Audio tapes reveal mass rule-breaking in Milgram's obedience experiments

Post by mikey_p » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 3:17 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #38

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 ins…

Post by radley » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #47

Miraltar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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: t…

Post by wredcoll » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

kakacik wrote: post #44

user2722 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really calls into questions the conclusions drawn from the last 50 years. Here's the ones disproven I remember: * kids grow to be rich because they accept delayed gratification * alpha males are the leader of the pack and all other males are useless * people accept violence if there is a higher authority which justifies it with a reason How many people suffered or delivered suffering because of their beliefs in th…

The first point, and I can see in my own life, is valid. Not properly rich by any means, but vastly surpassed any expectations and most of my peers from earlier life (which is rather easy when coming from poor eastern Europe but somehow most folks from back home didn't, too deep in their little comfort zones or fears of risks that were mostly made up). It can be reframed as cca discipline too, willingness to suffer a…

Post by Intralexical » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

user2722 wrote: post #4

Mordisquitos wrote: post #3

Interesting. If we can assume the experimenter's failure to enforce the rules was mere clumsiness or incompetence, rather than an indicator of underlying intentional manipulation of the experimental conditions à la Stanford prison experiment, this can be interpreted in many different ways. The (eventually) disobedient subjects were better at respecting the experimental process they were given than the "obedient" ones…

It really calls into questions the conclusions drawn from the last 50 years. Here's the ones disproven I remember: * kids grow to be rich because they accept delayed gratification * alpha males are the leader of the pack and all other males are useless * people accept violence if there is a higher authority which justifies it with a reason How many people suffered or delivered suffering because of their beliefs in th…

Post by Intralexical » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #50

goatlover wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...