Thinking 2 Think

Sacred Science: When Questioning Became Dangerous

• Michael Antonio Aponte • Episode 52

Share episode

Send us a text

We dive deep into the psychology of collective obedience during the COVID-19 pandemic, examining how fear, authority, and group dynamics influenced behavior on a massive scale. Michael Aponsis' paper "Six Feet of Separation from Reality" serves as our guide for understanding how societies fell in line with unprecedented uniformity.

• The COVID-19 response characterized as a "global obedience experiment" where policies spread alongside the virus
• Comparison to Stanley Milgram's obedience studies, with pandemic compliance driven by internal fear rather than direct commands
• How fear served as the primary engine for compliance, creating visceral rather than rational responses
• The transformation of science into "sacred science" where questioning became taboo
• Matthias Desmet's concept of "mass formation" explaining how isolated, anxious populations gravitate toward unifying narratives
• The shift from seeing obedience as following orders to "emotional obedience" where moral pressure drives compliance
• The costs beyond restrictions: loss of intellectual humility, curiosity, and interpersonal trust
• People reduced to potential threats rather than fellow humans, fundamentally changing social dynamics
• The dangerous elevation of obedience as the highest virtue and questioning as harmful
• Aponte's call to action: normalizing dissent, embracing nuance, and rebuilding tolerance for uncertainty

Please check out Michael Aponte's "Obedient Nation" series on the Thinking to Think podcast for more insights on this vital topic.


Support the show

🎧 Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to join our growing community of thoughtful individuals!

🔗 Follow us:
📖 Check out my book: The Logical Mind: Learn Critical Thinking to Make Better Decisions:


📲 Let’s connect on social media!

  • https://x.com/Thinking_2Think
Lyra Morgan:

You didn't choose to hear this. The algorithm did, or maybe it didn't. Today we're diving deep, really deep, into territory that well. It might feel a bit unsettling, maybe even a little too close to home for some of you. We're going to try and unpack the psychology behind collective obedience. You know how whole societies sometimes just fall in line, and we're looking at it specifically through the lens of a very recent, very global event.

Lyra Morgan:

It's a conversation that, let's be honest, was difficult to have for a while. Sometimes it felt like it was actively discouraged. Even Our main source, our guide for this exploration, is a really insightful paper by Michael Aponsis. It's called Six Feet of Separation from Reality Fear, obedience and the Psychology of the Pandemic. It's actually a key part of his Wider Obedient Nation series, which you can find over on the Thinking to Think podcast. So our mission today is pretty clear we want to dissect not to judge, but just with real curiosity how things like fear, authority, group dynamics, how all that influenced behavior on a massive, almost unbelievable scale. We're basically asking the questions that perhaps felt a bit forbidden at the time.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yeah. And what's really striking right from the start is how Aponthe sets this up. He's very, very clear that he's not trying to deny any tragedy. He's not trying to politicize Greece. It's crucial that distinction. His goal is really to prompt us, all of us, towards some critical self-reflection. And he comes to this not just as an academic but, you know, as a father, an educator, a thinker. It's personal for him and that perspective feeds into his core belief, which is that obedience driven purely by fear well, he sees that as the most dangerous kind, much more dangerous than obedience that comes from, say, love or respect or even just reasoned agreement. So this isn't just like an academic exercise we're doing here. It's about trying to understand what we collectively might have given up for this idea of safety and maybe, more importantly, how we find the path back to reclaiming our own individual thinking.

Lyra Morgan:

Okay, right, let's unpack that core premise then, because it is a bold one. Aponte doesn't just call the COVID-19 pandemic a health crisis. He actually calls it a global obedience experiment. Right, just let that sink in for a second. A global obedience experiment as this new virus spread, he argues, another way of spread with it policies, mandates and what he calls moral messaging. And it wasn't just about getting people to do certain things, right, he argues, it was about demanding this deep, almost unconscious, emotional alignment. Think about how it felt. Apon suggests that if you disagreed even slightly, you weren't just wrong, you were labeled dangerous. If you question things the effectiveness, the costs, the long-term impact you could be seen as a threat, a source of misinformation, someone who might hurt others by not complying or even by just thinking differently.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Right. That framing of potentially killing others through dissent was incredibly powerful.

