Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an experiment in 1963 on human obedience that has been considered one of the most controversial social psychology experiments of all time ( Blass). Ian Parker, a writer for the New Yorker and Human Sciences, and Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, responded to Stanley Milgram's experiment. These articles represent the way in which the scientific community examines and scrutinizes each other's work to authenticate the results of experiments. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while Parker focuses more on the actual application of the experiment. The original intention of the experiment was to determine whether society would simply obey authority when put under pressure from an authoritative figure. Milgram modified the experiment by asking the age-old question of "whether the Germans in World War II were simply obeying authority when carrying out the Holocaust or whether they were all acting on their own" (Blass). The test subject, or teacher, administered electric shocks to the learner, a paid actor, when the learner responded to the word pairs incorrectly. The teacher thought the learner was receiving electric shocks when in reality the learner was not receiving any shocks. An authoritative instructor sat behind the teacher, reassuring him that the shocks might be painful but would not inflict permanent damage. Throughout the experiment, the teacher can be seen turning back to the instructor to ask for permission to continue or stop (ABC). The teacher asked the learner to continue even when the learner screamed in pain and begged for the experiment to stop (ABC). ). Sixty-five percent of the time the teacher continued until he had administered the...... middle of paper...... Baumrind's idea that if Milgram fully disclosed the experiment, it would always produce the same results as the experiment. original experience? Milgram organizes a friendly meeting between the teacher and the learner after the experiment. The meeting was supposed to relieve any tensions weighing on the teacher throughout the experience. Baumrind does not believe that this simple encounter between teacher and learner was enough to relieve all the tensions of the experience (227). She simply suggests that Milgram should have offered psychiatric evaluation or therapy to the patients after participating in the experiment (227). Milgram's ethical treatment of his patients denied him membership in the APA. “Ethical fury gripped Milgram's mind – in the opinion of Arthur G. Miller, it may have contributed to his premature death.…”(234).