Sharon Presley on authority


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

I have copied the following, which I have edited slightly, from another thread, "Is There a Psychology of Liberty?" I have done this because Sharon didn't learn about the other thread until several days had passed, and by then the thread had gone off in a bunch of different directions. (I was as responsible for this as anyone.)

I am therefore devoting a new thread to Sharon's ideas on authority, as discussed in her recent book. I am doing this because Sharon is not a regular poster, but I know she is willing to contribute to this topic, and I would like to provide her with a clean slate to work with.

I am the last person to demand that people stay on topic, given how frequently I stray off topic myself, but I would ask, as a favor to Sharon, that we all make an effort here. I think the results could be very rewarding.

http://mises.org/dai...logy-of-Liberty

In his latest blog, Jeff Riggenbach discusses the work of Nathaniel Branden and Sharon Presley.

Ghs

First of all, I am very grateful to Jeff for such a complimentary article. It is indeed an honor to be mentioned together with Nathaniel Branden. Several years ago at a libertarian conference in New Hampshire, Nathan gave me a fantastic compliment when he told me that my essay, "Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Individualism: A Feminist Psychologist's Perspective" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, was his favorite in the book. I'm trying to live up to that testimonial and continuing to explore the relationship between psychology and liberty!

Last year I gave a talk at Libertopia titled "The Psychology of Freedom." The purpose of the talk was to briefly point out some of the considerable research literature in psychology concerning the conditions of freedom: why people thrive under conditions of freedom and autonomy, why obedience to unjust authority occurs and the conditions that encourage it, and other related issues. I talked about the research on individualism and freewill and the social psychological research on obedience to authority. I discussed forensic psychology research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the polygraph, and the bias in the judicial process in favor of the death penalty. I also commented on more positive optimistic research: the vast literature on helping behavior, the neuroscience work that shows us that the brain is flexible and plastic even into old age. I ended with a few comments about the applied psychology work on "Positive Psychology" --optimism, self-esteem, etc. I'll be putting the video from Libertopia on YouTube soon, as well as writing up the talk. In the meantime, a reading list based on the talk can be found at http://www.rit.org/psychfreedom.php [ If you want to explore the rest of the site (Resources for Independent Thinking), start with http://www.rit.org because there is something wrong with the flash button links on some of the pages--we're working on it]

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, George. If you try to veer off-topic, just remember what George said before--I might smack you around :rolleyes: But seriously, I do want to talk about authority not all those other topics the other thread went off into. Perhaps this is because I'm a psychologist...<P><p></p><p>

I once confronted Murray Rothbard about his statement that psychology was irrelevant to libertarianism (in the Libertarian Forum, c. 1971), asking him --What about the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority? His answer? Dead silence. Then he walked away. Fortunately most libertarians today will at least acknowledge the importance of that study and the Zimbardo/Stanford prison simulation study as well. There is now in fact an extensive literature on obedience to authority. Some of the most important books are listed in the reading list I am developing [ see http://www.rit.org/authority/psychfreedom.php ] There are some links to discussions of the Milgram and Zimbardo studies at http://www.rit.org/a...y/authlinks.php My article on the research since those 2 studies can be found at http://www.rit.org./authority/authority.php The literature on the personal characteristics of those willing to resist authority is somewhat smaller. My short article describing that research can be found at the previous link.</p><p></p><p>

There is also a relatively extensive literature on free will and determinism. A few of the older books can be found on my reading list above. Some newer titles are mentioned on the new Facebook "Psychology of Freedom." Oddly enough, it's my page. That link is https://www.facebook...235576059799050 </p><p></p><p>

OK, who's going to say something next? Questions? Comments?</p><p></p><p><br>

</p>

Edited by Sharon Presley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon,

I was fascinated by your discussion of the Milgram experiments (in the first video I posted). Although I read Milgram's classic book years ago, I had forgotten many of the details.

