Ben Carson Quits!
Ben Carson does not quit from the presidential race.
Ben Carson quits from GOP.
Ben Carson will continue as an independent candidate.
source: Stanley Milgram
A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.
Both Democratic party and Republican party are the legitimate authority to qualify candidates for the presidential election. They are like recruiting company.
Both FOX News & CNN are the legitimate authority to promote or bring down any candidate in the presidential election.
Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the
dispositional cement that binds human to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in
daily life suggest that for many people obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed,
a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct.
Obey.
Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, and even when the act prescribed by an authority is an evil one, it is better to carry out the act than to wrench at the structure of authority.
Hobbes stated further that an act so executed is in no sense the responsibility of the person who carries it out but only of the authority that orders it.
But humanists argue for the primacy of individual conscience in such matters, insisting that the moral judgments of the individual must override authority when the two are in conflict.
Ben Carson & Republican party are now in conflict.
Donald Trump & Republican party are not in conflict; in fact, they are together.
Donald Trump would strengthen the party. Trump is not a threat to GOP.
But, Ben Carson is a threat to GOP. Not only to GOP, but also to DNC.
Ben Carson conscience; moral judgments will override
the legitimate authority of GOP.
This message is from Gandhi to Ben Carson:
First, they ignore you;
then, they laugh at you;
then, they fight you;
then, you win.
Each time the subject hesitates to administer shock, the experimenter orders him to continue. To extricate himself from the situation, the subject must make a clear break with authority. The aim of this investigation was to find when and how people would defy authority in the face of a clear moral imperative.
When and how Ben Carson would defy GOP authority in the face of a clear moral imperative. A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act.
It is now or never.
Hillary Clinton is the best example. Hillary hesitated in 2008. Hillary couldn't make a clear break with DNC authority. Opportunity comes only once. Once lost is lost forever.
A reader’s initial reaction to the experiment may be to wonder why anyone in his right mind would administer even the first shocks. Would he not simply refuse and walk out of the laboratory? But the fact is that no one ever does.
The future generation would wonder why anyone in her/his right mind would go through these primaries and caucuses elimination process. Why did they go to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday?
Why didn't they simply refuse and go on their own as an independent?
Why do you need a debate to elect a president? Does the job demand debate skill?
Barack Obama did very well in the presidential debate. But, as the President, Barack Obama had never engaged in a debate with any other President or the Prime Minister. Some how, the entire selection process doesn't make any sense.
In this condition, all other nations are trying to follow America, in building their democracy. Watch,
Since the subject has come to the laboratory to aid the experimenter, he is quite willing to start off with the procedure. There is nothing very extraordinary in this, particularly since the person who is to receive the shocks seems initially cooperative, if somewhat apprehensive. What is surprising is how far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the experimenter’s instructions. Indeed, the results of the experiment are both surprising and dismaying. Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experimenter, a substantial proportions continue to the last shock on the generator.
What is surprising is how far these individuals will go in complying with the DNC & RNC instructions. Constitution provides freedom. But still, people would like to conform to traditional elimination process.
Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked, no matter how painful the shocks seem to be, and no matter how much the victim pleads to be let out. This was seen time and again in our studies and has been observed in several universities where the experiment was repeated. It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Even Donald Trump is willing to go to any lengths on the command of GOP, Fox News authority. Just obey and participate in the debate. You have no freedom to boycott Fox News Debate.
What, then, keeps the person obeying the experimenter? First, there is a set of “binding factors” that lock the subject into the situation. They include such factors as politeness on his part, his desire to uphold his initial promise of aid to the experimenter, and the awkwardness of withdrawal.
Second, a number of adjustments in the subject’s thinking occur that undermine his resolve to break with the authority. The adjustments help the subject maintain his relationship with the experimenter, while at the same time reducing the strain brought about by the experimental conflict. They are typical of thinking that comes about in obedient persons when they are instructed by authority to act against helpless individuals.
The individual is weak in his solitary opposition to authority, but the group is strong. The archetype event is depicted by Freud (1921), who recounts how oppressed sons band together and rebel against the despotic father.
Delacroix portrays the mass in revolt against unjust authority; Gandhi successfully pits the populace against British authority in nonviolent encounter; prisoners at Attica Penitentiary organize and temporarily challenge prison authority. The individual’s relationship with his peers can compete with, and on occasion supplant, his ties to authority.
