Margaret, my dear, did you consider the fact that experimental results are usually first reported in journal articles and only later (if at all) in a book form?
>
>That series of experiments is widely regarded as one of
>the most elegant and methodologically sound in the
>history of social psychology.
No doubt. Econometric equations are also said to be elegant, and so is Plato's theory of society.
-- snip ---
>Many people objected to his findings because they were
>such an assault on cherished beliefs about how 'it
>can't happen here'. But it can happen here. And it is
>happening here. It's happening here every single day.
>It's the War On Drugs (tm), it's the War Over Kosovo
>(tm), it's all the psychopathic behavior that never
>gets protested.
I never voiced a criticism along thee 'political correctness' lines. Moreover, I did not criticized your beloved meisterstueck of social psychology on the disagreement with its conclusions - because I do agree with its conclusions - that people can be duped by authority to do almost anything, even become their own gravediggers especially "here" (cf. Richard Rubenstein, _The Cunning of History_). My criticism came on the grounds of generalizability of the results.
Thus, two of the three points you eloquently raise: statistical representativeness, and beliefs expressed by the Ss - do not apply. Statistical representativeness ascertains a certain (small) error between sample statistic and population parameter. In plain English, it only tells us that the statistical property of one group (sample) can be used as an approximation of the statistical property of another group (population). It does NOT ascertain anything about individual members of those groups. Stated differently, claiming representativeness would matter only if the researcher made a statemt of the kind "x percent of Ss reacted in a y manner, which allows us to say that x +/1 standard error percent of the population will react the y way." I do not recall Milgram making such generalizations, but as I said, I read the stuff when I was still struggling to finish my master's thesis some 10 years ago.
As to the second claim, I have no doubt that the Ss said what Milgram claims tehy did. All I am questionning is what exactly they meant by saying that and whether that can be construed as an indicator of their behaviour in other situations. It is quite possible that the Ss might have thought they were doing something that looked like harming other but at the same time they did not really believe that - they sort of cognitively "bracketed that out" or construed it as unreal.
That possibility may even explain how people cognitively distance themselves fro the attrocities they commit (I really would like to know what folks like SS-guards at Auschwitz or B-52 pilots think) - which mat strenthen the original claim. I dunno. All I am saying is that it a moot point to say just because people did X in a sitution M they would do X in other situations.
That is for today, I'm out of this place
smooches
Wojtek