6 ms·

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were do

To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment. The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing. It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time, and especially not the first time they do something. > Kaposi and Sumeghy interpret these patterns as a complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment. The subjects were not committing violence for the sake of an orderly memory study. With the scientific elements either forgotten or rushed, the laboratory changed into a setting for unauthorized and senseless violence. This feels like a huge stretch. Forgetting a step at one point or reading something out loud too early isn't a "complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment" -- a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
Miraltar 7mo ago
Well, if you're supposed to administrate shocks to teach or test someone's memory, asking the question while they're screaming isn't just about protocol, it does break down the purpose of these shocks. Saying that participants did administrate shocks because they trusted the legitimacy of what they thought they were doing doesn't hold up under these circumstances.
- crazygringo 7mo ago
  No, because you'd have to show that the participants thought there was a breakdown of the procedure and purpose, and that they continued despite that. If they think the procedure is to read the next question when the previous one has been completed, and they do, even if the other person is screaming, they think they're "following rules". They're not the ones who came up with the procedure. Which is the whole point: the participants were trying to follow rules, even if they made mistakes in following those rules. The idea that there was a total "breakdown" of the rules doesn't seem supported at all.
  - noobermin 7mo ago
    If I'm not mistaken, they were told the point of the experiment was supposed to be about "memory and learning". If a teacher was doing a "commission" as they put it, they aren't really following the purpose of the experiment any longer.
    - myrak 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - f1shy 7mo ago
      Context is important. Maybe that was told in the first 3 minutes of the briefing, and them came 30 minutes about the shocks. I would not assume the briefing was so thorough.
  - radley 7mo ago
    This reevaluation postulates that the participants didn't deviate by mistake, but deliberately. The participant could have waited for the respondent to be in a state in which they could answer. (Reminder: the exercise was officially about answering questions, not enduring shocks). Instead, most participants rushed through, most likely to end their own negative experience. Which is much more nuanced that "gosh, they told me to do it."
  - bluegatty 7mo ago
    Fair point, but there's a logical relationship between 'testing someone' and 'following a set of instructions that don't achieve that effect'. Your point is fair, but what is really nuanced is that the people who 'stopped' were the best ones at following the rules. This seems interesting to me - they were conscientious about 'what was happening' - not just blithly following orders. The 'rule followers' maybe were conscientiously applying the 'spirit of the test' and quit when they realized it was not reasonable. The others were 'pressing buttons'. Even then, it's subject to interpretation. There's a perfectly rational reason why people might subject to 'following the rules' if that's what they've been asked to do and have a sense of 'dutiful civic conduct' and 'trust in institutions'.
goatlover 7mo ago
It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.
- crazygringo 7mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...
  - Intralexical 7mo ago
    6 of the 7 "replications" mentioned in that Wikipedia section are literally TV shows and performance artists. ...Which is a good metaphor for the "experiment" as a whole.
    - bethekidyouwant 7mo ago
      Actually, all of them are bs. There’s no records of the experiment in Australia. I would guess it’s just a hoax by the author of “behind the shock machine” if not, it still certainly doesn’t count as a replication.
- lavamantis 7mo ago
  And some people really WANT to believe it's true. They've built their entire worldview around it and the idea they've been duped would cause a massive narcissistic injury.
  - Intralexical 7mo ago
    Small but important nitpick. I think, most commonly their worldview was already built, and would have been the same regardless. Milgram just provides a veneer of legitimacy, losing which would cause problems for them.
- Aeolun 7mo ago
noobermin 7mo ago
I do feel like the conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but there is a slight discrepancy where disobedient participants followed the rules more than the obedient ones, which is an interesting observation. It just feels a bit weak.
geon 7mo ago
The “complete breakdown” does not refer to the experiment, but the fictional setting of the experiment. The article doesn’t claim that the experiment was invalidated, but that some conclusions drawn from it are not well founded.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
laserbeam 7mo ago
> It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time The article quantifies the amount of rulebreaking. The article actually compares rule breaking across participants and notes that those who were better at obeying the instructions of the experiment are the ones who refused to continue till the end. The article doesn't invalidate the milgrim experiments. It claims that the interpretation from traditional literature is possibly wrong.
- naravara 7mo ago
  Yeah one of the take-away interpretations I’ve always heard of it is the implication that the deferral to an authority figure led people to conscientiously proceed with administering fatal shocks. But this additional detail suggests that conscientiousness is actually negatively correlated with following through to the point of ethical compromise and it is, in fact, the less conscientious people who were rushing to just do what was asked of them. This does suggest that subjects who are bought into and understand the purpose behind what they’re doing, and are attentive to how the specific tasks they’re doing tie into the bigger picture, are more likely to be actively engaging their judgement as they go. And subjects who are just trying to follow the tasks as given to them are sort of washing their hands of the outcomes as long as they’re following the directions (which is, ironically, causing them to fail at following the directions too).
  - pixl97 7mo ago
    >And subjects who are just trying to follow the tasks as given to them are sort of washing their hands of the outcomes Hence why large organizations commonly compartmentalize things to the point that people don't realize they are working on an orphan crushing machine.
    - superxpro12 7mo ago
      See also: Those episodes in Star Wars Andor when they were in the prison colony working on the *SPOILER ALERT* death star components
antonvs 7mo ago
> a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with. Smooth shiny white walls, beakers and test tubes filled with brightly colored liquids on shiny metal tables… Science!
mikey_p 7mo ago
The interesting bit is that the group the quit the experiment part way through (presumably over ethical objections) were consistently better at following the rules, which indicates that the rules may have actually been designed to prevent some of the problems that the obedient group experienced, which might prevent them from seeing the ethical or moral issues involved in the experiment. Now the interesting question is _why_ did those people who followed the rules quit at a greater rate? _Why_ did those people follow the rules more closely in the first place? Was there any variation in how the rules were presented? What is the difference in between folks who follow the rules more closely and folks who don't? What can we learn about the human condition from this?
- ilaksh 7mo ago
  Maybe the disobedient were just a bit smarter and therefore more likely to figure out that they should refuse, but also had more inherent instruction following capabilities.
- raylad 7mo ago
  One explanation is that the ones who quit believed it was a real experiment and decided they wanted no part of it. The ones who were "obedient" figured out it was fake and treated it as a game.
f1shy 7mo ago
If anything, this makes the study more revealing and terrifying. Basically under ill guidance of authority, people can become real monsters. That is the conclusion I got from it, and is now still worse.
- pstuart 7mo ago
  > people can become real monsters It's being consistently verified in real time if you track current events.
xg15 7mo ago
> This feels like a huge stretch. Forgetting a step at one point or reading something out loud too early isn't a "complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment" -- a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with. I found the idea pretty reasonable: Yes, the "scientific environment" was fake, but the "teachers" (i.e. actual subjects) didn't know that, so it should have appeared real to them. The study tried to analyze the events strictly from the subjects' POV. The point was that those mistakes would have broken the (fictional) experimental setup, and in a way that was obvious for the subjects too. If they were really delivering the shocks only because "they were following procedure", then it's strange that they did so many mistakes that in fact broke the procedure. (and resulted in an even more aggressive shock regime than the procedure would demand)
rdiddly 7mo ago
Another interpretation exists too: maybe obedience and compassion were orthogonal. They reported an increase in the error rate in parallel with the increase in voltage, right? Maybe those who continued into the more dangerous voltage ranges, committed more errors because they felt flustered. So in direct contradiction to the image of their being driven into some kind of hateful bloodlust, perhaps they felt more compassion and distress as the experiment proceeded. But just didn't act on it.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