Obey.
- Go to Iowa first.
- Then, go to New Hampshire.
- If you win caucus, continue
- Else, suspend your campaign
- Participate in the debate in CNN or FOX
- Go to South Carolina
- Then, Super Tuesday
Ask No Questions.
Just Obey and follow the tradition.
Don't ever read the Constitution of United States.
Just follow the command that comes from DNC & RNC.
They are the legitimate authority of selecting the President for America.
Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, and even when the act prescribed by an authority is an evil one, it is better to carry out the act than to wrench at the structure of authority.
Hobbes stated further that an act so executed is in no sense the responsibility of the person who carries it out but only of the authority that orders it.
But humanists argue for the primacy of individual conscience in such matters, insisting that the moral judgments of the individual must override authority when the two are in conflict.
Ben Carson & Republican party are now in conflict.
Donald Trump & Republican party are not in conflict; in fact, they are together.
Donald Trump would strengthen the party. Trump is not a threat to GOP.
But, Ben Carson is a threat to GOP. Not only to GOP, but also to DNC.
Ben Carson conscience; moral judgments will override
the legitimate authority of GOP.
This message is from Gandhi to Ben Carson:
First, they ignore you;
then, they laugh at you;
then, they fight you;
then, you win.
Each time the subject hesitates to administer shock, the experimenter orders him to continue. To extricate himself from the situation, the subject must make a clear break with authority. The aim of this investigation was to find when and how people would defy authority in the face of a clear moral imperative.
When and how Ben Carson would defy GOP authority in the face of a clear moral imperative. A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act.
It is now or never.
Hillary Clinton is the best example. Hillary hesitated in 2008. Hillary couldn't make a clear break with DNC authority. Opportunity comes only once. Once lost is lost forever.
A reader’s initial reaction to the experiment may be to wonder why anyone in his right mind would administer even the first shocks. Would he not simply refuse and walk out of the laboratory? But the fact is that no one ever does.
The future generation would wonder why anyone in her/his right mind would go through these primaries and caucuses elimination process. Why did they go to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday?
Why didn't they simply refuse and go on their own as an independent?
Why do you need a debate to elect a president? Does the job demand debate skill?
Barack Obama did very well in the presidential debate. But, as the President, Barack Obama had never engaged in a debate with any other President or the Prime Minister. Some how, the entire selection process doesn't make any sense.
In this condition, all other nations are trying to follow America, in building their democracy. Watch,
Since the subject has come to the laboratory to aid the experimenter, he is quite willing to start off with the procedure. There is nothing very extraordinary in this, particularly since the person who is to receive the shocks seems initially cooperative, if somewhat apprehensive. What is surprising is how far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the experimenter’s instructions. Indeed, the results of the experiment are both surprising and dismaying. Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experimenter, a substantial proportions continue to the last shock on the generator.
What is surprising is how far these individuals will go in complying with the DNC & RNC instructions. Constitution provides freedom. But still, people would like to conform to traditional elimination process.
Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked, no matter how painful the shocks seem to be, and no matter how much the victim pleads to be let out. This was seen time and again in our studies and has been observed in several universities where the experiment was repeated. It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Even Donald Trump is willing to go to any lengths on the command of GOP, Fox News authority. Just obey and participate in the debate. You have no freedom to boycott Fox News Debate.
What, then, keeps the person obeying the experimenter? First, there is a set of “binding factors” that lock the subject into the situation. They include such factors as politeness on his part, his desire to uphold his initial promise of aid to the experimenter, and the awkwardness of withdrawal.
Second, a number of adjustments in the subject’s thinking occur that undermine his resolve to break with the authority. The adjustments help the subject maintain his relationship with the experimenter, while at the same time reducing the strain brought about by the experimental conflict. They are typical of thinking that comes about in obedient persons when they are instructed by authority to act against helpless individuals.
The individual is weak in his solitary opposition to authority, but the group is strong. The archetype event is depicted by Freud (1921), who recounts how oppressed sons band together and rebel against the despotic father.
Delacroix portrays the mass in revolt against unjust authority; Gandhi successfully pits the populace against British authority in nonviolent encounter; prisoners at Attica Penitentiary organize and temporarily challenge prison authority. The individual’s relationship with his peers can compete with, and on occasion supplant, his ties to authority.
