Psychology studies on obedience and empathy cited without actionable leads

experiments were related in one way or another to Hannah Arendt’s thoughts about Adolf Eichmann and the fact that good people are capable of horrific things: the banality of evil. Hiding behind every average Joe is a person equipped with an engine of malice. Banality is the veil of evil. Thus, the American psychologist Stanley Milgram showed that normal people were capable of shocking innocent others when an authority figure told them to do so; of course, there were no shocks, but the subjects believed they were real. Similarly, the American psychologists Solomon Asch and Philip Zimbardo showed that normal people followed group attitudes and instructions, bleating like mindless sheep, no reflection, no critical thinking, no concern about the consequences of their actions. In Zimbardo’s study — the famous Stanford prison experiments — run of the mill undergraduates playing the role of prison guards turned into little dictators, mentally and physically abusing their run of the mill undergraduates playing the role of prisoners. Together, these studies seemed to support a blank slate view of the mind, a tablet waiting for inscription by the local culture, with no constraints on the written matter. A closer look at many of these studies reveals far more variation in how individuals responded, suggesting that differences in their genetic make-up and personal experience either facilitated their willingness to follow authority and ideology or prevented it. Many subjects in both the Milgram and Zimbardo studies refused to follow the orders or rules of the game. Those who refused tended to identify more with the victim and less with the authority figure or ideology. This suggests important differences in the capacity to experience empathy and compassion for another. Studies by the cognitive neuroscientist Esse Viding show that by the pre-school years, some children have a diminished capacity for empathy, expressing a deeply callous and unemotional character. These children exhibit severe conduct problems, especially violence. These children lack remorse and an awareness of others’ distress. They are cold, heartless kids. If they have a twin, they are more likely to share this callous-unemotional personality than two unrelated children, revealing the trademark of a powerful genetic engine. More boys than girls fall on the high end of this callous-unemotional scale — where high translates to colder and more callous. Those who score highest on the scale engage in more direct physical bullying than those who score lower. High scorers lack the skills to modulate their behavior following direct or anticipated punishment. These individuals also show reduced activity in the amygdala, a part of the brain that is critically involved in regulating emotion, especially the assignment of a positive or negative value on our actions and experiences. These individual differences persist into adulthood. These are the kind of individual differences that can explain why some followed Milgram and Zimbardo’s instructions to perfection, while others resisted, exerting self-control. Hauser Chapter 4. Wicked in waiting 128 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012874