Talk:Milgram experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milgram experiment article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Former featured article Milgram experiment is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2004.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Worldwide experiments

The main article says citation is needed for the claim that the Milgram experiment was conducted in other countries (by other people) with similar results. I found this Web page: [[1]] which gives a table for different results for different countries. It has a reference which I will reproduce here:

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1994). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.75.33.226.64 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversed experiment?

Stanley Milgram should have tried a case where he reverses the roles. I'm not quite sure how you'd do it, but it could have been interesting to see how the experimenter (E) who orders the subject (S), would actually be the random participant instead of (S). Latter one and the other subject (A) being the actors. This, to see how far (E) would go to give his orders. Of course, (E) wouldn't be called 'the experimenter', but something else.

I wonder what the result would be, because if the experiment was one way to understand how normal German citizens would turn evil, on taking orders by NAZIs, the question is, why did some Germans become NAZIs and others not (some actually risking their lives in order to save Jews - not many, but still). I mean, it's worth an experiment to see how far an individual would go and order someone to hurt/kill a third individual.

English is not my mother tongue - so, I'm not sure if I'm clear enough. Anyway, if that 'reversed experiment' should take place one day, I'll be claiming copyright! :o) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.U.d.E. w. (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

J.U.d.E. w.

Funny, I considered that myself reading it just now, although in a sense I arrived at the idea a different way. What the original experiment seems to demonstrate is the converse of of truism "power corrupts" — namely, that obediance corrupts as well, and people (and I include myself) will go to incredible lengths to obey rather than "disturb the system", sort of like the bystander effect.
While on the one hand, it would indeed be fascinating to see how far authority would go, society as a whole probably wouldn't have been quite as shocked at the results, given the history of un-coerced loathsome dictators from around the world. Also, it's harder to imagine what would be the incentive for the experimenter to keep going, besides the aquisition of scientific knowledge of the sort the original subject thought he was providing. The thing is, this might limit experimenters to scientists and others who feel qualified to determine how experiments should work, which would obviously have a host of associated problems when talking about what the results would mean about people in general.
Don't worry, your English is fine for Netspeak — although it happens that "Nazi" (which is not an initialism) need not be capitalized unless you intended emphasis. In that case, it is reccommended that you italicize by placing two adjacent apostraphes (' ' but without the space in between) on either side of the word or phrase you have in mind. Also, you should sign all your comments with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ but without the space in between) rather than write your name. If any of this confuses you, just click "edit" to look at the wikisource and see what I'm talking about. Take it easy... —Lenoxus 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I find myself skeptical of the experiment. Duplicating Nazi Germany would be 1) duplicating a climate of fear and authoritarianism where a failure to comply can cause an arbitrary and extreme consequence 2) actually telling them "I want you to kill the man in the next room by pushing this button" because Nazis who murdered were murdering, not setting a dial on a machine they didn't understand and pushing a button. It materially different. Someone pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is consciously murdering. Someone pushing a button on a machine might say, "well... surely this man wouldn't actually have me kill him. The labelling must be wrong." After all, the man is not a guinea pig; he lives in a liberal democracy with a free press and an open, elected government and has not a single reason to think a shadowy laboratory where murder goes on, could ever actually operate. Whereas if he were a German in 1930's Germany, he'd believe it easily. It's just not at all the same. If someone can produce a result where they can get an authority figure to tell a man to shoot another man to death, well, then they'll have something. Until then, I'm a bit skeptical of the "we're all equally susceptible" argument. Americans do not respond to authority the same way Germans do, not even today. It's very different. 70.91.235.10 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

This prior FA is obviously well reviewed, and I do not presume to quibble. I do have a question about the paranthetical reference in the following paragraph:

"Milgram's work demanded that mainstream Western society re-evaluate how they looked upon the history of the Holocaust specifically, and of war in general. While it was (and remains) fashionably acceptable to revile "Nazi atrocities" (as though they are more atrocious than any other example of victimization of the vulnerable by a controlling or invading state, the suggestion of which disrespectfully implies that the lives of other groups of collective victims are somehow less valuable than those who lost their lives in the concentration camps of WWII Germany), yet through this experiment Milgram was able to demonsrate that the human element in all people made anyone capable of doing bad things to people who were not perceived to be deserving of the action, "just because" someone perceived to be in higher authority and control commanded it to be done."

