Authoritarian Sociopath

7/22/2019 Authoritarian Sociopath

1/16


2/16


3/16

1

by Davi Barker

Table of ContentsThe Problem .............................................. 2Previous Research ...................................... 2Power and Obedience ................................ 2Power and Decep on ................................. 4Power and Compassion .............................. 4Power and Hypocrisy .................................. 5

Purpose Of Further Research ...................... 7Hypotheses ................................................. 7Methods and Procedures ............................ 8Ethical Concerns ......................................... 9Weaknesses .............................................. 10Data Analysis ............................................ 10Conclusion ................................................ 11

Statement by the author:This is the dra of the design for a renegade psychological experiment on obedienceto authority, speci cally on police brutality. I presented the idea at PorcFest X and took

rst place in the Agorist Pitch contest. Now I am consul ng with numerous like-mindedexperts. If you are reading this Id appreciate your help.

I am a writer, merchant, and speaker. I am the editor of DailyAnarchist.com, theCampaign Navigator of BitcoinNotBombs.com, the proprietor of ShinyBadges.com.,but more importantly I am an advocate of peace, independence and libera on fromcorrupt authority. Unfortunately, I am not much of a scien st, psychologist or ethicist.Im publishing this rough dra because Im hoping to solicit general feedback to help meperfect the design. A er reading this, if you are interested in suppor ng this important

work, please get in contact with [email protected]

This is open source material. Feel free to copy and distribute at will.


4/16

2

The ProblemWe are living in an increasingly militarized society, and I would argue that this has aprimarily psychological cause, not merely a poli cal cause. If allowed to con nue this

could have disastrous consequences, as it has throughout history. Further, I wouldargue that this problem stems not only from the psychology of authority, but also thepsychology of obedience, speci cally the tendency not to intervene when authority iscorrupt. This sen ment was perhaps most eloquently expressed by Thomas Je erson inthis seldom quoted passage of the Declara on of Independence:

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed

to su er, while evils are su erable, than to right themselvesby abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The militariza on of society cannot be fought only with votes, or with cameras, or evenwith ri es, if the underlying impulses for compliance are not rst addressed in the mindof every subject who slavishly accepts their subjuga on. That is why the psychology of obedience is not merely a tool, it is a map of the problem itself.

Previous ResearchNo scien c research has done more to expand public understanding of the problem of obedience than the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. But ethicalconcerns raised about their results lead to changes in the APA guidelines, which havemade it almost impossible to study the psychology of obedience and authority. There area few more recent studies, which are far less drama c because of the new limita ons,but the implica ons of their results are no less startling.

Power and ObedienceA er World War II the horrifying details of the Holocaust came to light. Jews, Gypsies,Homosexuals and anyone deemed an enemy of the State were murdered by the Nazis.The robo c refrain from soldiers at the Nuremberg Trials was, I was just following

orders. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram designed an experiment tomeasure the willingness of psychologically healthy people to obey unethical orders froman authority gure, to discover how such atroci es were possible. His shocking resultswere published in his book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

In the Milgram Experiment par cipants were divided into teachers and learnersand placed in separate rooms. They could communicate, but could not see each other.

The experimenter instructed the teachers to read ques ons to the learners andif they answered incorrectly to administer an elecro-shock of ever increasing voltage.The teachers were unaware that the learners were actually confederates of theexperimenter and the electro-shocks were fake. The teachers were the actual subjects


5/16

3

of the experiment. A er a few volt increases the learner began to object, to bang onthe walls and complain about a heart condi on. A er some me the learner wouldgo silent. If the subject asked to stop the experiment for any reason they were given asuccession of verbal prods by the experimenter to con nue. Please con nue. Youmust con nue. The experiment requires that you con nue. Etc. Most con nued a erbeing told that they would be absolved of responsibility.

Milgrams contemporaries predicted only 1% of subjects would administer a lethalshock, but were u erly shocked when 65% administered the experiments maximummassive 450-volt shock even though every subject expressed some level of objec on

in doing so. Some began to laugh nervously. Others o ered to refund the money theywere paid for par cipa ng in the experiment. Some exhibited signs of extreme stressonce they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner. But the vast majoritywere willing to administer a lethal jolt of electricity to a complete stranger based uponnothing but the verbal prodding of a scien st in a lab coat. None of those who refused toadminister the deadly shock insisted that the experiment itself be terminated.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to studythe prison environment. Par cipants were screened to be psychologically healthy andrandomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard to live in a two week long prisonsimula on. Guards were given uniforms, mirrored glasses, and wooden batons meantonly to establish status. Prisoners were dressed in smocks and addressed only by thenumbers they were issued. Guards were instructed only to keep a xed schedule, and toa empt to make the prisoners feel powerless, but they could not physically harm them.