I was especially interested in the fact that people are more willing to participate in acts of injustice or even atrocities if they don't have to execute the order personally, but are mere links in a chain. I think it was Hannah Arendt (probably in The Origins of Totalitarianism) who used the expression "rule by nobody" to describe this type of phenomenon. When people are part of a large bureaucracy, few if any of those people will feel personally responsible for what that bureaucracy does.

I wasn't aware of your interview until shortly before I started this new thread; I happened across it quite by accident. You did a wonderful job.

A question: You worked with Milgram, but do you know anything about his political beliefs? Did he have any libertarian tendencies?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, George.

Milgram commented on that very point about links in a chain in his book Obedience to Authority. He thought that one of the most important characteristics of modern society was the compartmentalization that allowed diffusion of responsibility. No one person could say--it was me who killed another human being. The experimental variation in which the actual subject does not pull the toggle switch but instead merely tell the person operating the toggle switch that leasds to the shock whether the "learner" got the answer right illustrates that very well. When the subject doesn't actually pull the switch him/herself, the rate of obedience goes from 60% to 92.5%

Peter Gabriel, the rock singer, even did a song about that study, called "Milgram's 37" [ each variation had 40 subjects; 37/40 = 92.5%].[bTW I was in Milgram's office when Gabrial or his assistant called Milgram to get his permission to use his name. When they got off the phone, Milgram asked me "Who"s Peter Gabriel?" I'd like to think that I had a hand in getting that song published because I said some very positive things about Gabriel. Don't know for sure--didn't have the presence of mind to ask]

Re: Milgram's politics: He was a liberal Democrat. Though he thought anarchism was impractical, he was fascinated by my views and didn't think I was a kook (like one other prof did). He wanted me to take his course on "The Individual and Authority" precisely because of my views. BTW one of the profs on my dissertation committee--Edgar Borgatta--was very sympathetic; in fact, I met him when we both audited a class on anarchism at CUNY. Only that one prof was a jerk. But my committee and my profs didn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Gabriel, the rock singer, even did a song about that study, called "Milgram's 37" [ each variation had 40 subjects; 37/40 = 92.5%].[bTW I was in Milgram's office when Gabrial or his assistant called Milgram to get his permission to use his name. When they got off the phone, Milgram asked me "Who"s Peter Gabriel?" I'd like to think that I had a hand in getting that song published because I said some very positive things about Gabriel. Don't know for sure--didn't have the presence of mind to ask]

This is an interesting version of the tune, because Gabriel has audience members doing exactly what he tells them to do. I assume the irony was intentional. :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon studied with Milgram.

That is beyond cool.

I am in awe...

I have something to add to her observations on how you should act when you have to deal with authority. I fully agree that you need to dress appropriately, etc., if you want to have a better shot at success. She didn't use the phrase, subconscious trigger, but these signals do exist. (I'm learning all about them from marketing studies.)

The following video of police abuse shows how this works in one of the clearest manners I have ever seen for bullying. As folks know, I am on a thing about bullying being one of the roots of evil in human affairs, but I also believe we all have the capacity (and even tendency) to bully someone at sometime. This is where the subconscious triggers are critical. And it ties into Sharon's theme since I can't think of any situation where you need a strategy more than talking to a nervous cop when he stops you.

The policeman in the video below was in a bullying mood for some reason. I haven't read anything about him, other than the fact that he is now in a whole lot of trouble, so I don't know if what he did is his standard demeanor or if he was just having a bad day. I suspect the latter based on how he griped and how his partner acted.

But the poor sap who was bullied couldn't have acted worse. He had to let the cop know he had a licensed concealed weapon, but he was so submissive, so deferential, and so country-bumpkin-like, that he didn't get it out over the cop's command barking. He simply projected an aura of cowardice. When I watched it the first time, I thought to myself that the cop was going to gradually go ape-shit on him.

He did, too. That's exactly what happened.

But, to the cop's credit, he controlled himself enough to not get violent for real.

I believe his abuse was due (or at least partly due) to how the poor sap almost groveled before authority.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kassP7zI0qc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This reminded me of times when I was in the wrong place doing the wrong things down in São Paulo in the middle of the night. (Ah... fond memories of my bad days... :) )

I never had a problem with the cops when they stopped me, even as the person next to me would get horribly harassed. I believe it's because I always treated cops calmly and as equals, ones who I obeyed because of the situation, but only because of that. I refused to kowtow to their authority and/or bullying when they were in the mood, but I made it clear that I would not resist doing what they asked.

God only knows why I didn't crap my pants a couple of time, too. On one occasion, after a cop stopped me at about 2 AM in the combat zone, I answered his questions about what I was doing there ("just passing through" - heh :) ), he went to talk to a guy on the other side of the street. The guy started in with the kowtowing demeanor and the cop simply yelled out, "You're lying to me!", shoved him into a doorway and shot him in the stomach. There was blood all over the place. The cop left and I stuck around long enough to make sure someone called an ambulance (the dude survived), but I'll be honest. I didn't want to. :)

I'm no fan of Brazilian police in the middle of the night, but I have little doubt that the guy got shot because his overly-servile behavior triggered things in the cop's head that accelerated his bullying.

I've often noticed that bullies get a lot worse when they get servile prey in their grasp. (The image of wife-beaters just came to mind.)

So my advice from the streets (and from scratching the surface on studies about mirror neurons, etc.) is that when you have to talk to a cop who has stopped you, be calm and steady in your attitude. And if you are afraid, swallow it, even if you have to choke on it and squeeze your asshole shut so hard you get a Charley horse. The last thing you want to do is show a cop you are afraid of him. Obey with serenity, but don't grovel.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Very good talk by Sharon. I'm glad I watched it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I am the last person to demand that people stay on topic, given how frequently I stray off topic myself, but I would ask, as a favor to Sharon, that we all make an effort here.

As it happens, I'm going to forgo this topic anyway. Still, if I were not, why should I bother? You've already decided that, as far as you're concerned, I deserve no such respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I am the last person to demand that people stay on topic, given how frequently I stray off topic myself, but I would ask, as a favor to Sharon, that we all make an effort here.

As it happens, I'm going to forgo this topic anyway. Still, if I were not, why should I bother? You've already decided that, as far as you're concerned, I deserve no such respect.

Please take this to another thread if you wish to discuss it further.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Gabriel, the rock singer, even did a song about that study, called "Milgram's 37" [ each variation had 40 subjects; 37/40 = 92.5%].[bTW I was in Milgram's office when Gabrial or his assistant called Milgram to get his permission to use his name. When they got off the phone, Milgram asked me "Who"s Peter Gabriel?" I'd like to think that I had a hand in getting that song published because I said some very positive things about Gabriel. Don't know for sure--didn't have the presence of mind to ask]

This is an interesting version of the tune, because Gabriel has audience members doing exactly what he tells them to do. I assume the irony was intentional. :rolleyes:

Ghs

Gabriel is a very smart, insightful guy. I imagine he did in fact see the irony. The question is--did the audience? If I'd been there, I might have yelled out something. However in all fairness, no one is being harmed in this situation. In the Milgram experiment, people did believe that the guy in the other room was being shocked.

BTW Gabriel gave another version of why he used the number 37 to Milgram's biographer, Thomas Blass. It doesn't make as much sense to me and I can't help but wonder if he changed his mind somewhere in the process. You can find that and other info at http://www.stanleymilgram.com He claims it stands for the 37% who broke off early in the experiment and refused to continue. But the other interpretation fits the song better.

Blass's bio, The Man Who Shocked the World is very interesting. Because I was one of his graduate students, Blass interviewed me for the book. A lot of what I said got chopped out of the final version by the editors but I am in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I am the last person to demand that people stay on topic, given how frequently I stray off topic myself, but I would ask, as a favor to Sharon, that we all make an effort here.