Miraltar 7mo ago

Well, if you're supposed to administrate shocks to teach or test someone's memory, asking the question while they're screaming isn't just about protocol, it does break down the purpose of these shocks. Saying that participants did administrate shocks because they trusted the legitimacy of what they thought they were doing doesn't hold up under these circumstances.

crazygringo 7mo ago
No, because you'd have to show that the participants thought there was a breakdown of the procedure and purpose, and that they continued despite that. If they think the procedure is to read the next question when the previous one has been completed, and they do, even if the other person is screaming, they think they're "following rules". They're not the ones who came up with the procedure. Which is the whole point: the participants were trying to follow rules, even if they made mistakes in following those rules. The idea that there was a total "breakdown" of the rules doesn't seem supported at all.
- noobermin 7mo ago
  If I'm not mistaken, they were told the point of the experiment was supposed to be about "memory and learning". If a teacher was doing a "commission" as they put it, they aren't really following the purpose of the experiment any longer.
  - myrak 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - f1shy 7mo ago
    Context is important. Maybe that was told in the first 3 minutes of the briefing, and them came 30 minutes about the shocks. I would not assume the briefing was so thorough.
- radley 7mo ago
  This reevaluation postulates that the participants didn't deviate by mistake, but deliberately. The participant could have waited for the respondent to be in a state in which they could answer. (Reminder: the exercise was officially about answering questions, not enduring shocks). Instead, most participants rushed through, most likely to end their own negative experience. Which is much more nuanced that "gosh, they told me to do it."
- bluegatty 7mo ago
  Fair point, but there's a logical relationship between 'testing someone' and 'following a set of instructions that don't achieve that effect'. Your point is fair, but what is really nuanced is that the people who 'stopped' were the best ones at following the rules. This seems interesting to me - they were conscientious about 'what was happening' - not just blithly following orders. The 'rule followers' maybe were conscientiously applying the 'spirit of the test' and quit when they realized it was not reasonable. The others were 'pressing buttons'. Even then, it's subject to interpretation. There's a perfectly rational reason why people might subject to 'following the rules' if that's what they've been asked to do and have a sense of 'dutiful civic conduct' and 'trust in institutions'.

goatlover 7mo ago

It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.

