5 ms·

I'm under the impression that the Milgram experiments are also not quite what people have generally been lead to believe. I've not read the book yet (I just go

by JackCh 8y ago

I'm under the impression that the Milgram experiments are also not quite what people have generally been lead to believe. I've not read the book yet (I just got a copy though) >"Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people went to maximum voltage on the shock machine was reported, very few people, I think, realized then and even realize today that that statistic applied to 26 of 40 people. Of those other 700-odd people, obedience rates varied enormously. In fact, there were variations of the experiment where no one obeyed." -Gina Perry, author of Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-loo... (I've not read the book yet, but I just got a copy.)

shkkmo 8y ago
The milgram experiments are far more interesting, and much better science that the SPE, but the popular understanding (and teaching) of them misses some of the most interesting conclusions that can be drawn from them. It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.
- romwell 8y ago
  >It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement. Well, to many people that hear about it for the first time, the mere fact that this behavior can be induced is shocking. It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    What those shocked people (Ha) are often not told is that Milgram went to great lengths to appeal to people's altruism (desire to progress the state of science) when selecting subjects and to persuade them of the scientific validity of what they'd be asked to do. That once the experiments began the experimenter would frequently pressure the 'teacher' by invoking the necessity of science. He was measuring "obedience to authority" insofar as "authority" meant trust in scientists credentialed by Yale. One variation on the experiment following the same script as the infamous variation tested obedience rates outside of the Yale campus and, of course, there was significantly less compliance. Or put another way >'according to academic Don Mixon, Milgram didn't measure immoral behavior in his lab. On the contrary, he argued that what Milgram measured was misplaced trust. [...] Don found the same results as Milgram but came to completely different conclusions. he argued that it wasn't immorality that drove Milgram's subjects to flip the switches but trust in the experimenter, who, despite the cries from the learner, calmly told them to continue and gave the impression that there was nothing to worry about. [...] According to Don, Milgram simply measured the faith that people put in experts: "He found just the opposite of what he thought he found; nothing about the subjects' behavior is evil. In fact, people go to great lengths, will suffer great distress, to be good. People got caught up in trying to be good and trusting the expert. [...] The only evil in the obedience research, Don came to believe, was "the unconscious evil of the experimenters"'
    - romwell 8y ago
      Potato, potato in my opinion. Even more so, Don's perspective is even more shocking. The people doing something that (to their best knowledge) hurts the other person and hurts them (less so, but still) because their authority person told them its for the greater good? I'd take a sadist that thinks for themselves instead.
      - JackCh 8y ago
        Milgram didn't persuade these people that science is good. He persuaded them that what they'd be asked to do was for science. In either case, it's far off from the "people follow orders" narrative. When teachers in the Milgram experiment were confronted with direct orders their compliance rates plummeted. They were compliant when they believed they were cooperating Milgram, and uncompliant when they believed they were being ordered by Milgram. During their periods of compliance they identified with Milgram by sharing the common goal of advancing science. The forth prod, the direct order ("You have no other choice, you must go on") caused any perception of a shared identity between the teacher and Milgram to evaporate and with it, their compliance. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people. Actually, it doesn't really. The experiment says far more about the importance of perceptions of authority than it does about "good" or "bad" people.
    - Izkata 8y ago
      > Actually, it doesn't really. I think you misread. The results of the Milgram experiment (that authority is more important) are what go against the common narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people. You're agreeing with him.
  - PJDK 8y ago
    The thing I find frustrating with Milgram is there is three narratives going on simultaneously. 1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk 2. The pretend actual reality: someone is being (potentially) fatally injured - certainly being hurt beyond the point of toleration 3. The false reality: - everything is fine because of science Almost everyone is concerned that they may be in reality 2 - they ask the researchers who say some variation of "please continue". This leads them to the entirely correct conclusion that this is a safe environment and they can continue. However, they are meant to have concluded that they really are in reality 2 and we judge them accordingly - even though they were never in reality 2, and never did anything horrifying to anyone. But why should they consider the other person their responsibility - surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger!
    - romwell 8y ago
      >But why should they consider the other person their responsibility Because that's what we hope to expect from people in a society: to not be bystanders when others are harmed, and not be accessory to such harm. >- surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the researchers are blackmailing the other subject or holding them against their will. What you know is that they seem to be in great pain. It boils down to this: do you believe your eyes and common sense, or what the authority tells you? The experiment shows that many opt for the latter - and that is scary. >If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger! History has shown us that this is not the conclusion the people make. Remwmber "First they came for _____, but I didn't say anything because I was not a ____"?
    - pofilat 8y ago
      It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1, because if they did, then the whole experiment makes no sense, unless the "teacher" felt pressure to conform. That is still a similar conclusion, AND in the absence of evidence that the torture was fake, is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering -- and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...

