I learned about these experiments at university some 30 years ago, and found this to be a very powerful lesson. Of course these experiments were unethical, but I have seen nothing since that disproves the outcome and I firmly believe that a large percentage of people will happily kill other people or commit heinous crimes when some authority tells them to and they can convince themselves it it not their responsibility.<p>The think I took from it was that I am always responsible for anything that results from my actions. So in my career I always tried to consider what work I do, what customers I work for, and what might come from the things I do. In a business environment that is often not easy, most people work from a mindset that anything profitable is good as long as it's not illegal.
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.<p>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?<p>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.
Some more criticism of the experiment: <a href="https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participants-provide-little-support-for-the-contemporary-theory-of-engaged-followership/" rel="nofollow">https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...</a><p>Regardless of the scientific value of the experiment, the original documentary might be interesting, because of the experiment's influence apparent in textbooks and pop culture: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0</a>
The unpublished puppy experiment: <a href="https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/9xpsVlY3QQc?t=39m</a><p>Edit: found paper link: <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001" rel="nofollow">https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24881-001</a>
If Milgram's experimental method were discredited or debunked, should we conclude that, in fact, the findings were that the average person will revolt against an unjust authority, and therefore we should interpret a lack of pervasive popular revolt as a sign of justness and legitimacy of the authorities?<p>"Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, it must be just you. Help is available for people struggling with mental health issues and change is sometimes uncomfortable, especially for people accustomed to privilege, maybe it's time for some self-care, citizen..."
' She found that whilst Milgram's originally published article mentioned some forty participants, of which some twenty-six proved to be obedient, some seven hundred naive participants were actually "tested" in various experimental scenarios with varying results as to their "obedience". '<p>p-hacking way back in the day.
without any mention of the issues regarding the inability of anyone to reproduce the Milgram experiments and get the same results with any consistency, the whole example of "Obedience to Authority" as it relates to this sanctioned abuse of power should be thrown out.<p>there isn't much left to learn from the milgram saga, other than that the consumer public absolutely loves pop-culture science.