Well hello!
Hello!
Welcome back to another episode of Diagnosing a Killer, the Mental Breakdandy Breakie!
The one that was supposed to be posted last week!
What?
And now we're redoing it for you guys because we love you guys.
Yeah.
The
software, if you didn't see the post, actually deleted the episode that we had pre-recorded
and there was literally no way because I found out about 8 hours before I left for my out-of-time
vacation, but we are back and we are going to give you the content that you deserve
because we definitely weren't going to say, oh screw it, we're not going to do that episode
because Koala already knows what it is.
Yeah, I already know what it is, but it's going to be fun.
We're going to redo it and it's fine.
It's fine.
It's totally fine.
I think it's interesting.
It's a really good one.
So, before we get started, do you want to talk about our handles if anyone's listening
that's new?
Yes.
If you're interested, please visit us at diagnosingthekiller.com.
There you will find links to research and merch and more.
Check out our social media accounts at diagnosingthekiller.
Everywhere except for Twitter, which is at killerdiagnosis.
You can email us at diagnosingthekiller.com and buy your tickety tickets for the True
Crime Paranormal Podcast Festival in Austin late August.
It'll be our two-year anniversary.
It will.
And we already ordered all the merch.
Yes.
I'm very excited to see all of the little goodies.
So excited.
What would be really cool is if any of you guys are planning on coming, buy a shirt and
then show up wearing it.
I would love to see that.
And we would definitely post that on our Instagram too.
Heck yeah.
We definitely would.
If anybody shows up in our merch, we are posting on Instagram, I'm saying it now.
Yes.
Because I have control of the Instagram.
So you can't disagree.
All right.
Well, definitely, yeah, check us out.
Get those tickets.
It's a mere like two weeks away, which is wild.
So wild.
If you get an extra, you're 15% off with the coupon code DAKPOD.
Perfect.
Well, we look forward to seeing you guys.
Yeah.
Okay.
Shall we do it?
Yes.
All right.
So for this mental breakdown, we are going to be talking about the Milgram experiment.
And I know that we, you and I had already recorded this, so you know what it is.
How are we going to be like?
It's been a while.
Have you ever heard of this?
Have you ever heard of this before?
No.
No, I don't think so.
I have amnesia.
All right.
So, Stanley Milgram was born on August 15, 1933 in the Bronx, New York City, to parents
Adele and Samuel Milgram.
His parents had immigrated to the U.S. from Romania and Hungary during World War II, where
they would go on to have Stanley and his two siblings, Marjorie and Joel, and all three
of the children were raised in the Jewish faith.
Coming from Europe during World War II, Stanley's immediate and extended family were actually
both affected by the Holocaust.
After the war was over and Stanley was around 12, some relatives of his who had survived
Nazi concentration camps and actually had tattoos from them as well had stayed with
him and his family in New York.
I can't even imagine that.
That is like, it's incomprehensible.
It really is.
And to see the something like a tattoo and know exactly why they have that tattoo.
Of course.
It's not a choice.
They were branded.
It's so sad.
And of course, not to mention, you know, the physical toll.
Like, it was probably a really big shock to the kids.
I bet.
And so Stanley was known as being super invested in the story of what Jewish people had to
go through during the Holocaust and even used the impacts of World War II on Jewish people
as a subject of his Bar Mitzvah speech.
Yeah, I do remember you saying that.
That really shook me.
Yeah.
He was noted as saying, upon becoming a man under Jewish law, quote, as I find happiness
in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews
makes us an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people, which now becomes mine.
I shall try to understand my people and do my best to show the responsibilities which
history has placed on all of us, end quote.
What a young man, though, like to use that platform to be able to use it to bring awareness
all over again.
Yeah, absolutely.
To the struggles of the Jewish people.
I think that he also felt like he was born at the wrong time and he almost felt a sense
of survivor's guilt for having his relatives live with him and them having to have gone
through that and he hadn't.
He actually would later state to a friend that he had from childhood, quote, I should
have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague at 1922 and died in a
gas chamber some 20 years later.
How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I'll never quite understand, end quote.
What's that like, that's that type of over-reveal effect type feel that I have, I am just this
very small aunt, you know, and I'm almost insignificant, but if the fates had designed
it so, I could have been in a very different place.
