Half of Milgram’s subjects told him to take a hike | Hacker News Reader

Half of Milgram’s subjects told him to take a hike

mondoweiss.net

86 pointsgruseom44 comments

In actuality, all of his subjects resisted to some degree at some point. The crucial point is that most kept going after only a few verbal suggestions.

The transcript here is misleading. You might come away with the impression that it was what the subject said or did that ended the experiment, but it is actually the experimenter who halts it because the subject is still resisting after the fourth of four specifically worded orders. The experiment does not simply go on until the subject complies or walks away--they need only resist up to a certain point for the experiment to end. Real authority figures are not so bound.

And these subjects had not been conditioned by years of authoritarian leadership. These subjects were free people raised in a culture of hero-worship of dissenters and free-thinkers.

> a culture of hero-worship of dissenters and free-thinkers.

But those heros are now "offical" heroes. They are not the disruptors and terrorists the possibly were back in the day. So many grow up with the idea that heroes are "heroes" if you learn about them in school, or if they are wearing the badge and obidiently "do their job".

Speak for yourself, we may not be anywhere close to fascism, but I see a whole lot of hero-worship of "real americans" and not a ton of most people fitting the classic free-thinker model these days.

...and there you are! A free-thinker, posting on a public web forum, using (almost) their real name to suggest a view opposite to a common view.

Unthinkable in a fascist state.

Eh, focus on the trends. Artists and scientists are the first to be demonized, and that's happening to some degree -- probably not enough to be noteworthy or anymore than the domestic right in any situation demonizes them, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

If it could happen in the Germany of Liebniz, Mozart and Kant then it could happen anywhere.

From replication of the experiment the figure's more like just 30% refusing after a certain point. In any case, being happy about 30% or 50% is a weird way to see things. "Sure, at least three billion humans are willing to follow insane orders from an authoritative figure they only know by authority (not by actually liking them a-la Hitler or fearing them), but the rest of us aren't quite as susceptible under these exact conditions!" It's like being happy that only 40% of Delaware voters voted for O'Donnell.

Also, does anyone else feel like the subject's (Man Two's) lines were scripted, or did people talk that way often back then?

Edit: replier is right, 'most insane' does not fit here.

"the most insane of orders"? I'm sure there's more insane than painful or dangerous electric shock.

In regards to his lines, I'm pretty sure the abundance of "um"'s in speech is a recent phenomenon

I dunno man, disfluencies like "um" are an integral part of language. I'd put my money on them being plenty common in everyday language 45 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_disfluency

No, I totally agree with you, but there was a very specific period a handful of years ago I noticed people seemed compelled to fill any dead air whatsoever between thoughts with literally strings of "um"'s... So much so they'd still be saying an "um" after they were ready to say the next word (you could tell by their face and speech)

People have always used fillers (aka filled pauses) in speech. There is no evidence to suggest they have become any more or any less common.

For example, http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2008/05/uh-er... cites a play by Agatha Christie (who dies in 1976) which is full of um's (using the British spelling of erm).

I guess your satisfaction with this result depends on your prediction.

Also, judging by the comments section on that site, presenting the result this way ("50% refused" instead of "50% complied") has a significant impact on how people respond to the result.

Brilliant observation. People respond very differently to the same fundamental numbers if you present them differently.

Scientists doing an experiment may well use very formal speech, and it stands to reason that (sufficiently well-educated) subjects adapt.

Here's a link to a video from 1972 of the experiment:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PGnHHnRMk0

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzYAdGl_0mA&feature=relat...

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSiMM_GIiyA&feature=relat...

In total it's about 45 minutes long.

Here's the part from the transcript on that site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PGnHHnRMk#t=10m0s

That last link was absolutely amazing to watch.

I highly recommend that those who have read the OP take a look.

The results are a bit more involved than that:

* 65% administered the (maximum) 450 volt shock

* All participants questioned the experiment at one point

* None of them backed out until the 300 volt level (over halfway), when the learner started to bang on the wall.

The last link in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1881668 is the video that goes with the transcript in the article. The shock that is administered is 150V, which means that at least one participant (this one) did back out before the 300V level.

Wikipedia reports that too, but the original paper reports that nobody stopped before 300 volts and that there was no feedback from the victim until that level. I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy.

Possibly because there's a subtle but definite difference between an experiment carried out on 51 subjects from which 1 stopped before 300V and one on 50 subjects from which nobody stopped before 300V.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but as far as I know, there's no assurance mechanism to verify datasets reported by scientists.

The scientists made the film, too, so there's probably a less interesting explanation.

You're probably right; where many see fertile soil for an entertaining conspiracy theory, there may be as little as human forgetfulness. The interesting part is the implications of such omissions, and not the reasons behind them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Summary_of_v...

The number can go to as much as 92.5% if the subject was not pressing the shock button but was telling someone else to do it.

It goes up to 90% if the subject sees another go all the way.

If subject is just watching it goes upto 70%.

