French scientist restages Milgrim experiment

[freydis]

Here.

We've regressed, it seems.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Regressed? I don't think Milgram posited that the human tendency to obey authority fluctuated over time. It is not as if he had the opportunity to repeat the experiment.

In spite of the fact that the "shocked" individual suffered no actual harm, reviewers of the study determined that the participants doing the shocking were psychologically harmed when confronted that they had been willing to commit acts they themselves found morally repugnant. [Most participants did not report, however, that they felt they had been harmed. Though many expressed shame at their reaction, they expressed gratitude to Milgram for enlightening them. Still others, one individual in particular, a survivor of Fascist Italy under Mussolini, expressed pride in his obedience even after the experiment was explained to him.]

There haven't been thorough studies comparing response in various decades, or even between people from different cultures or geographical regions. There haven't been any studies to try to determine if there are common features between those who resisted authority.

The only thing Milgram proved was that the rate of participants who continued the experiment to the end, even in the case that they voiced a feeling that they were doing the wrong thing, was higher than anyone had predicted and that class, education, intelligence, age, and gender were not factors in resistance.

You say we have regressed, but I doubt it. Authority, whether merely perceived or actually enforceable, holds considerable sway over us all and has, I think, for likely all of the history of humanity.

It is the nature of our obedience to authority that allows sociopaths to hold sway over us. It is the basis of cults. But it is also what gives the military its power. It is the basis of religion. It is the basis of community. Yet, it also allowed Pol Pot and Hitler to massacre millions of people.

If we are to believe in free will, if we are to believe that morality is chosen and not merely programmed, we need to know--what is that essential element that allows some people to resist, even when their noncompliance is punished harshly? Can we make this a conscious property of ourselves? Can we learn it?

But we also need to know what factors are likely to reduce noncompliance. Yet I fear that knowledge will be abused. I'd rather know the other.

Many people self-report that they would resist. Still, a vast majority complied with little to objection. This suggests that many of us, even those that believe vehemently that they would resist, won't. That scares the crap out of me, personally. I know what I believe is right....would I be able to do it, though?

[freydis]

The original results were 65% blind compliance.

These results were 80%.

Instead of showing we were less likely to blindly follow authority (or in this case, televised pressure), we showed we think less about our convictions to politely refuse to do another harm at the behest of "authority"; we are instead *more* likely to push the button to hurt someone because someone else told you to.

I think thats regressing. Also sad.

I also think the initial experiment itself is really awful.

[candyman]

Humans were used in the first test and humans were used in the second test...there is a flaw that will fuck up the standard deviations like nothing else can!

With the amount of people in the world and the differences in each individual the test is also flawed in the number of participants. Its like looking at one tree in the apple orchard and when you see that it is good you declare all the other trees to be good.

STATISTICS DOES NOT WORK ON PEOPLE!!! How hard is that to understand? Where were the people from? Were they chosen because they experienced common occurrences in their lives? Were they all from the same art class at some junior high? Were they all pranksters from various workplaces? Maybe some of them owned cats.

Study flawed end of story. You can prove the fact that the limits were though were on humans are much different than we think but other than that there isn't much else that can be positively proved at all. Shit if this were graphed out it probably has 10 times the defective rate than the charts from the door panel data sheets we got from Ford!

Did you really bite down on another stupid TV show? I don't care what test they are using...ITS A TV SHOW! Seriously, look at the people on all the other game shows...fucking freak fest candidates!

[taysteewonderbunny]

The original results were 65% blind compliance.

These results were 80%.

Instead of showing we were less likely to blindly follow authority (or in this case, televised pressure), we showed we think less about our convictions to politely refuse to do another harm at the behest of "authority"; we are instead *more* likely to push the button to hurt someone because someone else told you to.

I think that's regressing. Also sad.

I also think the initial experiment itself is really awful.

But the set-ups are different. It's apples and oranges. Now, if the French study had exactly duplicated the Milgram experiment and STILL obtained an 80% compliance result, THEN I might concede that we are getting worse (but not regressing--that suggests that at some point prior to the Milgram experiment, people were more free-acting; we have NO such evidence).

What the experiment DID show is that people a) in large groups, and b) with the added "authority" of television or the expectation of a television audience, people are MORE likely (versus less) to comply with acts they find immoral than when they (like in the Milgram experiment) were sole actors with only the shock recipient and a single scientist in the room.