I think the reason they didn't become "sadistic" or cruel is because they couldn't see the affects of their actions. I think that's where sadistic behavior comes from. They can see the effects of their actions and they enjoy it. This experiment in my mind is more so how people react to being annoyed.
Also it took atleast one day in the SPE for the behaviour to change. And in the SPE there was no "you press the button, im gonna press it too", they weren't untouchable in this kinda situation here.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. The buzzer was more of a annoyance than the potential power high that can follow from say a prison guard abusing inmates. There are so many components this "experiment" was missing from the original. For instance there was no positive reinforcement from the "cruelty" where the original guards would receive positive stimuli from hearing the researchers get excited at their tormenting. There was also a lack of response stimuli from abusing others in this, a huge deciding factor for this stuff is often generated from the victims reactions. The power high for instance can be experienced when the victims cower/plead/resist whatever it may be, there is more of a "reward" for the abusers actions than say "god I bet those people are so annoyed right now"
I want to see the flipside of michael's experiment where they choose only people who are pre-disposed and see what happens before and after demand characteristics are introduced. I'd also love to see the most neutral individuals with no predisposition to either violence or kindness.
@@ChrisM-bn5vr It's easy to gather a group of objectively "good" people and run tests on them, because it's ultimately a compliment. "Look, these good guys remained nice in a situation where they didn't have to." How would you feel if you were cast in a social experiment, just to find out from scientists that you have an objectively bad personality, and then get your face and bad behavior uploaded to TH-cam for millions to see?
@@ChrisM-bn5vr I feel like the point was getting people with a different disposition. After all, the video opened with question the conclusion of the Stanford Experiment on the basis that the guards were predisposed and encouraged to cruelty. If you take people who aren't predisposed to that and they don't act cruel, it adds evidence to their original statement. The argument that they were making is that it perhaps isn't strictly the environment, but personality, that plays a role in abusing power, and it seems that they were right.
@@Andrew-th8jk Dude wtf ? It's not that big of a word, if ur not sure about the meaning of a word you can Google it, just don't act like he's a show of for using a word you wouldn't 😂
I was in prison for 16 years. Lived in 7 different prisons in California. Each prison had a different culture. Ranging from somewhat pleasant to the worst. I've seen rookie guards come into the job with a good personality and overtime succumb to being influenced by the harshness of the veteran guards or inmates. However I've seen rookie guards who've stayed with their moral integrity intact despite the bad influences.
@Sunita Krishna i was tried as an adult when i was 15 for a carjacking with a gun. I was a dumb kid who didnt care for people or their well being. I paid a heavy penalty. However nothing compares to the pain ive caused the man i committed the crime against.
A weakness of this experiment is its lack of validity. While they reduced demand characteristics, normative social influence and conformity still played a part. Once one person pressed their button, the others may have felt inclined to press their control if they were nervous about being the first to do so out of fear of being seen as 'cruel'. While Vsauce was basing the groups on having similar personalities, no two people are the same and will have other aspects of themselves playing a part in their individual decision-making.
Yes basically there were no similarities in these two experiments due to the simple fact that was no interaction between two individual groups just one imaginary possibility of another. Now if that imaginary was God or the devil would have certainly changed the outcome
Yeah they kinda changed their goal post on this experiment to fit their own parameters. not very impressed. I mean they said "anything below a 7 SHOULD be safe for the opposing teams hearing" then when that one girl "thought" there might not be another team she turned it straight up to 7 and started blasting over and over. The researchers overlooked that completely as they concluded they couldn't get anyone to act cruel at all. I think blasting someone at the borderline unsafe levels over and over repeatedly is pretty cruel. Sounds like confirmation bias to me.. I'd be interested to read the full report on their results from each round.
Vsauce was given enough budget to produce high-quality psychological studies in exchange for TH-cam premium and he just decided to make it free for all of us to watch. What a legend
yeah but if you're going to pick a topic this polemic, you should've tested the oposite spectrum of personality at least. This hole thing really reminds me of Nazism... you know... everyone being told that doing those unhuman acts are for a better good. And did happen... the environment did made people nuts
It's interesting for a show but it's definitely not high quality experiments. Here most people understood they had been lied to when presented with the purpose of the experiment. That totally biases their perception of expectations.
@@mauro_weee this fascinates me. I can’t remember exactly the name or person who carried out an experiment surrounding this, but basically they got some actors to dress up in scientific gear (lab coats etc.) and through the course of the experiment one participant had administered what he thought was a real lethal injection to a patient under the command of some authoritative figure with a clipboard and a lab coat. I refuse to believe all of Hitler’s or Putin’s army just so happen to be evil men who willingly carry out atrocities… If a reliable authoritative figure tells us to do something and if everyone else does, most will follow suit. There’s also been another mini experiment conducted showing that we follow the crowd: one person stepped into an elevator and the actors inside were facing the wall and not the entrance… The participant also faced the wall in the ride up in the elevator, though it was an extremely odd thing to do. All mind boggling stuff isn’t it…
There's already a selection bias, because he has people who volunteered. This filters out a lot of people: people who are busy in their lives, people who are too rich to care about meager payouts, etc. It would be difficult to get a balanced selection for an experiment this deep and complicated. We're talking about the nature of people, not the LD50 of a pill.
I don’t have TH-cam premium, so I absolutely cherish whenever Mindfield episodes are free to watch. Doubt you’ll see this, Michael, but if you do: your work is fantastic!
Something important to note here is they're called "guards" and "prisoners", if you called them "carers" and "people who need care" you'd get a completely different result, even if everything else was the same.
Except, power is very ofter abused here as well. see what happens in hospices. While there sure is a component of situational and labeling enabling, I think a much better predictor of how people would behave in these situations is indeed their character and personality traits.
Seriously? Did you miss the whole C*vid period and the Liverpool Pathway, Rivotril, Midazolam, quarantine, isolation scandals performed by "health care staff" on innocent victims?
@@Birdy10208 it kinda isn't though. There have been several "health care professionals" that abused their power to harm the people in their care. Sure, it is not the vast majority (of course, also), but it definitely is not so rare as you seem to believe. Also, a lot of hospitals and hospices protect their staff and end up firing the ones that are suspected of perpetrating violence to avoid being sued, but do not report them to the police. It is kinda messed up.
Not really. The average person rarely exhibit violent or cruel behavior on Twitter consciously. It is simply the hateful one being given both anonymity and a stage to act.
I'd be interested to see a study on how people can be cruel online, because while the participants in this experiment couldn't see each other, I felt that just being in the presence of others could have influenced their morality.
I was watching a documentary on homelessness in Scotland and I made a comment about how hard it is to get a job because the rent in a hostel or furnished flat is over £300 a week because you have to pay the ground rent, the rent for the white goods, your furniture pack and in a hostel part of your rent goes to pay the staff. I know this because I was homeless in Scotland. Some woman who has never lived in Scotland in her life called me a liar so I posted a link to a rent chart. She then posted a load of replies calling me for all sorts and really insulting me. And I mean getting really personal. She had read in a previous post that I had been gang raped by eight men while I was homeless and she was saying things like "you probably weren't raped, you probably got paid for it coz you're a dirty junkie bastard" everytime I reported it the comments would disappear for a minute then reappeared. I legit cried for days. I really think you tube should be more on the ball with this stuff
@@Nai_101 I'm not letting some internet troll get me down. Bit it does prove ince again that with the advent of social media people are using the anonymity to say crueler nd crueler things to each other that they woukd never say to a persons face. I strongly believe that when someone reports a comment on you tube it should be people checking them instead of the current methid looking for certain keywords tat are banned because a lot of bullying slips through the net that way
@@starrchild254 youtube moderation isn't the greatest. AI (what they are using) doesn't understand context like a human being would. This is why those comments probably still exist. Stay strong :)
the noise experiment doesn't say much because the team knew that they were going to be buzzed too by the noise, meanwhile the guards in the prison knew they would suffer no consequences due to their actions and cruelty, and i think that these people from the noise experiment would have been more cruel if they were prison guards and would have also been dehumanized sooner or later
I’d like to add to this that the main flaw I see in Michael’s experiment is that there is not haptic feedback for those causing the buzzing. The prisoners would react or attempt to retaliate to the guards. That in it of itself creates a sort of rivalry and anger in the guards and doing something painful back and seeing that pain be felt is a huge part of rewarding the retaliation/cruel behavior. Without the haptic feedback of seeing what you’re doing is actually causing pain/harm etc. the experiment isn’t 1:1
@@JamesCA michael’s main hypothesis is that due to the way the experiment was done, the results may have been biased or influenced by uncontrolled variables. I believe this experiment proved that
@@jackarmstrong8790 I think James is right the missing feedback was important. The guards became more cruel after the prisoners ignored and then challenged their authority. The guards felt they needed to assert their authority over the prisoners to gain control. The lack of feedback influenced theses students lack of response. Theses students likely would have used the buzzer more if the 'other group' responded with anger and contempt for what they were doing. With no feedback you have no true idea if what you are doing has any effect.
That's not meant to say that you're wrong or uneducated, I just wanted to share the knowledge because I learned about the quote's origins when I did an English project about it and I thought it was kind of interesting
@@ouisamus No, you ARE telling them they are wrong. When someone says "Lincoln said x" and you say "not from Lincoln", then that is you claiming that their statement is wrong. I do not appreciate that you denying what you are doing. It implicitly suggests saying people are wrong is somehow a worse situation than it actually is. You are attempting to undermine normal corrective behavior, YOUR OWN corrective behavior, and you must be told with no uncertainty that you are wrong and you are giving red flags leading me to suspect that you are also acting maliciously.
@@meshtexture3490 TheLrd Roca said "Lincoln said" Just because Lincoln said something doesn't mean the quote came from him, it just means that he said the quote, which makes your whole paragraph pointless.
@@LuisMartinez-gu5ii If Lincoln did say it, then it can be a quote "from Lincoln" and TheLrd Roca is quoting Lincoln successfully, making Luisa M's initial comment a lie. While it is hypothetically possible for TheLrd to have the quote from Ingersoll, they explicitly stated they were quoting Lincoln. Quotes don't need to be by the originator, just the person saying the thing. Luisa M could have avoided sounding malicious if they had simply stated that Ingersoll originally said it without ever saying "this quote is actually not from Lincoln".
Konstantinos Mparmpounis back in the 70’s and 60’s here in Arkansas when the prison system was severely screwed up, they had prisoners that were “trustees” who were turned into guards and carried shot guns in the prison. They abused their power. Look up the movie Brubaker. They had a hand crank telephone at Tucker Max that they called the Tucker Telephone. When you acted up, they would hook one wire to your testicle and the other to your big toe and cranked that handle and it would shock you. Horrifically. This actually happened, I live 50 minutes from Tucker Max.
Well i guess that'd be too inevitable... Would you really expect people *_already predisposed to cruelty_* to not act on that given favourable circumstances?! But i wonder why not test the mid-range personalities... As they even say in the video description: this is supposed to be about NORMAL people, not the best of us. Would be pretty sad to have had the best give in so easily. ^^
@@irrelevant_noob Exactly! Why not test those who are just, well, the average human? It's also expected that people with good morals will do good, as it is expected people with poor morals will do poorly
Yeah I expected that too, but this made good sense really. To get a true picture, you should repeat the experiment with different subjects, of the same personality types.
well i feel most people by default will not actively harm others for no reason other than the fact that they have the ability to do so. people only really act in violent ways, when there is some external force that compels them to in some way or another.
@@sgx9874 actually the role of responsibility is different here. Those kids prob didnt see it as a big deal like they were given small roles. Give people big roles, their responsibilities make their personalities spawn in a way that the situation make it compelling to do so
I think one crucial element that wasn't mentioned was the idea that the guards could see how as a consequence of their actions, they could see the suffering of the prisoners.
