JR'S Free Thought Pages
Positive Things You Can Do To Be Less Vulnerable to Influence and Authority
Some of the suggestions are based on the
My belief is that young people, even very young children, are curious about philosophical questions. They are interested in understanding the big "why questions" and the processes in reasoning to conclusions. Many children who ask philosophical questions are told by their parents or teachers: "Don't waste your time thinking about those unanswerable questions - focus on what is practical and what may earn you money"' But surely teaching people to think rationally and critically will make an important difference to peoples' vulnerability to fraud, deception and false ideologies. However, our education system, instead of promoting curiosity and independence of thought, creates a procrustean bed that churns out unthinking automatons, drones and conformists who will adapt to a consumer corporate society.
If you take a close look at history and examine the kind of people who, for example, sheltered and protected Jews under the Nazis, you find a that they had several unique qualities. One of the most important is that they tended to have very different kinds of upbringing from the typical family. They tended to be brought up in a non-authoritarian environment, encouraged to think freely and to be sympathetic, tolerant and compassionate with other people. Family members were more inclined to discuss things rather than just follow rules and do what they were told.
and Seduced by Experts and Authorities
by Sharon Presley, Ph.D.
Thinking Critically: Ask Yourself Questions
The following suggestions are based on what social psychologists have learned about social influence and obedience and resistance to authority.
Don't let others define the situation for you. Ask yourself:
· Is this person really an expert?
Advertisements often include obvious examples of "experts" who aren't really experts ("I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV") but there are many other examples of people who make pronouncements without sufficient expertise. A degree in one area doesn't necessarily mean expertise in another, for example, an M.D. who gives psychological advice.
· How truthful can you expect this person to be? Does he or she have a vested interest? Does the authority, institution or publication have a hidden agenda?
Moral justifications for war given by politicians often cover up economic interests; people pushing a particular social issue aren't always objective about the evidence; people who want you to join their group may only tell you want you want to hear.
· Is the authority asking me to do something that troubles me, that I have doubts about, or where there are unanswered questions??
People living in the Nevada nuclear test range area were concerned but the authorities refused to warn them of the danger so they remained; physicians sometimes make mistakes in medication prescriptions or in diagnoses. You may have side effects from a drug or are unsure about a surgical procedure but are reluctant to ask questions.
· Is the person or authority asking me to go against my own values or conscience?
Would the actions advocated be considered immoral or inappropriate in another situation or in a private context (if a government demand)? Will my behavior or assent result in harm to innocent people?
Sales managers often ask clerks to use deceptive sales practices; killing goes on in war that would be considered monstrous (like the My Lai massacre) if done by private citizens.
· Is the authority demanding unquestioning obedience or attacking anyone who dissents?
Cult groups may tell you must trust their guru or you are not worthy; political groups may demand "political correctness" or you will be vilified; religious groups may tell you you're a sinner or "evil" if you don't agree with their point of view.
· Is the person or authority using mind control tricks or manipulation? Is he or she using emotional reasoning? Pushing an "us" vs. "them" perspective?
Is the person or authority appealing to ugly impulses or fears that encourage you to put others in an out-group that will suffer?
Calls for restricting immigration often take this form, with hidden racism at their core; demands for harsh punishment against real or imagined infractions of social rules are often cover-ups for personal inadequacies.
· Am I letting myself be taken in by extraneous trappings like fancy title, clothing or setting?
Am I letting myself be swayed by a person's Ph.D. even though it may be irrelevant or the person isn't being sensible? Do I respond favorably (and uncritically) to a well-tailored business suit, an impressive uniform, or a prestigious institution without looking more closely at the message? Or am I rejecting the person just because s/he doesn't have a fancy credential without investigating whether they have appropriate experience or knowledge gained in other ways?
· What are my own motives for responding favorable to this authority or person (if I am)? Am I letting him or her define the situation because I'm too lazy or too fearful or too anxious to think for myself?
It's a lot easier to just accept the TV news at face value rather than reading opinions in diverse publications; going against the boss might cost my job; objecting to the illegal shenanigans of my "friends" might make them dislike me (do I need friends like that?)
Separate the message from the characteristics of the person trying to persuade you. Look for discrepancies between the words and actions of the person.
· Am I responding favorably because I like them or like their looks?
Advertisers exploit the halo effect of attractive appearance. We may be less critical of our friends than others.
· Am I responding to this person - either negatively or positively - because of their ideology or reputation, without looking more carefully at what they're actually advocating or saying?
