Four experiments apply to the coronahoax
All substantive arguments against the current corona measures and their consequences have meanwhile been chewed out indefinitely. The result is meager; We are in yet another 'intelligent' lockdown where the sole ruler is micro-managing down to the detail level which retail trade may or may not be open based on the most idiotic arguments. And that while shops should not even be counted as public places, according to a ruling of the preliminary relief judge in 2014. Not that the regime cares about that, of course. Because, as we know, a dictatorial regime is above law and law, as has been sufficiently proven in recent months. Moreover, the regime conjures up the new threat like a rabbit out of the hat; the mutated virus.
In terms of substantive arguments against the hoax, the dissenting parties have been well thought out and the message is more than propagated sufficiently. Those who did not believe in the hoax anyway were strengthened in their opinion.
But people who are less strong in their shoes, more gullible and more naive, are more difficult to convince. The true followers of the corona doctrine are averse to any information that could affect their faith and are fanatically in the ranks anyway.
In short, the continuous brainwashing and indoctrination from the regime, fully supported by the MSM, has paid off; the masses uncritically follow the regime. And that while anyone can add those two plus two can understand why it all makes no sense. But yes, "True stupidity is an incurable disease," said writer, journalist and historian Otto von Leixner. Whose deed.
The psychology behind the coronahoax
The question is what psychological background does this docility have? How it is enforced? What are the Effects? Why is it that such a large part of the population uncritically tolerates the most idiotic measures, allows their private lives to be dictated, their businesses destroyed without, excusez le mot, breaking out.
In a series of articles, four psycho-social experiments provide a possible explanation for this phenomenon of slavish obedience. Mind you, statements make that you may understand what is happening. That is not the same as approving.
The Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, The Wave and the Stockholm syndrome are discussed.
The Milgram Experiment
Stanley Milgram was a professor at Yale University in the USA in the XNUMXs. He led a team that investigated the extent to which subjects are inclined to obey people with authority. That authority can be the traditional legitimate authority; a police officer, mayor, minister. But a supervisor, director, coach, trainer, researcher or doctor can also play this role.
Milgram was looking for people to participate in the experiment under the cover of a memory study. Its purpose was supposedly to test the effect of punishment on learning ability. There was financial compensation for those who took part in the experiment.
In the memory experiment, questions were asked by the subject to another participant. In reality, it was an actor who was in cahoots with the scientists. But of course the test subject, the questioner, does not know. He thinks that the actor, like him, participates in the memory study and the effect of punishment on memory.
The experiment started with a draw that was also a rigged card; the subject asks the questions and the actor has to answer them. The memory study consisted of learning word pairs; dog-cat, boulder-chimney, tree-ankle, etc., etc .. The subject mentioned one of the words and the other, the actor, had to choose the appropriate word from four possibilities. When he was wrong, the subject had to punish him, an electric shock. Every mistake resulted in a more severe electric shock.
Of course there were no shocks in real life. Every response from the interviewee was recorded on tape. For example, every new test subject got exactly the same reactions with every shock he gave. At 135 volts, the actor also started banging on the partition wall between the rooms, giving supposedly painful reactions and increasingly worse screams; in reality the recording. When the voltage was cranked up to 300 volts, the actor pounded on the partition, complained about his heart, and stopped responding to follow-up questions. But the experiment went on to deadly 450 volt shocks anyway.
Crucially, the subject could stop at any time. At that moment the investigator stepped into his role of authority figure and politely but urgently urged the subject to proceed. He used four standardized responses: "Go on, hear it," "The experiment requires you to continue," "It is essential that you continue," "You have no choice; you must continue '.
When the subject was concerned about the other's health, the researcher said that the electroshock was painful but did not cause any harm. Even after the actor stopped responding after the 300 volt shocks and the subject wanted to stop, he was warned to continue: "The student may not like it but you should keep going until he has learned all the word pairs."
The experiment ended when the scientist had used his four standard responses and the candidate nevertheless indicated that he wanted to stop. Otherwise, it went on until the worst shock was delivered.
Results and conclusions of the Milgram experiment
The researchers had expected that only a few subjects, sadists, would sustain up to 450 volt shocks. However, 65% of the participants continued up to 450 volts. That is deadly. Some wanted to drop out at 135 volts, but the assurance that the subject would not be harmed and they were not responsible for it convinced many and went on to the end. Even when they felt uncomfortable about it.
Milgram's conclusion was that the vast majority of people (65%) do not feel responsible for their actions when carried out on behalf of an authority. He showed that the vast majority of mankind is capable of atrocities when authority is justified in the eyes of the subject. Even if that goes against the norm and value system of the test subject.
Hannah Arent, a German-American philosopher of Jewish descent who fled the Nazis wrote a book about the lawsuit against Eichmann. He was tried in Jerusalem for the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. The title was A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). She argues that those involved may not have malicious intentions but that critical thinking is absent or deliberately disabled in uncritically following orders from above.
