Talk:Milgram experiment
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Milgram experiment is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Template:Talk Spoken Wikipedia
On 30 August 2001, the very first organized collaboration to improve an article was started: a short "article-a-day" e-mail on the Milgram experiment sent during a simpler time when only 145 people had user pages. Thus this article was the very first precursor to the Collaboration of the week.
Source: Announcements August 2001
Eric Herboso 04:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The following was here previously. It is not understandable English, but perhaps someone might be able to find some information in it: --LDC
This experiment not only(also excellent films)showing how subordinate human psychic setup really being so any outside feedback reenforcing this already genetically prepared behavior is BUT modern complex societies doing a lot to turn people into perfectly automated beings that do not sense any contradictions any more. This is leading to such strange behavior that I introduced the term SOCIATRY here and if you want some more details visit. http://users.aol.com/archive1/s.html Not being able to voice any critique we can identify many developemental trends trying to cover up any of these absurdities. Want to work here,too? Feel free to contact me at: ARCHIVE1@aol.com To understand the strange goings-on i ran across doing and developing graffiti-research I have been in need of some meta-explanatory matrix to understand what was going on if I dared to look closer Axel Thiel Kassel Germany
From the article:
- As a hair-splitting aside it must be noted that the shocks 'inflicted' are in essense unitless. The experimenters claim that 450-volts is fatal is not entirely true (see electric shock). Without being told amperes the actual physiological effect cannot be determined. Therefore what the experiment reveals is the power of subjective belief over an ignorance of physics. Did no subject ask about the current?
Let's put it this way. 450 V is potentially fatal (in real life, much less will do the job), and the "experimental equipment" was marked with the word DANGER at that voltage. The question is: did the experimental subjects believe they were causing great pain or death? The answer is yes. The Anome 19:16 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Moreover, in many experiments, the "victim" was supposed to scream, beg, plead, and eventually appear to pass out. --Andrew 09:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- This point seems quite critical to me. The key point, as I understand it was that the "learner" apparently passed out or died. In fact, the switches controlling the shocks were labeled as "Dangerous" or "XXX" in at least one of Milgram's experiments. Knowing that the "teachers" believed they were not only giving painful shocks but also had the potential to "kill" the "learner" seems essential to understand why they expected only sadists to continue through to the end. --Abqwildcat 00:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, personally. A while ago I gave the Methods section a rewrite which explicated the nature of the electric shocks and why the "learner" was reacting the way he did, but it got reverted. Maybe someone else should give it a try. Marblespire 06:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This point seems quite critical to me. The key point, as I understand it was that the "learner" apparently passed out or died. In fact, the switches controlling the shocks were labeled as "Dangerous" or "XXX" in at least one of Milgram's experiments. Knowing that the "teachers" believed they were not only giving painful shocks but also had the potential to "kill" the "learner" seems essential to understand why they expected only sadists to continue through to the end. --Abqwildcat 00:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Moreover, in many experiments, the "victim" was supposed to scream, beg, plead, and eventually appear to pass out. --Andrew 09:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand. Maybe I missed something but I think there is room in this article for critics about Milgram's methodology and conclusions. If someone can find such information from the scientific community.
From my humble point of view(I am no psychologist), the experiment is interesting but seems to be deeply flawed for two things. First I guess that the 'teacher', in some way, is convinced that the experiment is not pleasant at all for the 'learner' but safe since the scientist wants it to continue. Is this the authority he is talking about? I think this is more related to the concept of trust than authority. The other thing, and this one is more important, is that the 'teacher' knows that the 'learner' is free to walk away. This is a strong point to convince the 'teacher' that he has no real responsibility in what's going on. I think that if the 'learner' were not free to walk away, the 'teacher' would stop quite early in the experiment.
As said in the article, Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question “Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?”. In the light of what I said, the two situations are really different. People involved in the Holocaust knew that the result of their actions was death. They also knew that all those human beings were not free to escape.
- In fact, the "vicitm" was not (supposed to be) free to walk away - he was strapped into the chair; at one point he begged for release. The problem is exactly that the "teacher" lets the scientist take responsibility and trusts him not to harm the learner. This article is necessarily very incomplete; if you want the whole story, read Milgram's book. There are certainly differences between every version listed here and the actual Holocaust situation; nevertheless, the experiment casts obedience in a startling light. Milgram also points out that this sort of obedience may be necessary for social functioning. --Andrew 09:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Still, it seems incorrect for Milgram to assume his results were from obedience to authority rather than other factors. For instance, it would be seriously illegal for the scientist to order you to kill or seriously harm another individual against their will. Since any of the "teachers" were surely aware of this fact at some level of consciousness, it seems that most if not all of them were simply able to convince themselves they were not truly hurting the "learner" because it would be inconceivable for something as immoral as that to be sanctioned by, for example, Yale University. And in fact, anyone who may have assumed this during the course of the experiment would have been correct.
