4 ms·
Yes, I fully agree. It's just another example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_e
by anonymousiam 6y ago
Yes, I fully agree. It's just another example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
- readthenotes1 6y ago"But its findings were wrong. Very wrong. And not just due to its questionable ethics or lack of concrete data — but because of deceit." https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
- anonymousiam 6y agoThe findings have not been duplicated, but that doesn't mean the experiment did not produce the results described. I am very much aware of the controversy surrounding this experiment, but it has been cited MANY times over the past (almost) 50 years.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThere are lots of widely cited, wrong, studies. It being widely cited should be more of a motivator to "not* cite it and object to it's use, to further inform people that it is bunk. You should not continue to cite popular, wrong, studies.