Italiac emphasis is my own. I question if this entry is entirely encyclopedic. It seems more editorial and somewhat opinion based, though I share the opinion. Perhaps one wiser in these ways than I might comment. Sadie12 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milgram Experiment on children

Can anyone come up with a good text to add? A school (!) did the Milgram experiment, [2] with a 100% success :-( --Tilman 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The experiment in Sydney, late 1960s/early '70s

Many years ago, a friend who is a qualified psychologist told me that when the exeriment was tried in Sydney in the late 60s/early 70s that very high levels of disobedience were documented. I have searched in vain for material about this on the web. Does anyone know anything about it? Grant | Talk 07:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removed from "Variations" section

I've pulled this paragraph from the "Variations" section, because it smacks of Original Research and has a tone that's inconsistent with the rest of the article. It seems to be an attempt to summarize the results of the experiment, but it makes assertions and draws conclusions unsupported by references.

A notable observation here is that a being will, under normal circumstances not want to harm another being. However, substantial duress may confuse the being and as such will seek authority for their own actions. Thus, you have the situation whereby the being given the instruction is merely doing what they believe is right, purely through an aberated processes of seeking authority for ones actions. This then follows that initially the being had little or no personal ethics by which to judge their own personal actions and therefore will not cognite on the unethical harming of another being.

The last sentence is particularly problematic, since it asserts that the test subjects had deficient personal ethics. As far as I can tell from the rest of the article, most qualified commentators assume that the test subjects are ordinary people without unusual ethical standards.

Then there's the use of the word "being," which is not present in the rest of the article and makes this paragraph that much more New-Agey. The generally confused phrasing and the use of the either made up or painfully obscure verb "cognite" are further arguments against letting the paragraph stand.

—Eric S. Smith 13:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we mention 'A few good men'

This movie also talks about this concept. Anshuk 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many participants?

The start of the article reads, in part, "...and the victim was played by an Irish-American accountant trained to act for the role. The participant and another individual (supposedly another volunteer, but in reality a confederate of the experimenter) were told by ...". This made me think there were four people involved - technician, victim, participant and another confederate, when I now don't think this is the case. Maybe that needs rewording. Rawling4851 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up a bit by referring to the person who mimics receiving shocks as the "actor". The whole article should really be reworded for consistency (using the letters from the illustration throughout would be best)

[edit] Claricfication of experiment method

"If the answer was incorrect, the learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer." (Method of Experimnet, 3rd paragraph) Who would give the shock? Did the "teacher" have to push a button or was the active part of the teacher only asking the questions? It's probably the former, but clarification could help the article. --Janzomaster 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In most variants, the teacher has to push a switch. GL 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to clarify that paragraph. On page 5 of the article (in the PDF scan that's cited) it's made clear that the teacher actually has to throw a switch to administer a shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.210.79 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007

[edit] 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

[edit] Should we remove this?

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


[edit] Poor organization

There are many problems with the organization of this article. Parts of the of the section 'The Experiment' should be in 'Results' and 'Variations', while parts of 'Results' should be in 'Variantions'.

For example, the section dealing with 'Obedience' shouldn't be in 'Results', but in 'Variations', which also does talk about Experiment 10.

If none is willing to reorganize the article, I'll try to do it soon.Evenfiel 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture spam

User:Wookiepedian is continually reinserting pop culture references of only marginal import to the article, seemingly out of a mistaken belief that notability is transferable (for instance, that because V for Vendetta is a notable comic book, things which are mentioned in it are themselves notable in encyclopedia articles). I'm reverting this, because it results in articles being swamped with irrelevant trivia. Chris Cunningham 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this categorized as Academic Scandal?

Nothing in the article really indicates why this was an academic scandal. The findings? The ethics? Someone should make this clear, and with citations, and with discussion of proof there was any such scandal. 71.39.78.68 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence in the article to warrant that category, so I've removed it. Good catch. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mentionable

This experiment could be seen to raise some ethical issues as the experimenter did not truthfully tell the people involved what the real test was for (a standard practice in psychological tests today).

I left the sentence at this. Anyone involved in psychology or its experiments knows that this is standard and that any "ethical issue" here is insignificant so much as any other lie. For example once I was told that I was writing an essay to be graded by another volunteer ("in the next room"); there wasn't any other volunteer. Another time I was told I was participating in a market study for different types of cookies, it turned out to be about outwardly versus inwardly expressed opinions. I just think pointing out a supposed "ethical issue" is silly here, especially since the reader could interpret that on his own (if he desired). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.4.46 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the independent variable?

Maybe I'm being lazy or dumb, but what exactly is the independent variable of the original experiment? --Mark PEA (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)