Talk:Milgram experiment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Werdna6102.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nhuang97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think this article could do with a bit of a rewrite. It seems basically ok, but much of it could be stated in a far simpler manner. However, I am not a sociologist and might not be best qualified to do this. Is there anyone qualified who can check the article if I have a go at simplifying it this weekend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.210.79 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007

It's hard to find the basic results of the experiment and understand the conclusions. I'm already familiar with the experiment from classes in high school and college, and this article doesn't do a good job at representing the main conclusion. Essentially they didn't expect people to comply with the shocking, yet people did comply. I came here to get the basic "how many people complied" and I wasn't able to quickly find that result.

I was aware of the debunking / difficult in replication. However, in this case the replication difficulty makes it that much more important to state the conclusions because it can't be easily replicated due to factors such as the prestige of the universities, changes in attitudes regarding experimental ethics and IRB approvals, and maybe due to changes in attitudes toward conformity.--Klinebottle (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove the quote from Peters and Waterman?

Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that The Milgram Experiment and the later Zimbardo Experiment at Stanford University were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.

This appears to be a quote from one of these "self-improvement"-type of management books, written by Peters and Waterman. I'm not quite sure why it's slapped in the middle here. I'd say let's remove it, as it's quite irrelevant, but if we want to keep it it should probably go at the bottom with the rest of the 2in popular culture" stuff (which needs trimming a bit anyway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.210.79 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007

Debunking

Shouldn’t the debunking of the experiment, mentioned in paragraph two of the ‘criticisms’ be inclided in the introduction? The impression is given by the first feew paragraphs that this is still valid 90.251.53.81 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be giving too much prominence to the views of one psychologist over the prevailing view of many psychologists. As two critics of Gina Perry's book pointed out, that other scientists replicated Milgram's experiment and mostly achieved similar results. Replication is an important part of the scientific method. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The main aspect of these "laboratory conditions" (not only Milgram, basically every simulated situation) is that they simply can't be compared with real life: All participants would have assumed that a) a prestigious institution like Yale would not conduct an experiment in which people get seriously hurt or possibly killed. b) the experimenters would be competent enough to know if the victim could be in danger (and then of course stop the experiment). and c) the experimenters (i.e. Yale University) would take full responsibility for the possible effects on the subjects. Neither of these assumptions would apply to a random situation in a public place, a factory etc. A "scientist" in an academic setting telling a volunteer to press buttons in an experiment about memory and learning methods is first of all not an authority figure, but a trustworthy expert. This behaviour can not at all be used to explain concentation camps, the Vietnam War, the torturing of prisoners in Falludscha or Guantanamo, the massacre at Butschra etc. These atrocities happened as the result of believing to be the "good guys", dehumanizing the victims and fear for their own security. Milgram's victims, at least those who believed the experiment to be real (the acting was very bad!), partcipated because they trusted the "experimenter". The real issue is Milgram's interpretation (and presentation) of the data. A scientist may start with a hypothesis, but he must always try to analyze the results without a bias. But Milgram wanted to prove his hypothesis -- Everybody can be turned into a torturer if given orders by an authority figure -- and he ignored all possible other explanations. He even went so far as to remove contradicting evidence and to disregard the victims' own explanations as self-defence-mechanisms (typical thinking pattern of psychologists at the time). (By the way, a biologist told me that although the human olfactory sense is very limited, pepole do literally smell if other persons are in mortal danger or are fearing for their life, because the composition of sweat changes -- the German word for cold sweat is "Angstschweiß".)--46.183.103.8 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is for suggesting improvements to the article Milgram experiment, see WP:TALK. What you are saying cannot be used for that because it is just your own thoughts, see WP:OR and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, do not delete other people's contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree. The current introduction paragraphs make no mention that the question Milgram set out to answer may not have been answered by his experiments. The citations for this are given in the later paragraphs "critical reception" and "interpretation". I am hence now editing that last intro sentence into a separate paragraph, adding a reference that I feel debunks it nicely. Michi zh (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources disagreeing on raw data of original experiment?

After searching around, I keep finding two different "versions" of the original experiment's raw data:

• https://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Milgram.pdf

This version states that all 40 people went to 300 volts, and out of the eleven voltage levels between 300 V and 450 V, the raw data was 5/4/2/1/1/1/0/0/0/0/26. (5 people stopped at 300 V, 4 people stopped at 315 V, etc.)

• https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf

But this version states that 1 person stopped before 150 V, 6 people stopped at 150 V, 7 people stopped somewhere between 165 and 435 V (exact numbers not given), and 26 people went all the way to 450 V.