Toori Baba the point of the experiment is why they do it though and if normal people will not just be dicks but be actively cruel to an extreme extent given the opportunity
@@Eexpers DUDE! YOU ARE RIGHT! BUSH ORGANIZED 9/11, MONSANTO IS POISONING US, AND THE EARTH IS FLAT MAN! OMG www.livescience.com/what-if-flat-earth.html
There are a few factors to consider in this specific experiment. 1) You never gave the team the chance to see the 'other team's ' reaction and response to their actions. Part of the sense of power is what the person perceives. For example in the Stanford Prison Experiment: The guards could see how their actions were taking effect over the prisoners which would have enticed more of this power behaviour. The guards would not have been aggressive if they didn't see or get the response from the prisoners. This behaviour is commonly seen in a workplace where the boss or supervisor throws their weight (Power) to get people to do their bidding. The aftermath of their power results in people being shy, timid, afraid, cautious and these are all visible to the person in power, therefore this creates the need to exercise the power more and more creating the so-called evil described in the Stanford Prison Experiment. 2) You never adjusted the volume to properly reenact human behaviour and choice. Because you always made it volume 3 out of the potential 1-12 there's no sense that the 'other team' were being spiteful or malicious. If the 'other team' were not exercising their power then why should anyone else do the same? The biggest indicator for this was team 2 where number 2 always pressed 3 instead of a higher or lower number due to the receiving sound being the same and saw no need to retaliate nor exercise any more power than need be, only creating an equilibrium. 3) Part 2 from both teams was a null and void section because of what I said in my first factor. One of the experimentee's even noted that there is no other team because no one got the sense of power towards another person due to no response. There is no such thing as power when you cannot personally gauge your dominance and influence over another. Power is perceived and not felt or measured in any other form. A few examples of that are: A nuclear bomb, if a nuclear bomb video has never shown the shockwave effect of destruction, you never saw the crater from the fireball, never saw a mass of water being moved and never heard it. YOU COULD NEVER gauge the power of a nuclear bomb. Same goes for earthquakes, I have never experienced an earthquake, therefore I can not understand the power of an earthquake. I can look at what it can do damage wise, but that is as far as my understanding goes. Again, power is perceived and without that perception, you cannot run an experiment to get people to maliciously exercise their power and rights over others. Thank you for reading, I hope I got my points across. And thank you for the video, was interesting, despite the flaws.
I absolutely agree with all being said. To the point 3 I would also add supporting point, that the since the second team could retaliate, they had no perceived power difference. Also I would add that the second stage of the experiments is absolutely inconclusive since in both cases participants didn't think that there is other team at all .
@@elvagar You mean couldn't retaliate? Thank you for supporting replies. You're right about inconclusive as mentioned by myself as null and void. Power is perception. No perception no power. Very basic and simple psychology yet overlooked in this potential fundemental experiment. I've never studied psychology but I have a huge passion for advanced human psychology as I analysis every person I see and meet on a day to day basis. So if VSauce want an extra head to help with psychology on people ... I'm here o/
@@anubisstargate Sorry I did not express my thoughts clearly. I meant that they could retaliate, but in relation to the first part of experiment... What I was trying to say, that your point 3) applies also to the first part of experiment. If the participants believe that the other team has the same capabilities as they do, so there is no perceived power over the other team. And to me the experiment in that case resembles more the iterated prisoners dilemma.
Thank you very much! That was exactly what I was thinking. I hope they read this and try again, but the results from this experiment don't show anything. Also, there is nothing to gain which is also why people tend not to use the buzzer, because... why would they? Now they just buzz because: "oh yeah we can buzz them, almost forgot"
I remember watching Vsauce as a kid, and now I realize this channel is the whole reason why I ended up developing such a passion for scientific research as an adult now. I feel like a kid all over again, thanks for making us curious.
Well, and if standing up to the authority means you, your family, and your friends are likely to suffer dire consequences it is so much easier to just obey. And rationalise the bad deeds.
YoursTrulyEmma what's the context of your question? What's there to "believe?" I don't understand the question.... I don't THINK anything... it WAS a sham... the professor engineered the experiment to get the desired result. The "guards" were told how to behave, already invalidating the notion that "power corrupts" or whatever nonsense but even the "subjects" exaggerated their responses and to quote one directly "I was afraid of failing the class more than anything else" So if that qualifies as a successful experiment than.... what's a bad experiment to you? I mean literally nothing about it was organic and the professor himself admitted as much so what's there to "believe" exactly?
Amethyst Girl it actually was a sham though, fucking hell the main guy who became ‘sadistic’ ‘John Wayne’ thought he was just helping with the experiment by playing a character, unless you think being given power also gives you a southern accent the way he behaved was not genuine or organic, it’s what he was told to do
As someone with autism, I've always wanted to know what these kinds of experiments would show about people that are neurodivergent. How would they act differently considering many of the common neurotypical behaviors don't apply to them
yes, I would like to see that too! I know for me, and a lot of other autistic people, authority holds no weight. Further, social pressures are less extreme to us. It would be interesting to see the ramifications of these traits.
And that's great ^^ I saw a bit earlier that drama around the trolley dilemma. I know I'm late, but I couldn't find what was the truth/what really happened and disabled comments on many episodes troubled me for a while. Does anyone has answers ? PS : I want to make sure that I do NOT doubt Michael's honesty and will to produce entertaining content ❤
I'm incredibly surprised there wasn't an altercation. I really don't want to portray myself as a "Billy Badass", but I know I have anger issues. If you sat someone in a room with me that made me feel fear, anxiety and humiliation for days on end, there is little to no chance I wouldn't put my hands on them.
@@Zachdidntdoit True. Those "prisoners" must have been really compassionate people to sit down and have a civil conversation with their tormentors after a whole week of that nonstop.
How has nobody been like "MICHAEL, FROM VSAUCE??? IS THAT YOU?" yet? I can only imagine how I would react if I was in a dark room, the lights turned on, and I saw the patron saint Michael himself standing there.
I have a question Make your predictions now Will the first manned spacecraft to mars????? (A - Land on mars all good mission success) (B - blow up shortly befor / after take off) (C - blow up anytimeafter leaving earths atmosphere)
I've wondered the same thing. I guess not as many people watch Vsauce as I thought. Either that, or they ask if they've heard of Vsauce before, and then turn them away if they have, but who knows?
The most tragic thing about this "experiment" is that it didn't even have to happen at all since there are actual people in those situations already. Just go to any prison already in operation and record and interview actual guards and prisoners if you really want to know what it's like in them.
that would be a good case study, but given typical scientific conventions experiments are supposed to be replicated. otherwise it’s hard to determine if it’s something specific to the prison, the guards, or the community.
You don't understand the SPE at all if you think you can just go in to a regular prison and talk guards and prisoners. Under no circumstance would anyone involved in prison in any way would be able to be a subject in the experiment because they already know what it takes... What guards and/or prisoners can be like and would be predisposed to acting/responding a certain way because of their past experience. That is what is referred to in the science community as a variable. When someone says there are too many variables for something to work it means that there are too many factors involved to make the a choice. In an experiment the people doing the study need to be able to control all of the factors (variables) accept the ones they are testing. There are *THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS * of prison interviews done asking what it's like in prison. There have been millions and millions of conversations people have had about what it's like. What new thing will talking about it again teach people?? Nothing at all.. we have preconceived notions about prison because of our experiences and knowledge. Watching another TH-cam video or Netflix docuseries isn't likely to teach us something new. Vsauce didn't want to do anything regarding prison because we all "know" how guards and prisoners act the act of those in the study knowing is a variable that cannot be controlled only one to study.. To see if we're more likely to fall in line when you have expectations of how people will act? SPE was trying to see what would happen if you just said your a guard your a prisoner be safe and they were SUPPOSED to want true outcomes of how that power (or lack power) makes people act. When you tell the guards to really keep them in line and be hard on them you're changing the study because your telling them how to act... So now the study is just... See how bad it can get when you tell them to be bad. Whatever... I won't go on... Just know that your suggestion isn't a scientific study, it is an interview and situations that scientist didn't have control over. Studies need to be able to be reproduced the exact same way to many groups. To study and to find out *new* information.
@@pumpkinkoot865 I understand what you are saying, but the thing is that the experiment didn't prove or disprove anything except for the fact that locking people up is never a good idea. Even when everyone involved in the experiment KNEW that it was an experiment and only temporary, they still "devolved" to depravity and suffered mental issues because of it, much like those who are sent to prison for real. As I said, the experiment didn't need to happen at all, it proved nothing that wasn't already known.
my main issue with this is that, unlike the stanford prison experiment, the participants didn't get to directly see how their actions were impacting the other team
I do agree. I'm not a person with high morals. I can act cruel ("evil") given the situation, but, for me, it's unlikely to impossible to kill (or harm permanently) a person whatever the situation is. If I can't see how bad my actions will harm the other person, I can't go playing around with a thing that's out of my control and could cause, in this case, deafness in someone else.
I think the experiment was missing an important factor. While people were given the opportunity to be cruel, they could not see anyone feel the pain. It might be more satisfying to a sadist to see someone suffer, than just to know that someone is suffering.
To that point, I found it personally interesting that Michael and the other guy got a laugh out of watching them get startled and want to retaliate, which is exactly this.
@@RennyNanaya But this very experiment SELECTED FOR MORALITY, and the rest likely to demonstrate sadism, while Zimbardo allowed a more typically self-selected group prone towards IMMORALITY that we do see in actual prisons, or the military, where all participants choose to be a participant in the murder of other individuals or societies. The complete exclusion of such personalities in this study was far more unreal than Zimbardo's! What should be studied, is how individuals in a more normal, mixed personality group behave interpersonally with clear evidence of the other group having changeable actions/volumes and, does group size/balance/gender/race/religiosity effect outcomes? What I really want to know, is will some follow evil AGAINST their own personality if their direct study-subject colleagues are known to be acting evilly and may even goad them on??? So, do the pre-(or-post?)-liminary personality testing and then find self-talk/mantras/rules that might help any personality type resist evil.
Well i thinks its easy for normal humans to understand the consequences of their actions. Dont you think that these geniuses would know what theyre doing and to consider all variables?
This is a very important point. Those who start being cruel often are lured down that road through the reactions of others. By removing the interaction between the parties, Vsauce removed two crucial elements. First: Vsauce removed the feeling of competition. Most of the participants concluded by the end that there was no other team and thus no point in pushing the button. Second: Vsauce removed the emotional stimuli that comes through the act of domination. For those who are inclined to it, domination gives a huge dopamine rush. Both factors will seriously influence this situation.
23:18 They are so uninterested to press the button not because they scored morally high but because they dont get any feedback on how it affects the other "team". In Stanford prison experiment the guards could see, how the prisoners react and how the oppression affects them.
They DO know how it affects the other team because they are hearing the buzzer themselves. I think they would imagine the other team is feeling the same about the buzzer as they are.
My first thought too. Trolls and sadists do what they do because they get a reaction. Normal people do what they do daily because they also get a reaction, but a positive one. Reactions drive us forward. Without a reaction - there's no interest, hence why the test participants caught on pretty quickly that there is no other group and got bored quickly.
20:30 I think one flaw with this experiment was the retaliation element. While the noise level *is* anonymous, all the participants are aware of the fact that their opponents can make a level 12 noise in retaliation, which could cause hearing damage.
I feel like this is flaw in their method. They set out to see how situation effects the actions of a person including if a certain behaviour was expected of them but they changes both the situation the subjects were placed in but also the personality and predisposition of the subjects. I would much prefer it if they hadn't selected only one personality but rather a range of personalities to properly draw conclusion on the effects of the personality on behaviour and then compare the over all result to the Stanford Prison Experiment results. To me, that evidence would have been more convincing
The problem is that in Zambardo‘s study they were told to be harsh, that it was even necessary. It makes it impossible to know what impact it had or didn’t have. Zambardo‘s study was more like a repeat of Stanley Milgram‘s experiments.
just a thought, he should have ran the test with grps of different personalities, like grp1 is compassionate, group 2 is in the middle, etc, so we can properly test the hypothesis.
