5 ms·

It seems to me that the main point of the study is to demonstrate the plasticity of human morality. That people will adapt to different situations in ways that

It seems to me that the main point of the study is to demonstrate the plasticity of human morality. That people will adapt to different situations in ways that are surprising. People will become "bad people" if they are in a situation that rewards it, especially over time. This is "situationism," as opposed to "dispositionism." Even if the study is very flawed, and even if the implication that this shift can happen in the course of days rather than longer periods of time is not accurate, I think it is an important concept for people to take in, that can help in everything from crime and punishment, to the design of online forums with automated moderation (a.k.a. "karma systems") so they don't turn toxic, to understanding how voting systems can potentially polarize and divide people, and, extending that last point, to understanding what happens to people at Trump rallies. I suspect a lot of the people who seem so eager to discredit the study have a bit of an agenda, in that the find the implications of the study so uncomfortable. They want to believe they'd be a good person even if in a situation where badness is consistently rewarded over long time periods.

taeric 8y ago
No. If the study was flawed, there is no real take away. Pretty much period. Imagine if physics claimed it was ok that they couldn't predict the motion they were trying to describe, because they still had fancy equations. The entire point is the predictive point. Now, if there are parts that are replicating, then good. We hopefully learned something. But if the study doesn't replicate, you are just pushing an agenda. Odd, as that is what you claim others are doing.
- abnry 8y ago
  Correct. As a study stands flawed, there is no real takeaway. However, a flawed study does not mean the original conclusion is false. Merely that the evidence the study provides for it cannot bolster it. But now the study is part of the societal conversation, and this means the idea of moral plasticity is something on people's minds, especially in the context of the study. This isn't the same thing as a rigorous study, but it does prove the point that many people /feel/ that moral plasticity /is/ a thing. This is not rigorous, but in a way, it gives a weak confirmation of the relevance of the idea. Think of some alternatives: we aren't wondering if the study suggests people will become hyper moral when given the power to act harshly. Nobody talks about that.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I sorta agree. A flawed study says nothing about any conclusions. Neither for nor against. Is it an interesting question? I think so. But right now I see no evidence that I trust one way or the other. Instead, I see a ton of posturing. This is akin to picking a movie like Shawshank Redemption and claiming it proves something of human nature. No. It doesn't. I feel it helps me relate to and accept some behaviors. But it proves nothing. As it is fiction.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    It's possible that the notion of moral plasticity has taken hold in part because of this flawed experiment that set out to prove it. That people feel moral plasticity to be a thing in the wake of being systematically lied to the tune of "moral plasticity is a thing!" should not be taken as evidence of moral plasticity. That is at best circular reasoning. Indeed, by that line of reasoning every religion should be thought to be true simultaneously, as their respective adherents feel them to be true. The only confirmation I see here is that of squishies being over-eager to fit facts to convenient and familiar narratives.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      There is a persistent story that there are "good" people and "bad" people, and that "good people" only do bad things under very extreme circumstances. Everyone wants to believe they would never do that, for various definitions of that. Only real monsters would do that. There is plenty of evidence that this story is false, yet one sees it constantly.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  > If the study was flawed, there is no real take away There is no real takeaway, OK, but people confuse this with the idea that moral plasticity might be unproven. That's not the case. It's well known in psychology, and well proven, that people be manipulated into becoming the "cruel guards".
  - taeric 8y ago
    Agreed on that point. I am under the impression that the "well proven" part was under serious consideration now. But it should not be due to this study. Which should not be used to inform either side of the debate.
Kalium 8y ago
> Even if the study is very flawed, and even if the implication that this shift can happen in the course of days rather than longer periods of time is not accurate, I think it is an important concept for people to take in, that can help in everything from crime and punishment, to the design of online forums with automated moderation (a.k.a. "karma systems") so they don't turn toxic, to understanding how voting systems can potentially polarize and divide people, and, extending that last point, to understanding what happens to people at Trump rallies. I find this line of thought interesting. In short, it reads to me "Despite this study being of no value whatsoever, the important thing is that we should walk away with the same conclusion". To my mind, this has the feeling of a pre-ordained notion untroubled by any evidence or encounters with facts. Which is perhaps the very thing exposed here. Zimbardo set out to tell a story, did so, and trumpeted his success is doing so as proof of some deep truth. All I see here is proof of how eager we are to fit facts to convenient narratives, instead of hypotheses to facts (to bastardize Doyle).
- robbrown451 8y ago
  I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a shame that the flaws of this one study (that has become associated with it in the public consciousness) seem to be used to refute moral plasticity. It would be great if there was another study, that maybe took a very different approach that wasn't so likely to have huge ethical problems. Honestly I'd think that companies like facebook and twitter and quora and the like could study the concept pretty easily, but I'm sure people would complain about the ethics of that as well.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a shame that the flaws of this one study (that has become associated with it in the public consciousness) seem to be used to refute moral plasticity. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. It's an utter travesty that the flaws of this study are used to refute the notion of moral plasticity. With that said, is it perhaps possible that we see moral plasticity everywhere because we have been taught that it is a thing we can expect to see everywhere? We may be caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the basis of a single flawed study, we know exactly nothing except that Zimbardo was dishonest. Wiser heads than mine might be well-advised to throw out any notions on the subject whatsoever and begin anew.
eanzenberg 8y ago
>>I suspect a lot of the people who seem so eager to discredit the study have a bit of an agenda, in that the find the implications of the study so uncomfortable. They want to believe they'd be a good person even if in a situation where badness is consistently rewarded over long time periods. People who have a need to "credit" the study also have an agenda. Science, or truth, doesn't care about what you think "feels right."