That's exactly how I think about it.
Like I have that feeling sometimes too, like how did we get so lucky to have been born
in where we were born?
Exactly.
But, you know, what had to have changed or what would have changed in order for us to
be born, let's say, in Africa or in Australia, you know?
It's just crazy how everything has to align perfectly and I bet that he feels like, why
did I, like, what's so special about me?
Now I have to use it.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense when he said, you know, the survivor's guilt.
I can see how he might feel that way.
Yeah, exactly.
So many people would go on to write about Stanley Milgram later in his life, one being
Professor Thomas Blass.
He referred to Stanley's interest in the Holocaust as his, quote, lifelong identification
with the Jewish people, end quote.
Author Kristin Fermiglitz would write that Stanley, as an adult, had, quote, a personal
conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi
destruction and as an insider, a scientist, end quote.
Which is like, again, like he's using it.
Yeah.
You know, you use that pain and that guilt and whatever he's feeling and he's gonna,
he's like, I'm gonna fucking make a difference.
Or I'm gonna prove something.
Yeah.
So Stanley would be known to utilize these ideations about the Jewish culture and the
Holocaust as a motive behind his research in the future as a scientist.
By the time he was college age, Stanley's family had moved to Queens and in 1954, Stanley
would receive his bachelor's degree in political science from Queens College in New York.
He would also study at Brooklyn College where he received A plus grades in psychology of
personality and an eclectic approach to social psychology courses.
He would then go on to apply to a PhD program in social psychology at Harvard, but would
initially be rejected due to an insufficient background in psychology.
Cause he only had those two courses.
He didn't have a good degree.
He could just pursue a PhD in anything.
Well, you know, some people, some people can.
You gotta forge those, forge those certificates.
So the man persevered and he would ultimately be accepted to Harvard after first enrolling
as a student in the office of special students at Harvard.
Okay.
In 1961, Stanley would receive his PhD in social psychology from Harvard and would then
become assistant professor at Yale in the fall of 1960.
I guess he didn't want to stay at Harvard.
Yeah.
To become a professor.
Although he had been getting multiple different opportunities, Stanley was still often thinking
about the horrific treatment of Jewish people during World War II.
He just couldn't wrap his head around the fact that so many people were treating others
so terribly and they weren't going against the authority figures that were telling them
to do so.
Especially on a mass scale like that.
Yes.
You would think there's gotta be at least a handful of them that were like, this is
wrong.
This is wrong.
But also there was-
And we need to be able to do something about it.
But there was so many people at the same time, not to make it excuse, but there were so
many people at the same time.
I can't imagine the fear of like, even if there's five of us that go against the 400, they're
just gonna kill us.
Yeah.
It's gotta be a horrible situation.
It's gonna be labeled as traitors or whatever.
Yeah.
I mean, they're pieces of shit regardless.
I'm not trying to say that.
I can clearly can see that people are, you know, what they're willing to do to people
in general.
So not in general, but specifically to the Jewish people.
Well, yeah.
Just because someone on authority is telling you to.
Yeah.
So if, you know, who knows what they'll do to me if I'm a traitor?
So also around the time that Stanley was working at Yale, Nazi war criminal by the name of
Adolf Eichmann was getting ready to be tried.
He had gotten arrested in the prior years.
So after the war, several survivors of the Holocaust had dedicated themselves to finding
Eichmann and other Nazis that had escaped.
Hell yeah.
That were like, in hiding.
Yeah.
It's like an inglorious bastard.
Yeah.
It's just super pussies.
So Eichmann would ultimately be convicted on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity,
crimes against the Jewish people, and membership in a criminal organization.
So that's what he was on trial for.
How much did he get?
I actually don't know.
Do you want to look it up?
Yeah.
I'm assuming he was sentenced to death because within a year of the trial, Eichmann was
hanged on June 1st, 1962.
Dang.
Yeah.
So got off a little easy there, don't you think?
It was a life sentence for sure.
God.
So the trial started in 1961, like you just said a year later.
But three months after the trial had started, a public announcement was put on campus of
Yale.
Quote, we will pay you $4 for one hour of your time.
Persons needed for a study of memory.