Personality tests have their own controversies, according to the David Myers AP psych textbook the current categories are known as the big 5, Openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, neurotocism and conciencousness, and if you were trying to simulate a prison you would want random selection anyway
@@somenerd9365 - Meyers-Briggs has its own suite of faults, the one they used here isn't that. That said though, this test wasn't to simulate a prison, it was check the stated results of that experiment, that the situation allowing for cruelty would inherently drive people into being so. They definitely should have tried with other profiles of people though, this experiment still had no "control" room of people in the middle, nor a group of predetermined assholes easily prompted to be assholes like the study presumed.
Limited budget, time constraints and a prevailing sense of being “good” probably played a part in their experiment being so....limited, they were too scared to push their volunteers and their experiment which lead to the limited results they got.
I think this experiment tries to create a narrative that morally compassionate people are compliant to stay in line and hence are less prone to violence or evil things. This experiment doesn't do well to distance itself from interpreting this fact indifferently enough, almost prescribing it as a good thing. While it is great that the guys didn't do violent and evil things from our moral compass perspective, it isn't necessarily a positive thing. There are cases in history and life where hard decisions are necessary to be made in a timely fashion, decisions that are morally ambiguous at best, at worst are cruel and evil. Contrary to this, there are situations where a bundle of compassionate people's inability to make hard decisions and retaliate had resulted in disasters as bad if not worse than decisions of cruel sociopaths. I think psychology should move past the violence or cruelty perspective of human nature, but rather review those benevolent or violent events from evolutionary and societal perspectives.
Hey have you herd of the “monster experiment”. In that they took kids with lysps and kids without one some books to read and insulted the normal kids and complemented the kids with lysps. The kids with lysps got better but the normal kids got lysps so bad they got compensation for it and can’t speak correctly to this day.
Ah, actually, I don’t think it went that way. The group was divided regardless of whether or not they had a speech impediment (normals AND stutters). What ended up happening was that praise vs belittling didn’t do that much in preventing or causing stuttering. What did happen was that the kids that were praised became more confident when they spoke, and kids who weren’t more than likely had permanent self esteem issues and became withdrawn. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
This kind of reminds me how Hugh Laurie really did start to develop a lingering physical problem with his right leg from how often he had to fake his limp for House.
I think an important part of the original prison experiment was the prisoner/guard roles...maybe people have preconceptions about prisons but that doesnt mean they have to be cruel guards. Now if they were indeed instructed or led to believe being cruel was required or expected that definitely skews the results. But it would be interesting to repeat the experiment with average personalities and no instruction for how to act other than the basic expectations of a prison. I also think an important aspect of this dynamic, as they found, was personality, and its well known that people who want to be prison guards in real life tend to have authoritarian, and even abusive or violent personalities...
@@peacefuldawn6823 I'm not talking about that. They tested two groups both made up of "good" people and because of that, little "evil" was found. They should have also tested "bad" people to see how they would react in the same situation.
@@loganbradford2343 Not really if they were told to act that way and reprimanded if they weren't being "tough" enough. If that is true it immediately invalidates the experiment. The fact is there that Zimbardo only stopped the experiment after a girl he liked insisted he stop this clearly out of control study that was getting more inhumane by the day but he didn't fucking care. He clearly only cared about how cruel he could get the "guards" to act, and not at all concerned about the well being of the "inmates". Who is the real sadist in this situation? EDIT: because I'm not entirely sober and typing meaningful sentences is a little tough atm
I doubt it, I feel like explicitly telling them that anything above 7 can cause damage lowered their possible anonymity and increased their moral responsibilities pretty much immediately.
I think there is a crucial difference between these two experiments. All participants of Michael's experiment were told what's the range of a safe disturbance, so they knew when they'd harm someone. The Stanford participants didn't know how far they could go and didnt have a scale of what's harmful and what's "safe".
Perhaps, but even so, wouldn't an individual have a predisposition of what's "harmul" in their mind. Regardless, in either case...it rests on those in power to do it. By giving them the "safe dial", it reveals a conscious choice on non-sadist individuals to go beyond that since they're under the impression there's another team.
Another thing is that in Michael's experiment, they couldn't see the "other team", whereas in the Standford Experiment the guards could see the prisoners. Not being able to see or hear the reaction of the people you're punishing or distracting offers no reward, hell it was straight up said in Michael's experiment that the people in it had already figured out there was no other team. It was too obvious an experiment that offered no reward, no gratification. Honestly they just wasted those people's times.
I think there are more crucial differences, in the prison experiment the prisoners were told that they have to stay in for a while and not just 2 or 3 hours. You can be more resistant to pressure for 2 or 3 hours, knowing that you are in a rather safe place as well, even though the room was pitch-black, than having to be closed for several days. We are used to this as we stay in school basically closed in our class rooms and we do the same when we are at work. We have stuff to do which distracts us from actually being closed in a room and we also know we can just leave if were really want to. The captivity element was hardly emphasised in this experiment which does play a role. You only have to deal with the other team for a very limited time and the worst thing they can do to you is to send level 12 buzzes, hardly comes any close to what the guards did in the prison experiment. Second is that the group was given a task to carry out as a team, in the prison experiment the prisoners were put together and that was it. No distraction to keep their minds occupied and the other team was also busy solving their puzzle. In the prison experiment the guards had to watch over the prisoners, were also able to call them names and insult them without the prisoners being able to fight back much, they had little power. Besides this, the guards were able to put the prisoners do things. In this experiment both teams had the same ability to distress the other team, equal footing and in the 2nd part of the experiment the other team's buzzer was disabled without them knowing. It makes your team "have more power" but you cannot see the reaction of the other team when they realise that their buzzer does not work, they might be pressing it like mad and think they are doing something when in fact it does nothing. Third, the entire punishment is too abstract to stimulate any kind of behaviour, sadistic or otherwise. "I press a button and a loud noise goes somewhere and I don't see anything that happens to the other team. No reward, maybe the button does not even work and I keep pressing it for nothing, it makes me feel like a fool, maybe I should stop doing that". Seeing the reaction of the other person is essential to stimulating any sort of reaction from the one distressing the other person. This happened as well in the prison experiment, one of the guards practically left the shift because he didn't like what the other guards were doing while the ones that stayed pushed the limits. This also brings back the task they had to do, in this experiment they had to solve a puzzle while in the prison experiment the guards had to watch the prisoners and discourage them from being disobedient which encourages different behaviours towards other humans. It's not a big puzzle, maybe they should have watched the reaction on the puzzle pieces when they were being buzzed, were the participants taking it out on the puzzle? If so, would they take it out on someone else if someone else was their task? This couples the dehumanisation of the prisoners in the eyes of the guards as these prisoners might be seen as complex objects that must do what they are told rather than human beings which makes it easier to take out your anger on. From an observational stand point, the 1st group in the 2nd part hardly pressed the buzzer. This can be interpreted as retaliation to what they were told to do by an authority figure, the ones doing the experiment and paying them. This hardly matches the prison experiment context, for some people it takes more time to let their dark side loose than for others. Maybe some people are very strong willed and will never give in to their sadistic thoughts, who knows. On the other hand, the team was both a guard and a prisoner in this experiment. Only in the 2nd part which only took 10 minutes they were given more power by not being able to be buzzed. At that point most of them were probably bored and were waiting to go home hence they started talking to pass the time. Not to mention that they already figured out that there was no other team.
@@Andrei15193 isn't it still interesting that despite figuring out there was no other team, nobody chanced it and tried going to an unsafe level? Nobody wanted to risk significantly hurting others. I think that's the most interesting part
@@Andrei15193 Totally agree btw. There were significant differences between the experiments (prison and this episode). Also between parts 1 and 2 of this experiment. I think they should have told the subjects (ST) in part 1 the other team(OT) couldn't go past a level 3. Maybe even tell ST the OT was told that ST could go as high as level 12 (and OT was or wasn't told they were maxed out at level 3). Just wasn't enough power different in pt 1 and they had fear of retaliation for abuse of power.
I think Michael himself could be considered as a part of the experiment, as he blasted the subjects repeatedly to get expected responses from them. He had the power, authority and even a sense of greater purpose, since the experiment was for the greater good.
Im not a psychologist or anything, but I think that pressure, personality and background plays a major role. The experiement has great concepts in which if you take someone who takes their role very seriously they would put so much dedication in it. But if you take someone whos less invested or being idle into things you would get average or more below average results. edit I think the psych test you put to filter the participants was unnescessary to have a more wider result. Thats like picking day care employees to be prison guards in that matter. These experiments would be a lot better if Dr Zimbardo tests extremely hardened excons to be guards or day care employees or caregivers.
Why the filter was unnecessary they literally explain in the video why they made the filter. "If you put nice people in this situation many of them will stay as nice people. Some of the people of the original experiment were violent because they already were violet prior to the experiment. After all not a lot of calm people will see an ad about a prison experiment and will say " I'm gonna try that"
i guess it was important so that it ultimately makes the participants frustrated by being unable to solve it and it would directly affect them pressing the button out of frustration.
All you have to do for this revised prison experiment is look at 99% of forums or TH-cam video comments. You have anonymity as well as depersonalization.
@@domomoregato psychological and emotional damage is equally as important as physical damage. Additionally, words can cause physical damage in roundabout ways. A recent example, albeit not an extreme example by any means : Tati makes a TH-cam video about James. It's just words. James loses 3 mil subscribers. Subscribers = money. So James was harmed in a tangible and physical way in the loss of money. Another more real example is using words to perpetuate hate and discrimination. Talking hatefully about certain groups of people can (and does) incite other people to act violently against them because it backs them up and validates their beliefs. Thus another example of physical harm from just words.
@Алексей Прокопенко the point is that everyone is by nature egoistic and i doubt you wouldnt also use power if the chance presented itselfand you wouldnt be punished for using it in whatever way you desire. A point you mentioned is retaliation(making it worse for everyone) which is a valid point but if one were truly anonymous i belive anyone would use the power to their own benefit.
i wished that they had a group that are low on morality scale, and a group with a mix of high and low morality. Just so that it is a more balanced experiment to determine if personality does influence cruelty. It'll also be interesting to find out if in a mixed group the high morality will be influenced by the low morality ones.
I've heard a study that dictates low morality people can influence others pretty easily into following suit. They did a sociology study I heard once where a small community was thriving together. Leaving doors unlocked etc. But they introduced one sociopath or kleptomaniac (person that is addicted to stealing) and the entire community quickly got paranoid, locked doors, etc.
@@user-zx4vj6ub8r well it's common sense that the bad people will influence people more then good You put a dirty towel and a clean towel together the clean towel doesn won't make the dirty towel any cleaner Instead the dirty towel makes everything it touches tainted It's like the old saying a bad apple will ruin the whole barrel
I imagine a couple possible problems might emerge from posting a video of "5 predetermined nice people and 1 predetermined psychopath", from the validity of multiple choice personality tests to justice-seeking internet mobs. Would I watch it? Absolutely. Could it be done ethically on Mind Field? Prob not so much
I feel that in your experiment there was no way for the participants to take pleasure in the exercise of their power. The Stanford Prison experiment allowed the guards to take pleasure in their actions, which could easily have motivated them to become increasingly sadistic as time went on.
Yeah I think the point is to figure out if this is a universal characteristic that everyone can exhibit under the right circumstances or if personality plays a role. I agree with you that not everyone is capable of sadistic behavior under most circumstances but I don't think Michael really showed this result in the video. I think a great example of regular people being capable of becoming horrible people were the Nazis leading up to and during WWII. If you are primed to believe that you are morally superior to another group then you can justify bad behavior much more easily because it can be rationalized as justice or something similar. I think this behavior is also present in cults and most religions of the past.
