3 ms·

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

• 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...
  • romwell 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. ..which is something a volunteer for a science test sees as a good thing. >In either case, it's far off from the "people follow orders" narrative. Indeed. I always took it along the lines of "when put in a setting where it's acceptable to harm others consequence-free, people need little to do so". This doesn't seem to contradict what you are saying.