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

101–110 of 130 posts

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

#101

Post by Ntrails »

ckastner wrote: post #83
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…

From the article of that HN discussion: > “Now, okay,” Zimbardo corrected himself on the phone with me. He then acknowledged that the informed consent forms which subjects signed had included an explicit safe phrase: “I quit the experiment.” Only that precise phrase would trigger their release. > “None of them said that,” Zimbardo said. “They said, ‘I want out. I want a doctor. I want my mother,’ etc., etc. Essential…

> claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument

I agree, but at the same time safe-words exist for a reason. To allow people "playing the game" to tell what is a real out of character comment, and what is just part of the role. I honestly have no idea what the law says with respect to that. I think it's a tough area to play around in, and things can get real murky real quick.

(I'm talking quite generally wrt the concept around consent with safe words etc)

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

#102

Post by spruciefic399 »

didibus wrote: post #17

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 pro…

Meta-analysis as we know it today is largely as it is because of psychologists using it to study therapy effects.

Referring to Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment as the "emblem of its field" is a bit strange in my opinion. It's like referring to Snapchat as the emblem of computer science.

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

#103

Post by icebraining »

nailer wrote: post #95
dp141 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying…

I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.

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

#104

Post by nailer »

icebraining wrote: post #103
nailer wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying…

I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.

The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?

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

#105

Post by hyeonwho4 »

Nokinside wrote: post #79
nostrademons wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's largely about who gets to control the narrative. If you give a quote to a journalist, they control the narrative - they can choose how to piece it together with other quotes, and where to put it in the article, and how to spin it, and with what emotional tone. If you say "no comment" to the journalist and then post your own version of the narrative on your blog later, you control the narrative from start to fini…

Basic journalist practice is that you can read the piece and suggest corrections, especially if you set it as a condition before being interviewed. You can have your own recording equipment, and someone else taking notes. You can require that you have an option to give your own response in the same page as the story (ask certain number of words). Write everything agreed down, have a record + witness. In TV all bets a…

I don't see how print interviews are much better than TV. Is the idea that you can sue for libel if they misrepresent you?

If I remwmber correctly, there was a case in Florida where one of the big 4 news agencies cut word out of a 911 call to make it more inflammatory.

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

#106

Post by bruthafez »

Ntrails wrote: post #101
ckastner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article of that HN discussion: > “Now, okay,” Zimbardo corrected himself on the phone with me. He then acknowledged that the informed consent forms which subjects signed had included an explicit safe phrase: “I quit the experiment.” Only that precise phrase would trigger their release. > “None of them said that,” Zimbardo said. “They said, ‘I want out. I want a doctor. I want my mother,’ etc., etc. Essential…

> claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument I agree, but at the same time safe-words exist for a reason. To allow people "playing the game" to tell what is a real out of character comment, and what is just part of the role. I honestly have no idea what t…

You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word.

The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that phrase a "safe word" is absolutely absurd.

Also, even if I accepted your argument that "I quit the experiment" Is somehow a "safe word"-- it still wouldn't be technically correct to say, because it's not a word, it's a phrase / sequence of words. Have you ever heard of a "Safe phrase?" Me neither. That's because making a "safe word" a phrase completely defeats the concept of a safe word. It needs to be short enough to be said and understood in as little time as possible. Making a "safe word" a phrase instead of a short and easily-communicable SINGLE WORD is so deceptive and intellectually dishonest that it's clearly a willful and intentional misunderstanding of the safe-word concept. It's trickery, pure and simple.

Good safe word: "Banana."

Bad safe word: "Stop."

Terrible to the point of being unusable safe word: "I quit the experiment."

Zimbardo's lack of addressing this issue in his so-called "rebuttal": pathetic.

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

#107

Post by ckastner »

Ntrails wrote: post #101
ckastner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article of that HN discussion: > “Now, okay,” Zimbardo corrected himself on the phone with me. He then acknowledged that the informed consent forms which subjects signed had included an explicit safe phrase: “I quit the experiment.” Only that precise phrase would trigger their release. > “None of them said that,” Zimbardo said. “They said, ‘I want out. I want a doctor. I want my mother,’ etc., etc. Essential…

> claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument I agree, but at the same time safe-words exist for a reason. To allow people "playing the game" to tell what is a real out of character comment, and what is just part of the role. I honestly have no idea what t…

That's a good point... Zimbardo could claim that anything but the agreed-upon safe words were to be understood as part of the act they were hired for. Then, I imagine that it would be very hard to show beyond reasonable doubt intent to actually falsely imprison someone.

However, the original article claimed that the consent form had no such agreement -- Zimbardo merely claimed so in a phone interview.

Furthermore, given that Zimbardo's rebuttal is 18 pages long, you'd think that he'd at least briefly comment on the accusation of potentially criminal behavior.

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

#109

Post by Guvante »

nailer wrote: post #104
icebraining wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.

The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?

Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer".

Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged.

The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.

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

#110

Post by nailer »

Guvante wrote: post #109
nailer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?

Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could s…

> Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer".

Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist.

> The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge.

Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.

Post reply on HN