Hi folks,
An issue much in the public eye at the moment is 'free will' and the concept that it can theoretically be subverted by various means of 'mind control' or social pressure.

There are three well-known examples of so-called 'free will' studies; that theoretically study assess our tendencies to obey authority figures and/or social rules:

The first is Milgram's famous experiment in which volunteers believed they were giving electric shocks to a 'victim' at the behest of a man in a white coat (in reality both victim and experimenter were actors).

The second is the real social phenomenon of individuals getting murdered or raped while onlookers do absolutely nothing.

The third is the study of so-called 'brainwashing' techniques whereby soldiers captured by the enemy publicly renounce their patriotism and slag off their place of origin, supporting the beliefs of their captors.

The ordinary interpretation is that we obey authority and social rules because we unconsciously know they are necessary, and are driven naturally to abandon our free will and blindly obey. But could it be that in drawing this conclusion researchers are missing the possibility that people are unconsciously a lot more intelligent than they are given credit for?

I suggest some alternative interpretations of the facts:

When you were a kid, did you ever encounter a grown up who slapped you when you didn't appear to be paying attention or refused to do a task?

What was going through your mind at the time? I'll tell you what was going through mine: “Oh shit -this person is a loony. If I don't appear to comply they are likely to harm me, possibly badly. So let's look like we are doing what they want and then get out of here as fast as possible.”

Now apply this to the aforementioned experiments. If someone is getting beaten up or raped, do I fail to intervene because of 'group psychology', social embarrassment, or because I don't see why I should risk my own life for a stranger by attacking a loony?

If I obeyed an experimenter who was directing me to harm someone, I would be thinking, “This person is a loony. I'll do what they say and get out of here as fast as possible, remembering never to volunteer for research again; otherwise they may harm me as well as that other poor bugger.”

This is a survival tactic; it is a sane response to an insane context or insane circumstances in the interests of self-preservation, and I call it “Loony Alert”.

It would be a difficult thing for most people to admit to, because it implies that we ultimately act out of enlightened self-interest and most folks believe this is the equivalent of 'selfishness' and lack of altruism, although in actual fact its common sense. Not to mention that the people who are asking you about your response are probably those you have already decided are the loonies, and you don't want to tell them the truth for obvious aforementioned reasons of self-preservation.

A further possible interpretation is also missed. There are some people (and I suspect not a minority) who will basically do anything for financial reward. Obviously they would look like real assholes if they admitted to this, so they claim to have been 'brainwashed' into doing unpleasant things to others, pocket the cash and maintain their social respectability by blaming the experimenter.

I am not claiming that 'brainwashing' or 'mind control' is not possible or that it never happens, btw. I am asking for more open consideration of all experimental data that could have more than one interpretation, and in psychology this is more often the case than in many other fields because people are able to lie, most especially to keep themselves from harm. “No officer, I do not take drugs, and even if I did I would not be so stupid as to try to bring them through international airports.”

People lie; sometimes even to themselves, especially in embarrassing or socially relevant contexts. This fact is ignored way too much in psychology research and renders a lot of both qualitative and quantitative data completely pointless.

Milgram asked, “Why did so many Nazi soldiers obey orders to do horrible things to people?”

He concludes that we can be brainwashed into blindly obeying authority and supporting ideas they would have previously found abhorrent.

I conclude that many possibly did it because they didn't want their own and their families' heads ripped off and shat in. Far from being far fetched, this seems to me like one of the most obvious conclusions. Likewise, if captive soldiers or hostages really are brainwashed into supporting fascist regimes, how come the effect magically wears off as soon as they escape and get home? Is it so inconceivable that they are really thinking, “These people are loonies...” and responding accordingly? It's a tactic that at least leaves one alive to fight another day.

Many researchers too readily jump to one single conclusion about a set of experimental results without considering any other possibilities, and this is bad research. Data is useless if our interpretation of it is limited by personal belief or if we expect to find one solution only to every puzzle. We should start by looking at ALL possible interpretations and designing further experiments to see which interpretation is most supported by all the facts. We also need to bear in mind that different people make exactly the same response for completely different reasons, and that as humans we are all quite capable of bullshitting in order to get out of danger.

The most recent experiment of this kind shows people in public places giving up their seats to a stranger who asks for it. The experimenter's conclusion is that we are programmed to obey social rules and not 'make a scene', but again put yourself in that position and consider what you would be thinking if someone just came up and asked for your seat. For me there are two immediate possibilities: (a) this person asking for my seat needs it because of some unseen medical condition they are too embarrassed to explain out loud, or (b) this person is a loony, and if I don't give up my seat they may pull a knife or something mental. Neither has anything to do with social rules; (a) comes from consideration and empathy due to my personal experience of suffering back pain but not wanting anyone to know, and (b) is once again sensible self-preservation. Better safe than sorry. 'Tis a far far better thing to lose one's seat than to risk losing one's life, and if someone is already behaving weirdly, you never know.

Statistics about how many people will or will not do a thing tell us absolutely nothing about why, and we should remain much more open-minded about drawing conclusions. In fact, 'reasons' for human behaviors may turn out to be as multiple as 'causes' of human disease.

For example, is death from TB caused by poor housing, poor nutrition, poor immune response, high cortisol levels, high pollution environments, lack of treatment, or exposure to the TB bacterium? -The answer is YES.

So, view the facts, view the data, but draw you own conclusions about what the information could mean and try to consider all possibilities you can think of, including multiple types of different responses and collective factors.
AR