Lyra Morgan:

Exactly and wrapped in this moral language, whole populations across totally different cultures, different countries. They just seem to comply with this amazing uniformity. And what Aponte really highlights is the speed of it and how synchronized it all was, like a global switch flipped. It wasn't just about rules, it was about getting everyone emotionally on the same page.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

And his analysis of the let's call it, the psychological infrastructure. This is really compelling. He drills down into these core elements he believes were key Fear, obviously, but also authority, group dynamics and, crucially, shame. And this is where he brings in that comparison to Stanley Milgram's famous obedience studies from back in the 60s Aponte's view is that for a while there, critical thinking itself was basically put under well quarantine.

Lyra Morgan:

Ok, maybe remind us quickly about Milgram, just the core idea.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Sure. So Milgram, back at Yale in the early 60s, set up this experiment. People thought they were part of a memory study. They were the teacher told by an authority figure, a guy in a lab coat, to give electric shocks to a learner who was actually an actor. Whenever the learner got something wrong, the shocks supposedly went up higher and higher to dangerous levels. The learner would pretend to be in pain, shout, protest, eventually go silent.

Lyra Morgan:

Right, I remember this. It's chilling.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It is Because the shocking part was how many ordinary people people like you and me kept giving the shocks just because the authority figure told them to, even when they thought they were causing real harm, maybe even death.

Lyra Morgan:

Just because they were told.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Just because they were told it showed this powerful tendency. We have to defer to authority, sometimes even over our own conscience.

Lyra Morgan:

So how does Aponte connect that to the pandemic? It wasn't exactly the same, was it? No one was in a lab coat ordering us directly.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

No, exactly, and that's Aponte's point. He uses Milgram as a benchmark, not a direct parallel. He asks what happens when the pressure isn't an explicit command like you must continue. What if it's more diffuse? What if it's driven by widespread fear, or this intense sense of moral duty, or just the sheer terror of being kicked out of the group, socially ostracized? Aponte argues the conditions during the pandemic created this environment where thinking for yourself wasn't just frowned upon, it was actively suppressed through these really powerful social and emotional forces.

Lyra Morgan:

Questioning the main story felt well. It felt almost wrong, like a betrayal.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

OK, yeah, that resonates and this brings us squarely to fear, doesn't it? Because you could argue that was the real engine here. From the moment it all started, the media coverage globally wasn't just reporting facts. It felt like an immersive fear campaign. Almost you couldn't escape it Images of hospitals overflowing, stories of mass graves, those death counters ticking up constantly everywhere you looked. It wasn't just information. It felt like a deliberate or maybe unconscious psychological strategy.

Lyra Morgan:

The constant stream of alarming information and fear, as Aponts points out, is probably the most primal tool for getting people to comply. Its effects were immediate, they were visceral and they were everywhere. Just think back to those first few weeks or months the panic buying toilet paper, hand sanitizer disappearing off shelves.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Oh yeah, Total irrationality in some ways.

Lyra Morgan:

Right, and how quickly masks became common, often way before any official rules and the acceptance of lockdowns, life changing completely, almost overnight, for billions of people. Aponte argues these weren't, you know, calm, rational decisions made after weighing pros and cons. He says they were raw, survival driven acts of obedience, almost instinctual reactions to this overwhelming sense of threat.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yeah, like a primal switch got flipped.

Lyra Morgan:

Exactly. It's not just what we did, but why that distinction is key.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

And this is where Aponte really distinguishes the pandemic obedience from Milgram, drawing out that psychological difference. It's quite nuanced In Mildrem people obeyed even when they were clearly distressed because the guy in the lab coat told them to Explicitly. Please continue, the experiment requires you continue.

