Is Anti-Obedience Training Either Necessary or Possible?

Possibly.

There is no fallacy here. You're trying to find a simply solution to a complex problem that would require changing the unpredictability of human nature to accomplish. And by education, I mean changing it so that logic and ethics are part of the curriculum from a young age. After that, they're on their own. Pretty much how they are already when deciding whether or not to trust an authority figure. Also better classes as regards how governments work. The whole "teaching people specifically to disobey" is just entirely pointless and useless.

Also, given the generally low amount of people going around assassinating and betraying people, I don't think that's a sign of the effectiveness of military training. It's a sign that most people don't see the value of going around assassinating and betraying people.

Another reason that it doesn't happen in the military — that units are fighting for themselves and their Unit/Regiment/Service — there is obedience, and there is loyalty to their Unit and their Country. That's the thing.

@Tuefel (#45): "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."

As the parent of two small children, I am totally with you there! Plus, I used to be a corporate trainer by profession, so I can back up your assertion with personal experience. And yet your objection applies equally to all training of any kind whatsoever. Most people still consider training worthwhile.

Ah, Handle already said that. Sorry.

Why assume the participants are unwilling. Most people are willing enough to listen at the beginning of almost any training. They suspend judgement until they get to know the trainer better. So there is almost always a window of opportunity to persuade almost anybody of what you want them to learn.

"You can not erase individual experiences, experiences from their past, and experiences outside of the training environment."

No, you cant. Nor do we even want to if we could. But we dont have to! In order to achieve what the OP suggests, we would only need a certain percentage of the members of a community to adhere to the principles of non-obedience (or non-violent collaborative resistance rather, re the link I provided). I don't know what the percentage is, but some research indicates that you can observably change the overall culture of a large group with as little as 10% enthusiastic "converts", depending on situational factors.

Heck, if we needed 100% compliance, workplaces would still be rife with explicit sexual harassment, and no one would ever wear safety goggles.

"Bradly Manning and Major Hassan..." Just as a program doesn't need 100% compliance to be effective, a small number of active violators will not destroy it either. Ironically, it may even strengthen it, as people experience a backlash effect. Then net effect of Bradley Manning was probably to convince most military personnel to take data security more seriously.

"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."

Excellent examples. But you all followed procedures to the best of your ability, right? I mean, you always wanted to get the job done, right? Oops, Handle said that already, too.

Actually, all you're doing is illustrating the principles of true teamwork. People are inherently different, and that's a good thing, because diversity of skills and views helps a team or a group find creative solutions to common problems. And if the problem that needs to be solved is an oppressive and powerful authority figure, they will need all the leverage they can get.

Conformity would kill this project. Diversity actually helps.

@Raven: "I question how much the Milgram Experiment demonstrates obedience and how much it demonstrates trust."

They controlled for that by interviewing the subjects afterward. It wasn't trust so much as fear of standing up to the authority figure.

@Ace: " All we can do is teach young people strong morals and critical thinking skills."

And collaborative team building. Collective action is the key.

"There is no fallacy here. You're trying to find a simply solution to a complex problem that would require changing the unpredictability of human nature to accomplish."

I claim that we are already doing it, so it cant be impossible.

"And by education, I mean changing it so that logic and ethics are part of the curriculum from a young age. After that, they're on their own."

While I approve of your curriculum, we cant just stop there. You cant solve systemic problems through individual action.

I think I will make that my new sig.

I think teaching Critical Thinking would help some.

Although sometimes, you simply have to do as you're told. (I say that a lot to my kids; as they simply don't know any better in a lot of areas)

edited 6th Sep '12 12:33:52 PM by pvtnum11

It is indeed a tough balance to strike between teaching kids to think independently versus teaching them respect for authority. You want both — specifically, you want a respect for authority to stem from critical thinking rather than blind obedience. This is why you should explain your reasoning to your children to the degree they are capable of understanding, not just assert "because I said so".

