Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Holocaust information for essay
Stanley milgram experiment analyze
Holocaust information for essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In her article "Review of Stanley Milgram's Experiments on Obedience", Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, castigates a Stanley Milgram experiment which created a scenario where a test subject was asked to "torture" a fellow test subject if they answered a question incorrectly. Baumrind believes flaws in the experiment exist. For example, she believes one complication with the experiment is the conditions leave the subject vulnerable. She adds to the argument by stating, "The subject has the right to assume that his security and self-esteem will be protected" (Baumrind 90). Overall, she believes the accused fallacies of the Milgram experiment discredit his findings as well as science of psychology (Baumgrind 94). "Obedience" …show more content…
Ian Parker states that Milgram was struggling to find a place for his findings, but they seemed to naturally be attracted to the Nazi factor (Parker 97). Many people combat finding how the Holocaust occurred, so the Milgram Experiment could be used as an answer to this lurking question. Heinrich Boere, a former Nazi soldier, would wholeheartedly agree because of his personal experiences. Boere admitted to carrying out two murders while in service in Nazi Germany, but he stated he was acting on the orders of his superiors. He also revealed he would be sent to a concentration camp if he declined the carry out the shootings ("Heinrich Boere: Reporters cleared over Nazi interview"). With this knowledge from a first-hand account, a logical judgement can be created that superior orders do in fact affect a subordinate's actions. Baumrind would argue that Nazi soldiers would not feel fear from their superior because she states, "The victims were perceived as subhuman and not worthy of consideration" (Baumrind 93). Many people cannot comprehend how a race of people can be hated to the point of extermination. David Cesarani, an English historian who specializes in Jewish history, attempts to unveil this anomaly; he explains that general distaste for the Jewish culture was worldwide; however, it was augmented in Germany because Jews were felt to be the cause behind Germany's economic and social struggles ("The Nazi Hatred of Jews"). Cesarani would agree with Baumrind on her claim that the origin of the Holocaust was the excessive prejudice. If the logic behind Baumrind's assertion is true, then the criminal proceedings concerning crimes committed by Nazi officers would all dismiss the claim of solely following
Kershaw later depicts a comment made by Hitler discussing the dire need to deport German Jews, away from the ‘Procterate,’ calling them “dangerous ‘fifth columnists’” that threatened the integrity of Germany. In 1941, Hitler discusses, more fervently his anger towards the Jews, claiming them to responsible for the deaths caused by the First World War: “this criminal race has the two million dead of the World War on its conscience…don’t anyone tell me we can’t send them into the marshes (Morast)!” (Kershaw 30). These recorded comments illustrate the deep rooted hatred and resentment Hitler held for the Jewish population that proved ultimately dangerous. Though these anti-Semitic remarks and beliefs existed among the entirety of the Nazi Political party, it didn’t become a nationwide prejudice until Hitler established such ideologies through the use of oral performance and
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In Milgram's opinion the teachers continued because they were told they were not responsible for whatever happens to the learner, he states “Experimenter: i'm responsible for anything that happens to him ( Milgram 81).” Milgram says, “Teachers were the ones inflicting pain but still did not feel responsible for their act ( Milgram 83).” Also Milgram says “ they often liked the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter (Milgram 86).” However Baumrind believes that the teachers only followed orders because they trusted to experimenter. Baumrind states, “The subject has the right to expect that the Psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively ( Baumrind 94).” When Baumrind tells the readers this she means that she thinks the teachers believe that that the experimenter would not let anything bad happen to the
Most narratives out of the Holocaust from the Nazis point of view are stories of soldiers or citizens who were forced to partake in the mass killings of the Jewish citizens. Theses people claim to have had no choice and potentially feared for their own lives if they did not follow orders. Neighbors, The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, by Jan T. Gross, shows a different account of people through their free will and motivations to kill their fellow Jewish Neighbors. Through Gross’s research, he discovers a complex account of a mass murder of roughly 1,600 Jews living in the town of Jedwabne Poland in 1941. What is captivating about this particular event was these Jews were murdered by friends, coworkers, and neighbors who lived in the same town of Jedwabne. Gross attempts to explain what motivated these neighbors to murder their fellow citizens of Jedwabne and how it was possible for them to move on with their lives like it had never happened.