— Elijah Gregory
- For correlation between Milgram's experiment and Holocaust situation, see Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust -- mz 10:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
i read in an old psychology textbook that the rate of obedience was inversely proportionate to the subject's level of education and increased with each year of military service.
- Sounds interesting. A citation would be useful. -- The Anome 07:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Picture
There is a note on WP:FAC that this article could use a picture. Would the sign from Electric shock do? -- Solipsist 06:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've only seen that sign once, in London, but it made me laugh very hard. I don't really think that it goes along with this article all that well, especially considering no-one is actually shocked. Acegikmo1 14:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
featured article removal candidate
Is there any reason that this article is being considered for removal? I think there's lots of promise in it, and if it was previously "up to snuff" so to speak, it shouldn't be hard to get it back to featured article quality.
I think just some constructive criticism along with a removal consideration would be useful. Anyone? --ABQCat 04:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The person who put {farc} here has done a sloppy job of it by failing mention why. I'd give it 48 hours, and if no comment surfaces, just remove it. The article looks good to me. (A little thin in certain areas, but stll FAC-quality.) --Yath 04:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not the one who posted the notice, but, for starters:
- Why does the lead paragraph refer to a 1974 source where this is mentioned in a book? The actual work was performed and published over a decade earlier, so in a lead this is absolutely misleading. I remember studying the Milgram experiment in Psych 101 in 1972: even then, it was already very famous.
- Related: the article does not even give the original publication data for Milgram's original paper.
- There is no discussion of the role this experiment had in the adoption of standards for human experimentation.
- There is no discussion of how this fit in with Milgram's unusual and often flamboyant style of experimentation. It would be OK if that were discussed elsewhere and merely alluded to here with a "see also" but it's not in the article Stanley Milgram, either.
Again, I can't speak for the person who posted the notice, but I do feel this falls short of featured article quality. -- Jmabel 21:07, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Insights into human psychology
Is it absolutely uncontroversial that the results of the experiment were indeed valuable insights into human psychology? I'm not saying that it is not, since I know next to nothing about the theme, but the article states that quite peremptorily, and controversial experiments often have their results (and their merit) contested by some sectors of the scientific comunity. So I was just wondering. Regars, Redux 21:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is anything in psych "absolutely uncontroversial"? This is certainly one of the most famous experiments in the history of the discipline, and is pretty standard fodder as part of Intro Psych courses. It certainly was a very surprising result, tending to invalidate a lot of previously held beliefs. -- Jmabel 22:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
"Participant" vs. "subject"
Is there any particular reason why the word "subject" is disused in favor of "participant" nowadays? Does it make sense to use the latter when describing something that used the former? --Taak 03:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This was brought up on my talk page first. Here is the dicussion:
- The featured article for today is the Milgram experiment. It is not entirely acceptable because contains gender bias such as the use of 'he' when the sex is not specific. It also contains the term 'subject' which is often regarded by psychologists today as an unacceptable term, the accepted term for that role now is 'participant'. Ironically the terminology is particularly important in the context of the Milgram experiment.
- I made edits in the article itself, and in the subsection used in the template. Would it be possible to change it over on the basis of what I have said?
- Many thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 09:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is not entirely acceptable because contains gender bias such as the use of 'he' when the sex is not specific. - this is your opinion, which is not necessarily shared by other Wikipedia contributors. In formal written english, there is no 3rd-person gender-neutral pronoun ("they" is often used in informal situations, but some (myself included) find it inappropriate for Wikipedia). "He" is a generally accepted alternative, and is in fact recommended by more conservative style guides. Going around demanding that it be changed will likely get you labaled as a PC-pusher, and the way other people react to you will be unpleasant. (PC-pushers are, generally, not warmly recieved here)
- As far as "subject" vs "participant" - I admit my knowledge of psychology is poor, so I can't speak with any authority on the subject -- however (as a native english speaker) it sounds like you are trying to whitewash the language. Substantively, I don't see a difference between the terms. But if you can give or point to a substantive justification behind it (give the URL of a psychology style guide somewhere that discusses the use of the words) then I don't think anyone will object. →Raul654 16:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I am certainly not trying to whitewash the language, merely correct two flaws in the article that are not compliant with modern psychological guidelines. The British Psychological Society style guide (http://www.bps.org.uk/documents/StyleGuide.pdf). See '10.2 Inappropriate labels' for the subject/participant issue, and '10.1 Sex-specific language' for the issue about using 'he' when sex is not necessarily male.
