I've been reading a fascinating book recently called The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, PhD. There are some really interesting things about how "Conscience" is what distinguishes 'normal' people from sociopaths, in that sociopaths have no conscience, no empathy, and in many cases can do whatever they want, with no emotional repurcussions that we might experience if we were to do something that caused harm to someone else.
She cites the famous obedience experiments by Stan Milgram, where the subject was required to administer shocks to another person who was believed to be a co-subject in a "learning" experiment, but who was actually a confederate of Milgram's. The actual subject of the study was instructed to "teach" sets of words to the "learner"/confederate and administer shocks when the "learner" made an error, with the shock setting increasing incrementally with each error that was made. No matter how distressed the "learner" became with the shocks (no actual shocks were administered), the subject was instructed to continue the experiment. Fully two-thirds of the subjects completed the experiment up to the maximum shock levels of 450 volts.
What was learned from this experiment is that, when in the presence of someone who was regarded as an authority figure (Dr. Milgram in his lab coat), the tendency to ignore one's conscience and obey orders was heightened. The subject "was just following orders" and assumed no responsibility for their own actions that were carried out at the behest of the authority figure.
Milgram concluded from the study:
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.
The experiment was repeated many times over, with strikingly similar results, even between genders. Then she cites an anomaly (p. 64):
In Milgram's initial study, one of the minority of people who eventually refused to continue with the experiment was a thirty-two year old engineer who apparently regarded the scientist in the lab coat as, at most, his intellectual peer. This subject pushed his chair away from the shock generator and in an indignant tone said to Milgram, "I'm an electrical engineer, and I have had shocks ... I think I've gone too far already, probably." In an interview later, when Milgram asked him who was accountable for shocking the man in the other room, he did not assign responsibility to the experimenter (Milgram). Instead, he replied, "I would put it on myself entirely." He was a professional person with an advanced education, and education must be acknowledged as one of the factors that determine whether or not conscience stays alert. It would be a grave and arrogant mistake to imagine that an academic degree directly increases the strength of conscience in the human psyche. On the other hand, education can sometimes level the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure, and thereby limit unquestioning obedience. With education and knowledge, the individual may be able to hold on to the perception of him- or herself as a legitimate authority.
Similar findings are also noted in this study on Conscience and Authority:
Although Milgram's findings are disturbing, more recent research has suggested that obedience to authority over conscience is not inevitable. Indeed, the research of Steven Sherman, also a psychologist, suggests that education can strengthen the power of conscience over authority. Sherman had a colleague contact several people by telephone, ostensibly to "poll" them on their opinions. The "pollster" asked them what they would do if they were ever ordered to perform a certain act that was morally or socially undesirable, and spent some time discussing the issues with them. Several weeks after the contact was made, these same people were actually asked to carry out that act. Surprisingly, two thirds refused to obey the order, a sharp contrast to to Milgram's finding that two thirds of those ordered to act against their conscience would normally obey.
The implication of the Sherman experiment is that if people reflect on a moral issue before they are involved in it, they are more likely to behave in accordance with their consciences when that issue faces them in real life. Moral reflection and discussion of the kind found in the best types of moral education substantially enhance the ethical quality of a person's future choices.
In light of this information, and with the knowledge that the WTS's theme for the District Convention this year is Godly Obedience which emphasized a very strong message discouraging higher education among JWs, it seems obvious to me that the WTS is very well aware of the risk of heightening of the ethical quality of choices that occurs when someone pursues higher education. They are also very well aware that those who pursue higher education will likely question the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave™ or even begin to dismiss that authority outright.
I honestly thought that the WTS could do nothing that would surprise me. But the obvious knowledge that they have as to how to psychologically control and manipulate their followers, down to the details of stressing "obedience" over "education" and having those two issues as the central theme of a convention, is frankly quite amazing to me.
The reason why the WTS hates education so much is because it diminishes their authority and it deprives the WTS of unquestioningly obedient followers.