Have you ever wondered what you'd do if someone in a lab coat told you to hurt another person?
Welcome to FreeAstroScience. We're glad you're here.
For decades, psychology textbooks have told us a disturbing story: most humans will blindly follow orders, even when those orders cause harm. This idea comes from one experiment—Stanley Milgram's obedience study. It's been used to explain everything from Nazi atrocities to everyday cruelty.
But what if that story isn't quite true?
Recent research has cracked open Milgram's archives. What scholars found changes everything we thought we knew about human nature. And honestly? The real findings might restore a bit of your faith in humanity.
Stick with us. This one's worth reading to the end.
What Was the Milgram Experiment, and Why Does It Still Matter?
In the early 1960s, the world was still reeling from World War II. The trial of Adolf Eichmann—a key architect of the Holocaust—sparked a haunting question. How could ordinary people commit such horrors? Eichmann's defense? "I was just following orders."
Psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to test this idea scientifically. He designed an experiment at Yale University that would become legendary—and controversial.
The Setup: A Fake Learning Test
Here's how it worked. Volunteers responded to a newspaper ad. They thought they were participating in a study about learning and memory. Payment? $4.50 per hour—roughly equivalent to $45 today.
Each volunteer was assigned the role of "teacher." Their job? Ask questions to a "learner" in another room. For every wrong answer, the teacher had to deliver an electric shock. The shocks started at 15 volts and increased by 15-volt increments. The final switch? A terrifying 450 volts.
The catch? The "learner" was an actor. The shocks were fake. But the teachers didn't know this.
As the voltage increased, the learner would groan, protest, and eventually scream. He'd demand to be released. Past a certain point, he'd go silent.
When teachers hesitated, an experimenter in a lab coat would prod them:
- "Please continue."
- "The experiment requires that you continue."
- "You have no other choice. You must go on."
Milgram's Shocking Claim
According to Milgram's published results, about 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock. Even though they believed it could be lethal.
The conclusion seemed clear: ordinary people will obey authority figures—even when it means hurting others. This finding spread through textbooks like wildfire. It became one of psychology's most famous—and most troubling—lessons.
But there's a problem. The story Milgram told wasn't the whole story.
What Did Gina Perry Discover in Milgram's Archives?
Starting in the 2000s, Australian psychologist Gina Perry did something remarkable. She gained access to Milgram's original materials at Yale University. Audio recordings. Correspondence. Data files. Interviews.
What she found challenged the standard narrative.
The Data Milgram Didn't Publish
Milgram didn't run just one experiment. He ran 23 different versions. And the results varied wildly.
In some variations, obedience was high. In others? Most people refused to continue. Perry discovered that in more than half of the 23 experiments, the majority of participants disobeyed.
Take the Bridgeport study. When the experiment moved outside Yale's prestigious campus to a run-down office building, only three people administered the maximum shock.
This wasn't what made it into the textbooks.
Many Participants Didn't Believe the Shocks Were Real
Here's where things get interesting. Perry's team analyzed an unpublished report by Milgram's assistant, Taketo Murata. This report linked participants' beliefs about the shocks to their behavior.
The findings?
In 18 of 23 experimental conditions, participants who fully believed the shocks were real delivered fewer shocks than those who doubted the setup.
Let that sink in. People who thought they were actually hurting someone were more likely to resist. Those who suspected it was fake? They kept pressing buttons.
| Belief Level | Obedient (%) | Defiant (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Fully believed shocks were real | 37.7% | 62.3% |
| Some doubts | 47.5% | 52.5% |
| Not sure | 45% | 55% |
| Probably not getting shocked | 62.7% | 37.3% |
| Certain no shock | 68.8% | 31.2% |
Source: Data from Perry et al., 2020, based on Milgram's questionnaire responses (n=658)
The pattern is unmistakable. As belief in real harm decreased, obedience increased. When people thought no one was getting hurt, they played along. When they thought the pain was real, they stopped.
The Majority Actually Resisted
When Perry and her colleagues analyzed all 658 participants across the experiments, they found something Milgram never emphasized:
56% of participants were defiant.
Not obedient. Defiant. They refused to continue. They pushed back against the authority figure.
This isn't the story we've been told.
Why Did Milgram Report What He Did?
This is where the story gets complicated. We can't read Milgram's mind. But we can look at what happened.
Selective Reporting
Milgram published data that emphasized obedience. He downplayed or ignored conditions where defiance was common.
When participants expressed doubt about whether the shocks were real, Milgram dismissed their skepticism as a "defense function"—a way to save face after obeying. But the unpublished data tells a different story. Doubt and skepticism were widespread during the experiments, not just afterward.