I run into this problem every day with my six year old and even though I'm determined to teach him why the rules exist so he can internalize them, I frequently have to resort to ad baculum ("Because I'm bigger than you.") because he is not yet a rational actor.

I don't think that teaching people to disrespect authority is necessarily a good idea. That way leads to anarchy and a reduced quality of life for everyone. What we do need to teach is the critical thinking skills to decide on the basis of one's core moral precepts whether any given authority is worth following. In short, to obey authority not because they are authorities, but because they are good authorities.

edited 6th Sep '12 12:48:16 PM by Fighteer

...and you don't want people acting independently out of blind ignorance. And some may never become rational actors — what about them, and the mentally disabled?

Mentally disabled people and people operating out of ignorance are not what I would consider rational actors; however, it is a very slippery slope to advocate taking away their right to self-determination solely on that basis. Then again, we don't let our kids vote or sign contracts, and we do take away certain rights from adults who have demonstrated that they are mentally incapable of exercising them responsibly.

Really it's a matter of degree, but then you also have the question of who decides what constitutes ignorance. We can teach rationality and critical thinking, but we can't force people to learn them, and disenfranchising people solely on that basis is kind of scary.

edited 6th Sep '12 12:59:25 PM by Fighteer

Average Dictator*

And yes, disrespecting authority as a system is utterly idiotic, and, by God, I've seen too many teenagers behave like that. When you have nothing they want and nothing to threaten them with, and don't have the charisma and assertiveness to make them want to follow you... they're going to be very troublesome to handle. As for kids...

As for rationality, it's not a talent, it's a skill, a skill you learn, and practice, and train. A common trait among the most rational people I know is that they've been consistently disappointed by authorities, and learned not to trust them from a very young age, to take their own responsibilities for what they do, and seek to form their own ideas by cheking the evidence for themselves.

Also, thank you De Marquis. I wish I knew how to phrase things as gently and urbanely as you: I yet have much to learn.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:36:12 PM by TheHandle

I'll be honest; I grew up with an abiding respect for authority largely because I understood the gross principles behind it. That doesn't mean I follow authority blindly, but I default to at least the formalities of obedience because I have respect for the system of rules in and of itself.

Of course it's possible for bad laws to exist, just as it is possible for people to act ignorantly or maliciously in creating and/or enforcing those laws. However, I believe that you gain nothing by disobeying authority simply because you disagree with it. That's just an excuse for said authority to force you to conform, and you will lose such a battle if you fight it on your own without a greater purpose in mind.

Obedience as well as disobedience should be informed choices and entered into in full appreciation of the consequences. The social contract exists for a reason and one's default position, absent convincing evidence otherwise, should be to support it, because that way you can count on its support in turn. Rugged individualism only works in a frontier or highly rural setting. In a globalized, densely populated world, we need to get along with each other.

In a nutshell, blind disobedience is just as bad as blind obedience.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:07:21 PM by Fighteer

One doesn't respect authority- one respects the process which conferred the authority. Military leaders in most democracies are appointed by the civilian regime and are ultimately answerable to them- thus we expect soldiers to do what they are told. A professor is an employee of a university, hired to complete specific tasks. We respect their authority to the extent that they are good at those tasks. In an emergency, someone who appears to know what they are doing is more likely to have received the relevant training or experience- so we follow them.

In Milgram, no such accountability existed, so most of us think the subjects obeyed to too great a degree (including Milgram). In a resistance movement (whether that consists of a few people in a meeting room, or thousands of people in the street) the very first task is to agree on how group decisions will be made, which includes the recognition of any leaders. These are all skills that have to be learned and practiced, or the resistance will more likely fail.

I think that is what happened to the Occupy movement, for example, or what is happening now in Egypt.

One also doesn't respect authority automatically — respect has to be earnt.

...and that's how one earns respect.

