Not to throw cold water on this post, but Gina Perry's book "Behind the Shock Machine" challenges much of what textbooks claim about the Milgram studies, such as the supposed automatic, blind obedience of participants to authority.
Based on extensive archival research and interviews with participants, Dr. Perry found that many participants suspected the experiment was fake, and those who believed it was real were much less likely to comply with orders to administer shocks. Plus, Milgram's procedures were less standardized than reported. Experimenters often deviated from the script to pressure subjects, blurring the boundary between "obedience" and "coercion".
Thanks, Jake. I'm aware of these critiques and agree with many of them. But the replications were better done and got the same results, so I'm confident about the finding.
Yeah totally fair! And I agree in general — there’s enough evidence about the topic. Just wanted to point out that the original studies themselves are more good folklore than good science.
The police consent anecdotes are fascinating to me… I think so many consent searches happen because most people have nothing to hide (and it’s true that the hit rate on consent searches is remarkably low). But I also suspect that motorists don’t realize that a cop using a conversational tone is not issuing a lawful order when they say “I assume it’s okay with you if I go ahead and search your vehicle?” — my intuition is that most people don’t realize they can refuse that request.
Nice post, excellent review of those classic studies, their followups, and their implications for real people. I do have an interpretation issue, starting with the title. When I saw it, I thought "I have to read that post" but not out of obedience. You are a very credible guy. You do not go around screaming (as they do on Twitter or YouTube): "You Must See What Famous Person/Politician A just said/did!"
So, in hindsight, at least somewhat erroneously, I interpreted the title to mean "Paul has something really important and valuable to say that I probably don't know and would want to know." I mean, its a good post, worth reading -- but top 25% good, not amazing contender for top 10 best blog I ever read good. (This is not an insult, I'd definitely rank your Substack in top 10% of those I follow overall but you get there by consistently being top 25% and occasionally top 5%, not by having every post top 1% -- no one has that that I follow). Bottom line, you have high credibility, so when you write "You Must Read This," it carries way more weight for me than when 99.99% of other people say that.
I think there is some pretty good evidence out there, tho I'd have to track it down, that people often obey out of a presumption that they are cooperating with benevolent authorities to do something worthwhile (e.g., advance science). This does not *refute* the studies' findings or your analysis. But it is a somewhat different interpretation of what is going on. And I suspect it can be important -- people are far less likely to obey (I suspect) when they do not have the presumption that the authority is benevolent.
The most extraodinarily successful Milgram experiment was global. The COVID Plandemic. Authoritarian, redundant mockingbird messaging mantra and fear make for obedience. And the most obedient enjoy their servitude, admire their captors and in time become the captors. I’m witnessing this propagandized phenomenon become the norm. Most disturbingly , the psychosis of Jews, Queers, Feminists, Fatties, Sex Workers and Drag Queens For Hamas.
Or Stockholm Syndrome ISIS bride captives.
I couldn’t fathom how easily the Jews submitted to the Nazis. Now we have a majority of Dhimmicrat Jews that have so devolved, they needn’t be coerced or convinced to join the Jihadists.
I like the disclaimer after the Milgram video explaining that the study results don’t mean we would immediately say yes to everything. Rather, they simply suggest that we may be more obedient than we think, due to underlying factors we might not be aware of most of the time, such as facing a seemingly valid authority or being thrust into a novel, intimidating situation. I was wondering if there are other factors that determine whether we mindlessly comply or refuse, and I came up with some ideas.
I think people can only realize that they can actually decide to say no once they know they have their reasons, and that they are not in a demanding time constraint. I imagined myself in two different scenarios. In the first scenario, a police officer knocks on my door and politely asks me to give them my passwords for each of my devices. Then they try to explain why they are doing this, mentioning each of their points about some kind of security, crime prevention, or whatnot. In the second situation, a police officer aggressively rings my doorbell multiple times, and when I finally open it, they walk straight into my place and immediately ask that I hand over my passwords for my devices without further ado.