We will pay 500 New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning.
The study is being done at Yale University.
Each person who participates will be paid $4 plus 50 cents car fare for approximately
one hour's time.
We need you for only one hour.
There are no further obligations.
You may choose the time you would like to come, evenings, weekdays, or weekends.
All persons must be between the ages of 20 and 50.
High school and college students cannot be used.
If you meet these qualifications, fill out the coupon below and mail it now to Professor
Stanley Milgram, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven.
You'll be notified later the specific time and place of the study.
We reserve the right to decline any application.
End quote.
So I think that like $4 sounds really lame, but the conversion is $40.
Oh geez.
Yeah, for one hour.
For one hour?
Hell yeah, I'd do it.
I would do it.
It's amazing.
So the purpose of this experiment, according to Stanley, was to measure the willingness
of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting
with their personal conscience.
The study included 40 men in the age range from 20 to 50 and would begin on August 7,
1961.
Three individuals took part in each session of the experiment, the experimenter who was
in charge of the session, the teacher, a volunteer for a single session who were led to believe
that they were merely assisting, whereas they were actually the subjects, and the learner
or actor, which is a confederate of the experimenter who pretended to be a volunteer.
Okay, so there's the volunteer, the teacher slash subject.
Yes.
The person in the middle.
This was the confusing part the last time we recorded this, so I'll just explain for
everyone because now I know.
So the experimenter is the person like leading the experiment.
The person that is the teacher and the person that is the learner are both coming in.
One of them is posing as a volunteer and one of them actually is a volunteer.
What they would do is have the learner and the teacher pull a piece of paper like a slip
and they would say like random choice, you're going to be either the teacher or the learner.
But the actor who was the person that they hired, they had a slip and they would always
say, oh, I'm the learner.
I'm the learner.
So even though two teachers in the hat.
Yes, exactly.
Like every slip said teacher, but the actor was told to say that they were a learner so
that the person that was the teacher would always be the subject.
Yeah.
Okay.
It'll get less confusing in a second.
So the subject and the actor would arrive at the session together and the experimenter
told them that they would be taking part in a quote, scientific study of memory and learning.
They would explain that they want to see what the effective punishment is on a subject's
ability to memorize content.
So after the two slips were drawn, again, the actor is pretending that they drew learner.
The teacher and the learner were taken into adjacent rooms where the learner was dropped
into what appeared to be an electric chair.
So they just sat down right there.
The experimenter was dressed in a white lab coat in order to appear to have more authority.
So the teacher and the learner were then separated so that they could communicate, but they couldn't
see each other.
I wonder what that's like because I think we talked about it last time, like maybe a
two-way mirror situation.
Yeah, I think so.
It's definitely like you can hear him, but you can't see him.
It's either maybe like a really thin wall or something.
Or there was like a microphone set up sort of situation.
I think I do.
After we talked about this last week, I think I thought that I might have seen videos of
this.
Yeah, there's videos.
And yeah, I think that they had a speaker of some kind, like a one-way communication.
I think it was more of that situation.
I don't think two-way mirrors were a thing.
No, no, yeah, two-way mirrors.
Well, I don't know.
This was, you know, when was this in the 60s?
Yeah, they might have been.
But I think what, if I remember correctly, the teacher, you know, the middle person,
right?
Because that's what we said.
There's like an authoritative person, someone in the middle, and then the person that's
being, you know, that's put in this chair.
The teacher, if I remember correctly, has the ability to speak to the person and then
the person not be able to speak back to the teacher.
No, I think that the teacher has the ability to hear the learner, but they're not able
to communicate.
Like you can't talk to them.
Right.
You can hear the learner, but you can't talk to them.
And then, like I said, I think what I remember correctly is that where the teacher was, if
they held, it's like an intercom thing.
Like if he held the button, the learner could hear him, but the teacher can hear the learner
at all times.
Yes, yes.
So, the teacher was then given a list of word pairs that he was to teach the learner.
The teacher would begin by reading the list of word pairs to the learner, then the teacher
would read the first word of each pair and listen for possible correct answers.
Okay.
The learner would press a button to indicate the correct response.
And if the learner was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner with
the voltage increasing in 15 volt increments for each wrong answer.
