What it takes to stand up to authority

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180709-our-ability-to-stand-up-to-authority-comes-down-to-the-brain

by robinoh • 8 years ago

73 76 8 years ago

bbc.com

lucideer• 8 years ago

I'm not sure I understand the grammar of the HN title. What does "goes in length" mean?

osrec• 8 years ago

I think they mean 'in detail'

jackstraw14• 8 years ago

Could also be 'at length'

rubbingalcohol• 8 years ago

"The BBC goes in length" made me do a smirking double-take, but I have a sophomoric sense of humor.

sctb• 8 years ago

We've reverted the submitted title of “The BBC goes in length about research showing how our brain responds to coercion” to that of the article.

grzm• 8 years ago

Actual article title: "What it takes to stand up to authority"

kstenerud• 8 years ago

Assigning negative term after term to harmless groups of people was intended to be emotionally wearing and to make most participants feel uncomfortable. Plenty dropped out as it got more intense. For those who carried on, it was a belief that they were contributing to something important – a rigorous scientific study – that drove them to push through.

It's a pretty sloppy to assume that they believed this because of an authority figure.

s-shellfish4• 8 years ago

Too many factors go into determining what fatigues a person emotionally, and the response in the event of emotional fatigue is just as unpredictable for every person.

Even non-conformists conform. It's just a blind spot because you don't know how to actually see that you are continuously behaving in a particular way, that rigorously adheres to some behavior that has yet to be described or defined. I can be a non-conformist by always doing the opposite of what everyone I observe does. I'm still conforming to a pattern, that's capable of being studied, followed, predicted, and eventually, that pattern will have to change too, to remain true to some spirit of non-conformity, if that's my highest value.

Thankfully it's not. But authority, conformity, group think, individuality. There's more than one way to see it. Psychology is a sloppy science because people can always change these things. Just have to analyze it enough, detect the pattern of being detected, and override it.

People being able to be individuals without an all seeing eye of meticulous study is important to me. That can be mentally fatiguing for plenty of people. I don't know if it matters how important their belief in the study is, if the means contradicts the intention. Life is ridiculous.

otakucode5• 8 years ago

I found that study a really strange one as well. They seem to be operating on the tacit assumption that all of the participants are mush-minded simpletons who think "assigning negative terms" in some study somehow had some relevance to anything anywhere in the world. That's absurd. I invite you to find yourself a quiet room and dedicate yourself to writing the most insidious, invective, negative diatribes aimed at me personally that you are capable of manufacturing. You could do it for decades, and absolutely nothing would come of it. Anyone who believes differently is both wrong and probably has some mild form of mental illness which causes them to conflate their own thought processes and imagination with reality.

Asking a person to assign negative terms to photos is as consequential as asking them to whistle or drum their fingers on a desk. It is meaningless and utterly amoral in content. We're not talking about even applying the terms to actual people, but to images. And they're not being monitored or published. There are a million guarantees that what is being done is thoroughly and totally meaningless.

watwut4• 8 years ago

It is not about to what it does with person on picture, it is about what it does with person that is writing them. The way it affects their thinking and feelings toward target, how much they are aware it is affecting them, the way it makes them more and more comfortable with insulting person on pic and what they think or feel about that.

The discomfort is partly because you can make yourself like or hate people you don't know personally and trying to come up with bad/good things to say about them is one approach how to do it. You start process insulting them and you can see yourself starting to feel differently and some might feel good about the process and where it leads.

You know how people close themselves into bubbles that says only bad things about some outside group and then become to genuinely hate that outside group? It is the same, but is small scale, temporary limited and easier to detect.

mockingbirdy6• 8 years ago

Don't underestimate the power of subconscious processes, e.g. we like things we already know or even words that contain letters of our name [1]. There exists an incredible amount of these biases.

There are a million guarantees that what is being done is thoroughly and totally meaningless.

