Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Posted: **Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:22 am**

Now Matthew Hollander at the University of Wisconsin, and Jason Turowetz at the University of Siegen, have conducted the first in-depth analysis of the interviews that many of the participants gave immediately after taking part in the now infamous research. The new findings, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, provide little evidence for engaged followership. Instead most of Milgram’s participants showed scepticism that anyone had been seriously harmed at all.

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/in ... lowership/

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:57 am**

So is your point that:

1 psychology is hard.

Or

2 Psychology is difficult to test.

Or

3 The conclusions we draw from psychology experiments are only loosely justified by the results of the study.

Or

4 Journalists only read executive summaries, and if they understand the difference between speculation and proof, they don't have the space nor the incentive to address it, as they parrot the study results to the people.

Or did you have another point?

Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Nea analysis suggests Milgram realized the "obedience exeriments" were not really dangerous

Nea analysis suggests Milgram realized the "obedience exeriments" were not really dangerous

Re: Nea analysis suggests Milgram realized the "obedience exeriments" were not really dangerous