Here's an old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 9 years ago, in 2014, on the World Wide Web.
Many psychological situationists like to push social-psychology experiments as proof that most people don’t have, or perhaps even couldn’t have, robust character traits. So, for example, they’ll cite the Milgram experiment, supposedly to show how people mostly do not stick to traits of compassion or kindness towards the
learner when the lab-coat authority tells them that they have to hurt him.
And maybe this does show that a lot of middle-class Americans lack a particular character trait. Perhaps a lot of middle-class Americans aren’t as reliably compassionate and as kind as you might hope. But hell man, I already knew that. On the other hand, if you’re trying to push the idea that studies like Milgram undermines the idea that people have, or that they could could form, robust character traits, that seems like a non sequitur. One of the obvious results that Milgram himself took from his study is that a lot of people (including a lot of middle-class Americans) have a really robust, situationally-insensitive character trait of obedience, a trait which is so robust that for a large minority it persisted even up to the point where they honestly believed they were torturing or killing a person in the other room.
The fact that this character trait is a vice doesn’t mean it’s not a robust and stable character trait. It looks like quite a robust and stable character trait. The question is whether it’s possible to make that trait less robust; and also and whether it’s possible to cultivate different traits, which might look more like decency and virtues. If it’s possible to be so hella committed to obedience at all costs, then maybe it’s possible to become committed to other things which are not genocidally awful.
- I mean folks like Gil Harman, who think that social-psych research literature proves that human conduct is the result of situational factors rather than strong dispositions of character, and who typically think that this has some negative bearing on traditional philosophical theories about ethics. As far as I know the position has nothing in particular to do with the Situs that like to read Guy Debord and dub philosophical discussions about Marxism over action flicks.↩
Kevin Carson /#
Milgram also had to create highly artificial conditions — basically a Panopticon, in which all lateral communication between subjects was prevented and the subjects were in an isolated, one-on-one relation to the experimentor — in order to get the result of unquestioning obedience. In variants where multiple subjects were in each other’s presence and one expressed some hesitancy or doubt, the defection rate was enormous.
John T. Kennedy /#
Yeah, definitely good to know that two people together will often marshall the resources to resist the obviously monstrous directions of a man in a labcoat….