8 ms·

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

by 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
> So why isn't the learner calling an end to the experiment The learner does repeatedly call for an end to the experiment. For example, here is the script for the learner when the shock supposedly reaches 150 volts: "Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out." See the start of Chapter 7 of Obedience to Authority for more details. > Maybe try and jump the supervisor and make a bolt for the door? In the baseline "voice feedback" condition, the learner is strapped into a chair. He can't bolt. I think that the same is true for all other conditions, too.
- PJDK 6y ago
  I'm saying that the correct response for the teacher is to try and overpower the researchers and escape. If the learner is strapped to a chair and being totally ignored then why should the "teacher" assume they themselves have the power to end this experiment?
  - jbullock35 6y ago
    I see. Milgram's answer is: for the "teacher," there is no need to overpower the researcher (Milgram called him the "experimenter") in order to end the experiment. The teacher can just walk away. (And then, if he sees fit, he can call the police or otherwise report the experimenter.) Milgram was at pains to construct a situation in which there wasn't even an implied threat from the experimenter. When teachers protest that they don't want to continue, the harshest thing that the experimenter says is "You have no choice; you must go on." Milgram wanted to see how obedient people might be when there wasn't even an implied threat of force. (And he found that 65% of subjects were willing to deliver the maximum shock under these conditions.)
    - lukeschlather 6y ago
      There is a clear implied threat: the threat is that you will be removed and someone else will be brought in to finish the job. The calculus is actually at what point you will use force to stop the experimenter from inflicting further harm, because the assumption is that your actions cannot stop the experimenter from inflicting harm without yourself harming the experimenter.
stretchcat 6y ago
Here's my problem with it: when the 'Experimenter' appealed to the necessity of science, compliance rates where highest. When the Experimenter appealed to pure authority and gave direct commands, compliance rates were low. The experiments were performed in a proud university town. What Milgram actually demonstrated is that those people trust scientists and believe in the value of science. In other words, they obeyed commands when those commands seemed to align with their preexisting worldview and ideology. The inspiration of these experiments was Adolf Eichmann's plea that he was merely following orders. Milgram obstensibly set out to disprove that, but is said to have inadvertently proved Eichmann's plea plausible; if Milgram showed that people do follow orders, then maybe Eichmann's innocence plea was plausible. But we know Eichmann was not simply following orders. There is ample evidence that he was enthusiastic about the Holocaust and went above and beyond what was required of him. Eichmann may have been following orders, but they were orders he was ideologically aligned with. Just like the Milgram subjects were ideologically aligned with the value of science. Many variations on the Milgram experiment were conducted. When the Experimenter didn't dress like a scientist, compliance was lower. I didn't hear this until years after I was told about the experiments in my undergrad psychology class. When I learned this, I felt deceived. It turns the mainstream conclusion on it's head. If we were to run a modern experiment more applicable to Eichmann's 'following orders' plea, the Experimenter would be dressed like a cop and the Learner would be a black man. How many people (except the overtly racist) would follow orders in this scenario, when the orders were so flagrantly in violation of their personal values? Virtually none I assert. That's the obvious water is wet answer, while Milgram's answer is the shockingly unintuitive headline grabbing conclusion. Milgram's conclusion asks us to believe there is an Adolf Eichmann lurking inside all of us, waiting for heinous orders to execute. That just doesn't jive with what we actually know about Nazis.
- jariel 6y ago
  "when the 'Experimenter' appealed to the necessity of science, compliance rates where highest. When the Experimenter appealed to pure authority and gave direct commands, compliance rates were low." This is maybe the most important detail to me which seems to be overlooked. Often people fail to recognize that there is such a thing as legitimacy of authority, and that's a real thing. No one of us is an expert in any field, it's hard to make heads or tail of the nuanced issues in all of these arenas. We often have to trust the legitimate authority. Which makes it all that much harder when a) maybe doing some action appeals to a darker aspect of human nature or b) the authorities are corrupt or c) the authority is maligned by some other failures, such as bad information.

by PJDK 6y ago

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

> So why isn't the learner calling an end to the experiment The learner does repeatedly call for an end to the experiment. For example, here is the script for the learner when the shock supposedly reaches 150 volts: "Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out." See the start of Chapter 7 of Obedience to Authority for more details. > Maybe try and jump the supervisor and make a bolt for the door? In the baseline "voice feedback" condition, the learner is strapped into a chair. He can't bolt. I think that the same is true for all other conditions, too.