Lyra Morgan:

It was external Right Direct order.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

But Apont argues, during the pandemic, people mostly obeyed, not because of a direct command from on high, but because they were essentially terrified not to Terrified, not to Okay, that feels different.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It's a huge shift, isn't it? Yeah, the driver moves from outside the external command to inside this deep, visceral, almost pre-rational fear. It wasn't just oh, the government says so, although sure that played a part, it was deeper, it was if I don't do this, I might get sick, my family might get sick, or maybe even more powerful people will think I'm bad, exactly. I'll be seen as irresponsible, selfish, a danger to my community. Yeah, that internal fear-based story makes the obedience kind of self-policing, doesn't it? Yeah, less dependent on constant orders, more on this internal drive for safety, both physical and social and then, on top of the fear, came this, this moral layer.

Lyra Morgan:

It wasn't subtle either. Compliance shifted from being about safety to being about virtue.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Mm-hmm, the moral imperative.

Lyra Morgan:

Suddenly wearing a mask wasn't just a maybe useful precaution. It was a visible sign you were a good person, you cared. Getting vaccinated wasn't just a health choice. It was framed as a loyalty test, your duty to the collective your civic responsibility right and keeping six feet apart wasn't just physics, it was selflessness, protecting the vulnerable.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It all got loaded with this heavy moral weight of course, you were free to believe what you wanted, as long as it was what everyone else believed or what was presented as the only right way to believe exactly, and this framing it created intense social pressure.

Lyra Morgan:

If you questioned any of it, didn't matter how carefully or what evidence you had. You were just selfish, ignorant, dangerous.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It instantly created this us versus them dynamic, didn't it? The good, obedient people, versus the bad, dangerous dissenters.

Lyra Morgan:

Yeah, and Aponta argues the result wasn't just people changing their behavior, it was deeper, a kind of psychological submission where people started to truly believe this was the only morally right way. They internalized it completely.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Which raises this really critical question what happens when science itself stops being a process of questioning and becomes more like a dogma, an unshakable belief system? Aponte brings in Robert J Lifton's idea of sacred science, and it seems to fit so well here.

Lyra Morgan:

Sacred science. Tell me more about that.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Lifton studied thought reform, totalitarianism. He described how a particular belief system, maybe even a scientific theory, can become so holy, so untouchableable that you just can't question it. And Aponte argues that's what happened with the pandemic narrative the presented science became sacred.

Lyra Morgan:

So, even when the advice changed constantly, one minute masks don't work, the next minute they're essential.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly. Even when guidelines shifted dramatically, sometimes contradicting earlier advice, often without really clear public explanations, people mostly just accepted it. Aponte's point isn't that everyone understood the complex shifting science. He suggests people accepted the changes simply because they came from the authorities, who were seen as guardians of this sacred science.

Lyra Morgan:

So it wasn't about understanding the why, just accepting the what because of who said it.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Precisely. It's a really powerful mechanism because it bypasses your own critical thinking. You just accept the narrative, even if it's changing or seems inconsistent, because the source is seen as beyond question.

Lyra Morgan:

Wow, ok, so that ties into another concept that Punt uses, right, this idea of mass formation from Matthias Desmet.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yes, he draws on Desmet's work quite significantly. Desmet described this kind of collective hypnosis, almost a psychological state that can emerge under very specific conditions.

Lyra Morgan:

And those conditions sound disturbingly familiar when you think about 2020.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

They really do. Desmet identified key factors individuals feeling very isolated, a lot of free-floating anxiety not tied to anything specific, just a general sense of unease and widespread uncertainty about the world.

Lyra Morgan:

Which was basically the global mood, wasn't it? Lockdowns causing isolation, fear causing anxiety and total uncertainty about health, jobs, the future, Exactly, and in that state upon accuse, people naturally gravitate towards a collective.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

They find a new identity in the group. They find comfort and clarity in a simple, unifying story that seems to explain everything.

Lyra Morgan:

And, crucially, they find safety in obedience. Following the narrative becomes the safe path, the way to manage the chaos.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

And Appondit makes a really humane point here, one that pushes back against just blaming people. He says, quoting him loosely the obedience weren't stupid, they were human and they found peace in the clarity that comes with following orders in a time of chaos.

