Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an experiment on human obedience in 1963 that was considered one of the most controversial social psychology experiments ever conducted (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 how the scientific community reviews and analyzes the work of others 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 intent of the experiment was to determine whether society would simply obey authority when pressured by an authority figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment by asking the age-old question: “whether the Germans during World War II were simply obeying authority when they carried out the Holocaust or were they all acting on their own” (Blass). The test subject, or teacher, administered electric shocks to the student, a paid actor, when the student answered the word pairings incorrectly. The teacher thought the student was receiving electric shocks when in reality the student was not receiving any shocks. An instructor, the authority figure, sat behind the teacher reassuring the teacher that the shocks might be painful but would not cause permanent damage. During the experiment, the teacher can be seen looking back at the instructor to ask permission whether to continue or stop (ABC). The teacher instructed the student to continue even when the student cried out in pain and begged for the experiment to stop (ABC ). Sixty-five percent of the time, the teacher continued until he was given... half the paper... Baumrind's idea that if Milgram had fully disclosed the experiment, it would still have produced the same results as the experiment original experiment? Milgram arranges a friendly meeting between the teacher and the student after the experiment. The meeting was supposed to relieve all the tensions weighing on the teacher during the experiment. Baumrind does not believe that this simple encounter between teacher and learner was enough to alleviate all the tensions of the experiment (227). She simply suggests that Milgram should have offered psychiatric evaluation or therapy to patients after participating in the experiment (227). The ethical treatment that Milgram displayed towards his patients denied him his membership in the APA. “Ethical furor tormented Milgram's mind – according to Arthur G. Miller, it may have contributed to his early death…”(234).