9 ms·

Obedience to Authority: The Experiments by Stanley Milgram

83 points by maremmano 6y ago

arbitrage 6y ago
without any mention of the issues regarding the inability of anyone to reproduce the Milgram experiments and get the same results with any consistency, the whole example of "Obedience to Authority" as it relates to this sanctioned abuse of power should be thrown out. there isn't much left to learn from the milgram saga, other than that the consumer public absolutely loves pop-culture science.
- jakubp 6y ago
  You are wrong about inability to reproduce. At least one recent replication was done in Poland (2015) by a respected academic team incl. professor Dolinski. The main result was consistent with what Milgram observed: most people did what they were told. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.h...
  - davetannenbaum 6y ago
    My understanding is that there have also been semi-recent replications done in France, Iran, and a partial replication conducted at Santa Clara university. All found the same basic pattern as the original study.
    - jbullock35 6y ago
      Yes. There have been dozens of replication efforts -- none of them exact replications. The closest and most careful one that I know about is the one done by Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University: "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?" It's at https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    I wonder the impact of how widespread the knowledge of the original Milgram experiments is. If the subjects figure that the pain is fake because they've heard about this experiment before they might be more willing to administer the shock.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      I'd think they'd react in the opposite way, if they knew about the test -- that they wouldn't want to be one of the yes sayers. (And some might have thought that the whole thing was then a waste of their time anyway?)
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I've heard that these kind of experiments are impossible to do today, due to "ethics" rules in science. Those rules are of course another example of obeying authorities :)
  - jbullock35 6y ago
    That's right. Universities' "institutional review boards" (IRBs) don't permit scholars to tell subjects that they are delivering very heavy shocks. Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University took this point up in his replication article (which was necessarily only a partial replication).
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I've heard that these kind of experiments are impossible to do today, due to "ethics" rules in science. If you're referring to the fact that the experimenters had to lie to the subjects and deceive them, not just in one individual statement but over the whole experimental scenario, the reason why that's not a good idea is actual practical, not ethical: constructing a false scenario and properly controlling what the subjects believe in a false scenario is very hard. For example, consider this post by The Last Psychiatrist: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/05/first_person_account_of_milgra.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/05/first_person_account... The key point is here: "He didn't stop because of moral courage; he stopped because he thought he was being played." In other words, he figured out that it was a false scenario and his refusal was based on that, not on any moral objection to shocking people. But he got counted as a "refusal". How many other people who didn't refuse had some intuitive sense that the whole thing was a setup, thereby dampening whatever moral impulses they had? There's no way of knowing. The fact that it was a setup changes the whole experiment, as compared to one where all of the information being given to the subjects is truthful.
JadeNB 6y ago
I think the title is missing a colon; for grammar reasons, it strongly seems that "The Experiments …" is the subtitle.
nsajko 6y ago
Some more criticism of the experiment: 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... Regardless of the scientific value of the experiment, the original documentary might be interesting, because of the experiment's influence apparent in textbooks and pop culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0
motohagiography 6y ago
If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that, in fact, the findings were that the average person will revolt against an unjust authority, and therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities? "Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, it must be just you. Help is available for people struggling with mental health issues and change is sometimes uncomfortable, especially for people accustomed to privilege, maybe it's time for some self-care, citizen..."
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that If his methods are discredited, you can't really conclude anything from it. The fact that he didn't prove one thing doesn't by default prove the opposite, it just means he didn't prove the original thing.
- watwut 6y ago
  > If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that, in fact, the findings were that the average person will revolt against an unjust authority, and therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities? No. Milgram's experiment being discredited means that we should revert back to the "we don't know what average person does". If you want to conclude that "the average person will revolt against an unjust authority" you will need to make multiple valid experiments to confirm that first. And you should not forget that peoples behavior is strongly influenced by cultures they are in, so you will also need to account for that. > therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities Slavery used to be considered just and legitimate. Slavery is not considered just and legitimate. "justness and legitimacy" are not scientific terms.
  - njharman 6y ago
    No such thing as average person outside statistics. We see what people do every day. We don’t need experiments to show us. Just pay attention.
jl2718 6y ago
The unpublished puppy experiment: https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m Edit: found paper link: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001
PJDK 6y ago
My major problem with Milgram is about the "learner". As far as the participants of the experiment are told the learner is, like them a volunteer. That means the learner has just as much autonomy to end the experiment as the teacher. So why isn't the learner calling an end to the experiment - why should this be on the teacher to call it quits? Either the learner is making a fuss, but that's just how they react to a bit of pain (think about how people can squeal getting into a cold bath voluntarily) but they are happy to continue. Alternatively they are being actively coerced into continuing - in which case the correct response for the teacher is what exactly? Maybe try and jump the supervisor and make a bolt for the door? You are clearly trapped by some kind of sadistic serial killer and you are unlikely to make it out alive.
- kebman 6y ago
  Because the "learner" was an actor.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  Seems to me that conclusion from Milgram experiment are usually overblown. I would guess that 'teachers' just assume safety of the procedure and consent of 'learners' based on context. So it is not really about obedience vs moral imperatives but more about trust of authority vs. doubts based on personal observation.
  - K0balt 6y ago
    But that is precisely the point. Trust in authority vs direct observation, and the shifting of the Overton window to create reduced trust in direct observations vs authoritative direction.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    It has been repeated under a bunch of different circumstances, including with real dogs being shocked. Sidestepping conclusions because of hypothetical escape hatches in the original methodology isn't a great idea.
- jbullock35 6y ago
Maarten88 6y ago
I learned about these experiments at university some 30 years ago, and found this to be a very powerful lesson. Of course these experiments were unethical, but I have seen nothing since that disproves the outcome and I firmly believe that a large percentage of people will happily kill other people or commit heinous crimes when some authority tells them to and they can convince themselves it it not their responsibility. The think I took from it was that I am always responsible for anything that results from my actions. So in my career I always tried to consider what work I do, what customers I work for, and what might come from the things I do. In a business environment that is often not easy, most people work from a mindset that anything profitable is good as long as it's not illegal.
- the_cat_kittles 6y ago
  beautifully put, and exactly what i came away with as well. and yes, it often feels like swimming against the current to actually care about the content of your work. so many parts of our work culture expect us to be completely indifferent to what we are actually doing. ive always admired this experiment for being so elegant and powerful.
- watwut 6y ago
  > I have seen nothing since that disproves the outcome This is the harm done by badly designed popularized experiments.
phibz 6y ago
I think my response would be to refuse to administer any shocks until I had a chance to experience them myself.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Would you start with 15V and work your way upwards
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    (I meant with a smiley :-)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bigpumpkin 6y ago
' She found that whilst Milgram's originally published article mentioned some forty participants, of which some twenty-six proved to be obedient, some seven hundred naive participants were actually "tested" in various experimental scenarios with varying results as to their "obedience". ' p-hacking way back in the day.