@@mikerd1994 indeed! That's such a complex and fascinating thing, I would love 1 hole season about it ^^ As I see it, the personality is shaped by your live and experience [for the (very least) most part] so at an experimental level / simplified level, I think if you raise someone into some beleave and the environment doesn't shape him any other way, he is likely to do even a horrible thing without any haditation or even "moral-issues" do to the reason that there is nothing wrong with it in the first place for him. It's not the best way explained but I hope you can tell what I am trying to say.
yea that's just lack of discipline. That's an individual problem, not a societal (though not many people have self control these days, they are raised not to)
The Stanford experiment was like a micro sample of what the naxys did to Germany after ‘33. The modern study used the best of a personality scale while Stanford used moderate to borderline. I like learning about this topic and psych in general including pharmaceutically. Nice video
This is my third episode of Mine Field I've seen and I've been seriously wondering "isn't one of the participants bound to recognize him at some point? Wouldn't that completely mess up the results of the study depending on when Michael showed himself?
2 factors might have caused an error in this experiment: 1) the buzz coming from the researchers was at a constant level, never increasing to provoke a higher buzz retaliation. This could explain why it never got above the safe level of 7. 2) the people in the experiment didn't really see the consequence of their buzzing. If they saw what effects the buzz was having on the other team, they might have started to enjoy it and do it more intensely.
I would say 3 things, Firstly some sort of Visual Indicator of what the “other side” was up to. Secondly they Could have had a sort of Timer counting down to Increase anxiety. But also thirdly as this Was a way to parallel the Stanford experiment, he should have Provided motivation as the Old man who Was a Guard stayed that they were payed Quite well at that particular time for that Task. I’d Wager that If nothing else they had been informed that there are two teams, and whichever team finished the Puzzle first would split the Money and the other team would Get nothing, they would Break their fingers From mashing that Button.
@@Blackdog9871 the thing was, the new experiment aimed to leave extrinsic motivation out in order to see whether people have the innate tendency to commit violence on their own.
I completely agree on the second point. The team didn't see a personal reaction from using the buzzer and so if they do have an inherent sadistic characteristic, it couldn't be realized as they couldn't see the pain it was causing the other team.
This experiment would have been more valid if you did different types of groups. One with all compassionate, one with mid range, and one with less compassionate, and one with a mix of all. That would tell you how the different personalities would react facing a conflict between the different personalities and which personality type might end up influencing the others.
That was way too watered down and short. Compassionate people in a controlled and recorded environment, for a TH-cam show, how the hell are they expecting people to be real into this?
Well to be fair it wasn’t a selection process. It was a college course so students chose the go there and from there it was still a random selection to picked guard or prisoner. On a mental perspective I think that a pure form of a diverse unit.
Wrong @@enlcmusic2158, it wasn't a course, it was a research experiment, and it wasn't random at all. Volunteers were chosen after assessments of psychological stability, and then assigned to being prisoners or prison guards. There have been many studies on the Standford fiasco, that have proven that the researchers intentionally sought out specific types of individuals for the experiment, and even formulated the ad seeking volunteers to attract the specific type of people they were looking for. The researchers also interfered with the experiment by giving the 'guards' specific instructions on what to do and how to act.
I majored in Psych in college and to this day I'm astounded that not a single one of my professors spoke about the illegitimacy and red flags in this experiment.
I took AP Psych in High School and General Psychology in College and both my HS teacher and Gen Psych professor spoke about the criticisms of the experiment. Though I took both more recently, so depending on when you went to University, it might have changed.
@taiwandxt6493 I graduated college in 2019, I'm not that old 🤣 But yeah the experiments problems have been well documented for years now and critics have come out but I don't know what it was about my professors just didn't say anything about it so I had to find it out on my own.
@@lucastoole1 Perhaps you missed such curriculum changes just by a hair. 2019 is when attitudes began to change regarding the experiment widespread outside of small contrarian circles.
Whats there to learn from a group of 'bad' people doing 'bad' things? the idea of the experiment is to see if good people can go bad when given the power to. Of course the unethical minds will be unethical, theres nothing to learn from that. making GOOD people do BAD things is where the interest lies
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:04 *🏢 The Stanford Prison Experiment Overview* - Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 at Stanford University. - Led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the experiment involved 24 volunteers, 12 guards, and 12 prisoners. - Participants were subjected to simulated prison conditions, leading to controversial findings regarding the influence of environment on behavior. 03:10 *📰 Controversies and Personal Accounts* - Journalist Ben Blum discusses his personal connection to the experiment and revelations that contradict the official narrative. - Contradictory accounts from participants challenge the traditional interpretation of the experiment's results. - Examining the role of personal responsibility versus situational influence on behavior. 06:18 *🔍 Critique and Analysis* - Criticism of the experiment's methodology, including demand characteristics and explicit instructions to behave oppressively. - Reevaluation of the experiment's conclusions and the need for more nuanced interpretation. - Discussion on the implications of the experiment's flaws for understanding human behavior. 08:18 *👥 Interview with a Former Guard* - Interview with Dave Eshelman, a participant in the Stanford Prison Experiment, provides insights into his experience. - Eshelman's perspective challenges the notion of inherent aggression and highlights the influence of situational factors. - Exploration of personal responsibility and the role of authority in influencing behavior. 12:25 *🛠️ Proposal for a New Experiment* - Proposal to design a new experiment to test the influence of anonymity, power, and depersonalization on behavior. - Discussion with psychologist Dr. Jared Bartels on potential methodologies and considerations for ethical experimentation. - Emphasis on the importance of understanding situational factors in shaping human behavior. 15:23 *🔍 Designing the New Experiment* - Planning process for a new experiment to isolate the core elements of the Stanford Prison Experiment. - Consideration of anonymity, depersonalization, and power dynamics in creating experimental conditions. - Introduction of controlled variables to test the influence of situational factors on behavior. 18:55 *🧠 Conducting the New Experiment* - Implementation of the new experiment, including the use of darkness, anonymity, and power dynamics. - Evaluation of participant behavior in response to the experimental conditions. - Examination of moral characteristics and predispositions in influencing behavior. 21:57 *📊 Analysis of Participant Behavior* - Analysis of participant responses to the experimental conditions, including levels of aggression and cooperation. - Comparison of findings with the traditional narrative of the Stanford Prison Experiment. - Implications for understanding the role of situational factors in shaping behavior. 24:04 *🧠 Debriefing and Conclusion* - Debriefing participants on the true nature of the experiment and its objectives. - Reflection on participant reactions and implications for understanding human behavior. - Conclusion and potential avenues for further research. 25:27 *🔊 Participant reactions to buzzing noises* - Participants responded differently to the buzzing noises, with some retaliating. - The group seemed more willing to retaliate when provoked. - Despite retaliation, the situational factors did not induce sadistic behavior. 28:10 *🎚️ Effect of assigned task on behavior* - Participants' behavior changed significantly when told that pressing the button was their only task. - Similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, participants adhered to assigned roles. - The demand characteristics influenced participants' behavior significantly. 29:18 *💡 Insight from participants' responses* - Participants demonstrated awareness of ethical boundaries despite situational pressures. - Personality traits influenced participants' reactions more than situational factors. - Results suggest that personality dominates over situational influences in certain contexts. Made with HARPA AI
@@jermu8706 I know, my point is if the team they were testing with in this experiment were to turn it to twelve and the "other team" (who did not exist and therefore there'd be no actual sound) didn't respond, it'd be very similar to the Milgram experiment.
i tip my hat to dave eshelman for acknowledging and learning from his actions in the experiment especially coming to be interviewed on the matter not a lot of men have the courage to face themselves to become a better man and also share their growths so publicly
even a sadist wouldn't really want to push the button all that much, because what they enjoy is being able to see the other person in pain. Also I am sure it is because TH-cam and how they budget, but they need more groups, for example have a group for high, medium, and low morality.
Yeah, I expected the first group to be more of a control, but either way this doesn't prove anything about people's willingness to be cruel to others. Because they weren't being cruel to others and they knew (or at the least assumed) they didn't actually effect anyone so the entire premise fails. I expected a much different episode for this.
This wasn’t meant to be a full experiment. This is meant to push for further studies into the topic. Using what they had, I still consider the episode to have some things of interest.
It would’ve been neat to see the roles reversed after a week. Would be interesting to see if Prisoners who were targeted and harassed would do the same when they have the same power like the harassers
Yes!!!!! That, to me, would be the true experiment. Would people who have been dehumanized and abused overcome the human desire for retribution or would they actively retaliate? Human nature is what it is. I have my own hypothesis, and it’s likely unethical to test, but it would certainly be interesting.
I’m so powerful I can comment lololilolololololololololilolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololold olilolol gyiityusoqonsncjjjehhekq
@@itchyandscratchy7350 yeeahhh no. I'm not specifically talking about youtube, I'm commenting on social media in general. I think you and most others would agree that social media has a way of bringing out the worst in people. It may seem like a small thing to bring up but it can have a much greater affect than you might realize. Many people spend a large majority of their day on social networking sites and when you do a lot of anything every day it will begin to rub off on you.
If you didn't understand the experiment, it doesn't mean it's stupid. But I would agree that they should've also picked a group who scored middle in morals.
I think that they were contrasting Zimbardo's assertion that anyone would turn evil under the right circumstances. But I agree with you,, and I would have liked to have seen a mid-range group, as well.
23:33 Would have loved to see how they would act if placed individually each in a room .. will being bored made them go to the extreme? Also, if everytime they buzzed, while placed in their individual rooms, they got the same sound they giving the other team, would they still buzz ? Also, if after their friendly conversation, they were told, while still being individually placed in a room, that they will be buzzing their team mates cause they are now rivals solving a minature puzzle, would they still buzz ?
@@spencergallucci5309 Hey, Michael here. I'm 5 years past that, and recognize ez but I think you're right. People in their 20s and probably teens recognize him faster, in no small part due to memes.
26:15 I love how this dude can do anything and he's high out of his mind thinking about how there's no difference between closing his eyes and opening them
I see a few problems with this experiment which I've seen some others mention too. I'll try to compress them into a brief list... 1. The first experiment prompts the possibility that SEEING the effect of your actions may cause a sadistic satisfaction, all these people could get as a response was retaliation. Thus no such thing as greeting that feeling of seeing the person you "harmed". 2. In the first experiment, there where no difference in the power and abuse between the groups. Obviously I wouldn't press the button over 7 against the other group since they'd propably just do it back to me. There were no authority but rather you gave a group a bat and told them the other group also has a bat. Attacking would obviously be a bad idea. 3. Specifically picking nice people is bound to give a more mild result. Probably a more varied test-range and seeing how personality really influenced the action. Something I'd really like to see is if you pick three "BAD" people and one "GOOD" person. Would the GOOD person alter themselves to fit into the BAD group because they'd see it as their role? Either way a really interesting concept to discuss.
About your second point... you’re kind of backing up their idea that with a power balance, people are more benevolent and the two groups reacted differently when given a power advantage showing that the reaction of power is kind of case dependent on the individual of the experiment
@@keegan6298 Too be fair, no clue. But judging from how they perceived themselves picking GOOD people. Let them do the opposite in their search so we can see if the test changed and how.
I admire the honesty Dave Eschilman had, he admitted that he indeed was satisfied with being harsh and that he got off from the state of power that he owned over the defence less prisoners in the study. Interesting man.
@@Mr.Isquierdo you can't dilute something as complex as that experiment into a single concept that fits into your comfortable worldview. he might be a sociopath, but he is also human like the rest of us, meaning we should study it and try to learn from it. his honesty is an important role in the process imo
@@ghosty0612 The retaliation was supposed to be that factor of being challenged. As seen in the video, they did pinpoint the "day 2" peak of the original experiment to "prisoners" acting up (it was probably more so due to a day 1 debrief, given that they had recordings of someone telling the "guards" they weren't tough enough).
ghosty06 that’s why they had two phases. First phase was to test how they would react knowing the other team can retaliate if they are abusive with it. Phase 2 they don’t have that fear of retaliation and combined with the already present anonymity they could be as sadistic with the buzzer as they wanted to. For the most part they were not.