But this is then being told to do so.
Right.
And the learner is like, oh, if they get the answer wrong, you got to press that button.
They're going to get a shock.
And again, they think they're in this electric chair.
So the shock generator actually included verbal markings that varied from slight shock
to dangerous shock.
On the panel or whatever it is.
So essentially the teacher can see how close they're getting to danger.
So the subject believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks,
but in reality, there were no shocks.
Or teacher.
Yes, subject or teacher.
So after the learner was separated from the teacher, the learner was set up on a tape
recorder integrated with the electric shock generator, which had been previously recorded,
and they recorded sounds for each shock level.
So the learner is just kind of sitting in the other room.
Yeah, just waiting.
Oh, I know.
There's chocolate and then there's lint chocolate.
Chocolate that has a silky smooth and velvety texture has been synonymous with the name
lint since its conception in 1845.
Click the link in the show notes to receive free shipping with a $60 purchase.
Be part of the lint legacy and grab a bag of their world famous truffles today.
But as the voltages of the fake shocks increase, the learner would get the questions wrong
again, their actors.
So they're getting the questions wrong on purpose.
Right.
The teacher would begin pressing the voltages like higher and higher and the learner was
told to make audible protests such as like banging on the wall or like shouting like
stop, stop or whatever.
Oh my God, that's gotta be so scary.
No, it's so scary.
Yeah.
So also as the voltages increase, the learner was kind of told to like do or say like a
specific thing, but they said that if they've reached the highest voltage, just become silent.
Like that's so scary.
It's so scary.
They're brain dead.
I mean, that's what the teacher thinks.
Right.
And keep in mind, the teacher is the only one that's not in on this experiment.
Yeah.
So it's like, oh, it's a real object.
I know.
So if at any time the teacher was like, whoa, like maybe we shouldn't be doing this, you
know, they're clearly in pain.
Yeah.
The experimenter was instructed to give a specific verbal prod and these would go in
order.
So the first time that the teacher would say maybe we shouldn't do this, the instructor
would say or excuse me, experimenter would say, please continue or please go on.
If the teacher said no again, the experimenter was told to say the experiment requires that
you continue.
Then another protest experimenter says it is absolutely essential that you continue.
And then lastly, they would say you have no other choice.
You must go on.
The second prompt could only be used if the first one was unsuccessful and so on.
If the teacher still wanted to stop after all four of the verbal prods, the experiment
would stop.
Okay.
So they would have to say it four times though.
Yeah.
They'd literally have to be like, no, listen to me.
Like this person's in pain.
Yeah.
And a lot of people would not protest after being told twice, once or twice.
Yeah.
Otherwise, if there was no verbal protest or if they didn't say it four times, the experiment
was stopped after the subject reached the highest voltage level.
Okay.
So either way by the highest voltage level.
But again, we have to remember nobody's being tortured.
Nobody's being tortured but the teacher thinks they are.
Technically the teacher's being tortured.
Yeah, that's true.
Mentally.
So the experimenter also had prompts to use if the teacher made specific comments.
So if the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the
experimenter was supposed to say, quote, although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent
tissue damage, so please go on and quote.
But still also.
They're still in pain.
I got to the highest voltage and there's no noise coming out of this man anymore.
So you can stop now you kill him.
You can't tell me.
Yeah.
Seriously.
You can stop now he's dead.
If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter should say,
quote, whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all of
the word pairs correctly.
So please go on.
He's only getting paid $40 for this hour.
So keep in mind also the teacher thinks that the learner is getting a shock because they're
getting the words wrong and the idea behind the experiment is that the shock will convince
the learner to become correct all of a sudden.
Yeah.
Like it's supposed to influence them to remember better.
You know, I think I remember watching that video and the teacher that were the subject
that is being, is administering the shocks is increasingly disappointed when the learner
on the other side doesn't get the correct answer.
I would be too.
And he's like rooting for the guy like on the other side of this wall.
He's like, please remember, please remember, please remember.
And you'll get it wrong and go like that.
Like he has to push the button, you know.
But the crazy thing is that he doesn't have to push the button.
He just has to speak up for himself or speak up for the learner a couple of times and then
he'll get the final answer.