The experiment was halted a er only six days a er guards began to display cruel,even sadis c behavior including spraying disobedient prisoners with re ex nguishers,depriving them of bedding or restroom privileges, forcing them to go nude and lockingthem in solitary con nement in a dark closet. A er an ini al revolt, and a brief hungerstrike, prisoners developed submissive a tudes, accep ng physical abuse, and readilyfollowing orders from the guards to in ict punishments on each other. They evenengaged in horizontal discipline to keep each other in line. One prisoner began showingsigns of mental breakdown a er only 36 hours, yet they stayed even though they wereall made aware that they could stop the experiment at any me. As Zimbardo explained,both prisoners and guards had fully internalized their new iden es.

Zimbardo ul mately halted the experiment when he realized that his judgment had

been compromised by being sucked into his role as Prison Superintendent and hedallowed abuse to con nue that could be considered torture. In his book, The Lucifer E ect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil , he details his ndings and how theyrelate to the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.


6/16

4

Power and Decep onColumbia University professor Dana Carney conducted an experiment to discover if leaders and subordinates experience the same physiological stress while lying. Shefound that power not only made lying easier, but pleasurable.

Par cipants took personality tests iden fying them as leaders or subordinates. Inreality the selec on was random, but the fake test created a sense of legi macy totheir assignment. Leaders were given an hour of busy work a large execu ve o ce.Subordinates were given an hour of busy work in small windowless cubicals. Then they

engaged in a 10 minute mock nego a on over pay. A erwards half the par cipants weregiven an opportunity to steal $100 if they lied and convinced the lead experimenter thatthey didnt have it. The experimenter did not know who had the money.

For most people lying elicits nega ve emo ons, cogni ve impairment, physiologicalstress, and nonverbal behavioral cues, which can all be measured. Video of theinterviews was reviewed to iden fy behavioral cues. Saliva samples were tested for

increases in the stress hormone cor sol. Tests of reac on me were conducted onthe computer to demonstrate cogni ve impairment. And a mood survey assessedpar cipants emo onal states during the experiment.

By every measure subordinates exhibited all the indicators of decep on, but liars inthe leader class exhibited the exact opposite. By every measure leaders who liedwere indis nguishable from truth-tellers. In fact, they enjoyed reduced stress levels,increased cogni ve func on and reported posi ve emo ons. Only subordinatesreported feeling bad about lying. Professor Carney concluded, Power will lead toincreases in intensity and frequency of lying.

Lying comes easier, and is inherently more pleasurable, to those in authority, even fakeauthority. In other words, power rewards dishonesty with pleasure.

Power and CompassionUniversity of Amsterdam psychologist Gerben A. Van Kleef conducted an experimentto iden fy how power in uences emo onal reac ons to the su ering of others.Par cipants lled out a ques onnaire about their own sense of power in their actuallives and were iden ed as high-power and lower-power individuals. Then theywere randomly paired o to take turns sharing personal stories of great pain, oremo onal su ering.

During the exchange the stress levels of both par cipants was measured byelectrocardiogram (ECG) machines, and a erward they lled out a second ques onnaire


7/16

5

describing their own emo onal experience, and what they perceived of their partnersemo onal experienced.

You guessed it. Increased stress in the story teller correlated with increased stress inlistener for low-power subjects, but not for high-power subjects. In other words, low-power individuals experienced the su ering of others, but high-power individualsexperienced greater detachment. A er the experiment high-power listeners correctlyiden ed the emo ons of their partners, but self-reported being unmo vated toempathize with their partner. In other words, they saw the emo ons of others, but they just didnt care. A er the experiment, researchers inquired about whether par cipantswould like to stay in touch with their partners. As you might expect, the low-powersubjects liked the idea, but the high-power subjects didnt.

Power and HypocrisyIt has become a cliche that the most outspoken an -gay poli cians are in fact closethomosexuals themselves, and the champions of tradi onal family values are engagedin extramarital a airs. Nothing is more common than the scal conserva ve who

demands ridiculous luxuries at the taxpayers expense, or the an -war progressive whotakes campaign dona ons from the military industrial complex. Well, now it seemstheres some science behind the hypocrisy of those in power.