Protocol Problems
Perry found other issues. Milgram claimed experimenters used only four standardized prompts before stopping. In reality, some participants were pushed with up to fourteen prompts to continue.
Only about half the participants believed the experiment was real. And among those who did believe, two-thirds disobeyed.
Ethical Lapses
There's another troubling detail. Many participants left Yale convinced they had actually hurt someone. Milgram's debriefing procedures were incomplete for most subjects. Some people checked death notices in newspapers for weeks afterward, terrified they had killed the learner.
The National Science Foundation eventually refused to fund further experiments. Their concerns? The welfare of participants and the lack of a solid theoretical framework.
What Does This Really Tell Us About Human Nature?
Here's the aha moment.
We've spent 60 years believing humans are sheep. That we'll do terrible things just because someone in charge tells us to. That the capacity for cruelty lurks in all of us, waiting for orders.
But the full data paints a different picture.
Empathy Is Stronger Than We Thought
When people believed someone was suffering, they resisted. This wasn't rare. It was the dominant response among those who took the experiment at face value.
Participants who fully believed the shocks were real were 2.57 times more likely to be defiant than those who were skeptical.
That's not blind obedience. That's empathy in action.
Context Matters Enormously
The 23 experimental variations show how much context shapes behavior. When confederate "teachers" modeled disobedience, real participants followed suit. When the experimenter left the room, obedience dropped. When participants could choose their own shock levels, they chose low ones.
| Condition | Effect on Shocks (relative to mean) |
|---|---|
| Carte blanche (choose own shock level) | −14 shock levels |
| Benign experimenter (encouraged stopping) | −9.8 shock levels |
| Groups modeling disobedience | −3.6 shock levels |
| Remote feedback (no voice from learner) | +7.7 shock levels |
Source: Perry et al., 2020, regression analysis of 23 conditions
We're not automatons. We respond to social cues, peer behavior, and perceived consequences.
Obedience Isn't Automatic
Milgram wanted to explain the Holocaust. He believed his experiments showed that anyone could become a perpetrator given the right conditions.
But Perry's analysis suggests something more nuanced. Humans negotiate. We resist. We doubt. When we perceive suffering, many of us refuse to inflict more—even when pressured by authority.
That doesn't mean blind obedience never happens. Power imbalances, hierarchical structures, and group dynamics can push people toward harmful compliance. But it's not our default setting. And recognizing that matters.
What Should We Learn from This Controversy?
The Milgram experiment remains valuable—but not in the way we once thought.
1. Question the Classics
Even famous studies deserve scrutiny. Science advances when we revisit old conclusions with new eyes. Perry's work shows the power of archival research. The truth was sitting in boxes at Yale for decades.
2. Methodology Matters
How you run an experiment shapes what you find. Milgram's inconsistent protocols, selective reporting, and questionable ethics limit what we can conclude from his work.
Today, ethics review boards exist partly because of studies like this one. Participants have rights. Deception must be justified. Debriefing is mandatory.
3. Humans Are Complex
The simple story—"65% will shock you if ordered"—is catchy. It fits on a bumper sticker. But human behavior doesn't fit on bumper stickers.
People brought their own beliefs, doubts, and moral instincts into Milgram's lab. When they believed someone was hurt, they stopped. That's not a weakness. That's our strength.
Where Do We Go from Here?
So maybe you've heard about the Milgram experiment before. Maybe you walked away feeling grim about humanity. A lot of us did.
Here's what we hope you take from this:
You're not a machine programmed for obedience. Neither are the people around you. When it matters most—when we believe someone is suffering—most of us push back.
That doesn't mean we should ignore the dangers of authority. History shows what happens when people stop questioning. But the Milgram study, when examined fully, doesn't prove we're doomed to obey. It shows that resistance is common, context shapes behavior, and empathy runs deep.
And that? That's worth knowing.
Final Thoughts: The Sleep of Reason
Here at FreeAstroScience, we believe in one thing above all: keep your mind active. Ask questions. Don't accept simple stories just because they're famous.
The full truth about Milgram's experiments took decades to emerge. Scholars like Gina Perry dug through archives, listened to old recordings, and challenged comfortable assumptions. That's what good science looks like.
As the artist Goya once warned, "The sleep of reason breeds monsters." When we stop thinking critically—about authority, about famous studies, about the stories we tell ourselves—we become vulnerable to the very forces Milgram claimed to study.
Stay curious. Stay skeptical. And come back to FreeAstroScience whenever you want to explore the world with fresh eyes.
We'll be here.
Post a Comment