are out. Our expieriences in general alter our lives and help us form our opinions and outlooks.

We can look at various political situations historically and in current history and see where training or education has produced a range of variation.

People are not immalluable items you can force into a desired shape permanently. You can influence the shape to a degree but you can never truly make it a permanent arrangement.

I question how much the Milgram Experiment demonstrates obedience and how much it demonstrates trust. The subjects may have been thinking, "Hey, this guy's a doctor; if it's actually dangerous, he'll step in and do something."

Yeah, the "electrocuted" subjects eventually begged for the shocks to stop, but that could be viewed as a case of No Matter How Much I Beg.

Teuful, you'be basically answered your own question now; it's impossible. No matter how well you can predict who will or will not obey, or how much they trust the authority figure, there's always that unpredictability factor. Therefor, training for "anti-obedience" (which I still think is probably the wrong term you want here) is both impossible and impractical. And as such, unnecessary.

All we can do is teach young people strong morals and critical thinking skills. And hope that nets more positive results than what we've been doing.

I was actually responding to De Marquis. I already know the various issues with training especially en masse.

I agree on the perspective of the young people. I think the best you can do is try to ensure as many people possible have a solid set of morals from somewhere and hope life doesn't screw up so much that they abandon them. Basic moral training traditionally comes from home, various youth groups, brother hoods or social clubs for adults, and religious groups. The problem is that it is painfully easy for a source of moral values to become corrupted and thus corrupt anyone trying to learn from it. We can try and help those whose sources

edited 5th Sep '12 11:22:43 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Perfect Solution Fallacy: that a training doesn't work always or perfectly does not mean there is no point in doing it. Soldiers, for example, don't march in lockstep, but they do have some commonalities that were drilled into them: as a rule they don't flinch at shooting or at risking their own lives, they don't betray their comrades and don't go around releasing secrets, they don't assassinate political figures, they don't lead coups. That there are these extremely few exceptional cases vouches for the quality of the training.

I a not convinced that merely raising the education level would be enough to fight crazy authority. It's a Red Herring. There's plenty of well-educated people that are completely subservient to monstrous regimes or organizations, for instance. Think Corrupt Corporate Executive.

What parts did you read precisely? There's a lot of reading in there, I cannot believe you read them all, so which ones did you read? Did you read this one? What historical events did they not answer for?

I think the right word would me something more akin to "anti-blind-obedience".