by JackCh 8y ago

shkkmo 8y ago

The milgram experiments are far more interesting, and much better science that the SPE, but the popular understanding (and teaching) of them misses some of the most interesting conclusions that can be drawn from them. It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement.

romwell 8y ago
>It's been a while since I studied this, but the most interesting part of the Milgram experiments are not that this behavior can be induced but the follow up studies which studied exactly which elements are most important to this inducement. Well, to many people that hear about it for the first time, the mere fact that this behavior can be induced is shocking. It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people.
- JackCh 8y ago
  What those shocked people (Ha) are often not told is that Milgram went to great lengths to appeal to people's altruism (desire to progress the state of science) when selecting subjects and to persuade them of the scientific validity of what they'd be asked to do. That once the experiments began the experimenter would frequently pressure the 'teacher' by invoking the necessity of science. He was measuring "obedience to authority" insofar as "authority" meant trust in scientists credentialed by Yale. One variation on the experiment following the same script as the infamous variation tested obedience rates outside of the Yale campus and, of course, there was significantly less compliance. Or put another way >'according to academic Don Mixon, Milgram didn't measure immoral behavior in his lab. On the contrary, he argued that what Milgram measured was misplaced trust. [...] Don found the same results as Milgram but came to completely different conclusions. he argued that it wasn't immorality that drove Milgram's subjects to flip the switches but trust in the experimenter, who, despite the cries from the learner, calmly told them to continue and gave the impression that there was nothing to worry about. [...] According to Don, Milgram simply measured the faith that people put in experts: "He found just the opposite of what he thought he found; nothing about the subjects' behavior is evil. In fact, people go to great lengths, will suffer great distress, to be good. People got caught up in trying to be good and trusting the expert. [...] The only evil in the obedience research, Don came to believe, was "the unconscious evil of the experimenters"'
  - romwell 8y ago
    Potato, potato in my opinion. Even more so, Don's perspective is even more shocking. The people doing something that (to their best knowledge) hurts the other person and hurts them (less so, but still) because their authority person told them its for the greater good? I'd take a sadist that thinks for themselves instead.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      Milgram didn't persuade these people that science is good. He persuaded them that what they'd be asked to do was for science. In either case, it's far off from the "people follow orders" narrative. When teachers in the Milgram experiment were confronted with direct orders their compliance rates plummeted. They were compliant when they believed they were cooperating Milgram, and uncompliant when they believed they were being ordered by Milgram. During their periods of compliance they identified with Milgram by sharing the common goal of advancing science. The forth prod, the direct order ("You have no other choice, you must go on") caused any perception of a shared identity between the teacher and Milgram to evaporate and with it, their compliance. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > It goes against the narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people. Actually, it doesn't really. The experiment says far more about the importance of perceptions of authority than it does about "good" or "bad" people.
  - Izkata 8y ago
    > Actually, it doesn't really. I think you misread. The results of the Milgram experiment (that authority is more important) are what go against the common narrative that there are "good" and "bad" people. You're agreeing with him.
- PJDK 8y ago
  The thing I find frustrating with Milgram is there is three narratives going on simultaneously. 1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk 2. The pretend actual reality: someone is being (potentially) fatally injured - certainly being hurt beyond the point of toleration 3. The false reality: - everything is fine because of science Almost everyone is concerned that they may be in reality 2 - they ask the researchers who say some variation of "please continue". This leads them to the entirely correct conclusion that this is a safe environment and they can continue. However, they are meant to have concluded that they really are in reality 2 and we judge them accordingly - even though they were never in reality 2, and never did anything horrifying to anyone. But why should they consider the other person their responsibility - surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger!
  - romwell 8y ago
    >But why should they consider the other person their responsibility Because that's what we hope to expect from people in a society: to not be bystanders when others are harmed, and not be accessory to such harm. >- surely the other subject can just say "that's enough I don't care about science enough to carry on"? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the researchers are blackmailing the other subject or holding them against their will. What you know is that they seem to be in great pain. It boils down to this: do you believe your eyes and common sense, or what the authority tells you? The experiment shows that many opt for the latter - and that is scary. >If the torture subject can't freely decide to stop then that means the "torturer" is probably also in mortal danger! History has shown us that this is not the conclusion the people make. Remwmber "First they came for _____, but I didn't say anything because I was not a ____"?
  - pofilat 8y ago
    It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1, because if they did, then the whole experiment makes no sense, unless the "teacher" felt pressure to conform. That is still a similar conclusion, AND in the absence of evidence that the torture was fake, is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering -- and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business...