But they don't know that.
Yeah.
So before the experiment began, Stanley pulled 14 Yale University senior year of psychology
majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers or subjects.
As of the poll, respondents believed that only a very small fraction of the teachers
would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage.
Stanley also did the poll on his colleagues and found out that they too believed very
few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.
And lastly, he would also poll 40 psychiatrists from a medical school and they mostly believed
that by the 10th shock when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment.
Yeah.
I did find that interesting too when you brought that up that I mean, I don't know what I would
think at that moment.
Clearly listening to this episode, I'm like, it's possible for people to ignore that gut
feeling or that sense of right and wrong when being told something by an authoritative figure.
And I did find it kind of surprising that everybody was like, nobody's gonna do that.
Nobody's gonna do that.
Everything.
No way.
People aren't like that.
It's just crazy because they're like, there's no way.
Yeah, you're right.
There's no way.
And you see the experiment results and you're like, what the fuck?
What?
Yeah.
The psychiatrist also predicted that by the 300 volt shock when the victim was supposed
to fall silent, that only 3.73% of the subjects would still continue.
And they believed that quote, only a little over one tenth of 1% of the subjects would
administer the highest shock on the board.
Yeah, arrest those guys.
Those are the bundies of the world.
Yeah, the guys that will do the shock, they're like, he's not responding.
Shock him again.
Just keep going.
Those are the bundies of the world.
So Stanley also suspected before the experiment that the obedience exhibited by Nazis reflected
a distinct German characteristic and planned to use the American participants in this experiment
as a control group before doing the same experiment on German participants.
Is he expected the German participants to behave closer to Nazis and not the American
citizens?
I feel like that's putting people in a bucket though.
Oh, for sure.
But he's like, this is my way to prove that people that are German have this hatred in
their blood.
They're just inherently awful.
But the thing is, the unexpected results of the experiment actually stopped him from
even performing the experiment with German participants because he was like, oh wait,
Americans do it too.
So he thought-
When they've been told to by an authority figure.
He thought what Americans were like, more like aren't as reactive or aren't as obedient.
Yeah, I guess so because he said that he was going to use the American participants as
a control group.
It's like the baseline.
That's a pretty shitty baseline.
So Stanley would collect the results at the end of the experiment and note that the subjects
were oftentimes very uncomfortable administering the shocks and even displayed varying degrees
of tension and stress.
14 of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of nervousness, laughing or smiling and every
participant paused the experiment at least once to question it.
Most continued that however, after being assured by the experimenter and some said that they
would even refund the money that they are paid for participating.
They were like, I don't want to do this.
You don't have to pay me.
Can we stop?
Oh, when they said-
But they didn't say it four times.
So it didn't stop.
When they offered to stop, they said, no, I don't want to do this anymore.
You can have the money back.
Yeah.
I know.
And then to continue doing it.
It's crazy.
$40 is $40.
But you're like-
But I wouldn't want to shock Amanda.
It's hurting somebody.
Yeah.
Although this is interesting, while leaving the experiment, Stanley found that many participants
were actually happy to have taken part in it in hindsight.
And I'll get into that just in a second.
Just so that- you said you're going to get into it, but just so that they didn't know
what they were capable of kind of?
Yeah.
Well, it's kind of like, wow.
I didn't realize how, I guess, like influential I was.
Oh.
How willing I was to like, like really hurt somebody.
Like I don't think about things like that in depth.
I should use that knowledge in the future and not be so like just submissive, you know?
Yeah.
Especially when it's hurting somebody else.
Yeah.
Stanley would summarize the finding of this experiment in a 1974 article stating, quote,
The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very
little about how most people behave in concrete situations.
I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen
would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
Stark authority was pitted against the subject's strongest moral imperatives against hurting
others and with the subject's ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority
won more often than not.
The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority
constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Ordinary people simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility on their
part can become agents in a terrible destructive process.
Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear and they
are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively
few people have the resources needed to resist authority, end quote.
This is like Stanford prison experiment.
Oh yeah.
Dr. Zimbardo.
Oh yeah.
And we know we talked about him.
That little kook.
It's just like yeah, it's like he's pretty much saying like this needs to be talked about
like people are so willing to just not question authority.