Joris Lammers, from Tilburg University, and Adam Galinsky of Kellogg School of Management conducted a ba ery of ve experiments to test how power in uencesa persons moral standards, speci cally whether they were likely to behave immorally

while espousing intolerance for the behavior of others. In each of ve experimentsthe results were about what youd expect. Powerful people judge others more harshlybut cheat more themselves. But in the last experiment they dis nguished betweenlegi mate power and illegi mate power and got the opposite results.

In the rst experiment subjects were randomly assigned to as high-power or low-power. To induce these feelings high-power subjects were asked to recall anexperience where they felt powerful, and low-power subjects were asked to recallan experience where they felt powerless. They were asked to rate how immoral theyconsidered chea ng, and then they were given an opportunity to cheat at dice. Thehigh-power subjects considered chea ng a higher moral infrac on than low-powersubjects, but were also more likely to cheat themselves.

In the second experiment par cipants conducted a mock-government. Half wererandomly assigned as high-power roles which gave orders to the half randomly givenlow-power roles. Then each group was asked about minor tra c viola ons, such asspeeding, or rolling through stop signs. As expected, high-power subjects were more


8/16

6

likely to bend the rules themselves, but less likely to a ord others the same leniency.

In the third experiment par cipants were divided by recalling a personal experience, likein the rst. Each group was asked about their feelings about common tax evasions, suchas not declaring freelance income. As expected, high-power subjects were more willingto bend the rules themselves, but less likely to a ord others the same leniency.

In the fourth experiment par cipants were asked to complete a series of word puzzles.Half the par cipants were randomly given puzzles containing high-power words, and theother half were given puzzles containing low power words. Then all par cipants wereasked what theyd do if they found an abandoned bike on the side of the road. As in allexperiments, even with such an insigni cant power disparity, those in the high-powergroup were more likely to say they would keep the bike, but also that others had anobliga on to seek out the righ ul owner, or turn the bike over to the police.

The h and nal experiment yielded, by far, the most interes ng results. The feelingof power was induced the same as the rst and third experiment, where par cipants

describe their own experience of power in their life, with one important dis nc on. Thisme the high-power class was divided in two. One group was asked to describe anexperience of legi mate power, and the other was asked to describe an experience of illegi mate power.

The legi mate high-power group showed the same hypocrisy as in the previous fourexperiments. But those who viewed their power as illegi mate actually gave the

opposite results. Researchers dubbed it hypercrisy. They were harsher about their owntransgressions, and more lenient toward others. This discovery could be a silver bulletagainst corrupt authority. The researchers speculated that the vicious cycle of power andhypocrisy could be broken by a acking the legi macy of power, rather than the poweritself. As they write in their conclusion:

A ques on that lies at the heart of the social sciences is how this status-quo(power inequality) is defended and how the powerless come to accept their disadvantaged posi on. The typical answer is that the state and its rules,regula ons, and monopoly on violence coerce the powerless to do so. But thiscannot be the whole answer Our last experiment found that the spiral of inequality can be broken, if the illegi macy of the power-distribu on is revealed.One way to undermine the legi macy of authority is open revolt, but a moresubtle way in which the powerless might curb self enrichment by the powerful is by tain ng their reputa on, for example by gossiping. If the powerful sensethat their unrestrained self enrichment leads to gossiping, derision, and theundermining of their reputa on as conscien ous leaders.


9/16

7

This nal experiment o ers some hope that corrupt authority can not only be stopped,but driven into reverse, not by violence or revolu on, but by undermining its legi macy.

Purpose Of Further ResearchPrevious experiments have shown that those in authority are more likely to lie, cheatand steal while also being harsher in their judgments of others for doing these things.They feel less compassion for the su ering of others, and are even capable of the tortureand murder of innocent people. Whats perhaps most disturbing is that it shows thatthe problem is not that corrupt people are drawn to posi ons of authority, but thatposi ons of power breed corrup on in people. Human nature is essen ally adap ve. If you take an otherwise good person and put them in a role that incen vizes evil they willadapt to the new role. And if you deeply internalize obedience to authority as a corepersonality trait you will become capable of the worst forms of murder, and tolerant of the worst forms of abuse.

