3 ms·
Well, define 'flawed'. It is flawed if you attempt to interpret it as being representative of how people in the general population would behave in a setting wit
by gergles 12y ago
Well, define 'flawed'. It is flawed if you attempt to interpret it as being representative of how people in the general population would behave in a setting without an active experimenter interfering, sure.
It does still reveal the influence that one person can have on a group of people and how much can be changed about behavior. It would be unwise to throw away discussions of the experiment because people can't properly place the data in context or evaluate the strengths/weaknesses of the experimental design and implementation (which is what Psychology courses should be teaching you to do in the first place.)
- watwut 12y agoThe linked article criticizes text books for not covering experiments criticism. The full title is: "What the textbooks don't tell you - one of psychology's most famous experiments was seriously flawed". The title on HN have been shortened and information got lost in the process.
- ColinWright 12y agoThe title was too long, and it wasn't clear what should or should not be included. I did my best. <shrug />
- judk 12y agoNote that this is exactly what is wrong with how the experiment is discussed in text books and pop culture!
- cracell 12y agoIt's not scientific though. It's an anecdotal story. Which can be useful but shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than any other documented story about abuses of authority. But there's no good control to make scientific conclusions on why the abuses occurred.