
LessWrong (30+ Karma) “Stanley Milgram wasn’t pessimistic enough about human nature?” by David Gross
Mar 28, 2026
A reexamination of the Milgram experiment questions common readings of obedience and responsibility. The discussion covers agentic state theory, alternative motives like sadism, and Arendt’s critique of obedience as explanation. New reviews of audio tapes and procedural details suggest participants often broke rules in ways that affected outcomes.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Milgram's Agentic State Explains Obedience
- The classic Milgram interpretation frames obedience as people entering an 'agentic state' and relinquishing responsibility to authority.
- Milgram claimed those who obeyed judged actions by authority standards, not personal responsibility, shifting blame to the experimenter.
Obedience May Reveal Hidden Aggressive Motives
- Alternative readings suggest obedience revealed preexisting sadistic motives rather than situational coercion enabling otherwise inhibited impulses.
- Quotations from Becker and others argue motives are in individuals who seek 'relief of conflict' and 'delight in holy aggression.'
Arendt's Critique That Obedience Is A False Explanation
- Hannah Arendt warned that 'obedience' as an explanation is a fallacy because adults actively support authority rather than passively obeying like children.
- She emphasized adult endorsement of laws and authority as the real mechanism, not mere compliance.




