The conclusion I draw from these analyses of Milgram is that fewer people obeyed to the degree originally stated. But the fact that even one of them was willing to obey at all speaks volumes.

Also consider that these were studies in which the the participants volunteered, and had nothing to lose by refusing orders or simply walking away. In the real world, these people would be agents of the state, or employees of a company, whose jobs, physical safety, and even lives (not to mention that of their family members) would be dependent on following orders. It's reasonable to assume in those situations, there would be a much higher rate of obedience than in the relatively safe environment of an experiment.

Conclusion: people are easily manipulable by authority.

Rather, the study shows that people are easily manipulated by a belief in Science with a capital S.

To quote one of the articles, "he actually did around 30 studies and obedience varied between 0 and 100 per cent…

...Reicher pointed out that only the final one of these phrases is a direct order, and in fact none of Milgram's participants continued with the study after hearing this order."

I don't recall in the study whether the shockers knew the shockeys or volunteers but I bet they thought they were and thus they thought they were trying to help advance science. Since so many people dropped out after hearing pain in the shockees, I'm guessing that if we were to try to replicate the study scientifically and without looking for confirmation bias, we would find entirely different results.

Thank you for links that add critical analysis, depth, and academic follow up.

These types of comment are what keep me coming back to HN.