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

61–70 of 130 posts

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

#61

Post by jayd16 »

dp141 wrote: post #18
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 a…

>Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you

As they should. Its the duty of the journalist to be correct in what they publish. Not getting an interview is no excuse.

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

#62

Post by euyyn »

philwelch wrote: post #54
twblalock wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's taken seriously enough to be taught in every university survey course on psychology and sociology, and that wouldn't still be happening if the "serious" people in those disciplines wanted to stop.

I've typically only seen it taught as a cautionary tale, both about research ethics and about experiment design.

Yeah, the reason I was taught it was in an experiment design class, because it caused psychological harm to the subjects (not the prisoners) without their consent. Thus being an exemplary case of an ethical failure.

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

#63

Post by JackCh »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #8
donutte wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of the criticism. The Milgram study, and its numerous replications, have pretty conclusively shown that most folks will do something they know is wrong if a perceived authority instructs them to. That’s not really in dispute. The allegation is that Zimbardo orchestrated his project in order to produce a more dramatic narrative of spontaneous cruelty that wasn’t scient…

Most of the people in the Milgram experiment knew it was fake. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...

Even if they didn't see through the experiments; they still believed they were helping to advance the state of science.

Milgram's Experiments are often casually tossed around as proving that people blindly follow orders, but they actually showed the opposite. Teachers complied when they believed they shared a common cause with the experimenter (advancing science.) When this common cause was taken away, compliance rates plummeted. Removed from the prestige of Yale, compliance rates dropped; when the experimenter was not appealing to the necessity of science, compliance rates dropped.

What this demonstrates contrary to popular wisdom is that Adolf Eichmann's "I was just following orders" excuse was a load of shit. When the Milgram experiment results were first made public the narrative sold to people is that any common person would have become a Nazi had they been on the receiving end of those orders, just like Eichmann pleaded. The public was sold a bogus narrative about the experiments and this bogus narrative was subsequently reinforced by claims of the experiments being replicated (they were, but like in the original the experiments weren't demonstrating what they were claimed to demonstrate; that people blindly follow orders.)

Adolf Eichmann was not merely following orders, he was a true believer. This of course was revealed in quotes that came to light later:

>"Hätten wir 10,3 Millionen Juden getötet, dann wäre ich befriedigt und würde sagen, gut, wir haben einen Feind vernichtet. … Ich war kein normaler Befehlsempfänger, dann wäre ich ein Trottel gewesen, sondern ich habe mitgedacht, ich war ein Idealist gewesen." [If we would have killed 10.3 million Jews, then I would be satisfied and would say, good, we annihilated an enemy. … I wasn't only issued orders, in this case I'd have been a moron, but I rather anticipated, I was an idealist.]

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

#64

Post by albedoa »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #25
bobcostas55 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people in the Milgram experiment knew it was fake. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...

Most of the people in the Milgram experiment said they knew it was fake which isn't the same thing as actually knowing. On one hand of course they knew it wasn't a real prison, they were told it wasn't a real prison and it clearly wasn't. Did they believe they weren't hurting "the prisoners"? That is far less clear and plenty of people have used the excuse that they didn't think they were actually hurting the other p…

The Milgram experiment did not involve a prison, real or otherwise.

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

#66

Post by JackCh »

donutte wrote: post #44
bobcostas55 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people in the Milgram experiment knew it was fake. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram...

So did a lot of Nazis who enabled the Holocaust. Isn’t that the point? That’s maybe too flippant. “This is fake” is a way someone can rationalize doing something that they know is wrong. It’s important that they came up with that idea themselves, in response to a seemly inappropriate demand from an authority. Notice: The most common explanation was that they believed the person they’d given the electric shocks to (th…

The particular Nazi the Milgram Experiments are most associated with traditionally is Adolf Eichmann. Milgram's experiments were inspired by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, which began earlier that year (1961.) During that trial Adolf Eichmann infamously pleaded that he was merely following orders. He did not say the holocaust never happened, and he did not say he was unaware of it. He said that he was following orders.

The popular narrative of the Milgram experiments is that there exists such a psychological phenomenon in humans. That most humans follow orders, even orders they find deeply distressing. That's why the Milgram experiments shocked so many people; they were being told that if placed in the same position as Eichmann, they probably would have followed those same orders.

But we now know Eichmann's defense was bullshit, and a reexamination of the Milgram experiment results backs that up. People comply with orders when they agree with the motivation behind those orders; in the case of Eichmann the motivation behind the orders that he found agreeable was the wholesale slaughter of jews. In the case of the Milgram experiments, the motivation the teachers found agreeable was the advancement of science. An Amish man doubtlessly would have refused to comply in Milgram's experiments; and somebody opposed to the ideology of the Nazis would have refused to comply with the orders Eichmann received.

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

#67

Post by dp141 »

wildmusings wrote: post #37
dp141 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Giving a statement to a journalist who has already made up their mind that you’re a bad guy is probably a mistake. Especially when it comes to politics, the other side will take whatever you say out of context and present it in the light most unfavorable to you. Morally-exculpatory nuance goes out the window, or buried at the bottom of the article (the part that we know no one reads). The headline will be spun to mak…

True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.

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

#68

Post by dp141 »

jayd16 wrote: post #61
dp141 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you As they should. Its the duty of the journalist to be correct in what they publish. Not getting an interview is no excuse.

Of course, it's not usually something so blatant. My point is that your intention is to surmise as correctly as possible. Usually PRs pick up on fastidious detail to discredit whole story. Mostly these are genuine mistakes that are inconsequential to overall narrative and that could've easily been clarified.

*EDITED for clarification.

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

#69

Post by wavefunction »

bunkydoo wrote: post #56

Does anyone even get that hacker news is the epitome of 'fake news' ? This study was done years ago, read tbe lucifer effect and move on fellas.

People here are critically discussing the study.

That's not "fake news" aka "propaganda according to assholes."

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

#70

Post by valuearb »

wavefunction wrote: post #65

This guy is completely unethical. In addition to his famous 'Prison Experiment' he engaged in relations with one of his graduate students. Psychology is full of hucksters like Zimbardo.

Sure, Psychology isn’t much of a science, but the list of college professors who didn’t sleep with students in the 70s has to be very, very, short.
Post reply on HN