
The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment - danso
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment
======
ccvannorman
>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 me. Prison guards are not selected from the population at random.

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

~~~
crdoconnor
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_?

~~~
azernik
Generally, it's cited you make a point about how _anyone 's_ moral behavior is
_caused_ by the roles society expects of them. E.g. "we would all be war
criminals if we were drafted into a criminal army", or the like.

------
hackercurious
This is an interesting angle to further understand the Stanford Prison
Experiment.

IwasA Guard in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. AMA!

Quote-

"I felt that Zimbardo had a conclusion and he constructed "an experiment" to
demonstrate it. That was my belief at the time and now."

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2y5sbt/iwasa_guard_in_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2y5sbt/iwasa_guard_in_the_1971_stanford_prison/)

~~~
reagency
The AMA has a lot of quotes that reinforce Milgram's Obedience To Authority
over Zimbardo's Innate Human Evil.

The AMA guy says he engaged in all the prisoner mistreatment out of a sense of
duty and respect for the experimental setup.

------
kevinmchugh
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](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/?id=3025)

~~~
ccvannorman
On the contrary, I think Britain especially is sliding into an authoritative,
totalitarian nightmare. The parallels between the government workers turning
the wheels of oppression against their own citizens and the way the "Guards"
acted cannot be ignored.

~~~
Crito
None of that makes the study good science.

------
getpost
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 more than fifty
people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who
questioned its morality."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

~~~
politician
> ...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

~~~
mnx
That sounds like an SMBC comic.

------
palosanto
Professor Zimbardo created a tyrannical environment and found "proof" that
humans were innately tyrannical. Right.

As this article suggests, but doesn't quite state openly: the Stanford Prison
Experiment says as much about Zimbardo's psyche as it does about human nature.

------
wavegeek
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.

~~~
qrendel
If anyone's unaware, parent is likely referencing the Robber's Cave
experiment:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robbers_cave_study)

------
DonQuixote1000
I really wonder why an article like this about a study of questionable
quality, low points, and already eight hours old is still on the front page.
Far more popular articles get pushed to the second page much faster.

