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

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#21

Post by pron »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #2

It's atrociously bad science. It's not worthwhile to talk about what it means. I appreciated the BBC anecdote as well as the research about the advertisement's phrasing, but trying to interpret it at all is irresponsible pop science wiring. Briefly: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025

The fact something is bad science doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it. It just means that the conclusions don't have scientific validity, but how many of the conclusions we draw every day do? How many policy decisions can be made that are supported by clear, significant and undisputed scientific results?

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#22

Post by aaron695 »

getpost wrote: post #14

For me, the most interesting part of the experiment was how it was ended. A moral person objected. That's a real lesson in leadership. Wikipedia: "Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[14] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of mor…

> For me, the most interesting part of the experiment was how it was ended. A moral person objected.

Do to the fact the entire set-up was so dubious you can't really say that actually happened. I certainly doubt it did.

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#24

Post by politician »

getpost wrote: post #14

For me, the most interesting part of the experiment was how it was ended. A moral person objected. That's a real lesson in leadership. Wikipedia: "Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[14] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of mor…

> ...of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality.

Zimbardo was actually running an early-stage speed-dating experiment. The other 50+ candidates failed the real real purpose of the experiment. Later, ABC would use a similar experimental setup to wide acclaim with it's hit series The Bachelor. /s

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#25

Post by qrendel »

wavegeek wrote: post #23

Similar criticisms of the called "Lord of the Flies" study where they got two groups of boys to fight each other. Preconceived outcome, manipulation of the subjects. Deliberate provocation to amp up the conflict etc.

If anyone's unaware, parent is likely referencing the Robber's Cave experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robb...

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#26

Post by PhasmaFelis »

ccvannorman wrote: post #8

>Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism. So the experiment suffered from the same sort of selection bias that goes into hiring for prison guards or other authoritative punitive figures? Seems pretty realistic to…

Except that the experiment has mainly been used to make sweeping statements about all humans, not just prison guards.

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#27

Post by golergka »

ccvannorman wrote: post #8

>Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism. So the experiment suffered from the same sort of selection bias that goes into hiring for prison guards or other authoritative punitive figures? Seems pretty realistic to…

That's correct. However, the experiment was later popularly interpreted as `ordinary people turning tyrannical`, and that's what incorrect.

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#28

Post by crdoconnor »

azernik wrote: post #15
ccvannorman wrote: post #8

>Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism. So the experiment suffered from the same sort of selection bias that goes into hiring for prison guards or other authoritative punitive figures? Seems pretty realistic to…

Absolutely. The problem, however, is that the experiment has been used in popular culture to make broader statements about other social settings.

Where has it been used that it wouldn't apply?

It would seem to me that the only place it wouldn't apply would be where authority figures are somehow picked at random. How common is that?

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#29

Post by crdoconnor »

golergka wrote: post #27
ccvannorman wrote: post #8

>Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism. So the experiment suffered from the same sort of selection bias that goes into hiring for prison guards or other authoritative punitive figures? Seems pretty realistic to…

That's correct. However, the experiment was later popularly interpreted as `ordinary people turning tyrannical`, and that's what incorrect.

Higher than average levels of authoritarianism and aggressiveness doesn't mean that they are especially abnormal.

Re: The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

#30

Post by mnx »

politician wrote: post #24
getpost wrote: post #14

For me, the most interesting part of the experiment was how it was ended. A moral person objected. That's a real lesson in leadership. Wikipedia: "Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[14] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of mor…

> ...of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. Zimbardo was actually running an early-stage speed-dating experiment. The other 50+ candidates failed the real real purpose of the experiment. Later, ABC would use a similar experimental setup to wide acclaim with it's hit series The Bachelor. /s

That sounds like an SMBC comic.
Post reply on HN