Talk:Milgram's obedience study

	This Psychology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Maybe a few more refs?

(create an archive)

However, all the participants in Milgram's study were polled…

"However, all the participants in Milgram's study were polled at a later date and asked about how they felt about participating. Close to 90 percent said they were "glad" or "very glad" they did so. Many wanted to join his lab and help with his work afterwards."

At this point, were they aware of what had actually happened? I'm assuming yes, but the article doesn't really say. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:17, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

AFAIU this follow-up happened a year after the experiment, so yeah definitively. They were all sent a complete explanation when data collection ended.
OTOH "are you glad to have been in the experiment" is very different from "did you like the experiment" (especially given that any true boomer men would never have admitted to have had their feelings hurt). And until the complete final debriefing many guys were scared shitless, some even going straight to their trusted electrician afterwards to seek reassurances. And on the other end of the spectrum, you had a lot of those going all the way down to deadly voltages that already in the middle of the experiment guessed that "of course an university wouldn't let you kill a human". --Mirh (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Poorly worded section

This section could use some love. Maybe not deletion, but some help. Original author, please?-caius (tailor) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It was someone called kilgoreSOMETHINGOROTHERexcelsis. It stands out a mile in the history, and it looks like it was someone mistaking the article for a talk page. I removed most of it, and I don't know enough about the subject to substantiate the stuff that was left.^{— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs} 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Not just Americans?

From the last para

An infamous "Prisoners and Guards" experiment demonstrated the serious problems with destructive obedience from Americans decades before Abu-Ghraib.

Is there anything in the two experiments that suggests that US citizens are more or less prone to destructive obedience. Unless someone says otherwise I propose to amend to An infamous "Prisoners and Guards" experiment demonstrated the serious problems with destructive obedience decades before Abu-Ghraib. ^{— Unsigned, by: Silver Sloth / talk / contribs} 14 August 2008

I removed mention of Americans. It's irrelevant. weaseLOId~ 11:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Good call, if anything it just proved that obedience is just human nature, nothing about Americans in particular so it just sounds like anti-yank snark. It be interesting to see if there is a cultural dependence on it, but getting that sort of experiment passed an ethics committee would be nigh on impossible. ArmondikoV^bomination 12:45, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Stop reading for a minute

I propose that this section is irrelevant and should be removed ^{— Unsigned, by: 141.218.229.60 / talk / contribs}

I find it quite relevant. _and marmite 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Silver but a question

I am upgrading this to silver as it is a good article but I have my reservations on the "Best of Politics" tag hence part of the politics portal. It's not really political. It has a political application and of course theres the "I vas just following orders" but it has very little in the way of politics. Ace^X-102 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove this from the "Best of Politics" as it really doesn't have much in the way of politics. Ace^X-102 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ewww

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. - LucidFox (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncertain effect

Repeats have suggested that Milgram's idea of functioning in a mode that abdicates responsibility in favour of obedience is wrong; specifically, repeats where either the participant is not assured that all the shocks are non-dangerous or where the participant is given reason to doubt the experimenter's expertise (as when they are told the experimenter is another participant) produce massively lower rates of obedience (down to 10% in some cases). This suggests that the experiment's results depend on it being an experiment and this fact being known to the participants 192.76.7.216 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on the first point (the original experiment's voltmeter was clearly marked "Danger" at 375 and "XXX" at 450, they knew very well it was dangerous), and the latter shows that the status of the experimenter as an authority is crucial, not that knowing it is an experiment is crucial. This was the 1960s, the ethical guidelines on human experimentation were much looser, as can be seen by the fact that this study was permitted at all. Nog Bogmire (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)