Shocking! Stanley Milgram Faked Results From One of the Most Famous Experiments Ever - The Stream
Milgram's obedience experiments claim to show people will obey blindly and harm others to do it. But he fudged his data. Common sense should have known it.
Is it possible that suddenly 60 years after the experiment they think he faked the results?
This is a very clever propaganda article:
Let me be very clear what is going on here. The author is reacting to actually realizing he has been part of a real life Milgrim's experiment. And is reacting badly to it.
If anything, the last two years have shown us that Milgrim's results were spot on. If told by authorities to commit atrocities, huge majority of the population went along with it.
The author is now making the connection and trying to make excuses and find ways to disassociate himself from those experimental subjects.
How do I know this? This clue:
These people really really hate the word "do your own research" and hate us for doing that.
"If anything, the last two years have shown us that Milgrim's results were spot on. If told by authorities to commit atrocities, huge majority of the population went along with it."
I concur.
I'd like to respectfully argue the following:
You say: If anything, the last two years have shown us that Milgram's results were spot on. If told by authorities to commit atrocities, huge majority of the population went along with it. This is true to some degree, but not a very close comparison.
Yes a great majority of medical personnel did go alone with what was tantamount to to harming people, but they did not do so based solely on the real or perceived authority of another, which was the case in the Milgram experiment, but were motivated by many other factors like financial, peer pressure, etc.
Lets imagine that the Milgram experiment was setup such that experimenter told the person in the role of teacher, that upon each wrong answer he would have to administer the shock to the other person, and if he did not, then the shock would be given to him instead. This would bring in motivational factor of harm to self if one did not follow command of authority. That experiment would be much more close to Covid parameters.
Next point:
Your claim that what we have learned in the two years with a great majority of people blindly following the Covid narrative has merit, but we have also learned a great deal in the last few years about a subject that equally adds I think a greater degree of merit to claim that experiment results were faked.
We now are very aware of the propensity of scientific researchers to fake study/experiment result in the interest of funding, and for the attention gleaned by getting the papers on medical journals, so they can keep there jobs, so they can appear respected among the equally corrupt peers. As Dr. Willie Soon stated in Trucker interview, that 80-90% of published papers should not be published.
My question is simple: Does the information that was purportedly left out of the study paper seen here exist or not.
If the information does exist, and was left out of the paper, then the results were faked. If not then maybe it is as you claim.
The experiment is still relevant in a different way however. It still demonstrates people will follow authority if they merely believe the harm is fake, even though they are not 100% sure that it is.
Most doctors and other health professionals administering the jabs have convinced themselves that the harm they do via vaccination is not real, therefore they comply with the order. It is an interesting data point, and should have been explicitly included in the results for further examination.
But it doesn't really debunk the study at all. It does change the conditions necessary in order to make the study valid. Most health care professionals administering these deadly toxins are not evil people. They have just been brainwashed into accepting a false narrative.
Even if his experiment was fake, the last few years have essentially been a big Milgram test, and a lot of people failed.
snippet from the "follow up":
My wording of “bogus” in the first sentence was careless and wrong, and “faked” in the headline was overstated if not also wrong. There’s little to no reason to think Milgram intended his experiment as anything other than legitimate, honest science. It remains true that he omitted important, results-altering information from his analysis, but people do things for different reasons and with different motivations. Hindsight should be cautious judging a scientist sixty years after the fact for not seeing what we see more clearly now.
end snippet.
And bull frackin' shit. The "scientist" submitted false data to back up a false claim. Period.
We wan't to get over this kind of shit? Stop this kind of shit from happening all the damn time?
Stop making excuses for the scumbags.
Whether Milgrim faked the experiment or not, the results have been proven overwhelming as correct - in the past 2 years, just watching everyone following orders, committing crimes against humanity and children.
This is 100% like whatever justification for the Global Warming, the vax efficiency… « the study needed our commitment to conclude the ethically right way. »
In every case, the only justification has been "because we say so".
Inventing the necessary outcomes as they go, and using the obfuscation power of the machine they operate in order to make it so.
Thank you for the good thread, Fren.
Results may have been faked but when we look at those who hated the unvaccinated because they did not follow the science....
Yes, then also look at us who refused. It works both way. There will always be obedient sheeps, as much as there shall also be an opposite virtuous force.
I've never believed The Milgram Experiment more than I do now after witnessing The Covid Experiment. Lost 3 friends over this nonsense, others lost far more.