When I reason this out from a third person perspective, I’ll be more likely to comply in the first scenario. When I imagine myself in both scenarios, though, it’s a different story. To the first officer, I’ll probably ask questions, doubting their explanations and being outwardly reluctant. Meanwhile, to the second officer, I can only imagine myself quickly running over to my room and coming back with all of my devices unlocked, if not with a list of each of their passwords.
This reminded me of what I learned about cognitive dissonance in your Coursera courses and books. In situations like the second scenario, I don’t have the time and mental space to think about my own actions, which forces me to make a quick, subconscious assumption that there must be a reason why I’m choosing to comply. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they are being irrational or taken advantage of, which makes it easy for us to end up convincing ourselves that the other person demanding the task is definitely in the right. Ironically this makes us more compliant to the second officer in similar real-life cases, even if the first officer reflects a more rational behavior.
Fantastic reminder - Thank you Paul: When psychologically worn down would you let the system off and choose doctor assisted suicide which is rampant in Canada not only for acute illness but also for extreme poverty. It's due in large part to lack of opportunity to earn enough to live while going to 3 jobs as well as soup kitchens and food banks while maybe being older with illness and despair. The current issue in the "Atlantic" has an article on Dr. Assisted suicide in Canada. I have not read the article yet - my thoughts...
Canadians are hypnotised by liberal psycho politics of fear doubt and uncertainty with people giving up their brain two's about real issues.... It will soon be too late when, for example, Mark Carney legislates one can only drive on odd or even days.... The list goes on where we agree to our ultimate demise to accept the shocks and not fight back against essentially dictatorship - we take the shock by agreeing to not demand parliament to sit...When was the last time we had an active parliament..... My interpretation is all my comments flow from the research of Milgram studies....
Thank you for another excellent post. I'm guessing you know this, but the Holocaust scholar Christopher Browning used Milgram's work as an interpretive framework in "Ordinary Men," his study of how a group of men who had not displayed anti-Semitic tendencies before enlistment became enthusiastic participants in the Nazi genocide. Browning is a deeply serious historian, not one who applies psychological theories fancifully or superficially, and his book is a rich and disturbing study.
Now imagine real world, where obedience comes with a substantial reward and disobedience comes with a substantial penalty. Helps explain Authoritarian Government.
Supporting JT, here is my summary of historical work on these experiments. References given at bottom.
As the replication crisis developed, it emerged that more social psychology experiments
failed to replicate than similar purely cognitive ones. When critics and historians looked
more closely at important social psychology experiments— including some very famous
ones— they found that many were of poor quality, had been mis-described by their crea -
tors, and produced findings quite different than claimed and/or were misrepresented in
secondary accounts. For example, Asch’s (1951) famous “conformity experiment” didn’t
find conformity, but resistance to group pressure, which is how Asch reported it. However,
over time, textbooks have increasingly cited it as demonstrating how conformist people are
(Griggs, 2015). The most troublesome and troubling case is that of “Milgram’s shocking
experiments” (Patten, 1977), probably the most famous psychological experiments of all
time. In this case, nothing was as it seemed. Milgram didn’t describe all the conditions he
ran, because some did not support his hypothesis; he reported absence of sex differences,
but women were treated more forcefully by the actor playing the experimenter because they
did resist; most subjects were not debriefed; many were emotionally traumatized, and so on
(Perry, 2013). Brannigan (2021) reports on other experiments: the Zimbardo prison study,
Rosenhan’s study of sane “subjects” admitted to asylums, the Hawthorne effect, the effect of
seeing violence on committing it, failed replications, and some less- known cases.
Brannigan, A. (2020). The use and misuse of the experimental method in social psychology: A critical examination of classical research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Griggs, R. A. (2015). The disappearance of independence in textbook coverage of Asch’s social pressure experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 137– 142. DOI: 10.1177/0098628315569939.
Yes, but...unless an innocent person has a general grievance against the police, I think it is not obedience to allow a search, but simple helpfulness.
Not to throw cold water on this post, but Gina Perry's book "Behind the Shock Machine" challenges much of what textbooks claim about the Milgram studies, such as the supposed automatic, blind obedience of participants to authority.
