Book Reading: Obedience to Authority

Chapter 1
The first chapter is merely a description of the experiment and its motivation, preparing the reader for the tough chapters ahead.

Chapter 2
Further explanation of the experiment is necessary--the coming chapters rely on a reasonably thorough understanding of the procedure. The victim looks like a very friendly fellow. I would not want to shock him.

Chapter 3
Unsurprisingly, 100% of people surveyed believed that they would break off the experiment if they were participating. I'd like to think I would, but upon further reflection, I'm not so sure (scary!). Obviously, these predictions were wrong.

Chapter 4
Also unsurprising is the effect of the proximity of the victim to the subject. Shocking what could, in theory, be a completely empty room, is far removed from perceived morality, but shoving a man's hand down onto a shock plate is far more aggressive.

Chapter 5
The descriptions of individuals and their reactions to the experiment are astonishing. The brutal man who barely acknowledged the victim and the Old Testament professor are polar opposites and show the variety of subjects involved.

Chapter 6
Changing small parameters in the experiment (for example, showing that the victim had a heart problem) yielded interesting but not always significantly different results. Women, for example, acted very similarly to men.

Chapter 7
The descriptions of some individuals in the variations of the test are not vastly different from the original descriptions, though there are some slight differences. For example, there is one holier-than-thou woman who rambles incessantly about how "good" she is.

Chapter 8
The transfer of authority had surprisingly little effect on the subjects, except when two authorities disagreed. Perhaps the most surprising result from this set of experiments is that subjects were more likely to break off the experiment if the authority told them to while the victim encouraged further shocks.

Chapter 9
Changing the group dynamics in the experiment resulted in interesting results. Subjects wanted to conform to a group's activity (thus breaking off the experiment sooner if their "peers" did), and were more likely to continue if they were further removed from the actual punishment.

Chapter 10
An analysis of societal hierarchy allows for clearer interpretation of the experiment's results. Understanding how agents (especially humans) work in a hierarchy is vital to understanding why people tended to obey authority with only some resistance.

Chapter 11
This analysis of authority and societal expectations is quite interesting. It never occurred to me that the expectation of the presence of authority is engrained in us from an early age, but it certainly has now. Additionally, I do understand that defying authority can be embarrassing, adding to the hesitance to disobey.

Chapter 12
The analysis of the effect of strain on obedience is unsurprising to me; of course, strain must outweigh the pull of authority to break off the experiment! The effects of buffers on emotional strain are well-known as well. The difficulty in breaking the experiment is understandable.

Chapter 13
Aggression seems to have little effect on obedience in this case. Very few subjects seemed to enjoy their task. (which is, quite frankly, an unpleasant thought)

Chapter 14
Milgram responds to the various criticisms of his work with eloquence and a good amount of data to back up his conclusions. He acknowledges that the comparisons of his work to the actions of Nazis is similar to likening a lawn sprinkler to a monsoon, but he defends his work appropriately nonetheless.

Chapter 15
Milgram's application of his conclusions to the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam is valuable; Nazis were not the only ones capable of destruction. The summary of obedience and its apparent dangers is effective.

Summary
This book is unsettling. I know that I am prone to following authority--I do not like breaking rules, I do not like being in trouble, and I do not like being scolded. Apparently, this is a common thing amongst humans, so I fully understand the hesitance of subjects to break off the experiment. However, I sincerely hope that I would have the fortitude to end the experiment and the suffering of another person. It makes me fear authority and question my own beliefs. I've long been a staunch believer in the good of humanity, so seeing the human willingness to merely give over to authority is disturbing.

The criticisms of this experiment (namely, the "unethical" nature of it) could be considered well-founded; however, I disagree with them. Yes, the subjects may have sustained emotional trauma, but it is vital information about themselves. As with any trauma, it can enhance your life or destroy it. Because no actual harm was inflicted upon the victim, it seems to me that most of the subjects would be able to take this information and use it at a time when it is more critical to question authority.

The results of the various versions of this experiment are fascinating yet expected. The closer the subject is to his/her victim, the more likely s/he is to break off the experiment. It is like talking behind someone's back: it's a lot easier to abuse someone when they cannot easily defend themselves. Additionally, the further removed the authority is, the more likely subjects were to end the experiment. I have observed this in various situations; I'm far more likely to pay attention to a professor if s/he is in front of me than I am to pay attention to a video I was instructed to watch.

