Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

drive.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 130 posts

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#11

Post by CamperBob2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #5
wildmusings wrote: post #2

The criticism that the participants were just doing as they were told has always seemed to me as rather missing the point. What better demonstration is there of the human capacity for cruelty than a bunch of Stanford undergrads torturing other students because a professor told them to?

Depends on what you are trying to prove. If that "ordinary men following orders and under expectation can be total bastards" then it's just Milgram's experiment all over again which result is itself obvious for any historian. And if you are trying to prove that "ordinary men in position of power in jail setting spontaneously become total bastards" then the experiment is crap for that purpose if guards were encouraged…

If that "ordinary men following orders and under expectation can be total bastards" then it's just Milgram's experiment all over again which result is itself obvious for any historian.

But as I pointed out in the other thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289154 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289386 ), Milgram has his own detractors. His conclusions were far from obvious to many, and are still controversial today. And it's true that his work was not above criticism. It seems you can't touch this subject on HN without getting personal, though. Unjustifiably-flagged comments and scores clamped to the -4 minimum are the order of the day.

I'm not a psychologist and have only a casual interest in the subject, so my experience in the last thread was like stumbling into a bar fight that I didn't know was going on. I suspect this thread will evolve along similar lines, but it's hard to be sure without conducting a formal study that will probably come under heavy dispute. /s

And if you are trying to prove that "ordinary men in position of power in jail setting spontaneously become total bastards" then the experiment is crap for that purpose if guards were encouraged to behave that way.

As everdev points out, that's the whole idea behind prison guard training! If you insist on studying these scenarios in a sterile, painstakingly-ethical academic environment, you will always be left scratching your head when an Abu Ghraib or a My Lai or a Guantanamo happens, wondering why reality stubbornly refuses to conform to your approved methodology.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#12

Post by akvadrako »

schizoidboy wrote: post #9

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's…

This sounds like a good feature of the future of science, but doesn't really fit into the current publishing model. They aren't vetting the papers published there more than on a very basic level. If you want to respond to a paper, you should write another paper titled "Comments on..."

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#13

Post by everdev »

scotty79 wrote: post #5
wildmusings wrote: post #2

The criticism that the participants were just doing as they were told has always seemed to me as rather missing the point. What better demonstration is there of the human capacity for cruelty than a bunch of Stanford undergrads torturing other students because a professor told them to?

Depends on what you are trying to prove. If that "ordinary men following orders and under expectation can be total bastards" then it's just Milgram's experiment all over again which result is itself obvious for any historian. And if you are trying to prove that "ordinary men in position of power in jail setting spontaneously become total bastards" then the experiment is crap for that purpose if guards were encouraged…

> And if you are trying to prove that "ordinary men in position of power in jail setting spontaneously become total bastards" then the experiment is crap for that purpose if guards were encouraged to behave that way.

I think they were told to act in a dominant manner because actual prison guards are trained on how to be dominant.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#14

Post by CamperBob2 »

lsc wrote: post #10
CamperBob2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find interesting are the people who are absolutely fanatical about disputing Zimbardo's conclusions. It's as if it's very important to them personally to be able to classify potential perpetrators of atrocities into two simplistic categories, People Who Do Stuff Like That and People Who, Somehow, Magically, Don't. Any experiments that might reveal human nature as the ultimate culprit are considered politically…

> It's as if it's very important to them personally to be able to classify perpetrators of atrocities into two simplistic categories, People Who Do Stuff Like That and People Who, Somehow, Magically, Don't. You don't see why that is something a person might want to believe, if at all possible? Humans have done some pretty terrible things; I think that being able to say "Yeah, but I wouldn't do that" is almost as impo…

You don't see why that is something a person might want to believe, if at all possible?

The people I respect want to know the truth, even if it's upsetting or disillusioning. I think Zimbardo and Milgram were similarly motivated, even if their methods were questionable.

We are, after all, talking about a scientific experiment here. Starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to justify it is what the researchers are being criticized for, so we need to avoid making the same mistake in support of our own comforting biases.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#15

Post by wildmusings »

schizoidboy wrote: post #9

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's…

News in general should be presented this way. But people don’t want to read what they didn’t consider or why they might be wrong.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#16

Post by JasonFruit »

wildmusings wrote: post #15
schizoidboy wrote: post #9

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's…

News in general should be presented this way. But people don’t want to read what they didn’t consider or why they might be wrong.

Is there anyone who is doing news that way? I would pay good money for that.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#17

Post by didibus »

If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state.

I mean, the emblem of its field can't even acknowledge any flaw in his experiment. I'm not saying it was bogus, but it's pretty obviously biased and flawed in many ways. Even if executed with perfect methodology, which it clearly wasn't, that sample size and the bias in participants literally provides no value.

At least if they had the humility to acknowledge how primitive the whole thing was, and that there's much more to learn. But it seems they're just like, here it is folks, undeniable unarguable proof, we're done, let's close shop.

I mean, has the field of psychology given us anything of value? I'm asking genuinely. I'm now under the impression it did not. In fact, it seems it has mostly been used as a tool to justify atrocities under the guise of science instead of religion, more often then it actually enabled us to understand ourselves better and thus organise our society more optimally, or correct and alter negative behaviours.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#18

Post by dp141 »

schizoidboy wrote: post #9

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's…

Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, or responses are handled by a PR person who doesn't provide adequate comment. Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you, or the subject themselves bemoans how they were never given the opportunity to comment. Not that journalists are above reproach but I can't tell you how many times people got annoyed about not being able to to tell their side of the story or how X or Y was misrepresented when they were given countless ops to do put forward their own case.

Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#19

Post by WillPostForFood »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #14
lsc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's as if it's very important to them personally to be able to classify perpetrators of atrocities into two simplistic categories, People Who Do Stuff Like That and People Who, Somehow, Magically, Don't. You don't see why that is something a person might want to believe, if at all possible? Humans have done some pretty terrible things; I think that being able to say "Yeah, but I wouldn't do that" is almost as impo…

You don't see why that is something a person might want to believe, if at all possible? The people I respect want to know the truth, even if it's upsetting or disillusioning. I think Zimbardo and Milgram were similarly motivated, even if their methods were questionable. We are, after all, talking about a scientific experiment here. Starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to justify it is what the research…

Yes, even if your comforting bias is pro-Zimbardo.

Re: Zimbardo’s Rebuttal Against Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#20

Post by jldugger »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #3
wildmusings wrote: post #2

The criticism that the participants were just doing as they were told has always seemed to me as rather missing the point. What better demonstration is there of the human capacity for cruelty than a bunch of Stanford undergrads torturing other students because a professor told them to?

What I find interesting are the people who are absolutely fanatical about disputing Zimbardo's conclusions. It's as if it's very important to them personally to be able to classify potential perpetrators of atrocities into two simplistic categories, People Who Do Stuff Like That and People Who, Somehow, Magically, Don't. Any experiments that might reveal human nature as the ultimate culprit are considered politically…

> Yes, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a dumpster fire.

It was a scientific dumpster fire as well. What was the control group exactly?

Post reply on HN