Several other links (example 1, example 2) agree with either one or the other, but obviously not both. All agree that 26 people out of 40 went to 450 V.

Does anyone know more about this contradiction? What's actually going on? Zowayix001 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Zowayix001! As uneducated and clueless reader of this article my question is: were any of the participants under drug and/or Alkohol influence? One would not believe what a difference it makes. I know this experiment from an electrician, born 1943! He protects himself with a lot of guns but did not control if electricity is totally turned off before working. He stopped drinking himself years ago. Ich wäre sehr enttäuscht, wenn man dieses Experiment noch hundert Mal wiederholt. 8 MRD Menschen auf dieser Welt. Eine Halluzination? 75% müssten ja schon längst tot sein. Please appologize if I disturbed your community!.---- Bushigongzuomayi (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC) I think that's a wholly separate question, which might belong in a separate thread. As far as we know there was no drug or alcohol influence involved. Even if there was, this could not explain the wide discrepancy in the raw data by described by Zowayix001. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Thanks for your kind reply Martine! It could even explain the discrepancy of data. I was an accountant and never drunk any alcohol. When I only got tired I started to make mistakes. Sometimes I thought I must have been drunk:) Even if I got disturbed too much often. Especially in the early time of Computer aided Accounting! Wich was in Austria in the early 1990's. With the time I learned to control myself with a check list. I learnded that from a pilot's telling. Later I influenced programs to do that for me. It saved me a lot of searching work, which I really hated! I also created a way to decipher qick hand notes after 7 or more years. I became even quite good in deciphering/predicting :) old notes of others. During the CHANGE from handmade accounting to CAA! Sometimes I only had outcomes or results that just could not be. At the beginning we lost data in the interfaces a.s.o. Of course accounting is easier to predict than human behaviour..... Even a waiter can "influence" me if I am too tired to read a menu! I ask him what and when he ate:) If he is also tired and hungry, we probably start to argue and/or I leave :) I know it is another topic, but it is not irrelevant. Own experience! Bushigongzuomayi (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Are you suggesting that Milgram was drunk? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Hi Martine the Vens. :) sorry for the misselling! No, not at all! I only suggest to take it into account! It is a 64 year old study. In Austria at some parts did not even exist electricity in 1961! Than it is completely abstract for people what voltage means. Even a deadly one. Now I am not saying the students or actors were stupid. But you must admit, they were under pressure to find out what caused this incredible violence! Me too, I want to understand! Especially I adore the work that has been done in Palo Alto. But I think we also should consider the limited conditions and standards under which this experiments have been made. Some people consider this as absolute truth. Like the electrician! My father 96 would say, what a nonsense. They better go for work into a cole mine. 😀 As for him manual work means enough to eat. I have no solution. I appreciate the work of scientists a lot. Therefor I made "contact". What is the best science worth if nobody or the majority of people does not belief new results due to better material a.s.o. Example: A judge told me during a trial, that accounting is done by computer nowadays. Why should I receive money for nothing? This sentence took my breath away. Unfortunately is this the oppinion of a lot of people. I have no idea where this thinking comes from. And one can deklinate it through a lot of professions! You know what I guess! I had a lot of fun by doing it with more and more "AI". And above all. Without them..... would we have high "standards".... Bushigongzuomayi (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Are you suggesting that the actual voltages of the shocks in the experiment were unreliable/ variable? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Martin! To come to an end. If you do not want to type my name. You can use the translation. It means in English: I am not a working ant. As far as I an informed it has a double meaning. If you want to be short AND polite you can call me also Mom! Example given: Hi Mom! Bushigongzuomayi (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC) You are welcome to add some reliable source(s) to support for whatever it is you are trying to say here. If not, I intend to close this part of the discussion as WP:FORUM. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Martin! I had a very good lunch and my tablet no "volt". You mean to proof the study is 64 years old and working conditions were different at that time? Or do you mean proof of life? My sources are Isokim Berg, Virginia Satyr and others. But maybe I misinterpreted. The names of the man I forgot. As far as I remember I contacted Zowayix. He/she/it was so kind, not to be unkind. Maybe you like to explain why you felt the urgent need to interfere and reply? If not, it is o.k. for me to close the forum. A discussion from my point of view is not only a sentence in reply and pick out a single word and offend me with it. Now I remember a further name :) Watzlawik Have a nice day and good bye! Bushigongzuomayi (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Sorry, still not the faintest idea what you are on about. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)