- The American Psychological Association (APA) also has a style guide. I understand that the subject/participant issue is in 'Chapter 2 Guidelines to Reduce Bias in Language' and it says something similar to: "Terms like participants,respondents, or students should be used instead of the term, subject". I cannot give you a URL, but it is referred to in the APA FAQ I've noticed that subjects is often changed in copyediting, most often to participants. Why? (http://www.apastyle.org/faqs.html#7)
- Trying to help. Bobblewik (talk) 18:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, like I said, WRT subject vs participant, it looks like you have a fair case. After reading what you cited, I wouldn't have any objections. →Raul654 02:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
So it looks like the British Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association are whitewashing the language. I suppose we must endure it in articles about psychology? Annoying. --Yath 06:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to calling it "whitewashing" but it is pretty lame. --Taak 19:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's more that psychologists have a negative reputation in society and calling subjects participants (which sounds much more "consensual") may give them an extra shred of credibility. Also, it's really an issue of what language they want to be used in psychology journals - just as engineers defined what "stran" vs "shear" means, psychologists are defining what "subject" vs. "participant" means, and choosing the correct term is necessary to avoid sounding dumb to other people in their field. Just look at the history of psychology and you find examples of experiments that could never be done today. The Stanford Prison Experiment springs to mind. Phil Zimbardo is one of the most esteemed psychologists in the US, but if he were to propose such an experiment again today, he'd be laughed out of the university human subjects committee. So, subjects vs. participants is a big deal because it gives the (correct) interpretation that modern psychology experiments are consensual. That said I believe the correct term for people who were in the Milgram Experiment is undoubtedly "SUBJECTS" because they don't conform to any reasonable definition of "PARTICIPANT" (i.e. they were not "willing" participants). Call modern psych studies "participants", but these folks are "subjects" by any sense of the word. --ABQCat 19:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think "participant" is an poor choice of word because it ambiguates between the subject and anyone else in involved in the experiment, such as the confederates and experimenters in this study. Certainly they participated in the experiment as well, and it makes it awkward to talk about those who are the subject of the study and those who aren't if forced to use this ambiguous term. --Taak 19:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
why unethical
the article claims that "Most modern scientists would consider the experiment unethical today". I can't for the life of me figure out what about this experiment is unethical, given that no one was actually shocked or harmed in any way. Can anyone explain? -Lethe | Talk
- putting someone through a process during which they believe themselves to be possibly complicit in inflicting torture and at one point they are liable to believe they just killed someone? You see no ethical issue there? -- Jmabel 21:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Whether anyone was "put through" such a process or "put themselves" through it needs to be answered first -- they were, after all, acting of their own "free will."
However, there is one large hole in this article that does have to do with ethics: what happened when the experiment ended? Were the subjects immediatly told the truth, or were they allowed to believe for the rest of their life that they tortured a man to death? The latter, I think we can all agree, would be unethical.
If someone knows the answer, please update the article. -Seth
As someone who has (yearly) been tested on ethics by my university's human subjects committee in order to conduct psychology experiments, let me clar something up. The largest and most glaring reason this experiment would be considered unethical if performed today is because the participants did not give informed consent as to what they were going to participate in. Some trickery is allowed in getting such consent (when too much information would obscure possible experimental results - common in social psychology experiments) but is reviewed by human subjects committees at universities. Afterwards, subjects are immediately debriefed and given full disclosure as to what they were doing, deceptions are revealed, and the participants are supposed to leave feeling educated but not tricked. The lack of informed consent with extreme trickery which wasn't governed by a human subjects committee is the primary reason it would be considered unethical today. --ABQCat 23:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, that makes more sence. I'm not sure how you could perform such an experiment without trickery, and I wonder how you could ever study the psychology of trickery and lying, but that's another subject and I suppose it's better to err on the side of caution.
So, does anyone know for a fact that the subjects were immediatly told this was a trick? If so that ought to be added to the article. -Seth
- I know for a fact that they were told so. However, some of them (as was found later) didn't completely understand all nuances of what happened. Can't give a reference, sorry, but I think I read it following links from this very article. Paranoid 00:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Removing "Parallel between the Experimenter and the Participant"
I think the sugestion of a "Parallel between the Experimenter and the Participant" is not accurate. The experimenter does not blindly submit to the "science" authority, but conciously weighs the advantages and disadvantages of performing the experiment. The way I see it, The whole point of the experiment is that, when ordered to do so, people do things they wouldn't if they decided uninfluenced.
If anyone has any reason not to delete it, please tell me. --Waltervulej 02:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
reactions to Milgram's experiment
Interpretation needs attribution
"This laughter is not sadistic, but nervous laughter that many use to help calm fears they are having." According to whom? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Milgram, I would assume. Sadly, I don't have any sources on hand to back it up. But I've seen video's of the experiment, and I can attest that the laughter was indeed nervous, not sadistic. DaveTheRed 08:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Suicide?
Didn't someone commit suicide as a result of participating in the experiment? I remember hearing such a thing, though I could be wrong... Dysprosia 08:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would expect to find some hits to such an occurrence on "suicide" and "milgram" in google, but haven't had any luck--mostly the hits I get are Jonestown and suicide bombers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard of this, and I seriously doubt that it is true. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by 83.118.18.78
83.118.18.78 made an edit at 12:27 UTC changing "In the variation where immediacy of the "learner" was closest, participants had to physically hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate, which decreased compliance " to read "...increased compliance". As I understand it, the more immediate the interaction, the lower the compliance (of the participant and unwitting subject--remember the "learner" was not the real subject of the experiment and his compliance or otherwise was a fake). I have reverted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)