Revisting the Stanford Prison Experiment 50 years later

Ars chats with director Juliette Eisner and original study participants in new documentary series.

See full article...

 

[Faceless Man]

ding ding ding! We have a winner! This is the same problem all string theory has. If it is not falsifiable, its not real science. That's the basic definition of science.

You are Karl Popper, and I claim my five pounds.

 

[deadman12-4]

You are Karl Popper, and I claim my five pounds.

I don't know what this means

 

[Skeppy]

Kind of beside the point, because you knew your "acting" was affecting real people. This experiment may not show what people originally thought it showed, but I think it's still useful for understanding how Abu Ghraib and other prison abuses happen.

Yeah, "I was deliberately and conciously being cruel by 'acting' as a cruel guard to please the overseers" really isn't the flex he thinks it is. It's entirely consistent with the premise of the flawed study.

 

[Mordac]

One of the "worst" guards excuses his behavior as:

Kind of beside the point, because you knew your "acting" was affecting real people. This experiment may not show what people originally thought it showed, but I think it's still useful for understanding how Abu Ghraib and other prison abuses happen. Those guards probably also thought they were acting and putting on a show, and rationalized that they were doing what their superiors wanted.

Interview with Zimbardo here that discusses that point:
View: https://www.mixcloud.com/enoughrope-audiopodcast/dr-philip-zimbardo/

 

[Emotion_ology]

The Stanford Prison Experiment is to psychology what the Trolly Problem is to Philosophy. In the sense that it’s the only thing laypeople seem to have heard of and they get ahold of it like a terrier with a sock.

A great rule of thumb for me is: the older an idea from psychology as a field is, the more likely it is to be poorly supported, wildly misrepresented or misinterpreted, and also be famous and treated as the bedrock of all we know about the mind.
A few examples in addition to the prison experiment:

The little Albert Experiment
Groupthink
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Piaget's developmental stages

There's also a lot of undiscussed complexity about the milgram shock experiments and learned helplessness that change how they are best understood.

 

[kenTrotts]

The series looks interesting, but ugh, I hate that pink look they applied to the old footage. It just removes any nuance and becomes like that joke about how everything that's supposed to be Mexico is just coated in yellow.

 

[Oldmanalex]

I've watched a few movies and documentaries on this experiment. The German movie, Das Experiment, was particularly good. Of course, it was a fictionalization based on the dominant narrative of Zimbardo's experiment, so can't draw conclusions from it exactly.

Speaking of conclusions, I drew different ones, even in light of some of the theatrics described in this article. I was under the impression not that this showed the "darkest part of humanity" by throwing two groups together (one in a position of power and one in a position of vulnerability) and letting them interact in a vacuum. It shows that when two otherwise groups of strangers are put into those two different positions, and those with power are specifically directed by those in authority (i.e. Zimbardo, his assistant, etc) to dehumanize and harm the vulnerable population...they will do it. Some will do it to please the authority figures, some will do it because their payment is contingent on the abusive behavior, and some just because they enjoy it. Maybe levels of all three.

The article didn't mention how Zimbardo was trying to get at how the Nazi soldiers at concentration camps were able to dehumanize, abuse, and murder their prisoners, when they could have said no.

It speaks to how violence has increased against vulnerable minorities, like trans people, queer people, BIPOC, since Trump started his run for office back in 2015 and his hateful rhetoric has been picked up and amplified by news outlets and social media. Some people are looking for permission to give in to their baser instincts. Trump gives them that.

I read Bernie Sanders' NYT article on the Democrats, and obeisance to big money, and how if they had only followed his path the working man would have rejected Trump, and all I could think that of the cantankerous old fart that he is (like me, it takes one to know one) "Oh you sweet Summer Child". LBJ was a far better politician because he understood humans, not shining avatars of Soviet propaganda. Talking of which......

 

[herculepoirot18]

I don't know if "I am a scientist" really holds much water here. I mean, I have a Ph.D. too. But not in psychology. I don't think this study -- which resulted in completely overhauling how human subjects studies are performed -- is representative of how such studies have been carried out since. But I don't pretend that my degree gives me special insight into how some other field of research works. (If they redo the study using invertebrates, give me a call!)

A biochemist here and most studies that aren't actually fraudulent in biomedicine use controls and try to get it right. (Outside of Alzheimer's clinical trials).

 

[Hadrian's Waller]

The three plagues of the 20th century: priests, politicians and psych*s.

Ne*ds mor* arbitr*ry c*nsor*ng

It is not censored, it is wildcarded.

 

[jdale]

A biochemist here and most studies that aren't actually fraudulent in biomedicine use controls and try to get it right. (Outside of Alzheimer's clinical trials).

Yeah, and modern psychology also uses controls. The original claim was:

"This is an accurate example of what has been occuring in the scientific community for too many years"

And that's simply not true. The field has learned some things since its early days, much like chemistry has learned a few things since its alchemical origins.