Regardless of ideology, no one is necessarily right - or wrong - all the time. Feminists may reject Rush Limbaugh but not be critical of Gloria Steinem. Conservatives may do the opposite just as a knee-jerk reaction. Neither may really be looking carefully at the message.
· Am I ignoring hypocrisy or troubling behavior because I like the person or agree with them on other issues?
Politicians ignored warning signs about the authoritarian behavior of Jim Jones and the result was the tragic mass suicide in Guyana.
Some fundamentalist evangelists profess Christianity and presumably, the Golden Rule, but preach hatred of others who are "sinners" and advocate intolerance.
Some conservatives who profess individualism and individual rights advocate serious infringements on personal liberties. Some liberals who profess compassion and concern are now advocating punitive "law and order" bills.
Don't just passively react. Be aware of the irrelevant factors in the situation that could unconsciously influence your behavior. Ask yourself:
· Am I being taken in by trappings and symbols that evoke emotional responses or lull me into a false sense of complacency?
Uniforms have the power to elicit obedience, even when the request is inappropriate or immoral. Do you look beyond the police uniform, the priest's robe, the repairman's garb to look at the actual message?
Clothing and appearance have more impact than we realize. Would you defer to someone in a expensive business suit because you unconsciously assume that their presumed status means they know what they're talking about? Do you automatically trust people who dress like you or who have a "normal appearance" without considering whether their request is inappropriate or even dangerous? (Rapists often have "normal appearances"). Do you automatically reject people who look and dress differently from you?
· Am I going along in a situation that I'm uncertain about or have doubts about just because everyone else is? Do they really know more than I do or are they just as uncertain?
The behavior of other people in the situation affect us in both conscious and unconscious ways, as many social psychology experiments have shown. Don't fall victim to the fallacy of "social proof." e.g., in an ambiguous situation, looking around to see what everyone else is doing. They may not know any more than you!
· Am I passing the buck and giving responsibility for the outcome to someone else? Am I thinking about the consequences of my actions? What will happen to others? To me?
Lots of people say, "I don't want to get involved." Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment building in Queens, NY over a period of half a hour while 38 ordinary people who "didn't want to get involved" watched from their windows. They all assumed someone else was calling the police.
· Am I letting myself be pressured into a commitment or action-decision before I'm really ready or while I'm under pressure?
High-pressure salespeople try to get people to sign on the dotted line before they walk out the door.
· Am I letting labels imposed by the authority or another person cloud my judgment?
Labels that dehumanize or put others in a category that can be viewed as negative can evoke automatic "knee-jerk" responses (e.g., not just obvious ones like "wetback'," "honkey," and "nigger," but "illegal immigrant, " "airhead," "women's libber," "radical," "girl," or "sexist pig")
· Am I getting submerged in the crowd, letting a feeling of anonymity loosen my normal moral standards?
People will do things in a crowd or when they think no one will notice that they would not do otherwise.
Be sensitive to initially small, trivial steps that can escalate into big commitments. Beware of ``entrapment'
Religious cults start out by asking you to just come to their meeting; then they gradually ask you for more and more time and eventually money too.
Don't be consistent just for the sake of consistency. Keep the larger perspective in mind.
· Do I find myself in a situation I'm unsure or have serious doubts about but keep on going?
We may have been taught not to be a "quitter." People in the Milgram shock experiment on obedience to authority got caught up in this idea of "I've gone this far, I can't quit now." They felt they had to finish the experiment and lost sight of whether the experiment was appropriate. Or we may feel "I don't want to lose my investment." This was part of the rationale for staying in the Vietnam War even after it became clear that the war was a bad idea. But if thousands have died, would the death of thousands more make things any better? People stay in bad relationships because of the "investment." hang-up. Maybe they should be cutting their losses instead!
Don't react just out of habit. Be willing to question the way things ``have always been done.'
· Am I just going along with authority because I've never thought to question it before?
Do we lack a "language of protest"? We may be so used to doing what authority tells us that we can't even formulate the issue in terms of a question. We may not even have the words to say to the authority: "There's something wrong here." We need to recognize that we have the right to protest when we think something is wrong or inappropriate or immoral. We have the right to ask questions.
· Am I just responding the way I was taught to react to authority by my parents, school, etc.?
"Social programming" teaches us to be "good children" who know our place. It teaches us to be polite, cooperate, never make a scene. We are rewarded for going along with the group.
· Am I going along with the status quo because it's easier?
Are you unwilling to make waves?
· Am I going along with others (friends, government) say just because I'm being mentally lazy and don't want to bother to think about the issues?
Do you vote the way your spouse or friends do because you don't want to take the time to think about the issues yourself?