There are a million subtle ways to influence behavior and thinking. It's very likely that the scientists aren't able to properly measure the effects (because it's hard to isolate the control variables), but the resulting knowledge won't be zero. I agree with you that many scientists overestimate their understanding of the underlying mechanisms - IMO it's still too much hand-waving - in reality our knowledge about social psychology is very limited.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

tajen• 8 years ago

Isn’t that a reproduction of the (well-criticized) Stanford experiment, which already didn’t need to be demonstrated because we already demonstrated it with the Nazi horror?

cellularmitosis• 8 years ago

But it did need to be demonstrated. "That could never happen here, not in our country" needed to be refuted.

otakucode5• 8 years ago

The distinction here is some further evidence of the actual mechanism through which this operates, and, critically, evidence that we can actively work to improve our ability to challenge immoral authority.

The $64 billion dollar question, though, is whether anyone in society will see it as reasonable to expect themselves or anyone else to abandon their intuition which tells them to follow without question, the 'natural' and 'automatic' response that they identify most strongly with their 'self', and train themselves to contradict and contravene that part of themselves. As is so often the case, you can't fix the flaws that your emotional and intuitive processing of the world brings about if you venerate intuition and emotion and denigrate any attempts to change it.

mockingbirdy6• 8 years ago

Then we would need to train everyone to be essentially an ubermensch - they need to be able to operate on meta-levels and use metacognition all the time.

This is a hard task, you need cognitive resources (which means you have enough sleep, food, resilience, mental energy and a stress-free environment) and a lot of time and it's also very demanding to doubt essential beliefs about oneself and ones' own values.

So I don't really think that most people will do it. It's just too cumbersome and frankly, they have other things to do and the current mode works for them most of the time. When it fails, something like the Nazi regime happens (for various reasons, not only due to lack of advanced metacognition), but high expectations won't help us, anyway.

- - -

I think a good solution is to build a system which generally uses balance mechanisms to keep power divided - we can't expect all people to be highly self-aware and self-critical. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly why we use democracies. Unfortunately, those systems stop to work when the majority of people lack advanced metacognition or don't have the required cognitive resources or lack information and understanding. Unfortunately, this can happen pretty fast.

mcherm• 8 years ago

First of all, I believe that it DOES need to be demonstrated -- repeatedly, to lots of people, so we can change how we respond to such a situation.

But more relevantly, this experiment was not attempting to "demonstrate" the effect. It was attempting to better understand the effect. That, in particular, is research that we badly need.

(PS: I'm defending the idea of performing this sort of experiment, not the specific experimental protocol followed. In particular, I question whether applying negative judgements to people is actually a valid proxy for causing harm.)

zakm• 8 years ago

a) Trying to understand historical events with many variables via deliberate scientific experimentation is a reasonable thing to do.

b) The Stanford Prison Experiment has always been under a ton of scrutiny, and is a good example of flashy events heavily covered in intro psych courses that are viewed with a lot more skepticism in the professional community (so I have read, anyway).

c) More info recently came out about it recently, actually: https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/new-evidence-show...

d) Repetition of scientific findings is one of the main pillars of science. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

slowburning• 8 years ago

while the fact remains that everyone should derive his or her own opinion on this highly sensationalized study, Philip Zimbardo's response is worth reading http://www.prisonexp.org/response/

watwut4• 8 years ago

There were too many factors contributing to the Nazi events. You cant simply point at it and make definitive conclusion over some bare-bone simple events.

You also cant assume that 1933 Germans would react the same way to the authority then 2018 Dutch.

LinuxBender4• 8 years ago

Not to mention, the world is much more connected now. Most German citizens were unaware of the death camps until the end of the war.

squozzer• 8 years ago

I'm not sure we can do much to understand the role of authority without understanding the role of conditioning in what makes people act.

For instance, why are most schools so regimented and rule-rich? For efficiency, certainly, but not all school rules increased efficiency. I would guess some of the rules exist to reinforce obedience to the other rules.

specialist• 8 years ago

Filed under "believe, but cannot prove":

Whereas I thought anxiety (or lack of) was first order predictor someone's behavior (eg conservative vs liberal), I now think the root is someone's fear response.