You can literally, I mean okay this is a good example.
How many times have you seen a video where like a robber will come in and they'll be
like whatever take in the bag and the person's like no and they're like oh shit and they
leave because the person stood up to that.
That's not what they were anticipating.
You know for someone to stand up to them and they're like oh shit like they weren't actually
gonna shoot anyone.
This is a water gun.
But like I was hoping that he would just see the authority that I have with the weapon
and just submit right.
And it's very rare that people don't.
Right.
You see videos all the time of people, banks getting held up and people drop to the ground
you know.
You don't really see the video very often of someone saying hell no.
Like you know what I mean.
For sure but I think there's also a level of self-preservation with that so I'm being
told what to do by an assuming figure like an authority figure of some kind.
I better go ahead and just do what they say so that they don't hurt me or they don't fire
me or they don't talk badly about me.
Exactly.
I think a better example would be like a high school kid in the classroom.
Most of the kids are gonna sit down and be quiet when the teacher tells them to or else
they go to the principal's office.
Right.
But that one kid that's like no, you know he might go to the principal's office but he
stood up for himself or whatever.
Yeah.
But like I said it's all about self-preservation because if you don't sit down and do your homework
or whatever it is you're gonna get sent to the principal's office.
Yeah.
I don't want to get sent to the principal's office because I need to preserve the way
that people look at me or see me or whatever it might be or in some cases it's a life or
death situation.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
So later on Stanley and other psychologists would perform variations of the experiment
throughout the world.
Every time with similar results.
So I guess he did kind of like do it with other groups of people but I think other psychologists
did it and he kind of assisted.
Yeah.
Going to Germany.
Stanley would later investigate the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels
by holding an experiment in an unregistered backstreet office at a bustling city as opposed
to a Yale, to Yale at a respectable university.
Yeah.
So he's like maybe people act different you know and like the Bronx and they will and
like a really high-held university.
Right.
So the level of obedience although somewhat reduced was not significantly lower in these
experiments.
It's pretty much the same results.
Yeah.
Thomas Blass performed a meta-analysis on the result of repeated performance of the experiment.
He found that all the percentages of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages
range from 28% to 91%.
That's a pretty big range.
Pretty big range.
Yeah.
Well they did a lot of experiments.
Yeah.
There was no significant trend over time and the average percentage for US studies was
61%, close to the one for non-US studies which would be 66%.
Again that being the participants that were refusing to administer the final shock.
Among this big number of participants who didn't want to administer the final shocks,
they also neither insisted that the experiment be terminated nor left the room to check the
health of the victim without requesting permission.
So they didn't want to administer the shocks but they also didn't like call the experiment
off.
Yeah.
So the psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, asked him about this point.
Cue me.
So for those that don't know, Philip Zimbardo was the psychologist behind the Stanford Prison
experiment and I did a mental breakdown on that.
If you haven't listed that, please go do so because it's actually really interesting.
I mean it's fucked up but it's really interesting.
Of course the Milgram experiment raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation
because of the extreme emotional distress and inflicted insight suffered by the patients.
Some critics argue that participants were not properly debriefed about what was going
to happen before.
Although Stanley would repeatedly receive offers of assistance and requests to join the
staff from former participants, like I said earlier that people were grateful that they
had been into it.
So six years after the experiment, one of the participants wrote to Stanley explaining
why he was glad to have participated despite the stress that he endured.
While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally
unaware of why I was doing so.
If you people ever realized when they were acting accordingly to their own beliefs and
when they are amicably submitting to authority, to permit myself to be drafted with the understanding
that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened
of myself.
I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted conscientious objector status.
Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe.
My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience."
To his like, willing to be, like he's like, put me in jail.
Clearly, I'm a danger to society.
I'd listened to authority.
I thought I was hurting someone.
Like, I should be in jail, you know?
Oh my gosh.
I can't even imagine feeling that way.
What a mindset.
So a lot of people, of course, had really critical responses in the scientific community
about the fact that Stanley was saying that this experiment was applicable to the Holocaust
experience.
Well, no.
Yeah.
Stanley would claim, quote, a common psychological process is centrally involved in both events.
End quote.