Question social roles and relationships for hidden assumptions and expectations about authority and power.
If you answer yes to some of these questions, maybe you are in an unequal power
relationship that needs to be questioned.
If a parent, do you tell you children to obey you because "I said so"?
If you are a teacher, do you impose rigid rules that discourage dissent and creativity?
If you are a student, do you go along rules or behavior that are inappropriate out of passivity or fear?
· Physician-patient; Therapist-client; Lawyer-client, etc.:
If you are a professional, do you encourage your client to ask questions? Or do you expect deference? If you are the client, do you question advice that is unclear or troubling? Do you seek a second opinion when you have doubts about the advice? Do you change doctors when they treat your in a condescending way or refuse to answer your reasonable questions?
If you are a boss, do you discourage criticism, treat employees with disrespect, or in other ways lord it over them? If you are an employee, do you speak up when something inappropriate is going on?
Have you thought carefully about your religious views or do you just accept what you've been caught without question? Have you thought about whether the principles of your religion really make sense to you? If you are troubled by them, have you explored other alternatives? Does your religion advocate ideas that may result in harm or humiliation to other people simply because their views are not the same as your religion? Does your religion claim that those who disagree with their principles are "evil" or "sinners"? Does it claim that it is the only "one true religion"? Does it insist on behavioral rules that are nothing to do with being kind and compassionate to others (the Golden Rule)? Does it insist on rules that seem to have less to do with thoughtful reverence for life or God and more to do with social control of your personal, private behavior?
· Political group-member:
Does your political group claim it has a corner on the truth? Does it vilify people whose views are different? Does it have a "politically correct" line that must be followed or else?
· Peer or social group-member:
Does your group make fun of members who deviate from their norm whether in ideas or clothes, etc.? Does your group make fun of others outside the group in mean and humiliating ways? Does your group engage in behavior you disapprove of?
Do you accept traditional rules and roles (who makes certain decisions, who does the housework, whose career is more important) without thinking about them? Or do you work out mutually acceptable and beneficial duties and decisions? Are housework and childcare duties unequitably distributed (e.g., the wife does most of the housework and childcare even though she has a job outside the home)?
Steps for Dealing Critically With Experts and Authorities
(based on You're Smarter Than They Make You Feel by Paula Caplan, Ph.D.)
1. Right to question. If you feel as though you have no right to question the experts, as though
you need their permission to do so, ask yourself, ``Why do I feel this way?' Do I feel that it is morally right to grant them (or for them to have) the power to make me feel this way? Would I want them to have such power over my friends or loved ones?
2. List of questions. Before you have an appointment with or write your next letter to authority,
make a list of questions that you would like to have answered.
3. What questions answered. At the beginning of your conversation or letter, tell the authority
how many questions you would like to have answered.
4. Disarming question. Try to begin by asking a question that you know the authority may be
willing to answer and may feel good about.
5. Take notes. As the authority speaks, take very careful notes.
6. Ask to explain jargon. When experts use jargon or say anything you do not understand,
continue to take notes and ask, ``Would you please explain that in words I can understand?'
7. Ask for written information. Ask for brochures or articles that you can take away with you,
so that you can think critically about the issues when you are on your own or with friends or
8. Consult with others. Tell friends and family members what the authorities are saying to you,
and have a brainstorming session with them aimed at identifying which questions you need
to ask and which ones you have asked but for which you have not received satisfactory
9. Is bias present? When you recount your interactions with authorities to your friends and
family, ask them if they hear signs that the authorities are biased.
10. Check for range of options. Check with your friends, other people who have been through
the same system, and librarians about the full range of your options.
11. What has to be true? Identify a claim or a piece of advice the authority has given you and
ask yourself, ``If I were in that authority's position, what would have to be true for me to make
that claim or give that advice?'
12. Is this treatment unfair? If you yourself need help from the system, always ask yourself,
``If my parent or child or best friend were being dealt with in this way, would I consider it unfair or biased or cavalier? In what way? Is the authority simply too rushed to give me a full explanation of what is happening, and would I be furious if s/he treated someone I care about in that way?
13. Watch for lies. Watch for the blatantly false statement.
14. Who else can help? If the authority with whom you are currently dealing is not helping you
or is seriously upsetting you, think about who might be more willing to help
15. Inappropriate politeness. Don't worry about the authorities' thinking you are too pushy or
impolite or simply not very nice for asking questions. If they are treating you badly, why
should you care what they think of you?
16. Model someone else. When you are feeling too intimidated to ask questions or push for
answers, pretend (in your own mind) that you are someone else.
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996 Resources for Independent Thinking