At this point a distinction must be made between the terms obedience and conformity.
Conformity, in particular, has a very broad meaning, but for the purposes of this discussion, I shall limit it to the action of a subject when he goes along with his peers, people of his own status, who have no special right to direct his behavior. Obedience will be restricted to the action of the subject who complies with authority.
Consider a recruit who enters military service. He scrupulously carries out the orders of his superiors. At the same time, he adopts the habits, routines, and language of his peers. The former represents obedience and the latter, conformity.
Read the Constitution of United States of America and act; that is freedom; and it is a respect to the Founding Fathers and Mothers of America.
Going to Iowa to Super Tuesday is conformity. It has been the habits, routines and language of the traditional politicians. Do you need to adopt those habits.
For further reading:
________________
4. Voluntarism. The dearest distinction between obedience and conformity, however, occurs after
the fact-that is, in the manner in which subjects explain their behavior. Subjects deny conformity and
embrace obedience as the explanation of their actions.
Let me clarify this. In Asch’s experiments on group pressure, subjects typically understate the degree to which their actions were influenced by members of the group. They belittle the group effect and try to play up their own autonomy, even when they have yielded to the group on every trial. They often insist that if they made errors in judgment, these were nonetheless their own errors, attributable to their faulty vision or bad judgment. They minimize the degree to which they have conformed to the group.
Conformity, in particular, has a very broad meaning, but for the purposes of this discussion, I shall limit it to the action of a subject when he goes along with his peers, people of his own status, who have no special right to direct his behavior. Obedience will be restricted to the action of the subject who complies with authority.
Consider a recruit who enters military service. He scrupulously carries out the orders of his superiors. At the same time, he adopts the habits, routines, and language of his peers. The former represents obedience and the latter, conformity.
Read the Constitution of United States of America and act; that is freedom; and it is a respect to the Founding Fathers and Mothers of America.
Going to Iowa to Super Tuesday is conformity. It has been the habits, routines and language of the traditional politicians. Do you need to adopt those habits.
For further reading:
________________
Obedience and conformity both refer to the abdication of initiative to an external source. But they differ
in the following important ways:
1. Hierarchy. Obedience to authority occurs within a hierarchical structure in which the actor feels that the person above has the right to prescribe behavior. Conformity regulates the behavior among those of equal status; obedience links one status to another.
2. Imitation. Conformity is imitation but obedience is not. Conformity leads to homogenization of behavior, as the influenced person comes to adopt the behavior of peers. In obedience, there is compliance without imitation of the influencing source. A soldier does not simply repeat an order given to him but carries it out.
3 Explicitness. In obedience, the prescription for action is explicit, taking the form of an order or command. In conformity, the requirement of going along with the group often remains implicit. Thus, in Asch’s experiment on group pressure, there is no overt requirement made by group members that the subject go along with them. The action is spontaneously adopted by the subject. Indeed, many subjects would resist an explicit demand by group members to conform, for the situation is defined as one consisting of equals who have no right to order each other about.
1. Hierarchy. Obedience to authority occurs within a hierarchical structure in which the actor feels that the person above has the right to prescribe behavior. Conformity regulates the behavior among those of equal status; obedience links one status to another.
2. Imitation. Conformity is imitation but obedience is not. Conformity leads to homogenization of behavior, as the influenced person comes to adopt the behavior of peers. In obedience, there is compliance without imitation of the influencing source. A soldier does not simply repeat an order given to him but carries it out.
3 Explicitness. In obedience, the prescription for action is explicit, taking the form of an order or command. In conformity, the requirement of going along with the group often remains implicit. Thus, in Asch’s experiment on group pressure, there is no overt requirement made by group members that the subject go along with them. The action is spontaneously adopted by the subject. Indeed, many subjects would resist an explicit demand by group members to conform, for the situation is defined as one consisting of equals who have no right to order each other about.
Let me clarify this. In Asch’s experiments on group pressure, subjects typically understate the degree to which their actions were influenced by members of the group. They belittle the group effect and try to play up their own autonomy, even when they have yielded to the group on every trial. They often insist that if they made errors in judgment, these were nonetheless their own errors, attributable to their faulty vision or bad judgment. They minimize the degree to which they have conformed to the group.