As it happens, I'm going to forgo this topic anyway. Still, if I were not, why should I bother? You've already decided that, as far as you're concerned, I deserve no such respect.

Steve

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mind if you comment. The others may dump on you for other reasons but since I actually know you, I don't feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon studied with Milgram.

That is beyond cool.

I am in awe...

I have something to add to her observations on how you should act when you have to deal with authority. I fully agree that you need to dress appropriately, etc., if you want to have a better shot at success. She didn't use the phrase, subconscious trigger, but these signals do exist. (I'm learning all about them from marketing studies.)

I've often noticed that bullies get a lot worse when they get servile prey in their grasp. (The image of wife-beaters just came to mind.)

So my advice from the streets (and from scratching the surface on studies about mirror neurons, etc.) is that when you have to talk to a cop who has stopped you, be calm and steady in your attitude. And if you are afraid, swallow it, even if you have to choke on it and squeeze your asshole shut so hard you get a Charley horse. The last thing you want to do is show a cop you are afraid of him. Obey with serenity, but don't grovel.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Very good talk by Sharon. I'm glad I watched it.

Michael

Thanks Michael. Yeah, it was pretty cool studying with Milgram. I learned a lot. He was dissertation chairman for my study of political resisters to authority. He was fascinated by how many I was able to find. He knew I was a libertarian anarchist and knew about Laissez Faire Books but he still didn't realize how many such people were out there. I used to tell people that it as easy, there was a whole building full of them at 339 Lafayette (home of the War Resisters League and many other protest groups). If any of you would like to read the published article based on my dissertation (from Journal of Research in Personality), send me a request at slpresley@sharonpresley.com and I'll send you a pdf. I guess I should post it on my website. My academic stuff is at www.sharonpresley.com and my more political stuff is at www.sharonpresley.net. [ I used to have sharonpresley.org but I let it go because damned if I want an organization centered on me! :D ] I haven't updated the .net in a while but it has a lot of my old stuff on critical thinking and also, lots of purple.

Re: Bullying. This is an issue I discuss in my book. You're right about bullies--they look for weak targets who will give them the power rush they crave. They typically pick on those they perceive as weaker. So my advice? Don't look or act weak. But fighting back doesn't work either. It just gives them a thrill. If it's the police, as you say, just be calm and reasonable. If it's some other kind of bully, then you have the option of just walking away. If it's your boss--well, that's complicated and I suggest some books that are helpful. One good one that I plan to review soon is Monster Boss by Patricia King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to George providing me with the Secret Decoder Ring, I figured out how to do the links right. Don't know how I missed it; I looked, really I did.

So here they are again:

Stanley Milgram

Sharon Presley professional site

Sharon Presley political site

Psychology of Liberty Reading List

Other resources for reading about authority

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon,

Thanks for the links. I will look into them.

You might want to check out this thread on OL from last year: Secret Objectivist cult

It's a hoot.

I posted some Milgram stuff on it.

(btw - As an aside, speaking of the devil, I just got my hands on a recording of Jim Jones giving the sermon where he had those 900+ people drink the Kool-Aid. Talk about weirding out. It's creepy as all get out. What's worse, Jones had a lisp. That dude was such a mind-blower that he did it with a lisp! Dayaamm!)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael

I think you getting the hang of it! LOL. Excellent. But you'll have some competition. Look at these websites I found. Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them. I was dumbfounded. Everybody else seemed to be ga-ga over him.

http://zeitgeistmove...-is-not-a-cult/

http://liberatingmin...-defooed-parent

http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=1060

http://liberatingmin...aud-he-is#32133

Here is the websitefrom which the quotes on fdrliberated were drawn:

www.freedomain.blogspot.com/2005/04/are-people-just-stupid.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon,

Dayaamm!

That's some serious competition!

:)

Once in a while someone posts a video by Molyneux on OL, but I never resonated with him. So I let it slide. In fact, I don't even recall commenting on him.