crazygringo 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...
- Intralexical 7mo ago
  6 of the 7 "replications" mentioned in that Wikipedia section are literally TV shows and performance artists. ...Which is a good metaphor for the "experiment" as a whole.
  - bethekidyouwant 7mo ago
    Actually, all of them are bs. There’s no records of the experiment in Australia. I would guess it’s just a hoax by the author of “behind the shock machine” if not, it still certainly doesn’t count as a replication.
lavamantis 7mo ago
And some people really WANT to believe it's true. They've built their entire worldview around it and the idea they've been duped would cause a massive narcissistic injury.
- Intralexical 7mo ago
  Small but important nitpick. I think, most commonly their worldview was already built, and would have been the same regardless. Milgram just provides a veneer of legitimacy, losing which would cause problems for them.
Aeolun 7mo ago

noobermin 7mo ago

I do feel like the conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but there is a slight discrepancy where disobedient participants followed the rules more than the obedient ones, which is an interesting observation. It just feels a bit weak.

geon 7mo ago

The “complete breakdown” does not refer to the experiment, but the fictional setting of the experiment. The article doesn’t claim that the experiment was invalidated, but that some conclusions drawn from it are not well founded.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

laserbeam 7mo ago

> It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time The article quantifies the amount of rulebreaking. The article actually compares rule breaking across participants and notes that those who were better at obeying the instructions of the experiment are the ones who refused to continue till the end. The article doesn't invalidate the milgrim experiments. It claims that the interpretation from traditional literature is possibly wrong.

naravara 7mo ago
Yeah one of the take-away interpretations I’ve always heard of it is the implication that the deferral to an authority figure led people to conscientiously proceed with administering fatal shocks. But this additional detail suggests that conscientiousness is actually negatively correlated with following through to the point of ethical compromise and it is, in fact, the less conscientious people who were rushing to just do what was asked of them. This does suggest that subjects who are bought into and understand the purpose behind what they’re doing, and are attentive to how the specific tasks they’re doing tie into the bigger picture, are more likely to be actively engaging their judgement as they go. And subjects who are just trying to follow the tasks as given to them are sort of washing their hands of the outcomes as long as they’re following the directions (which is, ironically, causing them to fail at following the directions too).
- pixl97 7mo ago
  >And subjects who are just trying to follow the tasks as given to them are sort of washing their hands of the outcomes Hence why large organizations commonly compartmentalize things to the point that people don't realize they are working on an orphan crushing machine.
  - superxpro12 7mo ago
    See also: Those episodes in Star Wars Andor when they were in the prison colony working on the *SPOILER ALERT* death star components

antonvs 7mo ago

> a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with. Smooth shiny white walls, beakers and test tubes filled with brightly colored liquids on shiny metal tables… Science!

mikey_p 7mo ago

The interesting bit is that the group the quit the experiment part way through (presumably over ethical objections) were consistently better at following the rules, which indicates that the rules may have actually been designed to prevent some of the problems that the obedient group experienced, which might prevent them from seeing the ethical or moral issues involved in the experiment. Now the interesting question is _why_ did those people who followed the rules quit at a greater rate? _Why_ did those people follow the rules more closely in the first place? Was there any variation in how the rules were presented? What is the difference in between folks who follow the rules more closely and folks who don't? What can we learn about the human condition from this?

ilaksh 7mo ago
Maybe the disobedient were just a bit smarter and therefore more likely to figure out that they should refuse, but also had more inherent instruction following capabilities.
raylad 7mo ago
One explanation is that the ones who quit believed it was a real experiment and decided they wanted no part of it. The ones who were "obedient" figured out it was fake and treated it as a game.

f1shy 7mo ago

If anything, this makes the study more revealing and terrifying. Basically under ill guidance of authority, people can become real monsters. That is the conclusion I got from it, and is now still worse.

pstuart 7mo ago
> people can become real monsters It's being consistently verified in real time if you track current events.

xg15 7mo ago

> This feels like a huge stretch. Forgetting a step at one point or reading something out loud too early isn't a "complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment" -- a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with. I found the idea pretty reasonable: Yes, the "scientific environment" was fake, but the "teachers" (i.e. actual subjects) didn't know that, so it should have appeared real to them. The study tried to analyze the events strictly from the subjects' POV. The point was that those mistakes would have broken the (fictional) experimental setup, and in a way that was obvious for the subjects too. If they were really delivering the shocks only because "they were following procedure", then it's strange that they did so many mistakes that in fact broke the procedure. (and resulted in an even more aggressive shock regime than the procedure would demand)

rdiddly 7mo ago

Another interpretation exists too: maybe obedience and compassion were orthogonal. They reported an increase in the error rate in parallel with the increase in voltage, right? Maybe those who continued into the more dangerous voltage ranges, committed more errors because they felt flustered. So in direct contradiction to the image of their being driven into some kind of hateful bloodlust, perhaps they felt more compassion and distress as the experiment proceeded. But just didn't act on it.