All of these experiments have been studies of what people are willing to do, or willing

to endure. What hasnt been studied is what people are willing to passively witness, andwhen people are willing to intervene. This is poten ally more important data, becausewhen atroci es are commi ed by militarized socie es the perpetrators are usually aminority of the popula on, and the vic ms are usually a minority of the popula on, butthe passive witnesses are the majority, and thereby the most capable of meaningfulinterven on. Our purpose will be to hopefully create a psychological pro le of thosewilling to intervene against corrupt authority.

Hypotheses1) Given the opportunity, a signi cant por on of the general popula on will notintervene in a clear incident unprovoked police brutality.2) There will be a sta s cally signi cant di erence between the percentage of peoplewho will intervene in an incident of police brutality, and people who will intervene in aniden cal incident of brutality by someone in civilian clothes.3) Demographic informa on can be discovered which correlates with higher rates of interven on in an incident of police brutality.


10/16

8

Methods and ProceduresWe will use a convenience sample of the general popula on by ren ng a mee ng room

in a shopping mall commonly used for consumer surveys. Volunteers will o er shopperssome small reward if they agree to watch a new movie trailer.

Par cipants will be lead down a hall with a visible camera to a wai ng area. Volunteersshould gesture to the camera to bring a en on to it. In the wai ng area there will be acouch, a door back to the hallway, and a door to a back room, both labeled exit. Therewill also be a surveillance screen displaying footage of the hall, but no sound.

The surveyor will emerge from the back room, at which point the volunteer will exitback into the hall, and be visible on the surveillance screen. The surveyor will ask thepar cipant to ll out a short ques onnaire while they set up the trailer. The surveyor willreturn to the back room while the par cipant lls out the clip board.

The ques onnaire will ask relevant demographic data: age, sex, ethnicity, income,educa on, poli cal a lia on, etc. It will also contain ques ons about movies. How o enthey go? What genres they enjoy? What movies have they seen recently? etc. Embeddedin that list must be the ques on, Are you comfortable watching violent footage?

When the surveyor returns he will also thank what appears to be a previous par cipant,but is actually a confederate of the experiment. The surveyor asks the par cipant towait just a few more minutes as he sets up the video and returns to the back room. Theconfederate exits through the hallway, leaving the par cipant alone in the wai ng area.

When the confederate exits the room the surveillance screen begins playing a recorded

Camera

Television

Couch

E X I T

E X I T

HallWaitng Area

Back

Room

Plant


11/16

9

incident of unprovoked assault. The sound of the incident will be played in the hall, tocreate the illusion that the confederate is being a acked right outside. The brutality willbegin with shou ng, escalate to shoving, then a bea ng which could reasonably result inserious injury, un l nally the assailant drags the confederate o camera.

Half of the par cipants will see a video of an assailant in a police uniform. The otherhalf will see the same scene with except the assailant is in civilian clothes. The clothingshould be changed digitally so there is no disparity in the performance of each scene.

If the par cipant opens the door to the hallway that will be counted as an interven on.If the par cipant either takes the exit toward the back room, or stays in the wai ng areaun l the end of the footage that will be counted as not intervening. Regardless of theoutcome, once the par cipant has made their choice the illusion will be revealed andthe en re scope and purpose of the experiment will be explained.

The surveyor will conduct an exit interview. All par cipants will be asked to completean emo onal survey describing how they felt and what they were thinking during the

experience. They will be asked what mo vated them to make the choice they did.Par cipants who intervened will be asked what they intended to do once they enteredthe scene. Were they going to yell at the assailant? Would they physically intervene? Orrecord the incident? Par cipants who took the other exit will be asked where they weregoing. Were they searching for an exit, or seeking help from the surveyor?

Ethical ConcernsPreven ng physical harm: There was concern that involving subjects in staged violencecould put the confederates at risk of injury if the subject decided to intervene physically.The illusion created by the prerecorded footage, and the use of the door as a measure of interven on was devised as a way to protect everyone from physical harm.

Preven ng forced witness: There was concern that forcing someone into a situa onwhere their only op ons were to witness, or to intervene could be unethical. To mi gatethis risk the level of brutality in the footage should not exceed what may reasonably beseen in mainstream news, and the wai ng area should have a second exit sign above theback door to create a third op on of leaving.

Preven ng trauma: There was concern that in spite of the violent footage waiver inthe ques onnaire and the other precau ons a subject may s ll nd the experiencetrauma c, or emo onally distressing, especially if they have a personal history of brutality. To remedy this unfortunate result,, if it occurs, someone will be on hand too er private exit counseling a er comple on of the experiment. If subjects take thiso er, these sessions are not considered part of the exit interview, and will not be part


12/16

10

of any analysis. In addi on, every subject will be given the contact informa on of localcounseling services, in case they experience distress a er leaving, or even days later.