83 points by maremmano 6y ago

without any mention of the issues regarding the inability of anyone to reproduce the Milgram experiments and get the same results with any consistency, the whole example of "Obedience to Authority" as it relates to this sanctioned abuse of power should be thrown out. there isn't much left to learn from the milgram saga, other than that the consumer public absolutely loves pop-culture science.

jakubp 6y ago
You are wrong about inability to reproduce. At least one recent replication was done in Poland (2015) by a respected academic team incl. professor Dolinski. The main result was consistent with what Milgram observed: most people did what they were told. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.h...
- davetannenbaum 6y ago
  My understanding is that there have also been semi-recent replications done in France, Iran, and a partial replication conducted at Santa Clara university. All found the same basic pattern as the original study.
  - jbullock35 6y ago
    Yes. There have been dozens of replication efforts -- none of them exact replications. The closest and most careful one that I know about is the one done by Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University: "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?" It's at https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf.
- hntrader 6y ago
  I wonder the impact of how widespread the knowledge of the original Milgram experiments is. If the subjects figure that the pain is fake because they've heard about this experiment before they might be more willing to administer the shock.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    I'd think they'd react in the opposite way, if they knew about the test -- that they wouldn't want to be one of the yes sayers. (And some might have thought that the whole thing was then a waste of their time anyway?)
BurningFrog 6y ago
I've heard that these kind of experiments are impossible to do today, due to "ethics" rules in science. Those rules are of course another example of obeying authorities :)
- jbullock35 6y ago
  That's right. Universities' "institutional review boards" (IRBs) don't permit scholars to tell subjects that they are delivering very heavy shocks. Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University took this point up in his replication article (which was necessarily only a partial replication).
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I've heard that these kind of experiments are impossible to do today, due to "ethics" rules in science. If you're referring to the fact that the experimenters had to lie to the subjects and deceive them, not just in one individual statement but over the whole experimental scenario, the reason why that's not a good idea is actual practical, not ethical: constructing a false scenario and properly controlling what the subjects believe in a false scenario is very hard. For example, consider this post by The Last Psychiatrist: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/05/first_person_account_of_milgra.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/05/first_person_account... The key point is here: "He didn't stop because of moral courage; he stopped because he thought he was being played." In other words, he figured out that it was a false scenario and his refusal was based on that, not on any moral objection to shocking people. But he got counted as a "refusal". How many other people who didn't refuse had some intuitive sense that the whole thing was a setup, thereby dampening whatever moral impulses they had? There's no way of knowing. The fact that it was a setup changes the whole experiment, as compared to one where all of the information being given to the subjects is truthful.

