A recent wave of research in neuroscience is shedding fresh light on a question as old as society itself: Why do people obey authority, even when it conflicts with their own morals? The drive to follow orders is deeply rooted in both our brains and cultures, according to leading scientists exploring the intersection of compliance and control. These findings, highlighted in a discussion hosted by Dr. Michael Shermer on Skeptic.com, carry profound implications for Thai society—spanning education, workplace hierarchies, and even public health.
At the heart of this inquiry is the complex relationship between authority, social pressure, and individual conscience. The phenomenon has been famously probed in classic experiments, such as psychologist Stanley Milgram’s 1960s study, where ordinary people delivered what they thought were dangerous electric shocks to strangers under the guidance of an authority figure. Decades later, modern neuroscience is beginning to unravel the brain mechanisms that make such obedience possible source.
Understanding why individuals comply—even actively participating in unethical actions—matters deeply for Thais, as deference to authority is woven into the fabric of our culture through traditions like “kreng jai” (เกรงใจ), respect for teachers and elders, and fascination with hierarchy. The new research reveals that when we receive orders from authoritative figures, certain brain regions involved in moral judgment and self-agency become less active. According to neuroscientist Dr. Micah Edelson, our brains may “offload” responsibility when obeying orders, dampening the sense of personal accountability (Nature Neuroscience). This process is linked to reduced activation in the anterior cingulate cortex—a brain region associated with empathy and self-control.
What’s striking, researchers say, is that obedience isn’t just learned—it’s also embedded in neural circuits shaped by evolution. Humans are a social species, and following leaders once improved the chances of group survival. Yet in the modern world, this hardwired compliance can backfire, leading to corporate scandals, public health tragedies, and even human rights abuses when obedience overrides ethical judgment.
Dr. Shermer’s program brings together multidisciplinary perspectives, with experts pointing out that brain imaging studies confirm how “moral disengagement” is heightened when we feel distant from the consequences of our actions, such as when following direct orders. A 2016 study in Current Biology found that people felt less guilt and responsibility when instructed to perform harmful actions versus when deciding freely (Current Biology). “Our sense of agency diminishes, making it psychologically easier to comply,” says Dr. Patrick Haggard, one of the study’s co-authors.
For Thailand, where hierarchical structures persist in schools, workplaces, and government, these insights raise urgent questions. In the classroom, for example, rote obedience to teachers can stifle creativity and discourage independent thought—a concern educational reformers have long voiced (Bangkok Post). In the healthcare sector, nurses and junior doctors may hesitate to challenge senior physicians’ instructions, even when patient safety is at stake (PubMed). Similar stories emerge in business environments, where reluctance to question authority can lead to groupthink and costly mistakes.
Thai history provides cautionary tales. From the student protests of 1973 and 1976, to the political unrest in more recent years, social movements here have often run up against strict codes of obedience and deference (Wikipedia: 1973 Thai popular uprising). Psychologists and social commentators warn that understanding the neuroscience of compliance is vital for building a more resilient, democratic society.
Looking ahead, experts stress the importance of counterbalancing compliance with critical thinking. “Awareness is the first antidote,” says Dr. Edelson. Educational systems must encourage students to question, debate, and assert themselves, not simply memorize and obey. In clinical settings, implementing “speak up” protocols empowers staff to voice concerns without fear of retaliation. Companies, too, can promote a culture of safety and accountability by flattening hierarchies and encouraging open dialogue (Harvard Business Review).
For Thai readers seeking to navigate the push and pull of tradition, respect, and personal conscience, the take-away is practical: Reflect on your own reasons for compliance, especially in high-stakes or ethically gray situations. Leaders—from teachers to CEOs—can help by fostering transparency and treating dissent not as disobedience but as a healthy sign of engagement. As neuroscience continues to unlock the mysteries behind why we follow orders, societies like Thailand have an opportunity to harness ancient instincts for a modern, more just world.
To learn more, visit the original discussion here, or explore related peer-reviewed research on PubMed.