71–80 of 127 posts
Are there discoveries or theories from the field of psychology that are (a) not obvious and (b) generally regarded as correct? For example, things like general relativity, continental drift, or evolution from the fields of physics, geology, and biology. Does psychology have anything like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trying to correct mistaken or intentionally false claims in the media is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Wrong. Merely trying is in-fact incredibly easy to do, but there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction. You don't have a case.
> there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction You must be joking. In addition to the peer-reviewed papers he published, he gave media interviews, he testified in Congressional hearings, he published an article in the New York Times Magazine, he published a popular book, he made a PBS series, he made all of the study materials publicly available, he was an expert witness in three trials... It…
Because if he did then it would be highly surprising to me that despite having written a popular book it took until a few years ago and a research paper (not a popular book, not media interviews, etc that he gave where he corrected the record) for people to realize that the conclusion they had drawn about the experiment was wrong?
So apparently what he couldn’t achieve through multiple popular media sources was conveyed very rapidly through a research paper?
Are there discoveries or theories from the field of psychology that are (a) not obvious and (b) generally regarded as correct? For example, things like general relativity, continental drift, or evolution from the fields of physics, geology, and biology. Does psychology have anything like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trying to correct mistaken or intentionally false claims in the media is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Wrong. Merely trying is in-fact incredibly easy to do, but there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction. You don't have a case.
> there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction You must be joking. In addition to the peer-reviewed papers he published, he gave media interviews, he testified in Congressional hearings, he published an article in the New York Times Magazine, he published a popular book, he made a PBS series, he made all of the study materials publicly available, he was an expert witness in three trials... It…
How is that supposed to be convincing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 81% accurately figured out the experimenter’s hypothesis so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the hypothesis was? >> The experimenters intervened directly in the experiment, either to give precise instructions, to recall the purposes of the experiment, or to set a general direction. PZ says they said, "We noticed this morning that you weren't really, you kn…
Zimbardo’s claim was “normal people could behave in pathological ways even without the external pressure of an experimenter-authority.” In fact what the experiment showed is that people can behave in pathological ways when Phil Zimbardo coaxes them into it.
We also have the real-life Nazi Germany experience, where 1000's of previously-normal people did unspeakable things. And of course the Japanese behavior in China before that. You might call these "natural experiments."
With human social behavior it's just not possible to have a rigorously controlled experiment. Nor can you ever end up with rock-solid conclusions similar to those in physics. Even more recent behavioral economics experiments are full of artificial situations, like $10 "bets" because you can't use serious sums. All you can say about critiques of SPE is "compared to what?"
> … offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. This was the point of the experiment. That simply coaching people in banal ways to be cruel caused them to be cruel. Yes the study participants were just doing what they thought the scientists wanted to see… exactly as many humans do in many human organizations. Perhaps the guards believed deep down there was no real danger to…
That should have been in the original publication then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, Zimbardo is a fraudulent pseudo scientist. Even in a best case scenario Zimbardo's work doesn't qualify as any sort of actual science.
This is purely anecdotal, but he looks the stereotype of a villain and I always had a hard time taking him seriously because of it. He literally looks like the devil in Rick and Morty. There's some other classic villains I'm sure are a more apt comparison but I can't think of any at the moment. https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Lucius_Needful
Are there discoveries or theories from the field of psychology that are (a) not obvious and (b) generally regarded as correct? For example, things like general relativity, continental drift, or evolution from the fields of physics, geology, and biology. Does psychology have anything like that?