Based on extensive archival research and interviews with participants, Dr. Perry found that many participants suspected the experiment was fake, and those who believed it was real were much less likely to comply with orders to administer shocks. Plus, Milgram's procedures were less standardized than reported. Experimenters often deviated from the script to pressure subjects, blurring the boundary between "obedience" and "coercion".
Thanks, Jake. I'm aware of these critiques and agree with many of them. But the replications were better done and got the same results, so I'm confident about the finding.
Yeah totally fair! And I agree in general — there’s enough evidence about the topic. Just wanted to point out that the original studies themselves are more good folklore than good science.
The police consent anecdotes are fascinating to me… I think so many consent searches happen because most people have nothing to hide (and it’s true that the hit rate on consent searches is remarkably low). But I also suspect that motorists don’t realize that a cop using a conversational tone is not issuing a lawful order when they say “I assume it’s okay with you if I go ahead and search your vehicle?” — my intuition is that most people don’t realize they can refuse that request.
Nice post, excellent review of those classic studies, their followups, and their implications for real people. I do have an interpretation issue, starting with the title. When I saw it, I thought "I have to read that post" but not out of obedience. You are a very credible guy. You do not go around screaming (as they do on Twitter or YouTube): "You Must See What Famous Person/Politician A just said/did!"
So, in hindsight, at least somewhat erroneously, I interpreted the title to mean "Paul has something really important and valuable to say that I probably don't know and would want to know." I mean, its a good post, worth reading -- but top 25% good, not amazing contender for top 10 best blog I ever read good. (This is not an insult, I'd definitely rank your Substack in top 10% of those I follow overall but you get there by consistently being top 25% and occasionally top 5%, not by having every post top 1% -- no one has that that I follow). Bottom line, you have high credibility, so when you write "You Must Read This," it carries way more weight for me than when 99.99% of other people say that.
I think there is some pretty good evidence out there, tho I'd have to track it down, that people often obey out of a presumption that they are cooperating with benevolent authorities to do something worthwhile (e.g., advance science). This does not *refute* the studies' findings or your analysis. But it is a somewhat different interpretation of what is going on. And I suspect it can be important -- people are far less likely to obey (I suspect) when they do not have the presumption that the authority is benevolent.
The most extraodinarily successful Milgram experiment was global. The COVID Plandemic. Authoritarian, redundant mockingbird messaging mantra and fear make for obedience. And the most obedient enjoy their servitude, admire their captors and in time become the captors. I’m witnessing this propagandized phenomenon become the norm. Most disturbingly , the psychosis of Jews, Queers, Feminists, Fatties, Sex Workers and Drag Queens For Hamas.
Or Stockholm Syndrome ISIS bride captives.
I couldn’t fathom how easily the Jews submitted to the Nazis. Now we have a majority of Dhimmicrat Jews that have so devolved, they needn’t be coerced or convinced to join the Jihadists.
I like the disclaimer after the Milgram video explaining that the study results don’t mean we would immediately say yes to everything. Rather, they simply suggest that we may be more obedient than we think, due to underlying factors we might not be aware of most of the time, such as facing a seemingly valid authority or being thrust into a novel, intimidating situation. I was wondering if there are other factors that determine whether we mindlessly comply or refuse, and I came up with some ideas.
I think people can only realize that they can actually decide to say no once they know they have their reasons, and that they are not in a demanding time constraint. I imagined myself in two different scenarios. In the first scenario, a police officer knocks on my door and politely asks me to give them my passwords for each of my devices. Then they try to explain why they are doing this, mentioning each of their points about some kind of security, crime prevention, or whatnot. In the second situation, a police officer aggressively rings my doorbell multiple times, and when I finally open it, they walk straight into my place and immediately ask that I hand over my passwords for my devices without further ado.
When I reason this out from a third person perspective, I’ll be more likely to comply in the first scenario. When I imagine myself in both scenarios, though, it’s a different story. To the first officer, I’ll probably ask questions, doubting their explanations and being outwardly reluctant. Meanwhile, to the second officer, I can only imagine myself quickly running over to my room and coming back with all of my devices unlocked, if not with a list of each of their passwords.