Reformulated: fear -> anxiety -> (submission to) authority

forapurpose• 8 years ago

I would guess some of the rules exist to reinforce obedience to the other rules.

If it existed, it seems like there would be evidence of this, in the literatures of educational research, training, and school management. I doubt there is conspiracy of school principals.

Schools are bureaucracies, and like every bureaucracy they have rules, often rules that seem nonsensical to people who haven't had to manage one. People feel like companies and other organizations are overly regimented too.

s-shellfish4• 8 years ago

The problem is if there's a survival benefit to becoming rigidly obedient, insulating this information would be valuable. Think about pyramid schemes.

TomMarius• 8 years ago

I don't think that's true. For one, there are many publications about strict education and until relatively recently, it was the leading school of thought; we have movies featuring them, even praising them (Harry Potter for example - that was an example of a school lead as a benevolent dictatorship - that of course turned out bad later in the series). For two, people mostly don't read books about parenting but then they're parenting their kids somehow - how? Well, with whatever they picked up from their parents, TV, fiction books... Isn't it possible that it might be the same with teaching? I have some experience with working in education. Most of my former colleagues almost never think about the way they teach; you ask them why did they punish a student for disobedience (aka "he drank water even though I told him not to") and they say "because that's how it's done", you asked them why are they explaining something in that way and they don't know, they just do.

barry-cotter• 8 years ago

Every single government primary and secondary education system on Earth is a direct descendant of the Prussian one. Non-existent to very limited choice of how one spends ones time, constant ranking and grading to inure people to dominance behaviours that do not come naturally, and all in groups that are age normed rather than competence or ability normed.

School doesn’t have a singular purpose because there’s no one out there who designed it but learning definitely isn’t in the top five things it does. The people who did design the progenitor of modern school systems designed it to get people to sit down, shut up and do as they were told, and to love the government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/04/school-is-to-submit.ht...

AmericanChopper5• 8 years ago

I think that’s a pretty cynical view. You could just as easily say it’s about discipline. To be successful in pretty much anything requires discipline and some level of regimented behaviour.

projektir5• 8 years ago

Why is the cynical view not appropriate? I'm much more suspicious of the idea that something was implemented with everyone's best interests in mind if there isn't strong evidence pointing there.

To be successful in pretty much anything requires discipline and some level of regimented behaviour.

There's no evidence to confirm this statement, even though it may sound like common sense.

And this post reads odd. The current school model is very old. If schools exist to instill discipline, and discipline is required for success, I'd expect everyone to be super successful right now.

malmsteen2• 8 years ago

I've never understood how the classic interpretation of milgram that "people can become monster under authority" were remotely relevant.

"hurting other people" is just a natural tendency inside at least a large proportion if not all humans. That's why we've had so many wars in the history, bullys at school and abuse in generally ANY UNREGULATED ENVIRONEMENT (chrisitan schools in the 50s in france for example, prisons and in some way even the weinstein compagny). That's also why a lot of us love watching MMA, boxing, and why many people love, even secretly because society doesn't acknowledge this feeling, going at war [1].

We can argue all day whether it stems from a domination instinct, a fear of our own weakness or how this instincs have to be channeled into a more constructive force / healthy contribution for society but the point is that this instinct exists... probably in most persons.

At some point i suspect most participants in milgram experiment switched from the "this is horrible" voice in their head to the "my feelings tells me it's not horrible I feel in power it's cool I almost like it plus there's authority so i wont get punished so it's fine". It's not so much of a big deal.

[1] https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a28718/why-men-lo...

whytaka• 8 years ago

I've never understood how the classic interpretation of milgram that "people can become monster under authority" were remotely relevant.
"hurting other people" is just a natural tendency inside at least a large proportion if not all humans.

Many societies convince themselves that they are civilized and others are not.

projektir5• 8 years ago

Claiming that people love war seems like a pretty dangerous statement to me without some very solid study. There's a lot going on there, most notably, trauma. People who went to war are not necessarily the people who come back.

dsego• 8 years ago

Why is it dangerous? You explain nothing.

jpfed• 8 years ago

Studies on patients with localised brain damage are helping to answer part of this question. When people have lesions in the prefrontal cortex – the outermost layer of the front part the brain – they appear to be much more prone to following orders than the general population.

