Stanley Milgram wasn’t pessimistic enough about human nature?

The Milgram Experiment, one of psychology's most famous studies, is getting a disturbing reinterpretation. For decades, the standard narrative held that ordinary people would obey authority figures to administer what they believed were lethal electric shocks to strangers. The conclusion was that situational pressure could override personal conscience. However, new analysis of original audio recordings and post-experiment interviews suggests a darker possibility: many participants weren't reluctantly following orders—they were enjoying the opportunity to inflict pain.

Researchers like Arne Johan Vetlesen point to evidence that subjects who continued shocking victims displayed genuine sadistic impulses rather than conflicted obedience. The authority figure's presence didn't force them to do something they didn't want to do; it gave them permission to act on desires normally inhibited by social constraints. This aligns with Ernest Becker's interpretation of Freud's work on mob violence, suggesting people bring violent motives with them when they identify with powerful figures.

The implications are profound. If Milgram's subjects were expressing pre-existing sadistic tendencies rather than being corrupted by authority, it suggests human capacity for cruelty is more intrinsic than situational. This challenges the comforting notion that "ordinary people" only commit atrocities under extreme pressure. Instead, it indicates that hierarchical systems may provide the psychological cover people need to act on violent impulses they already harbor but typically suppress in everyday life.