u/NoAssociate2587

The standard lesson from the Milgram experiment is familiar: ordinary people will inflict serious harm when an authority figure tells them to continue.

But the closer I looked at the original research and the archival material, the less convincing that interpretation became.

A few problems stood out.

First, it is not clear that every participant fully believed the shocks were real. Later archival work found that participants who fully believed they were hurting the learner often administered lower shocks than those who expressed doubt.

Second, the experimenter’s prompts were not equally effective. Appeals to the importance of the research, such as “the experiment requires that you continue,” were more successful than the direct order: “You have no other choice. You must go on.” Later analogue studies found that blunt orders often produced resistance rather than obedience.

Third, the procedure was not always as standardized as the published version implies. Archival recordings suggest that the experimenter sometimes pushed participants repeatedly and went beyond the official sequence of prompts.

The famous 65 percent figure also came from one particular condition. Obedience changed substantially when the setting, proximity to the learner, physical contact, institutional prestige, or distance from the experimenter changed.

I don't mean to say Milgram’s research was meaningless. I think it points toward a more specific interpretation.

People may continue harmful actions when they trust the institution, identify with its purpose, and believe their discomfort serves something important. Haslam and Reicher describe this as “engaged followership.” It is an influential reinterpretation, although not a final or uncontested explanation.

That distinction matters. “People blindly follow orders” produces fatalism. “People can become committed to harmful missions that feel morally meaningful” forces us to examine institutions, identities, and the stories used to justify harm.

I made a video essay going through the evidence, including Gina Perry’s archival work, Milgram’s experimental variations, the engaged followership account, resistance within the sessions, and the connection to Eichmann and Hannah Arendt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2LuduxIzrY

I would be interested in how others here interpret the experiment. Does the engaged followership account explain the findings better, or does the traditional obedience framework still capture something important?

A lot of misleading science communication is not based on fake studies.

The study can be real. The data can be real. The distortion often happens later, when the finding is translated into a headline, podcast claim, self-help rule or social media post.

I keep seeing four recurring patterns:

1. Correlation becomes causation

Two variables are associated, but the public claim presents one as the cause of the other.

1. Relative risk is presented without absolute risk

A percentage increase sounds dramatic, while the actual change in probability may be fairly small.

1. A narrow sample becomes a universal claim

A finding from one specific population is treated as a general rule about human psychology.

1. One study becomes “science says”

An initial result spreads widely before replication, methodological criticism or contradictory evidence catches up.

The examples I looked at were insomnia and depression, processed meat and cancer risk, the marshmallow test and power posing.

I think the fourth one may be the most damaging because once a finding becomes part of popular culture, failed replications rarely receive the same attention as the original claim.

What would you add to this list?

And which distortion do you think causes the most harm?

Disclosure: I made a video expanding on these four categories and the examples above:

https://youtu.be/0qPZcJb-eaA

Erling Haaland recently described a strategy he uses during hard training: when he feels tired, he tells himself that he is not tired and continues.

There is some experimental support for motivational self-talk improving endurance performance. One frequently cited study found that participants using a structured self-talk intervention lasted longer during a cycling test and experienced exertion differently.

But I think the way this finding gets translated online creates a problem.

In elite sport, “push through it” exists inside a much larger system: coaches, medical staff, workload monitoring, recovery protocols, training history and people who can intervene when something is wrong.

Online, the system disappears. What remains is the slogan:

Your limits are psychological. Ignore how you feel. Push harder.

I made a video examining the Haaland clip, the self-talk study behind this idea and the distinction between interpreting fatigue and simply overriding it:

https://youtu.be/wLTZirgXoUI

Disclosure: this is my own video.

The study discussed is:

Blanchfield, A. W., Hardy, J., de Morree, H. M., Staiano, W., & Marcora, S. M. (2014). Talking Yourself Out of Exhaustion: The Effects of Self-Talk on Endurance Performance.

DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000184

I would be interested in perspectives from researchers, practitioners and athletes:

How do you distinguish performance-limiting discomfort from a signal that an athlete should actually reduce the load?

And do you think motivational self-talk is being responsibly communicated outside professional sport?