Came here to comment exactly what you have said. If you don't have the feedback from you actions through the suffering of your "opponent" the incentive to keep going is minimal. It's like a very well known internet sentence: don't feed the trolls. If you don't feed them they most of the time just go away to bother other people that they can actually piss off. I guess you made the most valid point of this whole experiment.
ABSOLUTELY!!! I think this experiment cant even be used to prove something, it's pretty incorrect Michael is like a grandkid, who is trying to be like his grandpa, and no, i really love Michael and vsause, but of course participants understood they're in experiment
this was super interesting!! i'd love to see a follow-up study where more interpersonal attributes are applied to the participants. in the stanford prison experiment, the interactions between guards & prisoners could have spurred animosity in a way the puzzle experiment lacks. for example, if one "person" on the nonexistent other team is being antagonistic/annoying, it might spur the participants to seek justice or vengeance on the presumed other party. this could be achieved by assigning each participant a different pitch to know if they're being targeted, then with a light that blinks whenever the "other" team targets them. this could simulate confrontation in a way the current experiment lacks while also ensuring the participants have the option to choose not retaliate. either way, loved the introspection!
I agree with Zimbardo, in intentionally choosing only participants with HIGH morality traits, you changed the very possibility of the outcome... PLUS, another thing I noticed was that you ONLY gave them a level 3 buzz, and if all they hear is the exact same level, then either they believe that the other team isn't going to raise it, no matter what, OR that something isn't right... IF you would've had a variety of levels played at them, then they probably would've increased the intensity in a potential loop, as with the girl in the second group
Not only that, but my big criticism is that the puzzle was in no way solvable, and therefore the participants would not be inclined to distract another team especially if there is no reward for finishing first
Additionally when they press the buzz they should hear it from the other room in the corresponding level but accordingly reduced by going through the wall. In this way they know the buzz is working and get a feedback loop and are not that questioning that no other room and no other team exists. What I also think is that there is a difference between a body involved experiment like the prison where you see each other and have physical contact
There's also the fact that they couldn't see their actions having an effect on the other team. There could have been some pre-recorded video of an "other team" that showed them reacting to the distractions (like the Trolley Problem experiment). That also would've allowed for a sense of competition if they saw this other team completing some of the puzzle (although any screen would allow some light for them to see, if the screen was dim enough, it shouldn't be a problem).
Doesn't that prove the point of the experiment, essentially demonstrating that the situation has less of an effect than personality? You could also say that the participants signing up for an experiment detailing "prison life" might have higher levels of aggression. The high morality crew had mostly never signed up for these experiments, so they might not sign up for one like that.
Indeed, this show completely ignored self-selection, that is, people with high empathy tend to not pursue careers as prison guards.. Or become soldiers, for that matter. And you definitely don't want them as soldiers or prison guards, because "the enemy" or "the prisoners" aren't innocent individuals in most cases.
Found this after looking for a clip of the actual experiment and am now fascinated to know more! Humans are so complex and I really appreciated learning from your experiment! Be so interested to see other personality types going through the experimant too as well as introducing more demand charateristics! Thanks for the learnings!
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"It's so weird, there's no difference if you... close your eyes or open them, it's really weird." - this guy was my favorite
That was cute, I have a slight crush on that guy after watching this haha
@@VioletSky908 Same. Don't tell my gf or she'll remind me that I'm not gay. :(
@@VioletSky908 Haha that's cool, even though I did not mean it in that way
I know right? I was like give me a puff.
@@shaegis lol your gf
I think the reason they didn't become "sadistic" or cruel is because they couldn't see the affects of their actions. I think that's where sadistic behavior comes from. They can see the effects of their actions and they enjoy it. This experiment in my mind is more so how people react to being annoyed.
Also it took atleast one day in the SPE for the behaviour to change. And in the SPE there was no "you press the button, im gonna press it too", they weren't untouchable in this kinda situation here.
@@DisguisedRory exactly!
Finally someone with basic understanding of the psychology of cruelty. You need to see it to want it.
Yess. This thread.
Mind field didn't do a very good job in this experiment and the moral licensing one.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. The buzzer was more of a annoyance than the potential power high that can follow from say a prison guard abusing inmates. There are so many components this "experiment" was missing from the original. For instance there was no positive reinforcement from the "cruelty" where the original guards would receive positive stimuli from hearing the researchers get excited at their tormenting. There was also a lack of response stimuli from abusing others in this, a huge deciding factor for this stuff is often generated from the victims reactions. The power high for instance can be experienced when the victims cower/plead/resist whatever it may be, there is more of a "reward" for the abusers actions than say "god I bet those people are so annoyed right now"
I can see my self as the dude seeing no difference between closing his eyes and having them open
are you Azeri lol
ýəəţüş řəəťûş ĐƏƏŁƏŢÜŞ Read this as he was saying it. I thought “Found the stoner!”
When I close my eyes, it doesn't seem so dark.
@@JustinWPruett hahaha exactly my train of thought
Yeah. Power goes out in the middle of the night and I panic because of that
I want to see the flipside of michael's experiment where they choose only people who are pre-disposed and see what happens before and after demand characteristics are introduced. I'd also love to see the most neutral individuals with no predisposition to either violence or kindness.
Yeah I was really hoping they were going to test another group where they did that, I'm really disappointed by this experiment.
Is anyone going to comment the elephant in the room? Black people tend to be violent in general.
@@ChrisM-bn5vr It's easy to gather a group of objectively "good" people and run tests on them, because it's ultimately a compliment. "Look, these good guys remained nice in a situation where they didn't have to."
How would you feel if you were cast in a social experiment, just to find out from scientists that you have an objectively bad personality, and then get your face and bad behavior uploaded to TH-cam for millions to see?
@@ChrisM-bn5vr I feel like the point was getting people with a different disposition. After all, the video opened with question the conclusion of the Stanford Experiment on the basis that the guards were predisposed and encouraged to cruelty. If you take people who aren't predisposed to that and they don't act cruel, it adds evidence to their original statement. The argument that they were making is that it perhaps isn't strictly the environment, but personality, that plays a role in abusing power, and it seems that they were right.
you can also just got to an american jail
“I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy” that line kind of set the moral guideline for that group.
Carol Howard yeah, you are white.
@@moomin8470 can we not bring race into an experiment about cruelty, all that will do is further divide us
@@moomin8470 lol the Asian chick buzzed 37 out of 38 times, and you're going on about white people xD 27:16
You'd be right if it wasn't pitch black and nobody would know if they did.
sky you’re probably white too
I’m glad the guard was truly honest about what he felt. That really helps Michael’s hypothesis be as accurate as possible. Well done.
Or was that a coached response to push michaels narrative?
@@erik.cowell1277 damn
slow down there mr scientist, no need to use big words like "hypothesis"
It was really frustrating to hear but I agree completely.
@@Andrew-th8jk Dude wtf ? It's not that big of a word, if ur not sure about the meaning of a word you can Google it, just don't act like he's a show of for using a word you wouldn't 😂
I was in prison for 16 years. Lived in 7 different prisons in California. Each prison had a different culture. Ranging from somewhat pleasant to the worst. I've seen rookie guards come into the job with a good personality and overtime succumb to being influenced by the harshness of the veteran guards or inmates.
However I've seen rookie guards who've stayed with their moral integrity intact despite the bad influences.
@@doodlium2093 he'd probably prefer not to say?
He is probably lying
Tehachapi at 16 years old in 2001.
Lancaster 2004
Centinela 2008
Soledad 2008
Salinas Valley 2009
Solano 2010-17
A brief stint in Chino for 2 months during the 2010-2017 era
@Sunita Krishna i was tried as an adult when i was 15 for a carjacking with a gun. I was a dumb kid who didnt care for people or their well being. I paid a heavy penalty. However nothing compares to the pain ive caused the man i committed the crime against.
A weakness of this experiment is its lack of validity. While they reduced demand characteristics, normative social influence and conformity still played a part. Once one person pressed their button, the others may have felt inclined to press their control if they were nervous about being the first to do so out of fear of being seen as 'cruel'. While Vsauce was basing the groups on having similar personalities, no two people are the same and will have other aspects of themselves playing a part in their individual decision-making.
May have felt?
why "may have felt" when the second group showed that to not be the case?
Yes basically there were no similarities in these two experiments due to the simple fact that was no interaction between two individual groups just one imaginary possibility of another.
Now if that imaginary was God or the devil would have certainly changed the outcome
or maybe but a cruel in
Yeah they kinda changed their goal post on this experiment to fit their own parameters. not very impressed. I mean they said "anything below a 7 SHOULD be safe for the opposing teams hearing" then when that one girl "thought" there might not be another team she turned it straight up to 7 and started blasting over and over. The researchers overlooked that completely as they concluded they couldn't get anyone to act cruel at all. I think blasting someone at the borderline unsafe levels over and over repeatedly is pretty cruel. Sounds like confirmation bias to me.. I'd be interested to read the full report on their results from each round.
Vsauce was given enough budget to produce high-quality psychological studies in exchange for TH-cam premium and he just decided to make it free for all of us to watch. What a legend
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
yeah but if you're going to pick a topic this polemic, you should've tested the oposite spectrum of personality at least.
This hole thing really reminds me of Nazism... you know... everyone being told that doing those unhuman acts are for a better good. And did happen... the environment did made people nuts
It's interesting for a show but it's definitely not high quality experiments. Here most people understood they had been lied to when presented with the purpose of the experiment. That totally biases their perception of expectations.
@@mauro_weee this fascinates me. I can’t remember exactly the name or person who carried out an experiment surrounding this, but basically they got some actors to dress up in scientific gear (lab coats etc.) and through the course of the experiment one participant had administered what he thought was a real lethal injection to a patient under the command of some authoritative figure with a clipboard and a lab coat. I refuse to believe all of Hitler’s or Putin’s army just so happen to be evil men who willingly carry out atrocities… If a reliable authoritative figure tells us to do something and if everyone else does, most will follow suit. There’s also been another mini experiment conducted showing that we follow the crowd: one person stepped into an elevator and the actors inside were facing the wall and not the entrance… The participant also faced the wall in the ride up in the elevator, though it was an extremely odd thing to do. All mind boggling stuff isn’t it…
There's already a selection bias, because he has people who volunteered. This filters out a lot of people: people who are busy in their lives, people who are too rich to care about meager payouts, etc. It would be difficult to get a balanced selection for an experiment this deep and complicated. We're talking about the nature of people, not the LD50 of a pill.
Everybody: this is so annoying, we should retaliate. One guy: dude closing your eyes is so weird
Yeah
Some people are into fight and some are into weed
@@RaulTorres-lj3ki hahaha i was thinking the same thing. dude seems like he's just here to pick up his next quarter
+
It probably would be weird
"Dr Zimbardo" sounds like some sketchy character from classical scooby doo and i love it
Looks the part too
Or like Archer 😂
Where do you think they got the inspiration?
They pull off his mask and all shout “PHILLIP!”
Reminds me of zoidberg
12:41
Michael: “I would love to do the experiment again.”
Jared: (almost gets up and walks away)
*_I am still not paying for TH-cam Red._*
Whole Food Plant-Based Man 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I feel you on that! They can try to entice us as much as they like!
There is no such thing as youtube red. What are you 80?
Same here!!!
@@goodman854 no need to be rude.
@0ff topic guy He's right, TH-cam Red is now TH-cam Premium
I don’t have TH-cam premium, so I absolutely cherish whenever Mindfield episodes are free to watch.
Doubt you’ll see this, Michael, but if you do: your work is fantastic!
Hank
Which other ones are free?
Scare pewdipie 1 may not of been as good, bet we all know 2 was gonna be lit
Justin go on ph, people reupload them there
you know torrents exist right
Zimbardo sounds so much like a cartoon villain
And he looks like one too
Haha super dude you’ve fallen into my lair prepare to be vaporized by my ZIMBARDINATOR
Yep
He had a tv show
Mohammed Zameer - Snidely Whiplash
Something important to note here is they're called "guards" and "prisoners", if you called them "carers" and "people who need care" you'd get a completely different result, even if everything else was the same.