WOW, that's going to come in handy when some government decides to weaponize it.

chrisco255• 8 years ago

How would a government weaponize this? By going around damaging people's brains with brute force?

GauntletWizard• 8 years ago

By forcing the enlisted (conscripted) members of their armed forces to undergo procedures or take drugs that make them more compliant.

dv_dt• 8 years ago

Transcranial magnetic stimulation? Those Millimeter wave body scanners at the airport?

I don't seriously think the gov't is out to do this, but there are possibly ways to do it without leaving outward physical traces.

bitwize• 8 years ago

Chemtrails, man.

marci• 8 years ago

Brute force is not required to damage/alter the brain. Food, aclohol, drugs or stress can easily alter brain chemistry in dramatic ways. Now, whether or not any government will do something like that is another question.

ouid• 8 years ago

Well, they don't need to weaponize it in order for it to have been propagated en masse. Atmospheric lead in the 60s and 70s could have had a similar effect on the generation that shall not be named.

s-shellfish4• 8 years ago

This can be taken as conspiracy theory territory, so before it gets there, let me phrase it in a particular way.

I have no doubt that some people in the mental health care industry have entertained thoughts about how some mental health care medications can be used to make people more docile and obedient.

I'm not saying that is the intent. But the fact that such people have that kind of power without necessarily having all the checks and balances in place needed to ensure such scenarios do not occur, is concerning. At the very least, there should be ways to provide easy and accessible ways victims of such circumstance may challenge such treatment.

There often aren't ways, because once you are labeled crazy, most people in the mental health care industry think they know what is better for you than you do.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning, it's easy to exploit a power dynamic when society assumes one side is good, and one side is bad.

I'm trying to be very delicate in my phrasing, because this is not a conspiracy theory. People can and do exploit such circumstance and pad it over with good intentions. And challenging these types of situations requires extensive care, rigor, and transparency - and a willingness to look at oneself from all perspectives.

And that's often a very difficult thing to do, for anyone.

When people are forced to examine themselves from sides that only tell them everything negative about them, the individual ego fights to survive. This is the case for anyone who has experienced stigma and discrimination. The choice is always, obey or be punished. And that's not fair, because the judgements that lead to these decisions are often collected from a one sided perspective.

It's a hard problem, but it needs to be discussed. I personally hate having this problem bottled up in my head. Because I know, how easy it is, to sway it back to good intent. Intentions are garbage if people keep judging you and placing you beneath them. Actions matter. Even if those actions are as simple as, judging less.

Honestly, I think most conspiracy theories stem from people's real life experiences, but because of judgement, disbelief, and stigma - the truth mutates. The moral of the story is retained, but the person dissociates from the trauma of not being believed and being mistreated, over and over again.

People can easily become convinced that they have little recourse or options left. It's not always brain damage. Sometimes it's just getting stuck in a pattern of perpetually perceiving judgement from everyone around them. I personally don't know if having to think that way changes the structure of the brain. Furthemore, I don't know if having the brain restructured in such a way indicates anything defective. It may just be different.

Theodores• 8 years ago

The answer is in the article, oddly enough.

The BBC is at one level all about free speech, uniquely funded and good for you. At another level it is deeply tied into the military establishment in the UK. Since the beginning job applicants have had to pass the Room 101 test and that is a real thing - any socialist types simply did not get employed. They would not be blacklisted and unable to work in the industry, however, the commercial channels (ITV) did not pay for training, you had to get that from the BBC and then you could work elsewhere thanks to that experience.

To quote Napoleon (the old enemy) "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." The BBC has approximately four TV channels that shape the minds of the British public. Consequently people in the UK are highly invested in a set of ideas that cannot be thrown out on a wholesale basis.