PJDK 6y ago
I'm saying that the correct response for the teacher is to try and overpower the researchers and escape. If the learner is strapped to a chair and being totally ignored then why should the "teacher" assume they themselves have the power to end this experiment?
- jbullock35 6y ago
  I see. Milgram's answer is: for the "teacher," there is no need to overpower the researcher (Milgram called him the "experimenter") in order to end the experiment. The teacher can just walk away. (And then, if he sees fit, he can call the police or otherwise report the experimenter.) Milgram was at pains to construct a situation in which there wasn't even an implied threat from the experimenter. When teachers protest that they don't want to continue, the harshest thing that the experimenter says is "You have no choice; you must go on." Milgram wanted to see how obedient people might be when there wasn't even an implied threat of force. (And he found that 65% of subjects were willing to deliver the maximum shock under these conditions.)
  - lukeschlather 6y ago
    There is a clear implied threat: the threat is that you will be removed and someone else will be brought in to finish the job. The calculus is actually at what point you will use force to stop the experimenter from inflicting further harm, because the assumption is that your actions cannot stop the experimenter from inflicting harm without yourself harming the experimenter.

stretchcat 6y ago

Here's my problem with it: when the 'Experimenter' appealed to the necessity of science, compliance rates where highest. When the Experimenter appealed to pure authority and gave direct commands, compliance rates were low. The experiments were performed in a proud university town. What Milgram actually demonstrated is that those people trust scientists and believe in the value of science. In other words, they obeyed commands when those commands seemed to align with their preexisting worldview and ideology. The inspiration of these experiments was Adolf Eichmann's plea that he was merely following orders. Milgram obstensibly set out to disprove that, but is said to have inadvertently proved Eichmann's plea plausible; if Milgram showed that people do follow orders, then maybe Eichmann's innocence plea was plausible. But we know Eichmann was not simply following orders. There is ample evidence that he was enthusiastic about the Holocaust and went above and beyond what was required of him. Eichmann may have been following orders, but they were orders he was ideologically aligned with. Just like the Milgram subjects were ideologically aligned with the value of science. Many variations on the Milgram experiment were conducted. When the Experimenter didn't dress like a scientist, compliance was lower. I didn't hear this until years after I was told about the experiments in my undergrad psychology class. When I learned this, I felt deceived. It turns the mainstream conclusion on it's head. If we were to run a modern experiment more applicable to Eichmann's 'following orders' plea, the Experimenter would be dressed like a cop and the Learner would be a black man. How many people (except the overtly racist) would follow orders in this scenario, when the orders were so flagrantly in violation of their personal values? Virtually none I assert. That's the obvious water is wet answer, while Milgram's answer is the shockingly unintuitive headline grabbing conclusion. Milgram's conclusion asks us to believe there is an Adolf Eichmann lurking inside all of us, waiting for heinous orders to execute. That just doesn't jive with what we actually know about Nazis.

jariel 6y ago
"when the 'Experimenter' appealed to the necessity of science, compliance rates where highest. When the Experimenter appealed to pure authority and gave direct commands, compliance rates were low." This is maybe the most important detail to me which seems to be overlooked. Often people fail to recognize that there is such a thing as legitimacy of authority, and that's a real thing. No one of us is an expert in any field, it's hard to make heads or tail of the nuanced issues in all of these arenas. We often have to trust the legitimate authority. Which makes it all that much harder when a) maybe doing some action appeals to a darker aspect of human nature or b) the authorities are corrupt or c) the authority is maligned by some other failures, such as bad information.