Economist Robert Shiller also contributed to the explanation of Milgram's results. He argued that people are taught that when experts say something, it probably is. Even if that doesn't seem to correspond to what people see happening around them.
Half, three quarters of a century later…. The Game of Death
The world has changed after WWII, the Nuremberg Trials, Milgram's experiments. Technology took giant steps, living standards increased, especially in the West and also in many Asian countries, more and better education that is accessible to everyone, information is literally available for the taking.
The question is whether this also affects the ethical values and norms of the world citizen.
A French team of researchers asked this question and repeated the Milgram experiment. They added one extra element; television.
In essence, the experiment was set up the same as Milgram's. However, it took the form of a television quiz that people could sign up for. 80 candidates were selected from thirteen thousand applications. After explanation by the fake producer of the show, all candidates agreed to administer the electric shocks surveyed and signed a contract to do so. Here, too, the draw was cheated. The interviewee was always a hired actor, just like Milgram.
80 candidates were tested in ten days. All with an audience and an actor whose reactions, as with Milgram, were all pre-programmed. A well-known presenter acted as the authority for the questioning candidates. She too has, as with Milgram, four standard responses when candidates are in doubt. The severity of each electroshock to be administered and the effect of this could be read on the panel. Again, every candidate could stop whenever they wanted.
The team did not expect so many to obey. After ten days of experimentation, they had to face the truth. A whopping 81% of the candidates went through to the bitter end; delivering a lethal 460 volt electric shock. At Milgram this was 62%.
A TV channel can thus undisturbed sentence a person to death under the guise of entertainment with the consent of the public. Eight out of ten people obey. The question was, of course, "Why?" The answer is obedience. The documentary goes deep into this. And also how television, the main stream media for many, has acquired the role of authority figure. An authority figure whose values and norms you must obey and follow. The documentary highlights how the interrogators try to cheat, try to condone their actions, explain away, ignore them. The moment candidates want to stop, they get the prospect of the positive end result: 'The interviewee will soon be grateful to you'. When that doesn't help either, the public gets involved to pressure the candidate to keep going. Only nine candidates quit very prematurely because it is against their values to obey and carry out inhumane orders. Seven stop in the final stage.
None of it is particularly uplifting. But well, so educational. For those who want to see this chilling one and a half hour documentary: Youtube - search term 'Milgram experiment - Jeu de la mort (NL subtitles)'. I'm just warning you; this is not casual entertainment.
The current situation confirms the results of the Milgram experiment
- In the setup of the French team, 81% of the participants acted like torturers. The vast majority followed the instructions, even if they were against the values and norms that people were taught from home; you do not harm your fellow man. Some had doubts but went ahead anyway. However, a large number never doubted. Just like now, 80% follow the orders of the regime and meet the most insane demands. A good part of that in full conviction. But with or without a doubt, Befehl ist Befehl behavior ultimately has the same result. One does harm to another, inflicts suffering or injury.
- In the experiment, the participants had the option to stop at any time. There were no sanctions or other negative consequences for them. But the current regime punishes arbitrarily and disproportionately anyone caught or committed violations. And when the regime does not punish, the masses punish the dissenting; social exclusion. That makes harboring a dissenting opinion dangerous because man is a social being. Besides, there is no escape from this madness. It is literally everywhere. In the experiment, the pressure was exerted directly by the TV, as it were. But the average person watches one and a half times as much TV in their entire life as they work. The way in which TV and other MSM keep out and discourage other opinions is called the spiral of silence. The premise is that people react irrationally: 'Did you see those scary images? So what the government says is correct. ' That message is endlessly repeated in all keys. The people are being brainwashed. The message of the media is accepted as The Public Opinion. But Churchill hit the nail on the head: "There is no public opinion, only published opinion." Either way, they conform. If not, social exclusion will follow. The influence of television is enormous and is in no way controlled or restricted.
- On the TV set, the interrogators were on their own. No support from anyone. Negotiation was impossible. Normally (!) Everyone can seek support from the network of family, relatives, neighbors, colleagues, friends, other companies in the industry, one can negotiate. But there is little or no support for dissenters. The majority slavishly follow doctrine. Moreover, protesting against a totalitarian regime proves pointless and negotiating impossible.
I estimate that 80% of the people slavishly follow the most insane corona measures imposed on them by the regime. A regime that is fully supported by the MSM. In fact, it is held in the saddle by the MSM. 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst', is not there. Everyone knows the negative consequences for others, companies, the elderly in nursing homes and weaker groups in our 'society. And in spite of this, the popular congregation remains slavishly in step. While making a moral choice is possible for everyone, the vast majority ignore their internal moral code of right and wrong and fall into slavish obedience; Befehl is Befehl.
The Milgram experiment provides insight into how that works. But that doesn't make the behavior of the majority any less morally reprehensible.
I wish you a Christmas of reflection.
And wisdom for the future.
More from Karel Nuks:
Six panels: Our failing democracy