James Waller, however, chair of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Keen State College,
expressed the opinion that the Milgram experiment did not correspond well to the Holocaust events,
and he gave a couple reasons why.
So number one, the subjects of the Milgram experiment were assured in advance that no
permanent physical damage would result from their actions.
However, the Holocaust perpetrators were fully aware that they were killing and maiming their
victims.
Number two, the laboratory subjects themselves did not know their victims and were not motivated
by any external racism or other biases, while the Holocaust perpetrators displayed an intense
devaluation of the victims through a lifetime of personal development.
Yeah.
Number three, those serving punishment at the lab were not sadists and often exhibited
great anguish and conflict in the experiment, unlike the executioners of the final solution
who had a clear goal on their hands that was set beforehand.
Yeah.
And number four, the experiment lasted for only an hour with little to no time for subjects
to contemplate the implications of their behavior, while the Holocaust lasted for fucking years
with ample time for a moral assessment of all individuals and organizations involved.
That's so true because, again, it's only an hour-long experiment when all of these
Nazi soldiers had ample time, like you said, to say no or stand up or quit or whatever.
Like literal years.
Yeah.
So, there's a lot more on this subject if you want to go research and do a little bit
more deep dive into it.
I just want to do a quick minty break on it and spark a conversation about it.
Yeah.
It's just interesting the mindset of being able to inflict pain on someone just because
someone like a lab coat told you to.
Right.
Lastly, Stanley Milgram died on December 20th, 1984, and he had a vast amount of other contributions
to the psychology and science world.
He's actually really, really well known, not just for this, but for a lot of other things,
like Zambardo that's like, no one else is going to let you do an experiment ever.
Yeah, exactly.
And he's like, boop, boop, boop, boop, and then just like blips off into space.
Stanley was actually widely regarded as one of the most important figures in the history
of social psychology, and in a survey published in 2002, they actually ranked Stanley as the
46th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.
Wow.
Yeah.
But yeah, that's my mental breakdown.
I thought that was interesting.
I know that we had mentioned it like a couple of mental breakdowns ago.
They were like, what's that one experiment?
Well, they thought they were expecting shock and they don't.
And so I decided to do a deep dive on the D's.
Well, I'm excited to hear it again, honestly, because I definitely think there was a few
nuggets in there that I was like, oh, I didn't remember that from when we recorded at this
point, like a week and a half ago.
And again, it was like a complete glitch in the matrix that that one got deleted, but
I think I did much better this time around than last time.
I liked it.
I was really glad that I got to redo it because I wasn't crazy about the way I presented it
the first time.
Yeah.
I don't remember.
Were we doing something else that night?
We, I think we recorded two things at once or something.
Oh, that's right.
I think we recorded two.
That's probably why.
We're probably a little tired or something last week.
Yeah, definitely.
Well, thank you guys for joining us.
We have a really great case.
Yeah, thanks for your patience.
Yeah, now that actually we did this, it's now going to be flip flop.
So it'll be my mental breakdown in your case, and then next week it'll be your mental breakdown
in my case instead of having us do two in the same week.
Yeah, it's those double episodes when we do part twos.
Yeah, it switches.
Yeah, we were doing, we did part twos and then we weren't doing every other.
It was, we were doing it two times a week.
It seemed like, and then now it's like back to every other.
Yeah.
So you guys are going to hear both of our takes each week now until we do another part
two or something else happens.
Yeah, absolutely.
And if you are a Patreon member, you have an exclusive message for you on our Patreon
website.
You do.
So go check that out.
And as soon as we're off here recording, so you guys can go check that out.
And it's just a little, little nugget of information for you guys.
Yeah, of course.
Okay.
All right.
Well, love you.
Love you too.
Bye.
Wait, what?
Love you, bye.
Looking to expand your wine knowledge or just indulge in your favorites, Gold Medal Wine
Club is what you're looking for.
Enjoy small production award-winning wines from authentic family-owned wineries delivered
right to your door.
Unlike other wine of the month clubs, Gold Medal Wine Club never features private labels
or bulk wines.
Instead, every shipment is from a unique family-owned winery, each with a personalized story to
tell.
Take advantage of multiple different style offers when using the link in our show notes
and take home the Gold today.