3 ms·

> 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 accur

by 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.

by Kalium 8y ago

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.