There is indeed much to learn about leading non-violent resistance. Non-obedience is but a first step.

Well said. However, many think they deserve obedience because they have been appointed to a position of authority by institutions, when the skills needed to obtain the position may have insufficient overlap with the skills needed to perform properly at it.

edited 6th Sep '12 3:42:45 PM by TheHandle

Hmmm... <shakes head>

Teaching critical thought (and, basic cognitive behaviour) is always a good move (sorry I've been inactive for a bit: Doing Other Things), but... this constant use of "un-obedience" and "disobedience" as terminology brings me out in hives. The acme of critical thought isn't a "sod you, I'm doing something else" attitude, any more than the nadir of obedience is a "lalalala — I'm not listening, 'cos I was told not to".

As stated by others, blindly following isn't always wise... nor is blindly rebelling: yet both have survival uses, so might have hard-wired evolutionary behaviour behind them (however disjointed and contradictory either may appear). Hence, "critical thought" being more a trained, acquired skill, than a natural outcome of emotional response, as such. Yet, any individual is actually capable of all three, regardless of training and life-experience, at times, even all at once, as well: sometimes due to stress, cognitive lapses, altered situations, and environmental factors.

Trust, obedience (and disobedience), questioning and deciding... are about as easy a field to navigate as "love, hatred, sentiment, settlement" is, and, is also not always a simple polar, Black and White issue with self-contained boarders. For broadly similar reasons: they're not single things and touch too many areas to avoid running into the whole wetware issue.

edited 6th Sep '12 6:01:11 PM by Euodiachloris

An authority that regularly produces bad rules is an authority unworthy of respect to begin with. Especially when it constantly defends itself with "without my authority, there's only chaos".

@ Handle:

...or that they think they automatically get respect just by being older than someone else — I've been there.

I hear ya. Elders...

Indeed. Well, how about we call it "un-obedience"? Basically what I mean to defend here is "the ability to keep thinking critically even while under the pressure of authority, so that you may remain able to view their instructions, and your obligation to follow them, objectively and rationally". As in, noticing that there is no way in hell the orders from the Milgram guy could possibly be legit or even legal, and not even feeling a tinge of inadequacy when telling them to shove it.

Another example would be, as Barkey says (if I remember well), to be able to tell an officer giving an illegal order to go screw themselves, and even prosecute them for it. Then again, he's MP, so he's in an exceptionally good position to lose respect towards officers and the like. Also, he's an ED-ot, those have a lot of practice in taking overinflated egos and sacred values down a peg or two.

Call it "Free exchange of views" training, since that's what it is....

That's disingenuous: illegitimate authorities don't give you the option of arguing with them, it's either obey or pay. This is about being willing and able to choose pay when your morality mandates it, so as not to fall into banality of evil and a state of blackmail and moral bankruptcy where the authority owns your soul forever.

No, exchange of views with other bystanders and victims, not the oppressive authority (although you might as well give them a chance). It's the necessary prelude to collective resistance. I'm basing this on the studies I cited.

Oh, yeah, that too, definitely!

This thread has a whole new meaning to me after watching my boyfriend play Spec-Ops: The Line.

That is actually a good example, why do Lugo and Adams obey Walker? They're Delta for one...

Anywhoo, my question would be who gets to have this conditioning and at what age? As children we are mostly conditioned to behave instantly as a safety measure. Emergancy Personell are taught to follow orders directly because they don't always have time to explain or asertain the situation on their own.

Well, yes, but their training should have provisions for "hold your classmate so I can whack him with a belt" and "shoot that child", respectively.

What about Paramedics, Doctors, Nurses and other medical staff? Proceedures need to be followed there — after all, someone's life might be at stake.

... I don't know why people keep getting the impression that this training is about not following standard procedure in standard situations, when it's about saying no to your superiors ordering you to do stuff you know to go against your morality. Have you read anything in this thread?

Sometimes the right decision isn't the moral decision.