If his thing is power, though, the scandals will eventually be forthcoming. Not even libertarian gurus are immune to the corrupting force of fame and power.

Hell, not even Ayn Rand was immune to it.

As the saying goes, human nature to be commanded must be obeyed.

(heh... :) )

And that starts with acknowledging it rather than ignoring the parts one does not like.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them. I was dumbfounded. Everybody else seemed to be ga-ga over him.

He's known for advising people to ditch their family connections too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them.

Is that why Nathaniel Branden ditched Ayn Rand?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them. I was dumbfounded. Everybody else seemed to be ga-ga over him.

He's known for advising people to ditch their family connections too.

He also claims that almost everyone has been abused and that everybody needs therapy. Since I am a real psychologist, unlike him, I have a problem with this. Namely, neither statement is true. I taught developmental psych for many years, have also taught abnormal, as well as social psych, and critical thinking too. This is just so much BS. He cannot provide evidence to support either statement because the evidence isn't there. I was not surprised to find these websites with people calling him a cultist. He also has fanboys who will attack those who criticize him. Hm-m-m. Where have we seen this before?

In fact, there is a video on YouTube which is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it gave me the creeps. You'll see why...It's called "Stefan Molyneux is my lord and savior." It's a snippet filmed at PorcFest. You can hear one guy saying "I almost wet my pants" and the context makes it clear that he is talking about seeing SM. YUCK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them.

Is that why Nathaniel Branden ditched Ayn Rand?

--Brant

Huh? Rand dumped him and it sure didn't have anything to do with being a libertarian. Are you making a joke here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not surprised to find these websites with people calling him a cultist. He also has fanboys who will attack those who criticize him. Hm-m-m. Where have we seen this before?

In fact, there is a video on YouTube which is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it gave me the creeps. You'll see why...It's called "Stefan Molyneux is my lord and savior." It's a snippet filmed at PorcFest. You can hear one guy saying "I almost wet my pants" and the context makes it clear that he is talking about seeing SM. YUCK!

http://youtu.be/LdYH9r1dn4U

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dug this out of the YouTube comments, but I haven't read anything on it yet.

Looks like SM got some real sweet fans, though.

Stefan Molyneux and Free Domain Radio (FDR) Revealed

EDIT: This site says that Molyneux's wife, Christina Papadopoulos, is having problems with the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario. There is a link, so I went there. Sure enough: Papadopoulos, Christina (Christina): Authorized to Provide Psychological Services in Ontario >> Discipline & Other Proceedings >> Current Referrals To Discipline

Here is the text (copied from the College of Psychiatrists of Ontario site, not from the blog--but check for yourself):

A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee has referred the following allegations to the Discipline Committee:

Ms. Christina Papadopoulos committed professional misconduct in making public statements and providing advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon; specifically, she:

1. failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This failure included providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) ("Standards"), providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards.

2. provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1(9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

3. engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

A hearing date has not yet been scheduled

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them.

Is that why Nathaniel Branden ditched Ayn Rand?

--Brant

Huh? Rand dumped him and it sure didn't have anything to do with being a libertarian. Are you making a joke here?

Joke, yes. Branden wanted to use "libertarian" and Rand said no. She called it a "coined" word.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them.

Is that why Nathaniel Branden ditched Ayn Rand?

--Brant

Huh? Rand dumped him and it sure didn't have anything to do with being a libertarian. Are you making a joke here?

Brant? Joking? Surely not.

Actually, though, it was Branden who “ditched” or “dumped” Ayn Rand, since he was the one who terminated their sexual relationship (or refused to resume it). She eventually condemned him for rejecting her, while claiming she was acting on purely philosophical grounds—and then terminated all dealings with him.

If one partner terminates a sexual relationship and asks if they can remain “just friends,” but the other partner angrily refuses all further communication—who has really rejected whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now