Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.

The common conclusion to this experiment is bunk
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/10/02/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments/

Never trust when science becomes dogma

It is true that perceived authority does make people push others or themselves too far, or not act even when their moral code or their emotional state tells them to act. However, this experiment doesn't prove that, because it's far too unscientific.

To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.

It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.

@ETBrooD

Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.

The point of the experiment is claimed to be the matter of simple perceived authority, not threats, not intimidation, no danger to the subject, nothing at all

No suspicion by the subject that something's off

etc. etc.

And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

The point is

The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion

It can't be replicated

It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear

It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go

And in which circumstances exactly

Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor

So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum

I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone

Some leve of coercion would be neccessary

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

Right

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.

It would also be important to have a look into the political situation locally, nationally, worldwide

Family situation

Profession of the subjects

Level of education

Indeed.

As with murderers, every case is unique

That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.

One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.

I was reading back and saw you mention that you had adopted Objectivist philosophy with your classical liberalism. It's interesting to me because that's the case with me too. I think there's a few problems with liberalism that Objectivism offers solutions to and that's why it seemed like a natural progression, at least for me.

🎊

Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.

I wouldn't say liberalism has taken a wrong turn

I believe the label has been adopted by non-liberals

Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.

Indeed.