Like yeah they say that at the beginning of the video. Did you skip the first half?
Except, power is very ofter abused here as well. see what happens in hospices. While there sure is a component of situational and labeling enabling, I think a much better predictor of how people would behave in these situations is indeed their character and personality traits.
Seriously? Did you miss the whole C*vid period and the Liverpool Pathway, Rivotril, Midazolam, quarantine, isolation scandals performed by "health care staff" on innocent victims?
@@bluehaunter2219yeh that is a very small minority though. Extremely small. Research.
@@Birdy10208 it kinda isn't though. There have been several "health care professionals" that abused their power to harm the people in their care. Sure, it is not the vast majority (of course, also), but it definitely is not so rare as you seem to believe. Also, a lot of hospitals and hospices protect their staff and end up firing the ones that are suspected of perpetrating violence to avoid being sued, but do not report them to the police. It is kinda messed up.
12:16 Vsauce: ..., can anonimity, power and depersonalization alone lead to evil?
Me: * points at twitter *
modern warfare lobbies
Not really.
The average person rarely exhibit violent or cruel behavior on Twitter consciously.
It is simply the hateful one being given both anonymity and a stage to act.
@candy
Thank you for the compliment, but why is it irrelevant?
@@alucard347 twitter is
poop shit
this is the internet, everyone, including you, can be anonymous
I'd be interested to see a study on how people can be cruel online, because while the participants in this experiment couldn't see each other, I felt that just being in the presence of others could have influenced their morality.
I was watching a documentary on homelessness in Scotland and I made a comment about how hard it is to get a job because the rent in a hostel or furnished flat is over £300 a week because you have to pay the ground rent, the rent for the white goods, your furniture pack and in a hostel part of your rent goes to pay the staff. I know this because I was homeless in Scotland. Some woman who has never lived in Scotland in her life called me a liar so I posted a link to a rent chart. She then posted a load of replies calling me for all sorts and really insulting me. And I mean getting really personal. She had read in a previous post that I had been gang raped by eight men while I was homeless and she was saying things like "you probably weren't raped, you probably got paid for it coz you're a dirty junkie bastard" everytime I reported it the comments would disappear for a minute then reappeared. I legit cried for days. I really think you tube should be more on the ball with this stuff
@@starrchild254 sorry about that. Hope you are fine now
@@Nai_101 I'm not letting some internet troll get me down. Bit it does prove ince again that with the advent of social media people are using the anonymity to say crueler nd crueler things to each other that they woukd never say to a persons face. I strongly believe that when someone reports a comment on you tube it should be people checking them instead of the current methid looking for certain keywords tat are banned because a lot of bullying slips through the net that way
@@starrchild254 youtube moderation isn't the greatest. AI (what they are using) doesn't understand context like a human being would. This is why those comments probably still exist. Stay strong :)
@@Nai_101 thank you. I have bigger things to worry me than a shitebag anonymous troll on youtube
I love how one guy is just closing and opening his eyes, and then glasses girl is just going *HAM* on that button
Thx
I got you to 666likes!
Never mind
Thanks lol
666 likes gone...
F in the chat for the 666 likes
the noise experiment doesn't say much because the team knew that they were going to be buzzed too by the noise, meanwhile the guards in the prison knew they would suffer no consequences due to their actions and cruelty, and i think that these people from the noise experiment would have been more cruel if they were prison guards and would have also been dehumanized sooner or later
In the second half of the experiment, the group was allowed to send noise without receiving any noise back
@@ellienyah i agree but it's not the same feeling of dominance and pleasure
I’d like to add to this that the main flaw I see in Michael’s experiment is that there is not haptic feedback for those causing the buzzing. The prisoners would react or attempt to retaliate to the guards. That in it of itself creates a sort of rivalry and anger in the guards and doing something painful back and seeing that pain be felt is a huge part of rewarding the retaliation/cruel behavior. Without the haptic feedback of seeing what you’re doing is actually causing pain/harm etc. the experiment isn’t 1:1
@@JamesCA michael’s main hypothesis is that due to the way the experiment was done, the results may have been biased or influenced by uncontrolled variables. I believe this experiment proved that
@@jackarmstrong8790 I think James is right the missing feedback was important. The guards became more cruel after the prisoners ignored and then challenged their authority. The guards felt they needed to assert their authority over the prisoners to gain control. The lack of feedback influenced theses students lack of response. Theses students likely would have used the buzzer more if the 'other group' responded with anger and contempt for what they were doing. With no feedback you have no true idea if what you are doing has any effect.
Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”
That's not meant to say that you're wrong or uneducated, I just wanted to share the knowledge because I learned about the quote's origins when I did an English project about it and I thought it was kind of interesting
@@ouisamus No, you ARE telling them they are wrong. When someone says "Lincoln said x" and you say "not from Lincoln", then that is you claiming that their statement is wrong. I do not appreciate that you denying what you are doing. It implicitly suggests saying people are wrong is somehow a worse situation than it actually is. You are attempting to undermine normal corrective behavior, YOUR OWN corrective behavior, and you must be told with no uncertainty that you are wrong and you are giving red flags leading me to suspect that you are also acting maliciously.
MeshTexture this paragraph wasn’t needed at all. You’re malicious and fucking weird.
@@meshtexture3490 TheLrd Roca said "Lincoln said" Just because Lincoln said something doesn't mean the quote came from him, it just means that he said the quote, which makes your whole paragraph pointless.
@@LuisMartinez-gu5ii If Lincoln did say it, then it can be a quote "from Lincoln" and TheLrd Roca is quoting Lincoln successfully, making Luisa M's initial comment a lie. While it is hypothetically possible for TheLrd to have the quote from Ingersoll, they explicitly stated they were quoting Lincoln. Quotes don't need to be by the originator, just the person saying the thing. Luisa M could have avoided sounding malicious if they had simply stated that Ingersoll originally said it without ever saying "this quote is actually not from Lincoln".
How intresting would it be if in the prison experiment at the end they switched roles...
Konstantinos Mparmpounis back in the 70’s and 60’s here in Arkansas when the prison system was severely screwed up, they had prisoners that were “trustees” who were turned into guards and carried shot guns in the prison. They abused their power. Look up the movie Brubaker. They had a hand crank telephone at Tucker Max that they called the Tucker Telephone. When you acted up, they would hook one wire to your testicle and the other to your big toe and cranked that handle and it would shock you. Horrifically. This actually happened, I live 50 minutes from Tucker Max.
James Haynes interesting
I think there was an experiment where they did do that
People would die lmao
The prisoners could lash out in revenge or perhaps hold back unable to make themselves do what others did to them.
So why not test also 'cruel' personalities? Really expected the second group to be a control :(
Well i guess that'd be too inevitable... Would you really expect people *_already predisposed to cruelty_* to not act on that given favourable circumstances?!
But i wonder why not test the mid-range personalities... As they even say in the video description: this is supposed to be about NORMAL people, not the best of us. Would be pretty sad to have had the best give in so easily. ^^
@@irrelevant_noob Exactly! Why not test those who are just, well, the average human? It's also expected that people with good morals will do good, as it is expected people with poor morals will do poorly
Yeah I expected that too, but this made good sense really. To get a true picture, you should repeat the experiment with different subjects, of the same personality types.
well i feel most people by default will not actively harm others for no reason other than the fact that they have the ability to do so.
people only really act in violent ways, when there is some external force that compels them to in some way or another.
@@sgx9874 actually the role of responsibility is different here. Those kids prob didnt see it as a big deal like they were given small roles. Give people big roles, their responsibilities make their personalities spawn in a way that the situation make it compelling to do so
"I would love to so the stanford prison experiment again"
-Michael, Vsauce.
Lol
He also gave himself the buzzer lol
My favorite dude was the one going “There’s no difference if you close your eyes or open them.” 👁👄👁. ➖👄➖
I can’t believe they left that in the video 😂
A true human does not see with his eyes. He sees with his clear mind and flaming heart.
that dude cracked me up🤣
He was the cutest
He's a mood.
I think one crucial element that wasn't mentioned was the idea that the guards could see how as a consequence of their actions, they could see the suffering of the prisoners.
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
Toori Baba the point of the experiment is why they do it though and if normal people will not just be dicks but be actively cruel to an extreme extent given the opportunity
This reminds me the Milgram experiment in some levels. Not the obedience aspect, but the consequences of power.
@Charged or they become False GeNiUsEs and believe the first article they read written in a no name vlog
@@Eexpers DUDE! YOU ARE RIGHT! BUSH ORGANIZED 9/11, MONSANTO IS POISONING US, AND THE EARTH IS FLAT MAN! OMG www.livescience.com/what-if-flat-earth.html
There are a few factors to consider in this specific experiment.
1) You never gave the team the chance to see the 'other team's ' reaction and response to their actions. Part of the sense of power is what the person perceives. For example in the Stanford Prison Experiment: The guards could see how their actions were taking effect over the prisoners which would have enticed more of this power behaviour. The guards would not have been aggressive if they didn't see or get the response from the prisoners. This behaviour is commonly seen in a workplace where the boss or supervisor throws their weight (Power) to get people to do their bidding. The aftermath of their power results in people being shy, timid, afraid, cautious and these are all visible to the person in power, therefore this creates the need to exercise the power more and more creating the so-called evil described in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
2) You never adjusted the volume to properly reenact human behaviour and choice. Because you always made it volume 3 out of the potential 1-12 there's no sense that the 'other team' were being spiteful or malicious. If the 'other team' were not exercising their power then why should anyone else do the same? The biggest indicator for this was team 2 where number 2 always pressed 3 instead of a higher or lower number due to the receiving sound being the same and saw no need to retaliate nor exercise any more power than need be, only creating an equilibrium.
3) Part 2 from both teams was a null and void section because of what I said in my first factor. One of the experimentee's even noted that there is no other team because no one got the sense of power towards another person due to no response. There is no such thing as power when you cannot personally gauge your dominance and influence over another. Power is perceived and not felt or measured in any other form. A few examples of that are: A nuclear bomb, if a nuclear bomb video has never shown the shockwave effect of destruction, you never saw the crater from the fireball, never saw a mass of water being moved and never heard it. YOU COULD NEVER gauge the power of a nuclear bomb. Same goes for earthquakes, I have never experienced an earthquake, therefore I can not understand the power of an earthquake. I can look at what it can do damage wise, but that is as far as my understanding goes. Again, power is perceived and without that perception, you cannot run an experiment to get people to maliciously exercise their power and rights over others.
Thank you for reading, I hope I got my points across. And thank you for the video, was interesting, despite the flaws.
I completely agree with you
I absolutely agree with all being said. To the point 3 I would also add supporting point, that the since the second team could retaliate, they had no perceived power difference. Also I would add that the second stage of the experiments is absolutely inconclusive since in both cases participants didn't think that there is other team at all .
@@elvagar You mean couldn't retaliate?
Thank you for supporting replies. You're right about inconclusive as mentioned by myself as null and void. Power is perception. No perception no power. Very basic and simple psychology yet overlooked in this potential fundemental experiment. I've never studied psychology but I have a huge passion for advanced human psychology as I analysis every person I see and meet on a day to day basis. So if VSauce want an extra head to help with psychology on people ... I'm here o/
@@anubisstargate Sorry I did not express my thoughts clearly. I meant that they could retaliate, but in relation to the first part of experiment... What I was trying to say, that your point 3) applies also to the first part of experiment. If the participants believe that the other team has the same capabilities as they do, so there is no perceived power over the other team. And to me the experiment in that case resembles more the iterated prisoners dilemma.
Thank you very much! That was exactly what I was thinking. I hope they read this and try again, but the results from this experiment don't show anything. Also, there is nothing to gain which is also why people tend not to use the buzzer, because... why would they? Now they just buzz because: "oh yeah we can buzz them, almost forgot"
I remember watching Vsauce as a kid, and now I realize this channel is the whole reason why I ended up developing such a passion for scientific research as an adult now. I feel like a kid all over again, thanks for making us curious.