This reminded me of what I learned about cognitive dissonance in your Coursera courses and books. In situations like the second scenario, I don’t have the time and mental space to think about my own actions, which forces me to make a quick, subconscious assumption that there must be a reason why I’m choosing to comply. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they are being irrational or taken advantage of, which makes it easy for us to end up convincing ourselves that the other person demanding the task is definitely in the right. Ironically this makes us more compliant to the second officer in similar real-life cases, even if the first officer reflects a more rational behavior.
Fantastic reminder - Thank you Paul: When psychologically worn down would you let the system off and choose doctor assisted suicide which is rampant in Canada not only for acute illness but also for extreme poverty. It's due in large part to lack of opportunity to earn enough to live while going to 3 jobs as well as soup kitchens and food banks while maybe being older with illness and despair. The current issue in the "Atlantic" has an article on Dr. Assisted suicide in Canada. I have not read the article yet - my thoughts...
Canadians are hypnotised by liberal psycho politics of fear doubt and uncertainty with people giving up their brain two's about real issues.... It will soon be too late when, for example, Mark Carney legislates one can only drive on odd or even days.... The list goes on where we agree to our ultimate demise to accept the shocks and not fight back against essentially dictatorship - we take the shock by agreeing to not demand parliament to sit...When was the last time we had an active parliament..... My interpretation is all my comments flow from the research of Milgram studies....
Thank you for another excellent post. I'm guessing you know this, but the Holocaust scholar Christopher Browning used Milgram's work as an interpretive framework in "Ordinary Men," his study of how a group of men who had not displayed anti-Semitic tendencies before enlistment became enthusiastic participants in the Nazi genocide. Browning is a deeply serious historian, not one who applies psychological theories fancifully or superficially, and his book is a rich and disturbing study.
Everyone is an exception to their own expectations.
Now imagine real world, where obedience comes with a substantial reward and disobedience comes with a substantial penalty. Helps explain Authoritarian Government.
I believe the title of this article was part of the experiment. I obeyed.
Supporting JT, here is my summary of historical work on these experiments. References given at bottom.
As the replication crisis developed, it emerged that more social psychology experiments
failed to replicate than similar purely cognitive ones. When critics and historians looked
more closely at important social psychology experiments— including some very famous
ones— they found that many were of poor quality, had been mis-described by their crea -
tors, and produced findings quite different than claimed and/or were misrepresented in
secondary accounts. For example, Asch’s (1951) famous “conformity experiment” didn’t
find conformity, but resistance to group pressure, which is how Asch reported it. However,
over time, textbooks have increasingly cited it as demonstrating how conformist people are
(Griggs, 2015). The most troublesome and troubling case is that of “Milgram’s shocking
experiments” (Patten, 1977), probably the most famous psychological experiments of all
time. In this case, nothing was as it seemed. Milgram didn’t describe all the conditions he
ran, because some did not support his hypothesis; he reported absence of sex differences,
but women were treated more forcefully by the actor playing the experimenter because they
did resist; most subjects were not debriefed; many were emotionally traumatized, and so on
(Perry, 2013). Brannigan (2021) reports on other experiments: the Zimbardo prison study,
Rosenhan’s study of sane “subjects” admitted to asylums, the Hawthorne effect, the effect of
seeing violence on committing it, failed replications, and some less- known cases.
Brannigan, A. (2020). The use and misuse of the experimental method in social psychology: A critical examination of classical research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Griggs, R. A. (2015). The disappearance of independence in textbook coverage of Asch’s social pressure experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 137– 142. DOI: 10.1177/0098628315569939.
Patten, S. C. (1977). Milgram’s shocking experiments. Philosophy, 52, 425– 440. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3749542
Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine. New York: The New Press.
My text from Leahey, T. H. (2025). A critical history of psychology. New York: Routledge.
Yes, but...unless an innocent person has a general grievance against the police, I think it is not obedience to allow a search, but simple helpfulness.
The line matching question - I can see candidates choosing B on the grounds of centrality. C matches in length but not position.