Live data from Hacker News

The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

vox.com

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#11
While it wasn't popularly debunked until 2018, I actually remember hearing the Freakonomics guys actually talked about this way back in 2014:

> LEVITT: Yeah, he said it was real, too. But a lot of times what I’ve found is that that when I try to do experiments as an economist that work great for psychologists, I cannot get them to work. And I really have come to believe that it’s because the people in the study are so keen on doing what the researcher wants them to do, and they think that the psychologist wants them to behave in one way, and they think the economist wants them to behave in a different way, and so it’s hard to reproduce some of those psychological findings. I’d love to do the prison study, and I’d love to do it in a way that was unbiased. And I just, it’s one thing, I would bet a lot of money that things wouldn’t turn out the way that they did in that old Zimbardo study.

> DUBNER: Well, you know, let me read you, here’s what a couple of the volunteers who played guards back then 40-some years ago. Here’s what they said recently. One said that he was playing a role from the outset trying to create drama to quote, “give the researchers something to work with.” And another guard said, “I didn’t think it was ever meant to go the full two weeks. I think Zimbardo wanted to create a dramatic crescendo and then end it as quickly as possible. I felt that throughout the experiment, he knew what he wanted and tried to shape the experiment by how it was constructed and how it played out to fit the conclusion that he had already worked out. He wanted to be able to say that college students, people from middle-class backgrounds, that people will turn on each other just because they are given a role and given power.”

> LEVITT: So people won’t believe me, I have never heard those quotes, I didn’t know anyone else thought that way, what I said before was just my intuition that that was not human behavior what got revealed in those studies.

To give credit where it's due, Levitt basically made a whole career out of showing the replication problems of psychology experiments.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#13

While it wasn't popularly debunked until 2018, I actually remember hearing the Freakonomics guys actually talked about this way back in 2014: > LEVITT: Yeah, he said it was real, too. But a lot of times what I’ve found is that that when I try to do experiments as an economist that work great for psychologists, I cannot get them to work. And I really have come to believe that it’s because the people in the study are s…

> so keen on doing what the researcher wants them to do, and they think that the psychologist wants them to behave in one way

This was the dark conclusion of the Milgram experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#14

I'm guessing most ted talks reference ""science"" that can't be replicated as well. It's ironic that this of happening immediately before we enter the ai fueled post-truth era.

TED Talks are a disaster in general. Lots of charlatans and bad science. People should treat them aa entertainment, not as a reputable, fact-checked publication of science.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#16
post #4

Mandatory smbc: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/zimbardo

Yeah, you don't even need to know it's debunked to know the experimental setup is garbage. We talked about that when it was the seminar discussion in undergraduate anthro, back in the last century sometime. That it's also been recently debunked makes it double-garbage.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#18

While it wasn't popularly debunked until 2018, I actually remember hearing the Freakonomics guys actually talked about this way back in 2014: > LEVITT: Yeah, he said it was real, too. But a lot of times what I’ve found is that that when I try to do experiments as an economist that work great for psychologists, I cannot get them to work. And I really have come to believe that it’s because the people in the study are s…

People have been pointing out problems long before Levitt; pretty much since publication. What was new in 2018 were the allegations of outright fabrication of evidence (although those weren't entirely new either IIRC, but the evidence for the allegations was), and in general people have become a bit more willing to call "Scientific Studies" out on their bullshit, rather than "it's a scientific paper, so it must be truth".

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#19

I'm guessing most ted talks reference ""science"" that can't be replicated as well. It's ironic that this of happening immediately before we enter the ai fueled post-truth era.

I'm still waiting for my anti-mosquito star wars system. Maybe the "AI" will help.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#20

Everyone's heard the stories of how it was "fake." How many of you have actually read Dr. Zimbardo's own response to the debunking? https://www.prisonexp.org/response

I always wonder how people square "It's a fraud" with "It's a fraud that fits the reality of power and abuse incredibly well."

I get the sense that some people really just don't like to talk or think about the banality of evil.

Post reply on HN