4 ms·

>> 81% accurately figured out the experimenter’s hypothesis so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the

>> 81% accurately figured out the experimenter’s hypothesis so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the hypothesis was? >> The experimenters intervened directly in the experiment, either to give precise instructions, to recall the purposes of the experiment, or to set a general direction. PZ says they said, "We noticed this morning that you weren't really, you know, lending a hand, and I was wondering if there's anything's wrong… We really want to get you active and involved because the guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a “tough guard”… what I mean by tough is [that] you have to be firm, and you have to be in the action… It’s really important… for the workings of the experiment [because] whether or not we can make this thing seem like a prison—which is the aim of the thing—depends largely on the guards’ behavior." Sorry, but I don't see how this invalidates anything. If some of the guards were just phoning it in and not taking it seriously, they did need a talking-to.

mlyle 3y ago
> so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the hypothesis was? - If you were a subject in an experiment, wouldn't you be curious about the experiment design and the hypothesis being tested? - If you had a good guess as to the tested hypothesis, could that influence your behavior?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - spicymapotofu 3y ago
    Is asking questions a worse form of dialogue to you? Is it intentionally ironic that you left only a snarky question yourself?
- Supermancho 3y ago
  These questions are all posited from a modern, critical perspective, which is pointlessly fishing for theoreticals out of context. If the experiment was via college students, it is unlikely that anyone thought about the experiment design much, because students. This may be true of any adults in that time and area, maybe, as a (unnoted) selection bias. There was an implicit cultural deference to authority in the 70s that doesnt exist now (the thinking of the counter culture was also very different). Finally, there was a weak understanding of what terminology (like subject) implied or the inherent dangers, much less the ethical perils.
yreg 3y ago
> so what? It affects subject behaviour and contaminates the experiment.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  If the outcome of the experiment is obvious and predictable, how can you make it unpredictable? And how it demonstrates failure to reproduce? This sounds like a generic argument against psychological experiments, because you can't have them in perfect conditions, you have to see through imperfection.
  - yreg 3y ago
    Well yes, psychological experiments are super hard to do, often borderline impossible.
canjobear 3y ago
Zimbardo’s claim was “normal people could behave in pathological ways even without the external pressure of an experimenter-authority.” In fact what the experiment showed is that people can behave in pathological ways when Phil Zimbardo coaxes them into it.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  How many guards were there, and how many were "interfered with" (as you put it)? We also have the real-life Nazi Germany experience, where 1000's of previously-normal people did unspeakable things. And of course the Japanese behavior in China before that. You might call these "natural experiments." With human social behavior it's just not possible to have a rigorously controlled experiment. Nor can you ever end up with rock-solid conclusions similar to those in physics. Even more recent behavioral economics experiments are full of artificial situations, like $10 "bets" because you can't use serious sums. All you can say about critiques of SPE is "compared to what?"
  - watwut 3y ago
    Those 1000 people were heavily coaxed into it. They were subject to years long propaganda painting ennemy as evil danger. That includes literal school system teaching them this. Propaganda had many facets including the idea that manly men must be without empathy toward enemy, that empathy is weakness and cruelty is strength. A lot of those so-call normal people were literal Nazi party members who became such voluntarily. In particular, camps were run by SS - the elite of believers. Literally nothing about Germany proves your thesis. Germany proves that it is possible to create political system under which you reward cruelty and consequently people become cruel. It shows that when politicians promote violence, violence can happen. It shows that when you punish opposition, opposition will be helpless.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      Guards are coaxed to be tough: if you handle a dangerous criminal in a relaxed manner, they can try to escape killing you in the process.

mlyle 3y ago

> so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the hypothesis was? - If you were a subject in an experiment, wouldn't you be curious about the experiment design and the hypothesis being tested? - If you had a good guess as to the tested hypothesis, could that influence your behavior?

AlbertCory 3y ago
[flagged]
- spicymapotofu 3y ago
  Is asking questions a worse form of dialogue to you? Is it intentionally ironic that you left only a snarky question yourself?
Supermancho 3y ago
These questions are all posited from a modern, critical perspective, which is pointlessly fishing for theoreticals out of context. If the experiment was via college students, it is unlikely that anyone thought about the experiment design much, because students. This may be true of any adults in that time and area, maybe, as a (unnoted) selection bias. There was an implicit cultural deference to authority in the 70s that doesnt exist now (the thinking of the counter culture was also very different). Finally, there was a weak understanding of what terminology (like subject) implied or the inherent dangers, much less the ethical perils.

yreg 3y ago

> so what? It affects subject behaviour and contaminates the experiment.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago
If the outcome of the experiment is obvious and predictable, how can you make it unpredictable? And how it demonstrates failure to reproduce? This sounds like a generic argument against psychological experiments, because you can't have them in perfect conditions, you have to see through imperfection.
- yreg 3y ago
  Well yes, psychological experiments are super hard to do, often borderline impossible.

canjobear 3y ago

Zimbardo’s claim was “normal people could behave in pathological ways even without the external pressure of an experimenter-authority.” In fact what the experiment showed is that people can behave in pathological ways when Phil Zimbardo coaxes them into it.

AlbertCory 3y ago
How many guards were there, and how many were "interfered with" (as you put it)? We also have the real-life Nazi Germany experience, where 1000's of previously-normal people did unspeakable things. And of course the Japanese behavior in China before that. You might call these "natural experiments." With human social behavior it's just not possible to have a rigorously controlled experiment. Nor can you ever end up with rock-solid conclusions similar to those in physics. Even more recent behavioral economics experiments are full of artificial situations, like $10 "bets" because you can't use serious sums. All you can say about critiques of SPE is "compared to what?"
- watwut 3y ago
  Those 1000 people were heavily coaxed into it. They were subject to years long propaganda painting ennemy as evil danger. That includes literal school system teaching them this. Propaganda had many facets including the idea that manly men must be without empathy toward enemy, that empathy is weakness and cruelty is strength. A lot of those so-call normal people were literal Nazi party members who became such voluntarily. In particular, camps were run by SS - the elite of believers. Literally nothing about Germany proves your thesis. Germany proves that it is possible to create political system under which you reward cruelty and consequently people become cruel. It shows that when politicians promote violence, violence can happen. It shows that when you punish opposition, opposition will be helpless.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    Guards are coaxed to be tough: if you handle a dangerous criminal in a relaxed manner, they can try to escape killing you in the process.