4 ms·
I think part of Stanford’s hardiness is due to the fact that it ‘feels true.’ We have all had our chains yanked by petty tyrants… even if the science was rotten
by whythre 3y ago
I think part of Stanford’s hardiness is due to the fact that it ‘feels true.’ We have all had our chains yanked by petty tyrants… even if the science was rotten.
You are right about it not being properly discredited, though- I remember it being featured and commonly cited in textbooks; something that big and ‘influential’ is going to take a long time to die.
- red-iron-pine 3y agosure it feels true... but are we sure that's not just a US or Western thing? is that just a low-level, client-facing role thing? plus it's role-playing a prison, where legit, actually-murdered-a-bunch-of-people are locked up in real life, and they play real games -- and guards play them back. Tell people to roleplay a group of people who are violently anti-social, and another group to role play the people who have to keep them in line (also violently) and the participants fall back on what they think the roles do and how they act. just like with Freud, there may be some slivers of truth, but there is too much untestable, non-transferable bunk that comes with it; you can't call that science.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThe reason it "feels true" is that it's one of several experiments designed not to determine if something is possible, but how something that happened (the Holocaust) actually happened. People forget that when they criticize Zimbardo and Milgram. Their methods were problematic, but nothing they found was surprising. It's hard to replicate their work, but that's only because you can't get similar experiments approved by ethics committees these days.