One thing I have never seen addressed regarding Milgram's experiment is whether the lab subjects, the one thinking they are inflicting pain, actually *do* think so. I have never paid a lot of attention to Milgram, maybe I've missed something. But I have tried to imagine myself approached by some professor or grad student asking me to sign up for an experiment for some nominal pay. When told my turning a dial inflicts pain on the experimental subject, my attitude would be that whatever happens, the subject must have agreed to it, that the whole process is kosher, because professors and grad students just don't go around shocking other students against their will for research.
It's sort of the same for people who object that R-rated movies or even porn objectify women (why never the men?). I've never seen any movie where I thought, "Oh heck, they're actually raping that poor women! Someone call the cops and get her out of there!"
You have to assume people have agency. Maybe some porn is so realistic that it could be mistaken for real criminals raping real women against their will. I am not up on the latest in porn realism or rape snuff films or whatever they would be called.
Back to Milgram ... I could easily imagine myself going along, on the assumption anything happening is part of the experiment and everyone involved is a voluntary participant. It would never occur to me that any fool grad student or professor would actually set up an experiment which would hurt people, let alone potentially kill them.
I have never believed the results have any relation to real people in most real circumstances.
There's video from the original experiment of subjects going along with the punishment while appearing genuinely distressed to be doing so. The participants could all be exceptional actors, but I think the correct interpretation is that most of them believed they were doing harm to the other participant.
That’s interesting. The cynic in me wonders how much cherry picking there was in video selection, but it’s way too late for much useful debate over that kind of paranoia.
I have read that a some, perhaps a lot, of the original participants later claimed they knew the shocks weren't real. I've seen some web chat forums where posters claimed to have participated and understood there was no actual shock. It's not high-quality information, but consistent with your instinct. (A quick search didn't find an example).
I haven't read much about the shock experiment, but I did read his book on the Stanford Prison Experiment. The book did not make me admire Millgram as a researcher. He had some interesting ideas, but seemed pretty blind to epistemological problems. Just for starters, with the prison experiment, there was a huge selection bias, and as I recall Milgram didn't even mention that in passing through the entire book.
The next important question is how we determine whether an authority actually deserves obedience. I would start with moral symmetry. If an ordinary person would not be morally entitled to compel another person to act in a particular way, putting that person in an official position does not by itself create the missing entitlement. Milgram's experiment may therefore illustrate something deeper than perceived legitimacy: people can mistake the social perception of authority for moral authority. The crucial question isn't merely whether I perceive someone as entitled to command me, but what fact, if any, actually gives that person a moral right to command me.
I know that this is a bit tangential, but a question for me is whether the "ethical authorities" (human subjects review committees) that block interesting studies have real or perceived power.
The overall point about asserting your agency is a reasonable one.
But there are issues. “Age gap” is not a necessarily a power/punishment problem, but rather an “ick” one, as well as a money/control one.
And the workplace rules exist because a “VP” can exert influence and be able to “punish” beyond their own department.
Also, your examples of lack of actual punishment speak to lack of inclination, and not lack of capacity. Some parents are pushovers because they choose to be permissive rather than old school. Most current teachers inflate grades in ways prior generations of teachers did not, again by choice or habit.
Also, the lack of punishment is what leads to the questioning about legitimacy. Look at how France is currently on fire. Power relations is not wrong. But it does require that those in power assert it when necessary (judiciously of course).
The really scary stuff is where the self ascribed person over has their self appointed authority challenged. The cop or security guard so used to demanded obedience they meet lawful disobedience as something to be beaten down the parent who is too used to physically and coercively controlling their children when said children start to naturally rebel. The “senior” employee used to pushing around and controlling new hires.
One thing I have never seen addressed regarding Milgram's experiment is whether the lab subjects, the one thinking they are inflicting pain, actually *do* think so. I have never paid a lot of attention to Milgram, maybe I've missed something. But I have tried to imagine myself approached by some professor or grad student asking me to sign up for an experiment for some nominal pay. When told my turning a dial inflicts pain on the experimental subject, my attitude would be that whatever happens, the subject must have agreed to it, that the whole process is kosher, because professors and grad students just don't go around shocking other students against their will for research.
It's sort of the same for people who object that R-rated movies or even porn objectify women (why never the men?). I've never seen any movie where I thought, "Oh heck, they're actually raping that poor women! Someone call the cops and get her out of there!"
You have to assume people have agency. Maybe some porn is so realistic that it could be mistaken for real criminals raping real women against their will. I am not up on the latest in porn realism or rape snuff films or whatever they would be called.
Back to Milgram ... I could easily imagine myself going along, on the assumption anything happening is part of the experiment and everyone involved is a voluntary participant. It would never occur to me that any fool grad student or professor would actually set up an experiment which would hurt people, let alone potentially kill them.
I have never believed the results have any relation to real people in most real circumstances.
There's video from the original experiment of subjects going along with the punishment while appearing genuinely distressed to be doing so. The participants could all be exceptional actors, but I think the correct interpretation is that most of them believed they were doing harm to the other participant.
That’s interesting. The cynic in me wonders how much cherry picking there was in video selection, but it’s way too late for much useful debate over that kind of paranoia.
I have read that a some, perhaps a lot, of the original participants later claimed they knew the shocks weren't real. I've seen some web chat forums where posters claimed to have participated and understood there was no actual shock. It's not high-quality information, but consistent with your instinct. (A quick search didn't find an example).
I haven't read much about the shock experiment, but I did read his book on the Stanford Prison Experiment. The book did not make me admire Millgram as a researcher. He had some interesting ideas, but seemed pretty blind to epistemological problems. Just for starters, with the prison experiment, there was a huge selection bias, and as I recall Milgram didn't even mention that in passing through the entire book.
I have always had the same thought. I would love to hear if there is any counterpoint to this.
Nicely done.
The next important question is how we determine whether an authority actually deserves obedience. I would start with moral symmetry. If an ordinary person would not be morally entitled to compel another person to act in a particular way, putting that person in an official position does not by itself create the missing entitlement. Milgram's experiment may therefore illustrate something deeper than perceived legitimacy: people can mistake the social perception of authority for moral authority. The crucial question isn't merely whether I perceive someone as entitled to command me, but what fact, if any, actually gives that person a moral right to command me.
I know that this is a bit tangential, but a question for me is whether the "ethical authorities" (human subjects review committees) that block interesting studies have real or perceived power.
Interesting post.
The overall point about asserting your agency is a reasonable one.
But there are issues. “Age gap” is not a necessarily a power/punishment problem, but rather an “ick” one, as well as a money/control one.
And the workplace rules exist because a “VP” can exert influence and be able to “punish” beyond their own department.
Also, your examples of lack of actual punishment speak to lack of inclination, and not lack of capacity. Some parents are pushovers because they choose to be permissive rather than old school. Most current teachers inflate grades in ways prior generations of teachers did not, again by choice or habit.
Also, the lack of punishment is what leads to the questioning about legitimacy. Look at how France is currently on fire. Power relations is not wrong. But it does require that those in power assert it when necessary (judiciously of course).
The really scary stuff is where the self ascribed person over has their self appointed authority challenged. The cop or security guard so used to demanded obedience they meet lawful disobedience as something to be beaten down the parent who is too used to physically and coercively controlling their children when said children start to naturally rebel. The “senior” employee used to pushing around and controlling new hires.
Chappppteeer 7!