>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.
>
wojtek, love, thing is they also examined films of the Ss reactions: they complained about what they were asked to do, they questioned, objected, fidgeted, argued, worried, bit their lips, and in general did a lot of things to indicate that they really were worried.
furthermore, aside from this info, what would it matter that they 'bracketed out' in such as way as to make it seem, to them, that they weren't really doing harm? isn't that the point? don't we know that people often do exactly that when they harm others: the cognitively construe the situation in such a way as to bracket that thought out. (nurses, surgeons, hunters! come readily to mind here)
an experimental design is thought to be generalizable in a way quite different from what you've suggested too. statistical generalization based on probability theory is one form of generalization. experimental designs are quite another way of making such claims and have *nothing* to do with probability and sampling theory. in fact, sampling theory was developed *precisely* because social researchers were unable to produce, consistently, experimental research models.
i agree with the thrust of your criticisms, though. i've spent my entire academic career fighting for the legitimacy of other models of research. so, i'm just taking issue with the small, though i think important, stuff because part of the problem is misrepresenting what we are ostensibly opposed to
kelley
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Q: Are you an academic? Q: Who says? Q: And that's enough for you, is it?