While pondering these questions, I decided to conduct an experiment to see how many people I could convince to be against something strictly by talking with me. I decided to talk with the subjects about water, something most people in society would consider to be completely innocuous. My goal was to mount a rather serious campaign against water using water’s scientific name, di-hydrogen monoxide. This psychological experiment would demonstrate how easily people could be persuaded to take sides in an argument without knowing all of the facts. If the experiment went well, then it might be shown that such behavior can be very dangerous. It might demonstrate how people can be led into extremist groups. The larger the group, the more supporters there are for a policy, which results in more power. Results from this experiment will also show that people should know ALL of the facts before deciding which side of an argument to believe, otherwise they can be used and manipulated. The experiment that I conducted was rather simple. I questioned subjects about di-hydrogen monoxide (water). If they were already aware of the common name, they were disqualified from further questioning. Subjects that were not aware, were given one-sided facts about water, such as:
1. Di-hydrogen monoxide is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.
2. Di-hydrogen monoxide can be fatal if enough is ingested over a short period of time.
3. The school’s kitchen staff admits to the use of di-hydrogen monoxide in the preparation of the food that they serve, and on occasion di-hydrogen monoxide is used as filler in some of the food. It is also used as a cleaning agent for dishes.
4. Farmers use di-hydrogen monoxide to increase their crop yields.
5.The United States Federal Government does not regulate the use of di-hydrogen monoxide. Children can buy and use this substance legally in all fifty states.
6. Di-hydrogen monoxide can corrode many metals in a short period of time.
7. Di-hydrogen monoxide has been found in the local drinking fountains, and in the bathrooms.
After presenting this information to the subjects, they were then asked whether they believed action should be taken to ban the chemical’s use and if they were willing to join a protest. After all, an unregulated chemical this is strong enough to corrode metal and that can cause death in large enough quantities is too dangerous to use in food preparation. Next they were prompted for reactionary ideas that might extend beyond a simple protest. Their reactions were then recorded (see appendix A for data). Once the data was collected, it was sorted by placing each subject into one of four categories. Each category is explained as follows:
1. The subject knew what di-hydrogen monoxide was, and therefore, was disqualified from further analysis.
2. The subject fully accepted one-sided facts and was eager to become involved with a letter writing campaign.
3. The subject appeared reserved, but was willing to join the campaign.
4. The subject turned down action in favor of learning more information.
The results show that 54.4 percent of the subjects were willing to jump right in without even knowing that they were protesting water, a chemical required for life itself. These people did not ask further questions, nor did they question the source of data. They were quite enthusiastic about taking action. Their choice of protest included letter-writing campaigns, protest marches, posting warning flyers, and even boycotting the dining hall until the chemical was removed. Those who were hesitant to get involved tied with those who were disqualified because they knew what di-hydrogen monoxide is. Results returned 17.6 percent for both groups. This small percentage seemed unsure about the truthfulness of the facts, but decided to get involved anyway. One can only speculate about why. The subject might have felt intimidated or doubtful of their own beliefs, because so many other people were enthusiastic about joining in. Wanting to be “part of the crowd” is a natural desire of many people; after all, why would someone stand up or question so many people. Finally, only 10.2 percent of the subjects wanted to find out more information before committing to action. Speculation says that these people were either not interested in protesting, or were clever enough to want to do more research on the matter.
There is a margin of error inherent in this data; namely, the subjects who were interviewed were all from a closed population. However, the data is still significant because it suggests how some people are likely to accept an idea as fact without full understanding. The results show a large percentage of people willing to become involved in a protest based solely on information acquired from a one-person source at initial contact. The subjects were not fully aware of the fact or fiction of my statements. Although the information that I gave to all of the subjects was true, only seven people out of sixty-eight wanted more information, and wanted to suspend judgment until they had further information. Only seven people questioned my sources and how accurate my information was.
I would not consider myself to be a persuasive leader, yet more than half of the people who I talked with about the evils of di-hydrogen monoxide believed what I said without question. I persuaded people to want to ban water from use on campus. If I could incite such feelings over a completely harmless substance like water, I can imagine how easy it must be for a persuasive leader to take control of a large group to help him carry out his own wishes? A true life example can be seen in Germany prior to World War II.
Adolph Hitler was able to gain power by spinning off one-sided facts and false information in order to get the population to turn against the Jews in the 1930s. As his flawed logic spread, more and more people became antagonistic towards the Jews and joined his group. His band of followers slowly gained power through extremist actions which included starting riots, racist vandalism, imprisonments, and executions. People who accept other people's ideas without question can be dangerous. This behavior can lead to large, ignorant groups of people who are willing to perform destructive extremist action in order to further a flawed cause. What is even worse, is that once the group begins extremist actions, more people are forced into joining the group whether they want to or not, out of fear of being ostracized. Now, this paper will closely examine the very terrifying example of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, but first, a short history lesson.
Just after World War I, The Weimar government came to power in Germany. As we see, there was not an excessive amount of animosity towards the Jews before World War I. But as the Weimar government came to power, the hatred began to arise through propaganda. Raffael Scheck writes: “… Germany in my opinion was not an unusually anti-Semitic country before 1933 and even less so before 1914. Anti-Semitism intensified toward the end of the First World War and in the aftermath of defeat, particularly on the German right. The misunderstood and traumatic defeat in 1918, the economic plight of the middle class during the First World War and the hyper-inflation of 1923, and the confusion of values perceived by many Germans during the Weimar years fostered an irrational and aggressive outlook that often blamed Jews for trials and transformations of modernity such as the increasing concentration of retail industries that put small workshops and traders out of business, or the commercialization of agriculture, which was considered a "Jewish plot" to exploit the hard-working farmer. Aversion to Weimar culture, which was often associated with Jews, contributed to popular anti-Semitism...”