Milgram's mention of American soldiers in Vietnam is appropriate but uncomfortable. We abhor the Nazis, yet some similar actions were carried out. I wonder who decides what sort of inhumane actions are to be carried out, and how s/he sleeps at night. It raises an interesting question: is military action honorable? My personal opinions say yes, and I firmly believe in them, but the skepticism is warranted. How can a kind person carry out violent acts under authority and still be praised? It's horrible to think that authority makes good people go bad. However, it must be that an evil person is giving evil instructions....food for thought.

Overall, Milgram's book is enlightening and thought-provoking. Without authority, society would cease to exist, yet to have some semblance of humanity, we must (at times) defy it. It is a conundrum, and we must be aware of our tendencies to blindly follow authority and develop a personal morality system.

Gang Leader for a Day

Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day was an excellent read; I enjoyed following Sudhir through his six-year study and the development of his relationships with the Robert Taylor residents and the Black Kings gang members. Through the whole book, he seems impossibly naive. How could he not understand the gravity of his actions, like when he discussed the hustlers' incomes with JT and Ms. Bailey? I understand how he got involved--it was almost chance. All he wanted to do was ask a few questions and get out, and he ended up an observer for six years because JT saw that he meant no harm.

As many people have said in class, his naivete seems ridiculous, almost comical, and I'm sure that at least part of it was exaggerated. At first, it was understandable because he had been raised in a middle-class, white neighborhood in California, and gang life in Chicago is obviously vastly different. Even after a few months, one would expect him to learn to shut up for the most part while around gang members and residents. Sure, questions need to be asked, but blabbering to and about everyone in the projects and dropping n-words in conversation is a bad choice (common sense). In all honesty, this is the aspect of the book I found most surprising.

What I did not find surprising was the structure and community involvement of the gang. It's like any enterprise, requiring leadership, organization, and scheduling; why is anyone surprised? In addition, they are the largest and most powerful group in the community, so it's no surprise the gang acts as police, government, and economy in the area. I was also expecting what Sudhir found so unfathomable: the police and ambulances don't go to the projects unless absolutely necessary. Though I have no personal experience with gangs or the projects, I would not expect EMTs to take the apparent risk of entering a gang-controlled area to help residents, especially at the apparent frequency of beat-downs. I appreciate that Sudhir's first response is to contact authorities for help, but certainly he couldn't have expected a prompt response.

The community in the projects was fascinating to me. These people exist almost entirely on their own, working together to survive, and yet, Sudhir thought that they would be very different from any other community. Yes, there are stark differences, like living conditions and enforcers, but the similarities between the community in the projects and any other community are also striking. There are greedy landlords and corrupt politicians (like Ms. Bailey), strong family values, and strong (albeit unwritten) rules of behavior. There is hardly anarchy in this society, and in some ways, it's almost better than other societies. Men still take care of their mothers and provide for their children and offer protection to the vulnerable. The powerful are well-paid because they have demonstrated skill and intelligence, just like in the "legitimate" society, and people must work their way up the ladder. The largest difference I see is reliance on the community, which is a little sad. In our society, we are generally significantly separated from others, only offering or asking for help when the situation is dire. This group, on the other hand, took care of itself.

Ethnography ideas

I've had two main ideas for my ethnography: Texas Aggie Conservatives and Cepheid Variable. After a discussion spurred by a passing comment, a Cepheid Variable member suggested studying his group; they would likely be far more willing to be observed than the Conservatives. I am unfamiliar with both groups. Cepheid Variable has a wide variety of members and could provide very interesting subjects for an ethnography. Because I am politically moderate (leaning towards slightly liberal), it would be a very different and interesting experience to observe the Texas Aggie Conservatives (people on the more extreme end of the political spectrum).

Homework 7: Nonobvious observation

Our filming adventure was, simply put, a disaster. Our plan was to bike from Rudder to the Rattlers convenience store under Sbisa, purchase something small, and bike back. We got through five out of the eight group members, then realized that only the first two had been recorded. Because of the poor feedback (and overall poor design) of the camera, we could not understand what was wrong. Was it the battery? Did the record switch break? Did the whole thing break? We aren't sure. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet all together again before Tuesday. Our experience, however, was very interesting. Our second group member explained why (s)he was wearing a camera, and the next participant encountered the angry manager of the Underground. The manager was insistent that "if we get in trouble for this, it's on you," which led us all to wonder what in the world was happening there. Sadly, this confrontation was not recorded due to the aforementioned technical issues (and we were all intrigued to see how the exchange went down).