 

[Squitch]

What’s interesting is how quickly people change their minds; one minute the prison experiment is gospel. Then we watch a documentary (or read an article) and all of a sudden it was rubbish all along.

 

[Friendlyalien]

Well, I think we talk about 2 different things:
- One is if ordinary people can become maniatical dictator homicides depending the circumstances, what, in my opinion, is sadly so, as we have seen in wars, specifically in civil wars. The epitome of it being the advanced German society of the 1930s descending in managing the holocaust.

- Second is if the experiment in question is valid, following the scientific method, to prove or disprove the former Hypothesis.

In any case, this kind of questions, are difficult to test empirically (realistically) without bumping in ethical issues very soon. I mean, how can you build ethically an experiment to prove that people is going to start killing/exercising violence against each other in circumstance X? Are you going to let people really hurt others?

Maybe only way is to study the sadly big number of examples in History

 

[RZetopan]

The headline needs fixing -- Stanford not Standard.

Maybe the meeting was held at a gas station?

 

[pepperpots]

I've watched a few movies and documentaries on this experiment. The German movie, Das Experiment, was particularly good. Of course, it was a fictionalization based on the dominant narrative of Zimbardo's experiment, so can't draw conclusions from it exactly.

Speaking of conclusions, I drew different ones, even in light of some of the theatrics described in this article. I was under the impression not that this showed the "darkest part of humanity" by throwing two groups together (one in a position of power and one in a position of vulnerability) and letting them interact in a vacuum. It shows that when two otherwise groups of strangers are put into those two different positions, and those with power are specifically directed by those in authority (i.e. Zimbardo, his assistant, etc) to dehumanize and harm the vulnerable population...they will do it. Some will do it to please the authority figures, some will do it because their payment is contingent on the abusive behavior, and some just because they enjoy it. Maybe levels of all three.

The article didn't mention how Zimbardo was trying to get at how the Nazi soldiers at concentration camps were able to dehumanize, abuse, and murder their prisoners, when they could have said no.

It speaks to how violence has increased against vulnerable minorities, like trans people, queer people, BIPOC, since Trump started his run for office back in 2015 and his hateful rhetoric has been picked up and amplified by news outlets and social media. Some people are looking for permission to give in to their baser instincts. Trump gives them that.

The movie "Das Experiment" really captures the intense dynamics of power and vulnerability, even though it's fictionalized. It’s unsettling how people can shift into harmful behaviors when they feel directed or even just allowed to do so by authority. Zimbardo's study definitely stirred up those questions about how power can bring out darker sides in people, especially with the influence from above.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Peter Gabriel wrote a song We Do What We're Told (Milgram's 37). It is on the album So.

I always just assumed his Shock The Monkey was a reference to Milgram as well.

 

[JohnDeL]

I always just assumed his Shock The Monkey was a reference to Milgram as well.

No, that one and Sledgehammer refer to other. er. impulses.

 

[redtomato]

ding ding ding! We have a winner! This is the same problem all string theory has. If it is not falsifiable, its not real science. That's the basic definition of science.

You are correct. My theory - that there is a small chocolate teapot called ‘The Russell’ orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, too small to be seen by telescopes - is undoubtedly genuine science because it is entirely falsifiable.

All someone has to do is go take one of Musk’s new rockets and go check at where I have calculated the teapot to be orbiting. My theory may not have been falsifiable in the past but it is now.

And before you go calling me a junk scientist, recall that some of Einstein’s papers took a while to be verified, and said checking took great expense and physical inconvenience - expeditions to small African islands were involved, which was not easy in 1919.

Or maybe one of us has an incorrect understanding of what ‘real science’ and ‘falsifiability’ means.

 

[Faceless Man]

You are correct. My theory - that there is a small chocolate teapot called ‘The Russell’ orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, too small to be seen by telescopes - is undoubtedly genuine science because it is entirely falsifiable.

All someone has to do is go take one of Musk’s new rockets and go check at where I have calculated the teapot to be orbiting. My theory may not have been falsifiable in the past but it is now.

And before you go calling me a junk scientist, recall that some of Einstein’s papers took a while to be verified, and said checking took great expense and physical inconvenience - expeditions to small African islands were involved, which was not easy in 1919.

Or maybe one of us has an incorrect understanding of what ‘real science’ and ‘falsifiability’ means.

Or maybe you should look up what "necessary but not sufficient" means?

 

[deadman12-4]

You are correct. My theory - that there is a small chocolate teapot called ‘The Russell’ orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, too small to be seen by telescopes - is undoubtedly genuine science because it is entirely falsifiable.

All someone has to do is go take one of Musk’s new rockets and go check at where I have calculated the teapot to be orbiting. My theory may not have been falsifiable in the past but it is now.

And before you go calling me a junk scientist, recall that some of Einstein’s papers took a while to be verified, and said checking took great expense and physical inconvenience - expeditions to small African islands were involved, which was not easy in 1919.

Or maybe one of us has an incorrect understanding of what ‘real science’ and ‘falsifiability’ means.

I wouldn't call it science, even if its technically testable. "Science" would be investigating your hypothesis, and determining if it is true or false.
However with some of these sociology experiments, or say string theory - its not falsifiable. There is no hypothesis that has a defined test to determine if it is false. Not due to lack of effort, but because theorists cannot define a way to actually test it.
"Build a particle accelerator the size of the milky way galaxy" does not count as testable, as putting 2 seconds of thought about that explains that it is impossible no matter what your level of technology is. Extra dimensions/universes we cannot interact with are the definition of "not science".

 

[bfortin]

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unlocking the Truth is now streaming on Disney+.

Not in Canada. Is this US-only?

 

[The Lurker Beneath]

I've watched a few movies and documentaries on this experiment. The German movie, Das Experiment, was particularly good. Of course, it was a fictionalization based on the dominant narrative of Zimbardo's experiment, so can't draw conclusions from it exactly.

Speaking of conclusions, I drew different ones, even in light of some of the theatrics described in this article. I was under the impression not that this showed the "darkest part of humanity" by throwing two groups together (one in a position of power and one in a position of vulnerability) and letting them interact in a vacuum. It shows that when two otherwise groups of strangers are put into those two different positions, and those with power are specifically directed by those in authority (i.e. Zimbardo, his assistant, etc) to dehumanize and harm the vulnerable population...they will do it. Some will do it to please the authority figures, some will do it because their payment is contingent on the abusive behavior, and some just because they enjoy it. Maybe levels of all three.

The article didn't mention how Zimbardo was trying to get at how the Nazi soldiers at concentration camps were able to dehumanize, abuse, and murder their prisoners, when they could have said no.

It speaks to how violence has increased against vulnerable minorities, like trans people, queer people, BIPOC, since Trump started his run for office back in 2015 and his hateful rhetoric has been picked up and amplified by news outlets and social media. Some people are looking for permission to give in to their baser instincts. Trump gives them that.

Science oughtn't to be about 'getting at how'. It should be about 'finding out how.'

As for 'violence against minorities', a lot of people like to chart the number of victims and blow off any consideration of the identity of the perpetrators.

 

[jdale]

Or maybe you should look up what "necessary but not sufficient" means?

The quote earlier was: "If it is not falsifiable, its not real science. That's the basic definition of science."

"Necessary but not sufficient" would mean it's not a remotely useful "basic definition of science."

 

[Walker On Earth]

The quote earlier was: "If it is not falsifiable, its not real science. That's the basic definition of science."

"Necessary but not sufficient" would mean it's not a remotely useful "basic definition of science."

Rolls eyes. Someone needs to look up the definitions of converse, inverse, and contrapositive. Hint inverse != contrapositive.

 

[Shiranui]

I am a scientist.
This is an accurate example of what has been occuring in the scientific community for too many years, and why there is an overriding mistrust of 'science' now, by a large percentage of the population.
...not enough Feynmans and too many scientists-cum-rock stars whose only ambitions are to publish a jaw-dropping but scientifically-dodgy book, and to make it onto 'Nova'; to be the next Carl Sagan.

Not saying that there's not a lot of hacks out there, but I am fairly certain this large percentage which distrusts science hasn't actually read any of those books you're referring to, nor their takedowns by other members of the scientific community (a form of self-governance that should actually increase said trust).

More likely they got fed those opinions by third parties spouting half-truths on social media or certain TV channels, platforms associated with post-factual politics. The majority of the populace is just not the kind of people that'd hang out on e.g. a place like Ars to even be aware of 'internal' debate and controversy.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Not saying that there's not a lot of hacks out there, but I am fairly certain this large percentage which distrusts science hasn't actually read any of those books you're referring to, nor their takedowns by other members of the scientific community (a form of self-governance that should actually increase said trust).

More likely they got fed those opinions by third parties spouting half-truths on social media or certain TV channels, platforms associated with post-factual politics. The majority of the populace is just not the kind of people that'd hang out on e.g. a place like Ars to even be aware of 'internal' debate and controversy.

The OP says he is a scientist...I don't trust him...

 

[squiggit]

The Stanford Prison Experiment is to psychology what the Trolly Problem is to Philosophy. In the sense that it’s the only thing laypeople seem to have heard of and they get ahold of it like a terrier with a sock.

Those are in entirely different leagues. At least there's a real moral issue at the heart of the Trolley Problem. The real trouble with the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the story often gets presented uncritically at face value. One's overused, the other is a lie.