It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.

▲

crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Replication...

▲

Intralexical 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

6 of the 7 "replications" mentioned in that Wikipedia section are literally TV shows and performance artists.

...Which is a good metaphor for the "experiment" as a whole.

	▲	bethekidyouwant 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Actually, all of them are bs. There’s no records of the experiment in Australia. I would guess it’s just a hoax by the author of “behind the shock machine” if not, it still certainly doesn’t count as a replication.

▲

lavamantis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And some people really WANT to believe it's true. They've built their entire worldview around it and the idea they've been duped would cause a massive narcissistic injury.

	▲	Intralexical 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Small but important nitpick. I think, most commonly their worldview was already built, and would have been the same regardless. Milgram just provides a veneer of legitimacy, losing which would cause problems for them.