"People are quick to be cruel if an authority figure suggests that doing so will serve a greater cause", see Germany 1939-45
Damn right
Well, and if standing up to the authority means you, your family, and your friends are likely to suffer dire consequences it is so much easier to just obey. And rationalise the bad deeds.
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
YoursTrulyEmma what's the context of your question? What's there to "believe?" I don't understand the question....
I don't THINK anything... it WAS a sham... the professor engineered the experiment to get the desired result.
The "guards" were told how to behave, already invalidating the notion that "power corrupts" or whatever nonsense but even the "subjects" exaggerated their responses and to quote one directly
"I was afraid of failing the class more than anything else"
So if that qualifies as a successful experiment than.... what's a bad experiment to you? I mean literally nothing about it was organic and the professor himself admitted as much so what's there to "believe" exactly?
Amethyst Girl it actually was a sham though, fucking hell the main guy who became ‘sadistic’ ‘John Wayne’ thought he was just helping with the experiment by playing a character, unless you think being given power also gives you a southern accent the way he behaved was not genuine or organic, it’s what he was told to do
12:54 Michael is interviewing himself in 15 years.
G'day mate.
Dammit you beat me to it
Top 10 Archive lol
Yes! How is this even possible.. I was confused at first hearing Michael talk but his mouth wasn't moving
That check next to your name is satisfying to see
having dark rooms like that is dangerous, mobs could spawn
hah
hahah
i have given you your 69th like, this is the highest honour one can bestow upon another.
Still happens in small rooms, my enchanting room is tiny and I get a lot of creepers
@@merrikerfle9415 and when the facility closes and everybody clears out?
As someone with autism, I've always wanted to know what these kinds of experiments would show about people that are neurodivergent. How would they act differently considering many of the common neurotypical behaviors don't apply to them
@@jellopy24bro 😭
@@VortexNowwhat did he say
yes, I would like to see that too! I know for me, and a lot of other autistic people, authority holds no weight. Further, social pressures are less extreme to us. It would be interesting to see the ramifications of these traits.
@@Sir_Rat6225 he said if it were a bunch of autistics it would be a daycare and said nobody cares
@@VortexNowThat‘s Just funny, That’s a good one
Controversial experiment: exists
Vsauce: *lets do it again*
MATT0927 56 Erin: Thats not vegan
Horatio Huskisson wow I actually understand the reference
I’ll fucking do it again
And that's great ^^
I saw a bit earlier that drama around the trolley dilemma. I know I'm late, but I couldn't find what was the truth/what really happened and disabled comments on many episodes troubled me for a while. Does anyone has answers ?
PS : I want to make sure that I do NOT doubt Michael's honesty and will to produce entertaining content ❤
@@montecrysto33 i dont really know what happened either but i loved that episode tbh
Imagine how awkward it was after the experiment and being in the same class as one of the guards.
I'm incredibly surprised there wasn't an altercation. I really don't want to portray myself as a "Billy Badass", but I know I have anger issues. If you sat someone in a room with me that made me feel fear, anxiety and humiliation for days on end, there is little to no chance I wouldn't put my hands on them.
@@Zachdidntdoit True. Those "prisoners" must have been really compassionate people to sit down and have a civil conversation with their tormentors after a whole week of that nonstop.
@@michaeld4861 I think he said it was shut down after 2 days
@@jimmymarrs1556 6 days
Basically a week of torture
How has nobody been like "MICHAEL, FROM VSAUCE??? IS THAT YOU?" yet? I can only imagine how I would react if I was in a dark room, the lights turned on, and I saw the patron saint Michael himself standing there.
I have a question Make your predictions now
Will the first manned spacecraft to mars?????
(A - Land on mars all good mission success)
(B - blow up shortly befor / after take off)
(C - blow up anytimeafter leaving earths atmosphere)
@@sdoilpaint4368 D - Land on Mars, open the hatch, and by greeted by "Hey NASA, Michael here. Welcome to Mars. Did you know that Martian winds..."
I've wondered the same thing. I guess not as many people watch Vsauce as I thought. Either that, or they ask if they've heard of Vsauce before, and then turn them away if they have, but who knows?
The Patron Saint Michael himself
My guess is they realize it's a formal situation and they don't want to mess it up and/or embarrass themselves by fangirling.
The most tragic thing about this "experiment" is that it didn't even have to happen at all since there are actual people in those situations already. Just go to any prison already in operation and record and interview actual guards and prisoners if you really want to know what it's like in them.
that would be a good case study, but given typical scientific conventions experiments are supposed to be replicated. otherwise it’s hard to determine if it’s something specific to the prison, the guards, or the community.
You don't understand the SPE at all if you think you can just go in to a regular prison and talk guards and prisoners. Under no circumstance would anyone involved in prison in any way would be able to be a subject in the experiment because they already know what it takes... What guards and/or prisoners can be like and would be predisposed to acting/responding a certain way because of their past experience. That is what is referred to in the science community as a variable. When someone says there are too many variables for something to work it means that there are too many factors involved to make the a choice. In an experiment the people doing the study need to be able to control all of the factors (variables) accept the ones they are testing.
There are *THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS * of prison interviews done asking what it's like in prison. There have been millions and millions of conversations people have had about what it's like. What new thing will talking about it again teach people?? Nothing at all.. we have preconceived notions about prison because of our experiences and knowledge. Watching another TH-cam video or Netflix docuseries isn't likely to teach us something new. Vsauce didn't want to do anything regarding prison because we all "know" how guards and prisoners act the act of those in the study knowing is a variable that cannot be controlled only one to study.. To see if we're more likely to fall in line when you have expectations of how people will act? SPE was trying to see what would happen if you just said your a guard your a prisoner be safe and they were SUPPOSED to want true outcomes of how that power (or lack power) makes people act. When you tell the guards to really keep them in line and be hard on them you're changing the study because your telling them how to act... So now the study is just... See how bad it can get when you tell them to be bad.
Whatever... I won't go on... Just know that your suggestion isn't a scientific study, it is an interview and situations that scientist didn't have control over. Studies need to be able to be reproduced the exact same way to many groups. To study and to find out *new* information.
@@pumpkinkoot865 I understand what you are saying, but the thing is that the experiment didn't prove or disprove anything except for the fact that locking people up is never a good idea. Even when everyone involved in the experiment KNEW that it was an experiment and only temporary, they still "devolved" to depravity and suffered mental issues because of it, much like those who are sent to prison for real. As I said, the experiment didn't need to happen at all, it proved nothing that wasn't already known.
Observing prisoners wasn't the point of the experiment
'people were mean to each other'
i think mean is a bit of an *UNDERSTATEMENT*
Only a bit?
my main issue with this is that, unlike the stanford prison experiment, the participants didn't get to directly see how their actions were impacting the other team
bumping this
This.
I think, partly, that was the intention. Yet it leads to a massive side effect. It's kind of comparable to the internet in a way
also, the participants are all high on moral scores, no tests for the average person
I do agree.
I'm not a person with high morals. I can act cruel ("evil") given the situation, but, for me, it's unlikely to impossible to kill (or harm permanently) a person whatever the situation is. If I can't see how bad my actions will harm the other person, I can't go playing around with a thing that's out of my control and could cause, in this case, deafness in someone else.
I think the experiment was missing an important factor. While people were given the opportunity to be cruel, they could not see anyone feel the pain. It might be more satisfying to a sadist to see someone suffer, than just to know that someone is suffering.
Donar i feel like the people who participated in this video would be less inclined to harm the other individual if they could see them.
To that point, I found it personally interesting that Michael and the other guy got a laugh out of watching them get startled and want to retaliate, which is exactly this.
I'm thinking a true Sadist gets satisfaction either way. Seeing is great, just knowing, is as great.
Yeah but this wasn't about true sadists, it was about people having a hidden sadistic side No matter their moral spectrum.
@@RennyNanaya But this very experiment SELECTED FOR MORALITY, and the rest likely to demonstrate sadism, while Zimbardo allowed a more typically self-selected group prone towards IMMORALITY that we do see in actual prisons, or the military, where all participants choose to be a participant in the murder of other individuals or societies. The complete exclusion of such personalities in this study was far more unreal than Zimbardo's! What should be studied, is how individuals in a more normal, mixed personality group behave interpersonally with clear evidence of the other group having changeable actions/volumes and, does group size/balance/gender/race/religiosity effect outcomes?
What I really want to know, is will some follow evil AGAINST their own personality if their direct study-subject colleagues are known to be acting evilly and may even goad them on??? So, do the pre-(or-post?)-liminary personality testing and then find self-talk/mantras/rules that might help any personality type resist evil.
This video with it’s interview context is just as much part of Psychology History as the Experiment it’s self, Thank you Michael!
They are missing a CRUCIAL piece!
One of the most important part is being able to see the reaction of the prisoners!
Well i thinks its easy for normal humans to understand the consequences of their actions. Dont you think that these geniuses would know what theyre doing and to consider all variables?
@@whocares8567 and yet they didnt factor that one in, and it changed the results of the experiment
This is a very important point. Those who start being cruel often are lured down that road through the reactions of others. By removing the interaction between the parties, Vsauce removed two crucial elements. First: Vsauce removed the feeling of competition. Most of the participants concluded by the end that there was no other team and thus no point in pushing the button. Second: Vsauce removed the emotional stimuli that comes through the act of domination. For those who are inclined to it, domination gives a huge dopamine rush. Both factors will seriously influence this situation.
naaaa...nope...the crucial thing is that those experiments should be done with presidents and the whole gov ..not with normsl people
@@tigern_i_f_rimeri6069 found the guy that makes everything political
"Give somebody a mask and they will show their true face."
@@nav5738 it means that people are their true selves when they're anonymous, because their anonymity frees them from consequences
deep uwu
@@kwingle why
Jasnam Mansa its just a deep thing to say, its just something that opens up some true things that you’ve never really thought about..
Not entirely true
23:18 They are so uninterested to press the button not because they scored morally high but because they dont get any feedback on how it affects the other "team". In Stanford prison experiment the guards could see, how the prisoners react and how the oppression affects them.
They DO know how it affects the other team because they are hearing the buzzer themselves. I think they would imagine the other team is feeling the same about the buzzer as they are.
that's exactly what i wanted to say... even a sadist wouldn't get anything if he/she can't see the result of his torture
Exactly the point of the Stanford Experiment in the first place. Michael's study completely misses the point lol
My first thought too. Trolls and sadists do what they do because they get a reaction. Normal people do what they do daily because they also get a reaction, but a positive one. Reactions drive us forward. Without a reaction - there's no interest, hence why the test participants caught on pretty quickly that there is no other group and got bored quickly.
Just as I thought. They were Just bored
20:30 I think one flaw with this experiment was the retaliation element.
While the noise level *is* anonymous, all the participants are aware of the fact that their opponents can make a level 12 noise in retaliation, which could cause hearing damage.
Trueee
Would have been interesting to bring in a 3rd group to try the puzzle experiment with those on the complete OPPOSITE end of the personality test.
I was waiting for that, even just the average would have been interesting
They'd all hold the 12 intensity for the duration of the experiment.
Exactly what i was thinking
What I was thinking as well
I feel like this is flaw in their method. They set out to see how situation effects the actions of a person including if a certain behaviour was expected of them but they changes both the situation the subjects were placed in but also the personality and predisposition of the subjects. I would much prefer it if they hadn't selected only one personality but rather a range of personalities to properly draw conclusion on the effects of the personality on behaviour and then compare the over all result to the Stanford Prison Experiment results. To me, that evidence would have been more convincing
That first group seemed so chill, I love when they just ended up chatting lol
Hi
@real sad egg. 💖 your avatar.
Nice duck man
1st group mad attractive
having dark rooms like that is dangerous, mobs could spawn
"Give someone a mask and they'll show you who they are"
Where is that quote from?
