Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

psypost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 142 posts

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

#81

Post by ilaksh »

mikey_p wrote: post #72
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…

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 i…

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.

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

#82

Post by bethekidyouwant »

Intralexical wrote: post #80
crazygringo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#83

Post by Intralexical »

lavamantis wrote: post #63
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.

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.

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.

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

#84

Post by f1shy »

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…

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.

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

#86

Post by f1shy »

noobermin wrote: post #61
crazygringo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

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

#87

Post by burningChrome »

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…

>> willingness to suffer a bit for later rewards.

Almost every person I went to college with had this viewpoint. There's also something comforting knowing you and your friends are all doing the same thing. We all were dirt poor in college trying to support ourselves with crappy part-time jobs working delivering pizza, working in fast food joints, cleaning offices at night. The idea was we all believed we were working towards something better than our current situation. The suffering some how made you a better person, more resilient, made you understand what it was like to really earn something.

All of my close friends I had in college all went on to do successful things. Engineers, attorneys, stock brokers, software engineers, pharmacists. We all eventually got to where we wanted to be, but the suffering is what still binds us together to this day. Talking about some of the houses we lived in that should've been condemned. Having to work 60 hours a week, and still do well on that exam on Friday.

The willingness to suffer is eased when you have a shared experience with others around you.

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

#88

Post by bluegatty »

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…

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'.

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

#89

Post by dlev_pika »

> With the scientific elements either forgotten or rushed, the laboratory changed into a setting for unauthorized and senseless violence.

> The study authors propose that the experimenter played a major, passive role in establishing this dynamic. When the participants broke the rules and skipped steps, the authority figure rarely intervened to correct them or pause the session. By staying silent and letting the memory study fall apart, the experimenter allowed an atmosphere of illegitimate violence to flourish.

This sounds like looting scenarios to me. ie. When a situation descend into chaos, some people will just surf/leverage that chaos, instead of attempting a return to normalcy, for whatever reason.

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

#90

Post by palmotea »

stavros wrote: post #46
palmotea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The premise is flawed, humans learn from their environment and there's really no way to put a human in a coffin until they're 20 and see what they do then. Yeah, but you can also find that rate if you remove the trigger (abuse) from the environment (society) and see how the rate changes. You don't have to lock someone in a coffin, or something ridiculous like that (and that would be counterproductive anyway). You c…

Right but then you don't need to change anything, simply measure how many people act the opposite way to what they were raised, and then you'll know.

> Right but then you don't need to change anything, simply measure how many people act the opposite way to what they were raised, and then you'll know.

That's presuming the only influence on a child's development are the adults who are raising them, which is not true.

Post reply on HN