In her excerpt, Baumrind discusses the potential dangers of the aftereffects on the participants of the experiment. On many occasions she suggests that these people are subjects of a cruel and unethical experiment, and suffer from harm to their self-image and emotional disruption (227). She also calls Milgram’s experiment a “game” (Baumrind 225); this illustrates her negative outtake on the experiment which is seen throughout the article. On the contrary, Parker discusses the aftereffects on Milgram himself. He expresses how the experiment, although it shows light to what extent of obedience a person may travel, ruined Milgram’s reputation. Parker also cites many notable authors and psychologists and their reactions to Milgram’s experiment. Despite their differences, Baumrind and Parker are able to find common ground on a few issues concerning the Milgr...
Goldhagen's book however, has the merit of opening up a new perspective on ways of viewing the Holocaust, and it is the first to raise crucial questions about the extent to which eliminationist anti-Semitism was present among the German population as a whole. Using extensive testimonies from the perpetrators themselves, it offers a chilling insight into the mental and cognitive structures of hundreds of Germans directly involved in the killing operations. Anti-Semitism plays a primary factor in the argument from Goldhagen, as it is within his belief that anti-Semitism "more or less governed the ideational life of civil society" in pre-Nazi Germany . Goldhagen stated that a
Murders inflicted upon the Jewish population during the Holocaust are often considered the largest mass murders of innocent people, that some have yet to accept as true. The mentality of the Jewish prisoners as well as the officers during the early 1940’s transformed from an ordinary way of thinking to an abnormal twisted headache. In the books Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi and Ordinary men by Christopher R. Browning we will examine the alterations that the Jewish prisoners as well as the police officers behaviors and qualities changed.
Milgram, Stanley. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind. From American Psychologist. Vol. 19, pp.848-852, 1964.
In the article "The Perils of Obedience" Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, recounts an experiment where he tested how people's obedience varies under extreme circumstances. He discovered having a higher authority in the room dramatically increases obedience (Milgram 88). Meanwhile, in the article "Obedience," Ian Parker, a British writer, is not as quick to jump to conclusions as Milgram. Instead, Parker cites needed information that is missing from Milgram's article. In Stanley Milgram's infamous 1963 experiment, he investigates precisely how far people will go to hurt someone, while still obeying orders from an authority figure. Although it is torture, a portion of the people continue to administer pain upon the test subjects because they are being obedient and following orders. Milgram and Parker both convey strong arguments for their respective points, despite disagreeing on several matters.
The basic experiment consisted of a teacher, a learner, and an administrator. The learner was strapped into a chair and the teacher read him/her words and the learner had to know what word to pair it with. Whenever the learner answered incorrectly, the administrator instructed the teacher to shock the learner with a volt of electricity. As the learner continued to respond inaccurately, the teacher had to execute shocks with higher and higher voltage causing greater and greater pain for the learner. About 60% of all “teachers” obeyed the entire time, giving the highest voltage and most painful shock (Milgram 80). British writer Ian Parker in “Obedience” analyzes Milgram’s life and his experiment. He questions the true purpose of the experiment and wonders if it really tested obedience and morals or situational
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Stanley Milgram, interested in how easily ordinary people’s actions could be influenced, for example, Germans in WWII, conducted an experiment measuring people’s willingness to obey an authority. Milgram set out to test the Shirer hypothesis which goes as follows: “Germans possess an elemental character flaw that explains their inclination to eradicate the Jewish populace. This flaw is the inclination to indisputably abide by authority, regardless of the malignant commands they received” (“Basis for Milgram’s Obedience Experiment”). Though praised for his research on the human cognitive, Milgram was also highly criticised. The following three ethical issues arose regarding Milgram’s experiment:
Fully describe Milgram’s classic experiment on obedience and his later findings on circumstances that encourage disobedience.