The topic of our perception of authority came up in another thread; it is a subject that I have relatively strong feelings about and wish to discuss further. We have had a thread about cops and abuse of position, but what I am looking for is a more encompassing view of authority in general. To set the stage for my position I am simply going to repost what I said in my trigger thread.

I want to relate a parable from Erickson, a psychology pioneer and great. A great bulk of his work revolved around identity crisis and self actualization. To my knowledge this story wasn’t originally meant as any sort of argument but I think it suits that purpose nicely here. Hope you don’t mind me paraphrasing.

Martin Luther was, as a child, highly repressed. An over domineering father and strict school structure never allowed him to voice any ideas or objections due to a perceived authority. The immature Luther went about his life following the instruction of those who claimed authority. It wasn’t until Luther’s personality matured that he was able to see his true role in life and actualize his internal needs. This actualization of internal truths over perceived authority was unleashed on the pope (a considerably high authority figure by many standards.) The result was a great schism of the church and a social redefining of standards. It was the mature Luther who despised and flew into the face of authority that earned him immortality.

I am certain that what you have said is quite true for you. When you were younger you had a tendency to rebel that no longer suits your current set of paradigms about life. You have matured in growing and finding a better overall structure for yourself. I however operate on an entirely different set of core paradigms. In my structure, personal satisfaction and reciprocal altruism so vastly out value things such as order and social wellbeing that they are scarcely on the same playing field. In my also matured, but matured differently set of paradigms, authority figures (not to be mistaken with those in positions of authority) are counterproductive to my self-actualization.

I have had fair exposure to authority; an emotional and uncompromising father, fundamental religious upbringing, extensive exchanges with police, and military service. In all cases I did listen to them and learn, but at some point I wasn’t learning to obey, I was instead learning to circumvent. My mature view is one of know thy enemy, and how to subvert it.


I wish to continue this line of thought in asking why people feel like they need authority. Sure we don’t want rapist and murderers running rampant, but couldn’t those problems also be solved merely by individual responsibility or even perhaps a militia? Can we not learn to function well enough together and create a reward system that encourages productivity without the need of hierarchy of demanders?

Does this submission fulfill some basic need in many people? Nazis imploring the famous Nuremberg Defense were genuinely shocked when they found out that they were to be held accountable for their actions. Many would argue that they chose such a station in life to avoid personal responsibility and be guided by the orders that they thought would provide them with their aegis. Numerous independent tests have been conducted with the unknowing subjects thinking that they were shocking a perceived subject in another room whenever a process was failed to be performed to standards. Each shock is to have an increased voltage and in many test they could actually hear the victim screaming and pleading to stop. In all cases, majority of the inflictors continued on with the experiment increasing the voltage to what would have been well over lethal doses. The most common reason given for such inhumanity after the fact: “I was just doing my job and following directions.”

Are we actually such sheep that we don't want to make decisions on our own? Why do we find such cold comfort in conformity? Has our collective Jonas let those of us who evoke Napoleon create some superficial hierarchy? Meaning: Are we so afraid of achieving our worth and being isolated from the mainstream that we pave the way for those who act out in spite of this fear to become our dictators?

 

..

 

I can't say I am clear what you are getting at.

 

Great Topic Perv. Let me first weigh in with these.

Milgram experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The experimenter (E) orders the Teacher (T) to give what the subject believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L),(who is actually an actor and confederate/stooge). The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks, but in reality there were no shocks. After being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[1]


The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]
The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3]
Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
​

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]



Stanford prison experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The Stanford prison experiment was a psychological study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison. It was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Undergraduate volunteers played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early.
Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend.
Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram Experiment in the 1960s and the later Zimbardo Experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.[1]



I'll get back to this as soon as I can. This is an amazing area to look into. ​

 

It's quite alright. Cracked myself up though.

Merely alluding to a phrase and an overall mood. Sorry for interrupting your serious inquiries.

 

If you're living in the same world as I am, I think it's obvious that we could not co-habitate without authority. Not everyone takes responsibility for themselves and will do whatever they wish to do, whether it harms others or not.

I wouldn't call myself a sheep, but sometimes I don't want to or can't for some reason, make a decision without some input from authority. I'm not what one would call a leader, I am more of a follower. That's where I am comfortable.

 

Both good examples of authority over humanity. Why do people behave so?

 

EVERYONE is under some kind of authority. Even a dictator..he's under the authority of having to eat to stay alive. There are universal laws including those that govern human actions.

Why do some people behave so? Because they are selfish and want what they want irregardless if it hurts anyone else.

 

Ok fair enough. But my question stands why can't we self police? Why can't we take responsibility for ourselves? and perhaps most importantly why do you feel more comfortable in a submissive role?

 

The people in the experiments were hurting others without any personal gain, save possibly the psycological rewards of doing their jobs.

 

Observe "rush hour" traffic. You'll get your answer.

 

Without personal gain? In a way it was for their own personal gain...they didn't want to get into trouble with the authority figure.

 

Good point, or drug dealers, theives, car jackers, etc. Without authority, people like that would have free reign, and they'd probably end up being the "authority", and rule by fear, like dictators do

 

One of my personal life long battles that has cost me dearly, including my last job if fighting against what I see a corrupt authority or worse what I call "power addicts" that must use their authority to try and make other people's lives miserable because it gives them some kind of rush. Here's a quote from Nietzsche that I think illustrates it beautifully.

Plus check out what I posted above about how easily people accept authority and follow it. In the Milgram experiment volunteers continued to deliver what would be leathal electrical shocks, even after the supposed recipient complained of chest pains because an authority figure in a white coat told them to.

 

So people are driven to fulfill self needs first. But by allowing for authority to interject we alleviate personal responsibility. After all the cops and insurance will sort it out. However, if faced with the same situation and we know that it is solely up to us or perhaps some decent bystanders to resolve the situation, do you think we would be uncapable of doing it?

I agree that there is a need that we have created. We have built our world around these structures and I don't forsee them coming down. I am simply stating that it is only a possible system that we have built into a crutch.

 

Careful about following, blindly, the ancient Psychologists and Philosophers - this is a "new society" playing by different rules.

 

Without authority that would mean decriminalization of drugs which would greatly decrease the power and violence surrounding them. In terms of thieves, I think if people knew they had to they would quickly learn to deal with them on their own.

 

Speaking of higher authority. I've got to get back to shampooing the carpets before my wife gets home. But I'll be back on this one as soon as I can.

 

Before I keep replying to these I feel much of the main point is being overlooked. I am not trying to make some claim that authority has never done anything good. I am asking why we are so compelled to follow it when it acts against our personal natures.


I feel that idea has been all but abbandoned

 

Not uncapable, but unwilling.