3 ms·

That’s just not correct. In the original form of the experiment (and several subsequent replications), the “teacher” was under the impression everything was re

That’s just not correct. In the original form of the experiment (and several subsequent replications), the “teacher” was under the impression everything was real and wasn’t aware the “learner” (the person pretending to get shocked) was an actor. Today, you’d never get an ethics board to approve the experiment in this form, as several former “teachers” were distraught, after being told the true nature of the experiment, because they naturally assumed they’d never be capable of such terrible acts. There is no evidence to support the view that the “teachers” who administered dangerous shocks were somehow clued into the fact that it was an actor. That would have made the entire experiment worthless, as “Will people pretend to do evil things while role playing?” isn’t an interesting question because thats well understood to be true. Milgram set out specifically to see if every-day people would commit acts that go against their personal conscience if directed to do so by authority.

tptacek 8y ago
Eh. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participants-provide-little-support-for-the-contemporary-theory-of-engaged-followership/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...
- mannykannot 8y ago
  That is an interesting article. There are certainly lots of reasons for thinking that the behavior of the participants was much more complicated than is sometimes presented, but nevertheless, it seems not beyond possibility that, when questioned after the event, participants might have made somewhat self-serving statements about actions of theirs that they may have had qualms about at the time. I find it interesting that the article makes an issue over the point that "the majority do not appear to have continued out of commitment to science," as this particular motivation seems to me to be one of the lesser issues raised by the exercise.
DanBC 8y ago
> That would have made the entire experiment worthless, Welcome to psychology in the 1960s.

tptacek 8y ago

Eh. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participants-provide-little-support-for-the-contemporary-theory-of-engaged-followership/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...

mannykannot 8y ago
That is an interesting article. There are certainly lots of reasons for thinking that the behavior of the participants was much more complicated than is sometimes presented, but nevertheless, it seems not beyond possibility that, when questioned after the event, participants might have made somewhat self-serving statements about actions of theirs that they may have had qualms about at the time. I find it interesting that the article makes an issue over the point that "the majority do not appear to have continued out of commitment to science," as this particular motivation seems to me to be one of the lesser issues raised by the exercise.

DanBC 8y ago

> That would have made the entire experiment worthless, Welcome to psychology in the 1960s.