Another interesting case, is that none continued when two authority figured disagreed[experimenters] on whether to continue the experiments.

These are just some of interesting results of the variation in milgram experiment, see the link above for more.

"Always look on the briiight side of life..."

Sure, it was about 50 times more than they expected. But on the bright side, at least it wasn't everybody...

The book Obedience to Authority: http://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Stanley-Milgram/dp...

Is an excellent piece of work, and shows how much work really needs to be done to try and do social science.

Here's the actual table of results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Summary_of_v...

As you can see, by varying the way responsibility was assigned and the role the subject had they could get to the point where only 8% refused to got the 450V.

The wikipedia page notes that moving the experiment out of Yale into a local office building dropped the 450v obedience to 48% but "was not statistically significant"

it seems hugely significant - nearly 50% reduction. Does anyone know why it's not considered significant ?

I believe they got 50% compliance at Yale, from the same format. The 92% obedience was in the format where the "teacher" is in a group of paid actors, and one of the other actors was actually pressing the switch while the "teacher" read the questions.

Watch the Youtube links from the comment above, they're absolutely amazing.

I'd have to read the paper, but statistical significance is determined by several factors - e.g., number of participants and so on. The drop could just be a fluke.

It would be quite interesting to see how compliance rises with different feedback mechanisms. For instance, reducing the actor's communication to textual output, or having the actor's distress communicated through a third party.

The article frames Milgram's results as if there is some previously undiscovered optimism in his results. In reality, there is none. A better headline would have been: "Only half of Milgram's subjects told him to take a hike".

That means the other half could be persuaded (because the certainly did not do this out of their own initiative) to administer lethal electric shocks to another human being. Compliance is a bitch.

An even better headline would be "A third of Milgram’s subjects told him to take a hike, hallelujah." It would have the benefit of being true.

It's relative to expectation. Many of us have been hearing about the Milgram results for years. After a while, the shocking side of it seems to be the only significant thing. Reading that transcript (and even more, watching the video of the interview, linked above) is a shock of a different kind, reminding us that there are angels in us and not only devils. The OP took inspiration in that. So do I.

I wonder how many of the more compliant subjects would have changed their tune if they had been in the room when someone like this guy (or the one after him in the video) stood up and refused. In this respect, the laboratory conditions were pretty artificial. In life, the social context is usually much larger. It would be interesting to know under what conditions an individual saying no would have an amplifying effect. Perhaps someone who knows social psychology can cite some work on this.

Interestingly, there's no way I could get experiments of this kind past the Ethics Board these days. I'm not quite sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

I've always been surprised none of the "teachers" participating threatened to call the police. (I would probably have gotten arrested for assaulting the experimenter, myself.) I would expect the vast majority to comply or politely leave, but I would expect a few percent of people to have a past association with torture or abuse and thus to respond directly.

> I would probably have gotten arrested for assaulting the experimenter, myself

You keep thinking that, if it can make you feel better about yourself.

> I would expect the vast majority to comply or politely leave

That's the point: it's not the case in any way, shape or form.

Actually if you know about the experiment, chances are that you won't comply.

That's trivially true.

Sure, but you are also less likely to comply with similar requests outside the experiment.

This actually could be studied empirically. I wonder if any work has been done on it.

(I'd like to believe it's true, but I fear human nature isn't quite so responsive.)

No, you aren't. Unfortunately, I must say. All those years taking Social Psychology courses haven't even made me immune to fascism!

Seriously, though, reading some essential papers in the area is absolutely worthwhile. Replications of Milgram's initial experiments have investigated exactly this issue. Knowing that you're susceptible to manipulation by authority figures doesn't make you any less susceptible.

I've always been surprised none of the "teachers" participating threatened to call the police. (I would probably have gotten arrested for assaulting the experimenter, myself.)

You and 99% of all people hearing about the Milgram experiments. The essential point, however, is that in fact you wouldn't.

Just like 80% of all people state they'd DEFINITELY have been in the resistance during Third Reich. It's convenient to say that, but statistics tell us otherwise.

For me it is a lot more specific. I wouldn't have a big problem with enhanced interrogation in some contexts (I think torture is a bad policy and a losing strategy for a country, but in a classified interrogation context, wouldn't rock the boat). I have certainly been around recreational bdsm scenes which were fairly intense as well. I just don't trust doctors (psychologists, MDs) to be competent -- I have seen too many fuckups. Plus, there would be little personal risk in standing up to them. In the ww2 context, I am kind of ashamed to say I would have been an amoral defense contractor, doing whatever made me the most money with access to the best technical challenges and toys. I wouldn't have been initially willing to start off with war crimes, but I could definitely see using slave labor, overlooking virtually any other crimes, to ship, especially if it seemed like losing could lose the war. Or, if not a defense industrialist, a soldier.

it's too bad nobody neutralized the authority figure and liberated the prisoner.

According to the video posted by another commenter, those who refuse to continue giving a shock are given explaination about real experiment. And then the "victim" comes in to the subject, in a good health.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com