It should be fairly simple to tell whose video is whose in most situations. Head movements and others' reactions to speaking could give us a hint; if the person is generally a smiler, people they interact with are more likely to smile (mimicry). Additionally, we can tell how talkative the person is by noticing how much the people they interact with are chatting. It is also obvious how uncomfortable other people are with the person with the camera; some did not want to be filmed and were anxious to look at or be near the user. Self-conscious people are more likely to move quickly, look down, and talk less, while more gregarious or confident people will jabber and make eye contact, almost disregarding the fact that there is a camera strapped to their head. I would expect that men are more likely to talk less, and women are more likely to explain what they are doing and why. Perhaps it's just me, but I was eager to explain that "the camera is for a class project, and I'm not crazy," while some of my group members didn't bother. Any personal appearance out of the ordinary makes me very self-conscious. (interview days and business wear make me feel conspicuous, bad hair days make me feel conspicuous, etc.)

All in all: based on head movements, facial expressions of others, and the apparent amount of talking will give us good clues for guessing which video belongs to which person.

Homework 7: The Secret Life of Pronouns

This blog may or may not have been assigned--the Google doc says no, but I figured I'd toss in my two cents about The Secret Life of Pronouns. If someone analyzed this blog post, I fear what they might discover about me. I suppose I'm tangential...

While reading the first chapter of The Secret Life of Pronouns, I find myself liking the author based entirely on how it's written. It's interesting to note that I didn't particularly like The Design of Everyday Things because I felt like the writing was dour and and grumpy. It was just a few pages in that I realized that I actually liked Pennebaker. Of course, it's possible that it will change if I read the remainder of the book, but his somewhat conversational tone and inexplicable "niceness" is something I enjoy.

At any rate, the development of LIWC is fascinating. I've always known that listening to someone speak or reading their work can tell you something about them, and that communication has a largely emotional component, but to see it analyzed and explained is exciting to the language nerd in me. (I have come to realize that I enjoy the language and artistry aspects of computer science to the mathematics, so I suppose that my interest in this work makes good sense.)

As a personal side note: as I was reading this chapter, I thought back to my own traumatic experience. Long story short: I was on  a class trip on a mountain in Estes Park, CO with several of my 8th-grade classmates and two leaders when I went into cardiac arrest several times. After a helicopter ride to Denver and surgery to receive a pacemaker/defibrillator, I was home in Dallas less than a week later. I only had one or two stints of real emotional turmoil after that, but reading this, I think I understand why--it was never only me, alone, dealing with it. I was forced to share it because it happened publicly, and so it never occurred to me that it should be a secret. I think that's why I'm not scarred as some of the people he described were.

I want to read the rest of this book. Maybe when I have some free time...

Assignment #5: Ethnographies

The first reading (a collection of writers' descriptions of ethnographies) is a nice summary of ethnographies and the importance of anthropological studies.It's hard to have an emotional or personal reaction to a few paragraphs about these authors' career choices, but they are well-written, and the page highlights the importance of ethnographies to anthropologists and sociologists (as well as others).

The Wikipedia article about ethnographies is a detailed history and explanation of ethnographic methods. Generally, holistic ethnographies are necessary; every factor in a culture is vital to its structure, including habitat and communication. Solely focusing on specific phenomena is not without merit, however, like Geertz's study of communication. His cultural "web" structure makes more sense to me than does the traditional "outline" structure because people are not merely grouped by one culture or another. Many bridge gaps between cultures.

One section of this article was of particular interest to me: the ethics section. From the beginning of the class, I've had reservations about working with a group of people that I had no intention of joining. I have felt like I might be violating their privacy and infiltrating their social structure as opposed to helping develop something useful for them. I have come to the conclusion, not only from this article but from some soul-searching as well, that I would like to avoid deception as much as possible. On the other hand, I do realize that some level of deception might be necessary to obtain natural results. "The Unobtrusive Ethnographer" appeals to me most, probably because it involves minimal interaction and explanation. (I'm a terrible liar, so trying to convince people that I fit in will be a huge obstacle in my ethnography)

Coming of Age in Samoa is one of the quintessential anthropology books. Margaret Mead wanted to know if adolecence was a universally turbulent time or if societal structures affected coming-of-age. As a result, she lived among a group of Samoans and observed young and adolescent women; she concluded that a monocultural society afforded less confusion for young people than does a multicultural society like that of the United States. The amount of candor that the Samoans apparently show toward human facts (like sex and bodily functions) shocked Western readers and incurred a great deal of criticism. Derek Freeman's quest to disprove Mead's work resulted in a number of documented interactions with her informants, who claimed that they had lied to Mead. After his work was published, many anthropologists determined that he waged a vendetta against Mead (for some reason) and that his attacks were mostly baseless and inaccurate. After reading this cursory article, I think that Mead was not duped, but I probably lack the understanding to fully make that claim.