5 ms·

>and it has never been replicated Sure but to be clear it's the experiment that's never been replicated (because there's no ethics board on the planet that wou

>and it has never been replicated Sure but to be clear it's the experiment that's never been replicated (because there's no ethics board on the planet that would green-light nowadays), not the conclusions. This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. Often conversations around this progress from "never been replicated" to "must be the opposite of what true" although I realize that is not what you're saying. Seems like people want to be able to dismiss the experiment or, even better, use it to prove the opposite, because it's conclusions are uncomfortable to contemplate. The two closest further studies (as in the wikipedia article, BBC and Third Wave) produced conclusions one largely correlating, one mostly in disagreement.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
taeric 8y ago
I was under the impression the conclusions were actually quite suspect nowadays. And it doesn't make sense that conclusions can be replicated. How? Only by further experiments, no? Do I think that the study being flawed proves it's opposite? No. But I don't think you can cling to conclusions from a flawed study. At best, you can cling to the questions.
JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
Hold on, maybe I'm missing something from my understanding of the process of an experiment, but I thought the process (cutting out some non-relevant steps) was hypothesis -> Experiment -> Conclusion. If nobody has done number 2 since, how can it be valid for everyone to arrive at a conclusion despite there being no experiment?
- mjburgess 8y ago
  He's saying the truth of the conclusion is independent of the means used to demonstrate it. This is correct, but a rather confused observation. Since the question isnt whether the conclusions is true or not, but whether we are justified in believing it is true. And we are not justified. The experiment engineered its results; and no subsequent experiment has demonstrated the conclusion. So if it is true, we have not yet discovered that it is.
austincheney 8y ago
Anybody who has ever served in a military will tell you just how absurd the Stanford experiment is. People in the military wear uniforms with rank and responsibility that is visibly apparent. Yet, these behaviors don't exist. I can vaguely remember my time in Army basic training which was somewhat like a prison environment with captives. Even in extreme cases the behaviors of the Stanford experiment are absent. Drill sergeants who are artificially made to be mean and are visibly separated by rank and uniform aren't like the guards in the experiment. Some of the privates who display criminal-like behaviors don't behave like the prisoners in the experiment. Perhaps the experiment cannot be reproduced because it simply doesn't represent human behavior. Perhaps people are more rational than that even when forced to behave in ways suggestive of the experiment.
- will4274 8y ago
  I don't find that inconsistent. The Standford experiment showed that people act out the stereotypes of the roles they are assigned. My stereotype of a drill sergeant is yelling a lot, but fundamentally devoted to 'making unruly young boys into men' through bullying, disrespect - it seems to me that the conclusions predict that a quiet person who is assigned the role of a drill sergeant would suddenly start yelling a lot or a otherwise respectful person would become disrespectful. The stereotype of a prison guard is much different. Rather than 'unruly boys' it's 'hardened criminals' - the difference in reaction to being assigned a role can be explained by the differing stereotypes of the roles, as an alternative to the experimental conclusion being wrong.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    I don’t find that people working in a professional capacity default to stereotypes. Do you conform to a sreotype?
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Mostly, yeah. That's why there are stereotypes.
atlantic 8y ago
> it's the experiment that's never been replicated, not the conclusions > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. The scientific method moves from hypothesis to experiment to conclusions. If repeated experiments do not support the hypothesis, then there are no conclusions. > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. A data set of one is worthless - no better than random. The number of successful experiments needs to be statistically significant to support the hypothesis.
- mercer 8y ago
  I'd say it's even less than worthless if the experiment was actively manipulated.
throw2016 8y ago
This does not make sense. Are you asserting that just because a study was done its conclusions must be held true, even if it is not reproducible or its methods later shown to be flawed? This is not science. Presuming and asserting 'what people want' is not scientific. There is a process of peer review and reproducibility and if your study can't pass that process it is dismissed as false. This has nothing to do with what 'people want'.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

taeric 8y ago

I was under the impression the conclusions were actually quite suspect nowadays. And it doesn't make sense that conclusions can be replicated. How? Only by further experiments, no? Do I think that the study being flawed proves it's opposite? No. But I don't think you can cling to conclusions from a flawed study. At best, you can cling to the questions.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago

Hold on, maybe I'm missing something from my understanding of the process of an experiment, but I thought the process (cutting out some non-relevant steps) was hypothesis -> Experiment -> Conclusion. If nobody has done number 2 since, how can it be valid for everyone to arrive at a conclusion despite there being no experiment?

mjburgess 8y ago
He's saying the truth of the conclusion is independent of the means used to demonstrate it. This is correct, but a rather confused observation. Since the question isnt whether the conclusions is true or not, but whether we are justified in believing it is true. And we are not justified. The experiment engineered its results; and no subsequent experiment has demonstrated the conclusion. So if it is true, we have not yet discovered that it is.

austincheney 8y ago

Anybody who has ever served in a military will tell you just how absurd the Stanford experiment is. People in the military wear uniforms with rank and responsibility that is visibly apparent. Yet, these behaviors don't exist. I can vaguely remember my time in Army basic training which was somewhat like a prison environment with captives. Even in extreme cases the behaviors of the Stanford experiment are absent. Drill sergeants who are artificially made to be mean and are visibly separated by rank and uniform aren't like the guards in the experiment. Some of the privates who display criminal-like behaviors don't behave like the prisoners in the experiment. Perhaps the experiment cannot be reproduced because it simply doesn't represent human behavior. Perhaps people are more rational than that even when forced to behave in ways suggestive of the experiment.

will4274 8y ago
I don't find that inconsistent. The Standford experiment showed that people act out the stereotypes of the roles they are assigned. My stereotype of a drill sergeant is yelling a lot, but fundamentally devoted to 'making unruly young boys into men' through bullying, disrespect - it seems to me that the conclusions predict that a quiet person who is assigned the role of a drill sergeant would suddenly start yelling a lot or a otherwise respectful person would become disrespectful. The stereotype of a prison guard is much different. Rather than 'unruly boys' it's 'hardened criminals' - the difference in reaction to being assigned a role can be explained by the differing stereotypes of the roles, as an alternative to the experimental conclusion being wrong.
- austincheney 8y ago
  I don’t find that people working in a professional capacity default to stereotypes. Do you conform to a sreotype?
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Mostly, yeah. That's why there are stereotypes.

atlantic 8y ago

> it's the experiment that's never been replicated, not the conclusions > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. The scientific method moves from hypothesis to experiment to conclusions. If repeated experiments do not support the hypothesis, then there are no conclusions. > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. A data set of one is worthless - no better than random. The number of successful experiments needs to be statistically significant to support the hypothesis.

mercer 8y ago
I'd say it's even less than worthless if the experiment was actively manipulated.

throw2016 8y ago

This does not make sense. Are you asserting that just because a study was done its conclusions must be held true, even if it is not reproducible or its methods later shown to be flawed? This is not science. Presuming and asserting 'what people want' is not scientific. There is a process of peer review and reproducibility and if your study can't pass that process it is dismissed as false. This has nothing to do with what 'people want'.