Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

Could this be not about lying and fear, but about doing everything better, once one is given a bit of a boost? The "bosses" in the experiment may have became better at a number of things, not just lying, once they were put into this category. Being named a boss is after all an assurance of support of the majority of people around you, of respect and even of less critical attitude toward them - nobody picks on a boss; while being named a subordinate is an assurance that one will be judged and perhaps picked upon. Would it be surprising to learn that 'bosses' became better at organizational and complex tasks and perhaps worse at some manual tasks?

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

You're definitely right, and I think that's what people weigh against subservience -- is this "too big a lie"?

In your "chemical weapon" case I think perhaps what truly determines if someone will "call out" the leader is which side you're on. If that leader is part of an opposing group, you will certainly do so. But if the leader you should call out is on your side, I think very few people will -- case in point: for every whistleblower in government or industry there are hundreds who knew the same information but did nothing. People have indeed kept silent about weapons testing on ignorant civilians in our own society.

The ideal sort of "loyalty test" is one that has no larger-group costs (or even benefits, like not eating potentially disease causing pork) but has high (but not permanent or crippling) costs to the individual. Also important is that it be visible and frequently verifiable. I think this defines lots of these such rules in many religions, such as the kosher/halal rules.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts