Comments on: Stanford Prison Experiment, The Video

Stanford Prison Experiment, The Video

MetaMonkey — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:34:10 -0800

Studying obedience and conformity: The Stanford Prison Experiment has been discussed many times before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and has been made into a number of movies. Now you can watch the incredible review film made by the experimenter, with extensive documentary footage, post-experiment interviews and commentary: The Stanford Prison Experiment. [google video, 50 mins]

By: MetaMonkey

MetaMonkey — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:35:02 -0800

[Snarkers note: I posted this previously, but it was erroneously deleted as a double. I've confirmed it is OK to repost with a more descriptive description. Unfortunately the Milgram Experiment has been removed from Google Video since that last post]

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:37:55 -0800

Unfortunately the Milgram Experiment has been removed from Google Video since that last post That really sucks. Good post though.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:45:46 -0800

This has always been one of the most fascinating experiments I've ever been exposed to. Thank you for the links.

By: Big Mike

Big Mike — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:48:04 -0800

But the Standford Prison Experiment is still available on google and is interesting if you have 50 mins...

By: MetaMonkey

MetaMonkey — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:51:45 -0800

SeizeTheDay, I'll be keeping an eye out for it, should it reappear. Along with this film, it is one of the most remarkable documentaries I have ever seen. Big Mike, check the post again, you missed a bit ;)

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:42:21 -0800

Junk science.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:28:54 -0800

Junk science. Just like that global warming stuff!

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:35:35 -0800

I haven't read as much about the techniques of global warming research as I have about Zimbardo's experiment, but if they are on par with Zimbardo's, then yes, they too are junk science.

By: weston

weston — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:02:41 -0800

Some previous AskMe discussion here.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:38:40 -0800

What wonderful logic you use, Krrlson!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:38:43 -0800

but if they are on par with Zimbardo's, then yes, they too are junk science. Why are you saying this? I don't mean, "why do you think what you're saying is true." I mean "Why are you saying it"? What do you hope to accomplish? Do you think just posting one comment without any evidence is going to change anyone's mind? Anyway, I think you don't know what you're talking about.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0800

Why are you arguing with me?

By: Llama-Lime

Llama-Lime — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:34:41 -0800

Obviously Krrrlson is performing his own experiment, trying to see how much authority can be asserted through confidence, without displaying any knowledge or insight. Anyway, thanks for reposting this. It was so sad to see these videos hidden after the original deletion.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:19:27 -0800

Why are you arguing with me? I'm not arguing, I'm honestly curious why you're doing this.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:02:34 -0800

I've expressed my opinion on the Zimbardo experiment. Now what were *you* trying to accomplish with a flawed and irrelevant comparison to global warming research?

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:03:56 -0800

...without displaying any knowledge or insight. Unlike, say, yourself?

By: Llama-Lime

Llama-Lime — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:52:07 -0800

And unlike yourself, I'm making no scientific claims. When dealing with science, it's put up or shut up time. When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category. I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?

By: Llama-Lime

Llama-Lime — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:10:34 -0800

And unlike yourself, I'm making no scientific claims. When dealing with science, it's put up or shut up. When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category. I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:01:35 -0800

What I fail to understand is that, after Zimbardo admits toward the end of the video that the experiment was unethical, how he continues to profit from the notoriety he received as a result. (Good thing that you all get to see the video while it lasts on Google - he's charging $110 for a VHS copy on his website, checks payable to Philip G. Zimbardo.)

By: weston

weston — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:48:11 -0800

I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any? There are some linked in the AskMe discussion I linked to above. I think the experiment is interesting and a potentially useful reflection on human nature, but as I was when posting that question, I remain skeptical about some of the conclusions, and sympathetic to the idea that it wasn't particularly science.

By: leftcoastbob

leftcoastbob — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:26:48 -0800

What I fail to understand is that, after Zimbardo admits toward the end of the video that the experiment was unethical, how he continues to profit from the notoriety he received as a result. posted by Saucy Intruder Lots of things are unethical yet people profit from them. There's a difference between "unethical" and "illegal." Not everything that unethical is illegal, just as not everything that is illegal is unethical.

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:22:34 -0800

Right, but Zimbardo is still a psychologist, and still subject to the bounds of professional ethics. Profiting from an unethical act is likewise unethical, no?

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:28:26 -0800

Qualitative research in social work "Analytic induction is a major logic of qualitative research. The rule is: take one case, and develop a working hypothesis to explain it. After that, you take another case, and examine whether the hypothesis can explain the new case. If it fails, you should revise the hypothesis to explain both of the cases. Then, take the third, and repeat the same process of examining and revising the hypothesis. When you do not need to revise the hypothesis further, and you expect that the hypothesis will fit any new cases you might take, you will have refined the hypothesis enough. As you may have noticed, your choice of cases to be examined has an important bearing on the trustworthiness of analytic induction and is related to the sampling procedures of qualitative research mentioned below. This approach has been developed most fully by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Not all qualitative research follows this approach, but the inductive approach to design, fieldwork and analysis is one of the most influential characteristics of qualitative inquiry." Zimbardo couldn't follow up.

By: Jody Tresidder

Jody Tresidder — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:11:30 -0800

Metamonkey, Thanks very much indeed. What a completely gripping post. (Had the time to watch it all just now). There certainly isn't much "science" in the soft sciences - but calling it junk science seems to be missing everything of potential value entirely. Far better too a coolly "unethical" instructor like Zimbardo than a gasping ninny like Ron Jones (the high school teacher who contrived the somewhat ad hoc groupthink experiment known as the "Third Wave" - discussed in links). At least Zimbardo left a valid record of what he did. I'm not sure - in this instance alone - I can get worked up by someone continuing to profit from something he did without originally intending to blunder into huge ethical problems. (And, thank god people can still straight out call themselves "unethical" rather than the mimsy guilty of a "lapse in judgement/ inappropriate decisions").

By: reklaw

reklaw — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:37:37 -0800

If you ask me, this mania for making all experiments 'ethical' is what has stopped psychology from developing into a much more interesting field. All the classic experiments -- the ones that are actually interesting to hear about -- were done before they brought in all these silly rules about not being able to lie to people and all the rest of it.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:26:16 -0800

When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category. Please point out where you, or anyone else, asked me to justify my position until you wrote the above words. In fact, delmoi specifically said he didn't care why I think what I said is true. This places you squarely in the loudmouth liar category. I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any? It is not reproducible, the investigator participated in the study, there were no controlled variables, the sample size was one, and the experiment was, as many agree, unethical. Junk science.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:29:16 -0800

And, on a more personal note, I resent that Milgram lost his shot at tenure after a more ethical, better organized experiment, while Zimbardo profited immensely from his amateurish dabbling.