Why do people so often comply with authority—even when orders contradict their conscience? New neuroscience research is beginning to provide concrete answers to this age-old question, illuminating the brain mechanisms that drive obedience and the social pressures that can make compliance nearly automatic. Drawing upon insights from the recent feature, “Why We Follow Orders: The Neuroscience of Compliance and Control” in Skeptic magazine, this report examines what scientists have uncovered, why these findings matter in everyday Thai life, and what we can do to foster greater ethical autonomy.
From the military hierarchy to the school classroom, the phenomenon of obedience shapes societies in profound ways. For Thais, where the value of “greng jai” (เกรงใจ)—a deep-seated cultural respect for authority and not wanting to cause offense—remains embedded in social interactions, understanding the science behind compliance is particularly relevant. Incidents ranging from hazing rituals (รับน้อง) in Thai universities to high-profile cases of organizational corruption have often been traced, in part, to an uncritical acceptance of orders from those above. As Thailand continues to modernize and seeks to empower its citizens, there’s a rising need to reflect on when to question authority rather than simply comply.
According to neuroscientists interviewed in the Skeptic article, brain imaging studies now reveal that obeying authority activates specific regions of the brain associated with social cognition and conflict processing. Key research builds on the legacy of the famous Milgram experiments from the 1960s, in which participants were willing, under orders, to inflict what they believed were painful electric shocks on strangers. “Obedience is not simply a cultural habit. Deep in the human brain, there are circuits built for social cohesion—which sometimes override our moral compass,” explains Dr. Pascal Molenberghs, a cognitive neuroscientist source.
In practical terms, scientists have identified that when people follow orders, there is a reduction in activity in brain areas linked to responsibility and empathy. In one well-cited 2016 study published in Current Biology, researchers from University College London found that obeying orders dampens the sense of personal agency, making individuals feel less responsible for their actions, even harmful ones (source). “Our results suggest that the mere act of obeying an order powerfully shifts how the brain represents one’s choices: we feel like the responsibility is shared or gone,” notes lead author Dr. Emilie Caspar.
For Thai readers, these findings offer a neuroscience lens to reconsider issues that often surface in society—from why students tolerate excessive discipline in classrooms to how otherwise law-abiding citizens may get swept up in office scandals, simply because they were “told to do so.” As Dr. Kornkanok Meesang, a Thai psychologist at Chulalongkorn University, observes, “Social hierarchy and obedience are part of our cultural DNA, but understanding the science can help us recognize unhealthy patterns and promote constructive dissent.”
Experts caution that obedience, in itself, is not inherently negative. It underpins orderly societies, aids coordination in emergencies, and ensures the functioning of institutions. The problem arises when obedience is blind: when authority is misused, or when individuals feel powerless to refuse unethical directives. This is not unique to Thailand; the challenges of toxic compliance are global, evident in historical tragedies across continents.
Building a more ethically resilient society, say neuroscientists and ethicists, requires not just education but also cultivating a culture that values questions and constructive disagreement. “Institutions must teach critical thinking and establish safe channels for challenging problematic orders,” urges Dr. Caspar. Thai educational reformers echo these sentiments, advocating for school environments where students learn to engage in respectful debate, rather than rote silence.
Thailand’s own history offers lessons in the costs and complexities of obedience, such as the 1976 student massacre at Thammasat University—a stark reminder of what happens when authority goes unchecked and dissent is suppressed. More recently, hazing incidents in universities have claimed lives, prompting a public conversation about when to “ออกตัว” (speak up) instead of “ยอม” (submit).
Looking forward, ongoing neuroscience research could help shape new tools—such as scenario-based education—to train people in recognizing the psychological pressures of authority and in exercising moral courage. With artificial intelligence and social media increasingly influencing how information flows and decisions are made, the next frontier will be understanding how digital environments nudge our brains toward either compliance or independent thought.
For Thai readers, the takeaway is clear: obedience is a double-edged sword. While respect for elders and institutions is a valued tradition, it’s equally vital to foster environments where questions are welcomed and ethical self-reflection is nurtured. Whether in the home, school, or workplace, learning when and how to respectfully challenge authority is a skill that can save lives, improve organizations, and strengthen Thailand’s path ahead.
To take action, parents and teachers can create “question-friendly” spaces, encourage youth to share their viewpoints, and use historical case studies to discuss the dangers of blind obedience. On a societal level, supporting reforms that introduce ethics in the curriculum and protect whistleblowers will help balance respect with responsibility. For individuals, understanding the ways our brains respond to authority can empower us to pause, reflect, and choose wisely—rooted in both the strength of tradition and the wisdom of modern science.
Sources used: