Question

Milgram

Chapter 9: How is "conformity" similar to "obedience"? How do these two concepts differ?

Chapter 10: What is the "cybernetic viewpoint"? What is the "Agentic Shift"?

Answer 1

9.

1. Conformity” and “obedience” are two kinds of social interactions, behaviors, and influences manifest in groups.
2. Conformity is the action of following a certain group of people and adapting to their beliefs and lifestyles. Obedience is an act or behavior in response to a direct order or authority.
3. Conformity has a subtle approach but is nonetheless considered a voluntary act. Obedience requires direct authority and influence from leaders (usually adults or people with power). Pressure and influence are evident in both conformity and obedience.
4. The reasons for conformity and obedience also differ. Non-conformity usually ends with rejection, while disobedience can result in punishment or other negative consequences. In both cases, isolation can happen.
5. In conformity, it is the group that holds the power, but in obedience, power is centralized and concentrated in a leader or influential person.
6. The concept of majority and minority is also evident in both circumstances. However, it is more pronounced in conformity, where there is a clear distinction between who is accepted and who is not. In the case of obedience, an influential person can impose what constitutes the majority and minority groups.
7. A person who conforms denies the truth perceived by the five senses. There is a transformation of beliefs, attitudes, and overall personality. In obedience, on the other hand, a person does not change their own personality in the process of following rules and order similarities

Conformity, compliance, and obedience are all subject to the effects of informational social influence. Conformity is obviously based on informational social influence and studies (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1990; 2000) have further provided evidence for the normative focus theory; that the saliency of the social norm has a significant correlation to conformity. Compliance is subject to informational social influence under Cialdini’s category of social validation (as cited in Baron, Branscombe, and Byrne 2006), which draws on the subject’s desire to fit with the actions and expectations of society. Studies have also shown that the rate of obedience to destructive commands drops sharply if the participants are reminded that the weight of responsibility falls on their shoulders (Hamilton, 1978), i.e. that they are stepping outside the socially expected behaviour.

10.

clearer understanding will be found, I believe, by considering the problem from a slightly different point of view-namely, that of cybernetics. A jump from evolution to cybernetics may appear at first

arbitrary, but those abreast of current scientific . developments how that the interpretation of evolutionary

processes from a cybernetic viewpoint has been advanced quite brilliantly in recent years (Ashby, 1956;

Wiener, 1950). Cybernetics is the science of regulation or control, and the relevant question is, What changes must occur in the design of an evolving organism as it moves from a capacity for autonomous functioning to a capacity for functioning within an organization? Upon analysis certain minimum requirements necessary to this shift become apparent. While these somewhat general principles may seem far removed from the behavior of participants in the experiment, I am convinced that they are very much at the root of the behavior in question. For the main question in any scientific theory of obedience is, What changes occur when the autonomously acting individual is embedded in a social structurewhere he functions as a component of a system rather than on his own? Cybernetic theory, by providingus with a model, can alert us to the changes that logically must occur when independent entities arebrought into hierarchical functioning. Insofar as human beings participate in such systems, they must besubject to these general laws.

We begin by specifying a design for a simplified creature, or automaton. We will ask, What modificationsin its design are required if it is to move’ from self-regulation to hierarchical functioning? And we willtreat the problem not in a historical manner but purely formally.

agentic shift:

Individuals can act autonomously and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state, where they carry out orders of an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions. When a person changes from autonomous state to an agentic state, they have undergone an agentic shift.