The point of the experiment is claimed to be the matter of simple perceived authority, not threats, not intimidation, no danger to the subject, nothing at all

No suspicion by the subject that something's off

etc. etc.

And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

The point is

The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion

It can't be replicated

It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear

It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go

And in which circumstances exactly

Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor

So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum

I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone

Some leve of coercion would be neccessary

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

Right

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.

It would also be important to have a look into the political situation locally, nationally, worldwide

Family situation

Profession of the subjects

Level of education

Indeed.

As with murderers, every case is unique

That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.

One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.

I was reading back and saw you mention that you had adopted Objectivist philosophy with your classical liberalism. It's interesting to me because that's the case with me too. I think there's a few problems with liberalism that Objectivism offers solutions to and that's why it seemed like a natural progression, at least for me.

🎊

Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.

I wouldn't say liberalism has taken a wrong turn

I believe the label has been adopted by non-liberals

Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.

Indeed.

Just as Samuel Adams once remarked, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Have you also seen the occasional person equating authoritarianism with liberalism?

😂

Agreed, a strong state revolving around a strong leader is required to lead the people to greatness. @Jeremy

Oh, yes, in modern times.

Every blue moon someone comes out and does that, it's odd

A sign of the times perhaps

You'll either see an authoritarian that's proclaiming to be a liberal, or you'll see an authoritarian outside their shell accusing Classically Liberal, non-ideologues of being authoritarians.