Decep on: There was concern that it may be unethical to deceive subjects, both byo ering to show them a non existent movie trailer, and by crea ng the illusion of theassault. Subjects will be fully informed of the scope and purpose of the experimenta erward, however there is no way to avoid deceiving the par cipants without biasingthe results. We regard this as an acceptable risk given the poten al value of the study.

WeaknessesSample Quality: A convenience sample from a shopping mall is not a perfect randomsample of the general popula on. It will be weighted by socioeconomic status, age, andlifestyle factors that make one likely to shop in a mall.

Vic m associa on: Any apparent demographic or lifestyle informa on that can begleaned from the appearance of the vic m could impact the decision to intervene.Future studies should include varia ons where the vic m and assailant are of variable

race, gender, creed, sexual orienta on, age etc.Risk assessment: A police uniform does not only indicate authority, is also indicatesweaponry. The civilian assailant should be similarly armed, but it may not be as obvious.Disparity in rates of interven on may be in uenced by disparity in perceived risk. Theexit interview should be cra ed to account for this.

Subject Isola on: Subjects may be reluctant to intervene if they are alone, which doesnot re ect the real world incidents of police brutality. This may bias the data toward noninterven on. Future studies should include varia ons accoun ng for group dynamics.

Contrived Scenario: Knowledge that this is a contrived scenario, and that they may bebeing observed, even believing it to be a consumer survey, may bias the data towardinterven on. Further, if the performances of the actors, or the oddi es of layout causethem to suspect a set up, they may doubt the reality of the footage.

Data AnalysisThe relevant sta s cal data will be the rate of interven on in the group which sawa police assailant, the disparity with the rate of interven on in the group which sawa civilian assailant, and any demographic informa on which shows a sta s callysigni cant di erence within each group. Data on emo on and mo va on gleaned fromthe exit survey will be used to iden fy poten al mo ves, avenues for future research,and general discussion of the issue, but is not directly relevant to the hypotheses.


13/16

11

If the rate of interven on in an incident of unprovoked police brutality is signi cantlylow that will give us some indica on of the severity of the problem of obedience insociety, and lend weight to the argument that police militariza on is made possible inpart by the complacency of civilians. If the rate is surprisingly high it will invalidate thishypothesis and indicate that other causes of militariza on should be explored.

If the rate of interven on in police brutality is signi cantly lower than the rate in civilianbrutality that will con rm that aggression from authority gures is more tolerated thanaggression in general, indica ng that authority itself may increase or even incen viseaggression. If no signi cant disparity between the rates is discovered that will invalidatethis hypothesis and also indicate that other causes of militariza on should be explored.

If speci c demographic informa on is found to be correlated strongly with interven onthat will indicate that obedience to authority is learned behavior, and not innate. Thatshould guide avenues for future research aimed at discovering the root of the learnedbehavior, and how to teach the opposite behavior. If no correla on is discovered thatwill invalidate this hypothesis and indicate either that obedience to authority is innate,

or that weaknesses in the experimental design failed to screen for the causal factors.The raw data will be made public online, and the video of subjects who allow us topublish their image will be made into a documentary which will be available online. Wewill also solicit interviews with experts in the eld to provide commentary and analysis.

ConclusionEven those deeply familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment and the MilgramExperiment have usually never heard of the less drama c studies. Devoid of shockvalue this research doesnt impact the culture, and so it fails to safeguard society fromthe dangers of obedience. Changes to the ethical guidelines have essen ally neuteredresearch on authority and obedience. It has been relegated to water cooler banteramong academics. If discovering the psychological cause of obedience to authority isthe key to preven ng the militariza on of society, than research such as this is the keyto avoiding the disastrous consequences of militariza on.

APA ethical guidelines are not law. They are essen ally a criterion for public funding. So,if these ethical guidelines hamstring meaningful research on obedience to authority, forthe sake of safeguarding against the disastrous consequences of militarizing society, itis me for us to cast o these restric ons, and devise new ethical guidelines. Further,we must be willing to fund research such as this privately, and to trumpet the resultspublicly so as to in uence the culture directly. It is me to conduct our own renegadepsychological experiments, to show the world beyond doubt that power corruptsabsolutely, and corrupt power deserves no obedience.


14/16


15/16


16/16

Documents

Authoritarian Sociopath