Lyra Morgan:

That's important. It's not about judging. It's about understanding that human need for certainty for belonging, especially under extreme stress.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Right when everything's confusing and scary. A simple, clear path presented as the right path is incredibly appealing psychologically. It quiets the internal noise.

Lyra Morgan:

No, I know Desmet's term mass formation psychosis was controversial.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It was yeah. Yeah, there was a lot of debate about the specific label.

Lyra Morgan:

But Aponte focuses more on the underlying idea right that large groups can fall under the spell of a single narrative when they're vulnerable, isolated and guided by what seems like a moral authority.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly. Regardless of the label, the core insight is powerful, and Aponte points out how the psychological mechanisms involved look remarkably similar to those seen in cults.

Lyra Morgan:

Like what specifically?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Well, think about it Social isolation, constant fear-mongering, endless repetition of the same messages, creating this sense of us versus them and framing the group's beliefs as morally superior, righteous even.

Lyra Morgan:

All those elements were arguably present during the pandemic.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Undeniably Fear uncertainty, a clear enemy. First the virus, then maybe the unvaccinated or the questioners. Aponte suggests you don't even need some mastermind pulling the strings. The conditions themselves can be enough to trigger this kind of collective psychological shift.

Lyra Morgan:

Which brings us to what you called Aponte's unique contribution, this idea of emotional obedience. How is that different, again, from Milgram?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It's a subtle but crucial difference. Milgram was about obeying a direct external command from an authority figure. Do this? Aponte argues the pandemic. Obedience was driven more by internal emotional pressures, specifically moral pressure, the need to be seen as good and the fear of exclusion, the fear of being cast out.

Lyra Morgan:

So people complied, not just because they feared the virus, but because they feared being seen as well as bad people, selfish people.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Precisely, they feared the social consequences being judged, condemned, ostracized by their community, their friends, maybe even their family. That emotional weight wanting to belong, wanting to be seen as virtuous, avoiding that social stigma became this incredibly powerful, almost invisible motivator.

Lyra Morgan:

It's less about the rule itself and more about the social meaning attached to following the rule.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly it becomes an internalized, self-policing obedience driven by emotion, not just external orders.

Lyra Morgan:

And the consequences of that taking hold. What did Aponte see happening?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Well, the consequences were pretty severe. According to his analysis, questioning the narrative wasn't just ignored, it was often actively punished.

Lyra Morgan:

We saw that, didn't we? Social media censorship.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Absolutely Widespread censorship, sometimes algorithmic, often targeting views that question the dominant line, even if they were based on reasonable scientific debate or personal experience.

Lyra Morgan:

And families breaking apart over it.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yes, heartbreaking stories of families fractured over differing beliefs, people losing jobs, professional licenses Not for actually harming anyone but, as Appante puts it, for failing to align emotionally with the dominant message.

Lyra Morgan:

Failing to align emotionally. That's chilling.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It is. It suggests conformity wasn't just behavioral, it was emotional, and Appante poses this really haunting question what if the real censorship isn't silencing others, but silencing yourself before you even speak?

Lyra Morgan:

Ah, the self-censorship, the fear of speaking up becomes so strong you just don't. You bite your tongue before the thought even fully forms.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly, it's an internal chilling effect. Yeah, the individual becomes their own censor, constantly checking their thoughts against the perceived public mood, purely out of fear of the social consequences. It's a very subtle but incredibly effective form of control.

Lyra Morgan:

So, thinking about all this, what did we actually lose Beyond freedom of movement? What were the deeper costs Aponte identifies?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

He points to losses that go right to the heart of a healthy society, things that might take a long time to recover, if we ever fully do.

Lyra Morgan:

Like what.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

He highlights three big ones intellectual humility, curiosity and, maybe most damagingly, trust in one another.

Lyra Morgan:

Intellectual humility, the ability to say I don't know or I might be wrong.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly that seemed to just evaporate in the face of this single, certain narrative and curiosity, the drive to ask questions, explore different angles, look for nuance. That got shut down too. It was often labeled as dangerous, irresponsible.

