5 ms·

Intuitively, we learnt a lot about human behavior when we were able to do those unethical experiments back in the 60s and 70s. Set us back yes, but “set us back

Intuitively, we learnt a lot about human behavior when we were able to do those unethical experiments back in the 60s and 70s. Set us back yes, but “set us back” by being moving us forward unsustainably.

Enginerrrd 5y ago
The last several years, I've noticed there's been a lot of effort to debunk and discredit a lot of those unethical experiments. I'm still inclined to agree with you though.
dekhn 5y ago
I am not aware of any long-term legitimate findings in psychology research from the 60s or 70s (that would not be allowed today). Are you? My guess is all, or nearly all, have been debunked, or are non-reproducible for silly technical reasons.
- gremloni 5y ago
  Just off the top of my head, the monkey in the dark funnel study, the mit prison experiment, the Stanley milgram experiment, the rat utopia/dystopia experiment, the little Albert experiment (1919), Leuba’s tickling experiment involving his son (1930s) etc.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    All of those studies are basically scientific garbage. They're just pop-culture tripe at this point. Each one has been invalidated, repeatedly, and for reasons that have nothing to do with medical ethics. Also the prison experiment was at Stanford.
    - roddyrockets 5y ago
      the Silver Spring monkeys experiment made inroads on treatments for stroke patients I believe
      - dekhn 5y ago
        Thanks, I wasn't able to find that experiment based on the previous person's description. That experiment doesn't qualify, as we still do experiments more or less like that, it's animals not humans, and it's neuroscience, not psychiatry.
    - gremloni 5y ago
      That’s not true. At best you can say the Stanley milgram experiment was reanalyzed with a poor reproduction involving various amounts of money. Not nearly the same and definitely not conclusive. The little Albert study holds, the tickling study findings are still true, the Stanford prison experiment hasn’t been repudiated, the rat experiment has literally been reproduced outside of the US and the pit of despair findings still hold true. And yes, it was Stanford but it was off the top, I made a mistake.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        OK, fair enough, I made a mistake not verifying the Little Albert study before saying that it didn't hold. I have since checked on that one and I can't say that I consider it valid. The Prison Experiment's methods were repudiated (in the sense that the methodology as described and carried out is unlikely to answer any sort of true psychological research question). | I'm not sure what to make of the Milgram experiment.
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        The Milgram obedience studies have been replicated many, many times.
colechristensen 5y ago
Most of them didn’t really need to be unethical though. There are things you can learn either extremely slowly or extremely unethically, but it didn’t really seem to be the case with psychedelics. Things which could have been done responsibly were done recklessly, and not all that much time or effort was saved.

Enginerrrd 5y ago

The last several years, I've noticed there's been a lot of effort to debunk and discredit a lot of those unethical experiments. I'm still inclined to agree with you though.

dekhn 5y ago

I am not aware of any long-term legitimate findings in psychology research from the 60s or 70s (that would not be allowed today). Are you? My guess is all, or nearly all, have been debunked, or are non-reproducible for silly technical reasons.

gremloni 5y ago
Just off the top of my head, the monkey in the dark funnel study, the mit prison experiment, the Stanley milgram experiment, the rat utopia/dystopia experiment, the little Albert experiment (1919), Leuba’s tickling experiment involving his son (1930s) etc.
- dekhn 5y ago
  All of those studies are basically scientific garbage. They're just pop-culture tripe at this point. Each one has been invalidated, repeatedly, and for reasons that have nothing to do with medical ethics. Also the prison experiment was at Stanford.
  - roddyrockets 5y ago
    the Silver Spring monkeys experiment made inroads on treatments for stroke patients I believe
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't able to find that experiment based on the previous person's description. That experiment doesn't qualify, as we still do experiments more or less like that, it's animals not humans, and it's neuroscience, not psychiatry.
  - gremloni 5y ago
    That’s not true. At best you can say the Stanley milgram experiment was reanalyzed with a poor reproduction involving various amounts of money. Not nearly the same and definitely not conclusive. The little Albert study holds, the tickling study findings are still true, the Stanford prison experiment hasn’t been repudiated, the rat experiment has literally been reproduced outside of the US and the pit of despair findings still hold true. And yes, it was Stanford but it was off the top, I made a mistake.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      OK, fair enough, I made a mistake not verifying the Little Albert study before saying that it didn't hold. I have since checked on that one and I can't say that I consider it valid. The Prison Experiment's methods were repudiated (in the sense that the methodology as described and carried out is unlikely to answer any sort of true psychological research question). | I'm not sure what to make of the Milgram experiment.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      The Milgram obedience studies have been replicated many, many times.

colechristensen 5y ago

Most of them didn’t really need to be unethical though. There are things you can learn either extremely slowly or extremely unethically, but it didn’t really seem to be the case with psychedelics. Things which could have been done responsibly were done recklessly, and not all that much time or effort was saved.