Exercise 1: Why "84% Were Glad They Participated" Doesn't Settle the Ethical Question — Possible Solution
====================================================================================================================

Baumrind's real objection wasn't about how participants felt looking
back on the experience once it was over and they had time to process
it - it was about the real, in-the-moment responsibility an
experimenter has once genuine psychological distress becomes visible
DURING the study itself. Several participants displayed real signs of
extreme stress while the experiment was actually running - sweating,
trembling, nervous laughter, visibly pleading to stop - and Baumrind's
argument was that Milgram should have intervened and halted the
session once that distress appeared, regardless of how participants
later came to feel about the experience in hindsight.

A person's later, retrospective judgment that an experience was
ultimately worthwhile doesn't erase the real duty of care that existed
in the moment the distress was actually happening. It's entirely
possible for something to be genuinely valuable or meaningful in
retrospect while still having been handled irresponsibly, or unsafely,
while it was actually taking place - these are two different real
questions. The 84% figure answers "was this good for me looking back,"
while Baumrind's ethical concern was "was this handled responsibly
while it was actually happening to me."

There's also a real selection consideration worth naming: people who
experienced the most severe, and most re-traumatizing, distress may be
under-represented in a "how do you feel about it now" follow-up survey
conducted after the fact, since willingness to respond to a follow-up
at all could itself correlate with how the person feels about the
experience.

ANSWER: The 84% figure measures participants' later, retrospective
judgment of the experience, not whether the real, in-the-moment
distress they displayed during the experiment was handled responsibly.
Baumrind's actual objection was that Milgram had a duty to stop the
session once real distress became visible while it was happening - a
duty that isn't erased by how people later came to feel about having
gone through it.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This separates the real question of in-the-moment researcher
responsibility from the separate question of retrospective participant
satisfaction, correctly identifying that Baumrind's critique targets
the former.