Lyra Morgan:

Yeah, you could feel that frame, couldn't you?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Definitely. Trust in neighbors, trust in fellow citizens, trust in institutions, the social fabric, the connections between us took a real hit. Suspicions seem to replace trust in many areas.

Lyra Morgan:

What Aponte observes about how we started seeing each other is particularly disturbing.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It really is. He argues that, through the lens of this fear-based narrative, other people stopped being just people. They became potential threats.

Lyra Morgan:

Grandparents became risks, not sources of comfort.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Right. Neighbors became potential rule breakers, people to be reported, children. Children were reduced to being seen primarily as vectors of disease, not just kids needing connection and play.

Lyra Morgan:

That redefinition is profound.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It is. And Aponte insists it wasn't the virus itself that did this, but the narrative around the virus insists it wasn't the virus itself that did this, but the narrative around the virus. That narrative encouraged suspicion. It encouraged seeing others primarily through the lens of risk. It created this deep psychological distancing that went way beyond six feet.

Lyra Morgan:

A fear of each other, basically.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

A deep-seated fear of each other became normalized, undermining the very basis of community.

Lyra Morgan:

And maybe the biggest loss, the one with the longest shadow. Aponte suggests it's this idea that took hold, that obedience was the highest virtue.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yeah, just pause on that for a second. Obedience is the highest virtue.

Lyra Morgan:

It means just following orders, not questioning, not thinking critically. That was presented as caring, as empathy, as being responsible.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

And the flip side, questioning, doubting, even just wanting more information that was framed as harmful, as reckless, as selfishly putting others at risk.

Lyra Morgan:

What does that do to a society when thinking critically is seen as bad and just going along is seen as good?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It's fundamentally dangerous, isn't it? It's almost an Orwellian reversal of values. It encourages intellectual passivity, discourages the very skills a society needs to solve complex problems. It changes the whole relationship between individuals and authority. Dissent becomes almost immoral.

Lyra Morgan:

So, as things reopen, as we move forward, what's the big question Aponte leaves us with?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

It's really this. Did we actually learn anything fundamental about how easily obedience can be manufactured when people are scared and under pressure?

Lyra Morgan:

Or did we just hit pause? Are we just waiting for the next crisis for the same dynamics to kick in all over again?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

That's the unsettling question, isn't it? What happens next time?

Lyra Morgan:

So what's his call to action? How do we avoid just repeating the pattern?

Dr. Elias Quinn:

His message is pretty clear To reclaim our minds, to protect our autonomy, we have to start actively normalizing dissent, not just putting up with it, but seeing it as essential for a healthy society.

Lyra Morgan:

We need to embrace nuance right, Understand that complex problems rarely have simple answers.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Exactly, and we need to rebuild our tolerance for uncertainty. Tolerance for uncertainty. Life is uncertain. Trying to eliminate all risk at any cost can lead us down these very dangerous paths of conformity that destroy the freedoms we value. Safety matters, of course, but but freedom of thought, Aponte argues, is absolutely essential. It's not optional. His Obedient Nation series isn't about blaming anyone for obeying during a scary time. It's about reminding us we can choose differently.

Lyra Morgan:

Empowering us maybe.

Dr. Elias Quinn:

Yes, empowering us to pause, take a breath and actually think for ourselves, especially when fear starts shouting. His final thought is simple but powerful that the next time fear knocks, we pause, we breathe and we think.

Lyra Morgan:

We pause, we breathe and we think, which leaves us with that final lingering question if the algorithm controls what we see, who controls what we believe? We really want to extend our sincere thanks to Mr Michael Aponte for letting us speak about his work on thinking To think and for allowing us to co-host this incredibly important obedient nation series. It's been profound. If you found this deep dive as thought-provoking as we did, please do like, share, comment and subscribe to thinking to think wherever you get your deep dive and definitely stay tuned. There are more episodes coming in this vital series and you won't want to miss them.

People on this episode

Head Shot

M.A.Aponte

Host
Contributor

Dr. Elias Quinn

Co-host
Contributor

Lyra Morgan

Co-host