JadeNB 6y ago

I think the title is missing a colon; for grammar reasons, it strongly seems that "The Experiments …" is the subtitle.

nsajko 6y ago

Some more criticism of the experiment: 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... Regardless of the scientific value of the experiment, the original documentary might be interesting, because of the experiment's influence apparent in textbooks and pop culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0

motohagiography 6y ago

If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that, in fact, the findings were that the average person will revolt against an unjust authority, and therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities? "Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, it must be just you. Help is available for people struggling with mental health issues and change is sometimes uncomfortable, especially for people accustomed to privilege, maybe it's time for some self-care, citizen..."

ogre_codes 6y ago
> If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that If his methods are discredited, you can't really conclude anything from it. The fact that he didn't prove one thing doesn't by default prove the opposite, it just means he didn't prove the original thing.
watwut 6y ago
> If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that, in fact, the findings were that the average person will revolt against an unjust authority, and therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities? No. Milgram's experiment being discredited means that we should revert back to the "we don't know what average person does". If you want to conclude that "the average person will revolt against an unjust authority" you will need to make multiple valid experiments to confirm that first. And you should not forget that peoples behavior is strongly influenced by cultures they are in, so you will also need to account for that. > therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities Slavery used to be considered just and legitimate. Slavery is not considered just and legitimate. "justness and legitimacy" are not scientific terms.
- njharman 6y ago
  No such thing as average person outside statistics. We see what people do every day. We don’t need experiments to show us. Just pay attention.

jl2718 6y ago

The unpublished puppy experiment: https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m Edit: found paper link: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001

PJDK 6y ago

My major problem with Milgram is about the "learner". As far as the participants of the experiment are told the learner is, like them a volunteer. That means the learner has just as much autonomy to end the experiment as the teacher. So why isn't the learner calling an end to the experiment - why should this be on the teacher to call it quits? Either the learner is making a fuss, but that's just how they react to a bit of pain (think about how people can squeal getting into a cold bath voluntarily) but they are happy to continue. Alternatively they are being actively coerced into continuing - in which case the correct response for the teacher is what exactly? Maybe try and jump the supervisor and make a bolt for the door? You are clearly trapped by some kind of sadistic serial killer and you are unlikely to make it out alive.

kebman 6y ago
Because the "learner" was an actor.
zajio1am 6y ago
Seems to me that conclusion from Milgram experiment are usually overblown. I would guess that 'teachers' just assume safety of the procedure and consent of 'learners' based on context. So it is not really about obedience vs moral imperatives but more about trust of authority vs. doubts based on personal observation.
- K0balt 6y ago
  But that is precisely the point. Trust in authority vs direct observation, and the shifting of the Overton window to create reduced trust in direct observations vs authoritative direction.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  It has been repeated under a bunch of different circumstances, including with real dogs being shocked. Sidestepping conclusions because of hypothetical escape hatches in the original methodology isn't a great idea.
jbullock35 6y ago

Maarten88 6y ago

I learned about these experiments at university some 30 years ago, and found this to be a very powerful lesson. Of course these experiments were unethical, but I have seen nothing since that disproves the outcome and I firmly believe that a large percentage of people will happily kill other people or commit heinous crimes when some authority tells them to and they can convince themselves it it not their responsibility. The think I took from it was that I am always responsible for anything that results from my actions. So in my career I always tried to consider what work I do, what customers I work for, and what might come from the things I do. In a business environment that is often not easy, most people work from a mindset that anything profitable is good as long as it's not illegal.

the_cat_kittles 6y ago
beautifully put, and exactly what i came away with as well. and yes, it often feels like swimming against the current to actually care about the content of your work. so many parts of our work culture expect us to be completely indifferent to what we are actually doing. ive always admired this experiment for being so elegant and powerful.
watwut 6y ago
> I have seen nothing since that disproves the outcome This is the harm done by badly designed popularized experiments.

phibz 6y ago

I think my response would be to refuse to administer any shocks until I had a chance to experience them myself.

cutemonster 6y ago
Would you start with 15V and work your way upwards
- cutemonster 6y ago
  (I meant with a smiley :-)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bigpumpkin 6y ago

' She found that whilst Milgram's originally published article mentioned some forty participants, of which some twenty-six proved to be obedient, some seven hundred naive participants were actually "tested" in various experimental scenarios with varying results as to their "obedience". ' p-hacking way back in the day.