HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
ERROR
How much do you agree with these statements?
- Thread starter kabbes
- Start date
Cid
Proper break this time
I more meant Zimbardo and the (popular) narrative around the Kitty Genovese story itself... Also I have stumbled into what would probably be a very protracted back and forth and, much as that would be enjoyable, don't have time.
I will say this on Milgram though. There has been criticism of how he conducted his experiments, how he used the data, what he (didn't) publish/archive and the conclusions he drew. It's also worth noting that he did 24 variations, all with quite different results. This paper is quite good. It's a rebuttal to recent critics of Milgram, and does a fair job of summarising their viewpoints. I personally think I disagree with their conclusion, but y'know - people can judge for themselves.
www.scirp.org
Also this (short) interview with the woman who kind of kicked off/popularized this latest strain of criticism.
www.apa.org
And more recent paper from her:
As said, don't think I agree with the conclusions of Russel and Gregory. Or perhaps agree with them up to a point that the experiment might be useful as description of how people unwrap a certain type of moral dilemma in a quite specific situation. I think there's some justification in saying participants expressing disbelief could be a rationalisation, but really that argues for further refinement of design. In the end it might stand up as an interesting piece of research to be picked over and reanalysed, but fact is it is still used to draw wide inferences on core aspects of human behaviour, and that side I don't think is justified.
The problem at this point is that to really unpack further it would make sense to have a look at the original research, thoroughly read the criticism, and then do a rundown of replication attempts. Which obviously no. I dunno, I am probably tainted by listening to too many post replication crisis podcasts, and therefore assuming any research conducted before about yesterday is riddled with flaws. But do my best to keep an open mind.
I will say this on Milgram though. There has been criticism of how he conducted his experiments, how he used the data, what he (didn't) publish/archive and the conclusions he drew. It's also worth noting that he did 24 variations, all with quite different results. This paper is quite good. It's a rebuttal to recent critics of Milgram, and does a fair job of summarising their viewpoints. I personally think I disagree with their conclusion, but y'know - people can judge for themselves.
Are Milgram’s Obedience Studies Internally Valid Critique and Counter-Critique
Challenging criticism of Milgram's obedience studies, this article explores the internal validity and believability of the shocks. Discover how the experiments shed light on moral dilemmas and their relevance to understanding the Holocaust.
Also this (short) interview with the woman who kind of kicked off/popularized this latest strain of criticism.
'Behind the Shock Machine': Interview with Gina Perry
An interview with the author of 'Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments'.
www.apa.org
And more recent paper from her:
As said, don't think I agree with the conclusions of Russel and Gregory. Or perhaps agree with them up to a point that the experiment might be useful as description of how people unwrap a certain type of moral dilemma in a quite specific situation. I think there's some justification in saying participants expressing disbelief could be a rationalisation, but really that argues for further refinement of design. In the end it might stand up as an interesting piece of research to be picked over and reanalysed, but fact is it is still used to draw wide inferences on core aspects of human behaviour, and that side I don't think is justified.
The problem at this point is that to really unpack further it would make sense to have a look at the original research, thoroughly read the criticism, and then do a rundown of replication attempts. Which obviously no. I dunno, I am probably tainted by listening to too many post replication crisis podcasts, and therefore assuming any research conducted before about yesterday is riddled with flaws. But do my best to keep an open mind.
Last edited:
There was a reason I never mentioned Zimbardo
I also wish I had more time for a proper discussion. I just want to say this: from my perspective, there is a problem with the whole rationalist, positivist ontology of the experimental approach to psychology in the first place. It treats context as noise that can somehow be controlled for, when in reality people are always in a context, and that context depends on everything in their life to that point. Replication crisis? Totally the wrong way of looking at it. There’s no such thing as ”replication” when it comes to psychology. So I take limited value from Milgram’s direct findings.I more meant Zimbardo and the (popular) narrative around the Kitty Genovese story itself... Also I have stumbled into what would probably be a very protracted back and forth and, much as that would be enjoyable, don't have time.
I will say this on Milgram though. There has been criticism of how he conducted his experiments, how he used the data, what he (didn't) publish/archive and the conclusions he drew. It's also worth noting that he did 24 variations, all with quite different results. This paper is quite good. It's a rebuttal to recent critics of Milgram, and does a fair job of summarising their viewpoints. I personally think I disagree with their conclusion, but y'know - people can judge for themselves.
Are Milgram’s Obedience Studies Internally Valid Critique and Counter-Critique
Challenging criticism of Milgram's obedience studies, this article explores the internal validity and believability of the shocks. Discover how the experiments shed light on moral dilemmas and their relevance to understanding the Holocaust.
Also this (short) interview with the woman who kind of kicked off/popularized this latest strain of criticism.
'Behind the Shock Machine': Interview with Gina Perry
An interview with the author of 'Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments'.
And more recent paper from her:
As said, don't think I agree with the conclusions of Russel and Gregory. Or perhaps agree with them up to a point that the experiment might be useful as description of how people unwrap a certain type of moral dilemma in a quite specific situation. I think there's some justification in saying participants expressing disbelief could be a rationalisation, but really that argues for further refinement of design. In the end it might stand up as an interesting piece of research to be picked over and reanalysed, but fact is it is still used to draw wide inferences on core aspects of human behaviour, and that side I don't think is justified.
The problem at this point is that to really unpack further it would make sense to have a look at the original research, thoroughly read the criticism, and then do a rundown of replication attempts. Which obviously no. I dunno, I am probably tainted by listening to too many post replication crisis podcasts, and therefore assuming any research conducted before about yesterday is riddled with flaws. But do my best to keep an open mind.
But ah, that does not make his work uninteresting. It doesn’t discredit what he did. Quite the reverse, because, wonderfully, he taped everything. So subsequent psychologists have been able perform to some beautiful rhetorical analyses of the discourse employed during the experimental protocols, for example, which have shed an enormous amount of light on how people mobilise arguments and draw upon interpretative repertoires to reposition themselves in difficult situations.
Furthermore, Milgram’s own reflections on what was happening during his experiments are also methodical and thorough, even if they need to be understood in their own context. He was working in a particular time and place and with particular groups of people, and they were all living in the shadow of horrific totalitarianism. That makes his work fascinating in its own right.
Cid
Proper break this time
Ah, well that is fair enough. Although, y'know, while I think I get why you're arguing against replication, that is one colossal can of worms. A swimming pool of them. Enjoy the dive I suppose, wish I had the opportunity.
But my original point was more a drive-by assault on the general cultural presence of those studies. I mean if someone says they're interested in Milgram's experiments, they very likely mean they're interested by what he/his pop science interpreters claim they tell us about obedience to authority.
One of the fascinating things for me in Milgram’s original write-up is that an entire third of the participants did manage to find the rhetorical resources to exit the protocol. And the final prompt of “you must continue” was by far the least effective. Considerably less effective than the other prompts, which were various types of appeal to reason. That certainly demonstrates that something was going on other than pure obedience.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Cid I read that very paper last night, it's good isn't it. I also disagreed with a lot of their rebuttals, they didn't come across as objective a lot of the time.
(The scirp.org one)
(The scirp.org one)
Last edited:
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Cid
Proper break this time
Nah, I've no desire to go around badgering people (the quote function will have tagged her) for clarifications etc. It wasn't really intended as a specific criticism, more just a general thing.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Similar threads