From time to time there will be high profile events that get reported by the BBC in a way that is not consistent with facts on the ground. Yet people will attend such an event, go home and, despite seeing events with their own eyes, decide that they must have understood the situation incorrectly to believe what 'Auntie BBC' said, to then take that on as the 'correct' interpretation of events.

To think otherwise, i.e. to 'believe' one's own eyes requires a subversive mindset or, as is more likely to be the case, a conspiracy minded mindset where everything from moon landings to flouride is up for reinterpretation. We have all met those types of people - 'nutters' - so those that did see something different to the reported story learn not to say what they saw with their own eyes. To do so would cast them out of the herd and in with the 'nutter herd'. We are social animals and being outcast like that is worse than death.

If someone who happens to be sane does relate 'what they saw with their own eyes' to the rest of the herd then it is unlikely that members of the wider herd are going to believe them even if they do not come along with 'moon landings/contrails/whatever' baggage. This is because they are highly invested in the BBC world view and the latitude that it allows. The spectrum will range from Hillary to Trump but not as far as Bernie. Bernie is mainstream, but you get the idea. It is a fixed stage, outside this allowed latitude there will be terrorists and the KKK. The voice of protest will be allowed in this Overton Window with people such as Russell Brand or, in times gone past, Tony Benn. These folk don't have to be 'covert CIA operatives acting as gatekeepers', they just operate within the same Overton Window as everyone else, playing their role quite naturally, the sponges for dissenting voices that don't go along with whomever is in Number 10.

The implications of going with the BBC world view are generally good. You can go on anti-Trump protests posting your pics onto Instagram so everyone knows you are solidly against racism and whatever else it is easy to object to. There is no danger of being cast outside the herd.

The BBC has a veritable 'full spectrum dominance' with radio all around the world, the web as well as their mainstay 'free to air, advert free' television. Britain might not rule the waves any more but the airwaves are doing nicely.

I have not given any incident of where reality and BBC reality differ, however, people that suffered at Hillsborough, people that lived through the miner's strike, people that were there at Bloody Sunday, people that were abused by BBC 'disc jockeys' have had this problem to live with. Due to injustice they have had to 'rebel'. Nobody could speak out about the 'disc jockey' whose name we do not speak of until he died and was buried under six foot of concrete (he knew that his grave would not lay undisturbed). Yet everyone in the BBC knew. And in the wider press. And he was only a 'disc jockey' without any nuclear weapons or henchmen.

Hence, in the UK at least, the BBC is how the government has weaponised 'mind control' and made questioning authority not something one does. People just do not have the mindset to do so as they have been encultured to be British.

albutr• 8 years ago

By promoting hard-hitting contact sports to youth, and issuing equipment that doesn't do a good job at protecting the head?

Even considering the underreporting with young, high school athletes, a large number of young football players in the US have suffered concussions[1] at a very young age when their brains are developing, and that's with equipment that we can reasonably assume is designed with safety in mind. If a nefarious government were to try to promote a sport, which had rules and equipment that lead to a higher risk of brain injury, and cultivated an image/environment that elevates "toughness"(not complaining when you feel you've been injured; a significant fraction (~16%) of high school football players continue to play even after being hit hard enough to lose consciousness, so that attitude is there, just need to bump the number up), that might get you close.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_American_footba...

yontherubicon3• 8 years ago

Hmmm, I wonder if there might be some evolutionary reason why we shouldn't do this?

I mean it's not like a deferrence to authority allows human beings to coordinate and work together efficiently. Hierarchies are totally inefficient ways to work together and get things done.

EDIT: A paper that is very much worth reading: https://hbr.org/1990/01/in-praise-of-hierarchy

pdimitar• 8 years ago

Being able to stand up to authority doesn’t hinge on bravery or courage, confidence or stubbornness. The brain processes and regions essential for rejecting ideas from authority figures are starting to be revealed.

Nonsense. Sure everything stems from chemical processes in our bodies, including the brain -- of course. But they breed the bravery, courage, confidence and stubbornness. I don't see why we must contrast these two things. They have a one-directional causation link between them.

What it takes to stand up to authority

Related Stories