I’d still give those results a little side-eye, just because of the poorer standards at the time they were conducted, and the publication bias that results from the original publication. We know how many other labs were able to replicate the results, but we don’t know how many labs weren’t able to replicate.
Not to try to say that everything is definitely awful and wrong, but I work in psychology, and I’m definitely in the camp that has trust issues with older findings. Publication bias, small sample size, biased data collection procedures, etc can all make results iffy. Lots of classic results have been found, tested now, not to replicate properly. Basically I’d say we don’t need to toss Milgrim right this moment, but maybe we should be skeptical, and think about not teaching it as one of the classic cornerstone studies until and unless we find a way to get better data.
this could be misleading; they hoped it would be fake, so you could argue they tried to detach themselfes from their actions. Or simply lied afterwards. doesnt convince me at all.
As I understand, lots of people would like to repeat the Stanford Prison Experiment, cleaning up many of problems, but it would never pass the current ethical guidelines.
That’s a pity, because it’s going on in the wild everywhere these days. (“How about an experiment where we take private prison guards and put them in charge of young children and see what happens?” “HELL NO!”)
That is dismissing information that doesn’t fit the theory. The statement: “If it was that serious you woulda stopped me” is a statement of belief, not on hope. Maybe some of the ones who didn’t say they believed it was fake were lying or omitting that? I know we believe that people lie to make themselves look better, but without some real science behind why and how often people lie in experiments like this, that kind of speculation basically invalidates the entire enterprise.
I totally agree with that. Awful people who like to dominate others are disproportionately likely to self-appoint as leaders. To me, a widespread acceptance of the idea that people are generally monsters gives those of us who are prone to reason and self-questioning a lot of reason to not resist when a monster takes over. We have to believe that a replacement would be better, or there is no reason to seek a replacement.
I once saw Wanda Sykes make a joke that being in government should be like jury duty. “Aw man, I’m secretary of state this month!” I guess the question is, looking at the government of the United States today, would that system actually be better? If you talk to reasonable people about that, they get nervous about it. Like somehow despite the fact that Trump has appointed a cabinet of people who are in the 99.9th percentile of worst possible candidates, they still think that picking a random person off the street would be dangerous.
I basically feel like there are about 5% of people that we have to keep out of power at all costs and they comprise over 50% of people in positions of power, but we’re still not seeking change because we are too scared of one another.
You’ve got me. My 5% figure (which is still a shitload of people) is my guessimate of how people people are sadistic, dominance-oriented fuckheads. If you lump in all the people who will follow them and all the people who will come up with excuses why it’s better to just stand by and watch it happen you get to Trump’s seemingly invincible 40% approval rating, plus some more on top of that.
Plus, I realize I’m showing my privilege. It’s a lot easier to philosophize about different reasons for monstrous behaviour when I’m not prone to be targeted by it.