taeric 8y ago

No. If the study was flawed, there is no real take away. Pretty much period. Imagine if physics claimed it was ok that they couldn't predict the motion they were trying to describe, because they still had fancy equations. The entire point is the predictive point. Now, if there are parts that are replicating, then good. We hopefully learned something. But if the study doesn't replicate, you are just pushing an agenda. Odd, as that is what you claim others are doing.

abnry 8y ago
Correct. As a study stands flawed, there is no real takeaway. However, a flawed study does not mean the original conclusion is false. Merely that the evidence the study provides for it cannot bolster it. But now the study is part of the societal conversation, and this means the idea of moral plasticity is something on people's minds, especially in the context of the study. This isn't the same thing as a rigorous study, but it does prove the point that many people /feel/ that moral plasticity /is/ a thing. This is not rigorous, but in a way, it gives a weak confirmation of the relevance of the idea. Think of some alternatives: we aren't wondering if the study suggests people will become hyper moral when given the power to act harshly. Nobody talks about that.
- taeric 8y ago
  I sorta agree. A flawed study says nothing about any conclusions. Neither for nor against. Is it an interesting question? I think so. But right now I see no evidence that I trust one way or the other. Instead, I see a ton of posturing. This is akin to picking a movie like Shawshank Redemption and claiming it proves something of human nature. No. It doesn't. I feel it helps me relate to and accept some behaviors. But it proves nothing. As it is fiction.
- Kalium 8y ago
  It's possible that the notion of moral plasticity has taken hold in part because of this flawed experiment that set out to prove it. That people feel moral plasticity to be a thing in the wake of being systematically lied to the tune of "moral plasticity is a thing!" should not be taken as evidence of moral plasticity. That is at best circular reasoning. Indeed, by that line of reasoning every religion should be thought to be true simultaneously, as their respective adherents feel them to be true. The only confirmation I see here is that of squishies being over-eager to fit facts to convenient and familiar narratives.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    There is a persistent story that there are "good" people and "bad" people, and that "good people" only do bad things under very extreme circumstances. Everyone wants to believe they would never do that, for various definitions of that. Only real monsters would do that. There is plenty of evidence that this story is false, yet one sees it constantly.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> If the study was flawed, there is no real take away There is no real takeaway, OK, but people confuse this with the idea that moral plasticity might be unproven. That's not the case. It's well known in psychology, and well proven, that people be manipulated into becoming the "cruel guards".
- taeric 8y ago
  Agreed on that point. I am under the impression that the "well proven" part was under serious consideration now. But it should not be due to this study. Which should not be used to inform either side of the debate.

Kalium 8y ago

> Even if the study is very flawed, and even if the implication that this shift can happen in the course of days rather than longer periods of time is not accurate, I think it is an important concept for people to take in, that can help in everything from crime and punishment, to the design of online forums with automated moderation (a.k.a. "karma systems") so they don't turn toxic, to understanding how voting systems can potentially polarize and divide people, and, extending that last point, to understanding what happens to people at Trump rallies. I find this line of thought interesting. In short, it reads to me "Despite this study being of no value whatsoever, the important thing is that we should walk away with the same conclusion". To my mind, this has the feeling of a pre-ordained notion untroubled by any evidence or encounters with facts. Which is perhaps the very thing exposed here. Zimbardo set out to tell a story, did so, and trumpeted his success is doing so as proof of some deep truth. All I see here is proof of how eager we are to fit facts to convenient narratives, instead of hypotheses to facts (to bastardize Doyle).

robbrown451 8y ago
I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a shame that the flaws of this one study (that has become associated with it in the public consciousness) seem to be used to refute moral plasticity. It would be great if there was another study, that maybe took a very different approach that wasn't so likely to have huge ethical problems. Honestly I'd think that companies like facebook and twitter and quora and the like could study the concept pretty easily, but I'm sure people would complain about the ethics of that as well.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 8y ago
  > I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a shame that the flaws of this one study (that has become associated with it in the public consciousness) seem to be used to refute moral plasticity. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. It's an utter travesty that the flaws of this study are used to refute the notion of moral plasticity. With that said, is it perhaps possible that we see moral plasticity everywhere because we have been taught that it is a thing we can expect to see everywhere? We may be caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the basis of a single flawed study, we know exactly nothing except that Zimbardo was dishonest. Wiser heads than mine might be well-advised to throw out any notions on the subject whatsoever and begin anew.

eanzenberg 8y ago

>>I suspect a lot of the people who seem so eager to discredit the study have a bit of an agenda, in that the find the implications of the study so uncomfortable. They want to believe they'd be a good person even if in a situation where badness is consistently rewarded over long time periods. People who have a need to "credit" the study also have an agenda. Science, or truth, doesn't care about what you think "feels right."