The more propaganda spread, the more people were willing to believe it without examining the true facts. In addition to increasing the hate towards the Jews, the Nazis also promoted their own group by declaring that anyone who was not a member was inferior. This is a very effective way to gain supporters through twisting facts. Raffael Scheck continues: “But the Nazis' anti-Semitic propaganda combined the contradictory elements in the image of the "hostile Jew" effectively. The image of the Jew as capitalist frightened farmers, workers, and small businessmen, whereas the image of the Jew as Socialist or Bolshevist frightened almost everybody. The SA's anti-Semitism, in particular, had been an economically motivated anti-Semitism along rather traditional lines (though amazingly primitive ones). But the anti-Semitism of Hitler and the SS drew from a racist world view, which was rooted in a crude pseudo-Darwinism. It put much emphasis on the survival of the fittest and argued that genetic selection should be practiced deliberately. This included the breeding of a racial "elite" and the extermination of racially "inferior" or "damaging" groups. Slavs, Gypsies, and Africans were considered racially inferior to a supposed race of German Aryans - a race that the Nazi ideologues believed to be weakened by what they called "the Jewish cancer."
This crude Darwinism also implied hatred of handicapped people, physically weak individuals, people with genetic defects, and homosexuals (who were considered genetically deficient)… SS academies, in conjunction with university professors, tried to prove that races develop physical characteristics that can be directly linked to modes of behavior. In an attempt to "purge" the German population of "unworthy" members..”
Hitler, who touted such propaganda, began to institute extremist behavior. Here is how he did it according to Raffael Scheck.
“1) Restriction and segregation: The Nazi state tried to reduce and stop Jewish immigration, limited the rights of the German Jews, and forbade them to intermarry with German non-Jews. Most specifically, this stage of policy meant to push the Jews out of Germany's economic life so they would presumably stop "ruining" farms and small businesses, prepare revolution etc. Jewish specialists (physicians and lawyers) were allowed to practice only for Jews, who were thus defined as an entirely separate group in society.
2) Expulsion/Exclusion. In this stage the regime forced the target groups out of society and out of the country. It involved harder repression, and pogroms occurred to support emigration. In Eastern Europe, where expulsion proved nearly impossible during the war, the regime resorted to ghettoization.
3) Extermination. Murder by shooting, starving, or gassing.”
(Eugenics and Racial Mass Murder, http://www.colby.edu/personal/rmscheck/GermanyE4.html,
May 2, 2000).
To review, we have a small group of people in the early 1900s that disliked the Jews. In order to gain power, they spread false ideas, one-sided facts, and propaganda in order to make enough people feel threatened that they were forced into joining the group, else they be punished. Once the Nazis were large enough to demonstrate their power, they began even more extremist behavior. In short, the anti-Semitic movement was started and propagated by people who were not fully informed of what the consequences of their actions were, as well as people who went along with the popular ideas of society without question. Some people may argue that the Holocaust may be too extreme to be used as an example. People may be willing to protest, but to join in the slaughter of millions of people is stretching the theory too far. Most people may drop out of the group when they realize an innocent is being hurt. Or would they?
There is accurate scientific data to suggest passive compliance to a person in authority. Stanley Milgram conducted studies on obedience in the late 1950’s. These studies are among the most dramatic and revealing on how far people will go to follow the orders of a person in authority. How long would a person refrain from thinking independently and begin questioning the person in authority? In Milgram’s experiment, a subject was told that they were a (`teacher’). Next, the subject was convinced that he was delivering increasingly powerful shocks to a middle-aged man (the `learner’). The learner was placed in a separate room and was explained as having a poor heart condition. At some point in the experiment, the learner began to complain of heart problems, and demanded that the shocks stop. Each time the teacher wished to stop, Milgram would insist that the experiment continue. To everyone’s surprise, over 60% of all the ‘teachers’ followed Milgram’s commands to proceed, even after the ‘learner’ completely ceased to respond.
(http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/psych1a6/1aa3/Social/lec4-1.htm , May 3, 2000 Social Psychology- Lecture 4-1)
So what can be concluded by Milgram’s experiment? It is now known that more often than not, people will continue to be involved in harmful activities that are urged by a leader, even though those people understand that their actions are causing harm to someone who may be innocent. So far we have learned that people are more likely to join a cause despite the fact that they are not fully aware of what they are joining. We have also learned that these same people are willing to perform extremist actions despite the fact that they understand such actions are harmful.
In conclusion, I believe that if a person does not agree with a policy, or would like to change society, or an aspect of society, then that person should know as much information as possible on the effects of the change and what people on the other side of the issue believe. This is the only way that they can safely come to a conclusion on their own, instead of acting as they are being told either directly or indirectly. If people do not question ideas and question other people’s opinions then they are giving up the freedom to think and act independently. They are giving their inherent power over to the masses or to a leader or leaders who might not have their best interests in mind.
This is the first page of this site