@@Danik2028 cat in a hat
It's a quote from Oscar Wilde
Crazily true
I think it is from The Dark Knight. It is a quote from the Joker.
The problem is that in Zambardo‘s study they were told to be harsh, that it was even necessary. It makes it impossible to know what impact it had or didn’t have. Zambardo‘s study was more like a repeat of Stanley Milgram‘s experiments.
just a thought, he should have ran the test with grps of different personalities, like grp1 is compassionate, group 2 is in the middle, etc, so we can properly test the hypothesis.
Personality tests have their own controversies, according to the David Myers AP psych textbook the current categories are known as the big 5, Openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, neurotocism and conciencousness, and if you were trying to simulate a prison you would want random selection anyway
Yeah, after the first group was done, I was expecting to see people who scored "bad" on their test.
@@somenerd9365 - Meyers-Briggs has its own suite of faults, the one they used here isn't that. That said though, this test wasn't to simulate a prison, it was check the stated results of that experiment, that the situation allowing for cruelty would inherently drive people into being so.
They definitely should have tried with other profiles of people though, this experiment still had no "control" room of people in the middle, nor a group of predetermined assholes easily prompted to be assholes like the study presumed.
Limited budget, time constraints and a prevailing sense of being “good” probably played a part in their experiment being so....limited, they were too scared to push their volunteers and their experiment which lead to the limited results they got.
I think this experiment tries to create a narrative that morally compassionate people are compliant to stay in line and hence are less prone to violence or evil things.
This experiment doesn't do well to distance itself from interpreting this fact indifferently enough, almost prescribing it as a good thing.
While it is great that the guys didn't do violent and evil things from our moral compass perspective, it isn't necessarily a positive thing. There are cases in history and life where hard decisions are necessary to be made in a timely fashion, decisions that are morally ambiguous at best, at worst are cruel and evil.
Contrary to this, there are situations where a bundle of compassionate people's inability to make hard decisions and retaliate had resulted in disasters as bad if not worse than decisions of cruel sociopaths.
I think psychology should move past the violence or cruelty perspective of human nature, but rather review those benevolent or violent events from evolutionary and societal perspectives.
Hey have you herd of the “monster experiment”. In that they took kids with lysps and kids without one some books to read and insulted the normal kids and complemented the kids with lysps. The kids with lysps got better but the normal kids got lysps so bad they got compensation for it and can’t speak correctly to this day.
yeah I've heard of stuff like that with eye color too, pretty neat
Ah, actually, I don’t think it went that way. The group was divided regardless of whether or not they had a speech impediment (normals AND stutters). What ended up happening was that praise vs belittling didn’t do that much in preventing or causing stuttering. What did happen was that the kids that were praised became more confident when they spoke, and kids who weren’t more than likely had permanent self esteem issues and became withdrawn. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
@@painbowx7986 interesting, I'll love to watch a vsauce episode about that .
@painbowX No no no
Both of those theories are right the people with lysps got better and the ones without got worse and got self esteem issues
This kind of reminds me how Hugh Laurie really did start to develop a lingering physical problem with his right leg from how often he had to fake his limp for House.
Would've been great if after turning the light on again you bursted into the room yelling "HEY VSAUCE MICHAEL HERE"
LOOOL
Or maybe plant a buzzer that screams "HEY VSAUCE MICHAEL HERE"
Or maybe a participant yelling, "HEY MICHAEL VSAUCE HERE"
"HEY, MICHAEL V. SAUCE HERE"
How did no one recognise him?
I think an important part of the original prison experiment was the prisoner/guard roles...maybe people have preconceptions about prisons but that doesnt mean they have to be cruel guards. Now if they were indeed instructed or led to believe being cruel was required or expected that definitely skews the results.
But it would be interesting to repeat the experiment with average personalities and no instruction for how to act other than the basic expectations of a prison.
I also think an important aspect of this dynamic, as they found, was personality, and its well known that people who want to be prison guards in real life tend to have authoritarian, and even abusive or violent personalities...
They WERE instructed to be though and cruel they say it in the video.
Michael's experiment really should've included a group predisposed to sadism. I bet they would've popped that dial up to 12 almost immediately.
Not really because they don't get to see how it affects the other team, thus it wouldn't be satisfying. (source: I'm a sadist-lite).
@@peacefuldawn6823 I'm not talking about that. They tested two groups both made up of "good" people and because of that, little "evil" was found. They should have also tested "bad" people to see how they would react in the same situation.
Well we already saw that in the original experiment
@@loganbradford2343 Not really if they were told to act that way and reprimanded if they weren't being "tough" enough. If that is true it immediately invalidates the experiment. The fact is there that Zimbardo only stopped the experiment after a girl he liked insisted he stop this clearly out of control study that was getting more inhumane by the day but he didn't fucking care. He clearly only cared about how cruel he could get the "guards" to act, and not at all concerned about the well being of the "inmates". Who is the real sadist in this situation?
EDIT: because I'm not entirely sober and typing meaningful sentences is a little tough atm
I doubt it, I feel like explicitly telling them that anything above 7 can cause damage lowered their possible anonymity and increased their moral responsibilities pretty much immediately.
I think there is a crucial difference between these two experiments.
All participants of Michael's experiment were told what's the range of a safe disturbance, so they knew when they'd harm someone.
The Stanford participants didn't know how far they could go and didnt have a scale of what's harmful and what's "safe".
Perhaps, but even so, wouldn't an individual have a predisposition of what's "harmul" in their mind. Regardless, in either case...it rests on those in power to do it. By giving them the "safe dial", it reveals a conscious choice on non-sadist individuals to go beyond that since they're under the impression there's another team.
Another thing is that in Michael's experiment, they couldn't see the "other team", whereas in the Standford Experiment the guards could see the prisoners. Not being able to see or hear the reaction of the people you're punishing or distracting offers no reward, hell it was straight up said in Michael's experiment that the people in it had already figured out there was no other team. It was too obvious an experiment that offered no reward, no gratification. Honestly they just wasted those people's times.
I think there are more crucial differences, in the prison experiment the prisoners were told that they have to stay in for a while and not just 2 or 3 hours. You can be more resistant to pressure for 2 or 3 hours, knowing that you are in a rather safe place as well, even though the room was pitch-black, than having to be closed for several days. We are used to this as we stay in school basically closed in our class rooms and we do the same when we are at work. We have stuff to do which distracts us from actually being closed in a room and we also know we can just leave if were really want to. The captivity element was hardly emphasised in this experiment which does play a role. You only have to deal with the other team for a very limited time and the worst thing they can do to you is to send level 12 buzzes, hardly comes any close to what the guards did in the prison experiment.
Second is that the group was given a task to carry out as a team, in the prison experiment the prisoners were put together and that was it. No distraction to keep their minds occupied and the other team was also busy solving their puzzle. In the prison experiment the guards had to watch over the prisoners, were also able to call them names and insult them without the prisoners being able to fight back much, they had little power. Besides this, the guards were able to put the prisoners do things. In this experiment both teams had the same ability to distress the other team, equal footing and in the 2nd part of the experiment the other team's buzzer was disabled without them knowing. It makes your team "have more power" but you cannot see the reaction of the other team when they realise that their buzzer does not work, they might be pressing it like mad and think they are doing something when in fact it does nothing.
Third, the entire punishment is too abstract to stimulate any kind of behaviour, sadistic or otherwise. "I press a button and a loud noise goes somewhere and I don't see anything that happens to the other team. No reward, maybe the button does not even work and I keep pressing it for nothing, it makes me feel like a fool, maybe I should stop doing that". Seeing the reaction of the other person is essential to stimulating any sort of reaction from the one distressing the other person. This happened as well in the prison experiment, one of the guards practically left the shift because he didn't like what the other guards were doing while the ones that stayed pushed the limits. This also brings back the task they had to do, in this experiment they had to solve a puzzle while in the prison experiment the guards had to watch the prisoners and discourage them from being disobedient which encourages different behaviours towards other humans. It's not a big puzzle, maybe they should have watched the reaction on the puzzle pieces when they were being buzzed, were the participants taking it out on the puzzle? If so, would they take it out on someone else if someone else was their task? This couples the dehumanisation of the prisoners in the eyes of the guards as these prisoners might be seen as complex objects that must do what they are told rather than human beings which makes it easier to take out your anger on.
From an observational stand point, the 1st group in the 2nd part hardly pressed the buzzer. This can be interpreted as retaliation to what they were told to do by an authority figure, the ones doing the experiment and paying them.
This hardly matches the prison experiment context, for some people it takes more time to let their dark side loose than for others. Maybe some people are very strong willed and will never give in to their sadistic thoughts, who knows. On the other hand, the team was both a guard and a prisoner in this experiment. Only in the 2nd part which only took 10 minutes they were given more power by not being able to be buzzed. At that point most of them were probably bored and were waiting to go home hence they started talking to pass the time. Not to mention that they already figured out that there was no other team.
@@Andrei15193 isn't it still interesting that despite figuring out there was no other team, nobody chanced it and tried going to an unsafe level? Nobody wanted to risk significantly hurting others. I think that's the most interesting part
@@Andrei15193 Totally agree btw. There were significant differences between the experiments (prison and this episode). Also between parts 1 and 2 of this experiment.
I think they should have told the subjects (ST) in part 1 the other team(OT) couldn't go past a level 3.
Maybe even tell ST the OT was told that ST could go as high as level 12 (and OT was or wasn't told they were maxed out at level 3).
Just wasn't enough power different in pt 1 and they had fear of retaliation for abuse of power.
I think Michael himself could be considered as a part of the experiment, as he blasted the subjects repeatedly to get expected responses from them.
He had the power, authority and even a sense of greater purpose, since the experiment was for the greater good.
Jwalin Bhatt oooh, didn’t think of that
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
To be fair, he never went higher than a 3 because he never wanted to hurt them, just annoy them.
yeah lol
Holy shit...
Im not a psychologist or anything, but I think that pressure, personality and background plays a major role. The experiement has great concepts in which if you take someone who takes their role very seriously they would put so much dedication in it. But if you take someone whos less invested or being idle into things you would get average or more below average results.
edit
I think the psych test you put to filter the participants was unnescessary to have a more wider result. Thats like picking day care employees to be prison guards in that matter. These experiments would be a lot better if Dr Zimbardo tests extremely hardened excons to be guards or day care employees or caregivers.
Why the filter was unnecessary they literally explain in the video why they made the filter. "If you put nice people in this situation many of them will stay as nice people. Some of the people of the original experiment were violent because they already were violet prior to the experiment. After all not a lot of calm people will see an ad about a prison experiment and will say " I'm gonna try that"
Can we talk about how hard that puzzle has to be when you can't see anything.
They wanted that Potion of Night Vision
Probably not that hard. Seperate the pieces. Find a hole and try and rotate them one by one till one fits.
This is all I could think about!!
And the difficulty must be increased tenfold by how weirdly shaped the pieces are
i guess it was important so that it ultimately makes the participants frustrated by being unable to solve it and it would directly affect them pressing the button out of frustration.
All you have to do for this revised prison experiment is look at 99% of forums or TH-cam video comments. You have anonymity as well as depersonalization.
Good point! This is demonstrably true!
Except that you don't know how many people choose not to engage. I suspect that's a lot.
Issue of that there is no example of physical damage you are causing with a comment, so you feel less regrets
@@mle9852 Demonstrated by who?
From my own experience I`d say about 5% of vids have such a comment but so far they have been the minority.
@@domomoregato psychological and emotional damage is equally as important as physical damage.
Additionally, words can cause physical damage in roundabout ways.
A recent example, albeit not an extreme example by any means : Tati makes a TH-cam video about James. It's just words. James loses 3 mil subscribers. Subscribers = money. So James was harmed in a tangible and physical way in the loss of money.
Another more real example is using words to perpetuate hate and discrimination. Talking hatefully about certain groups of people can (and does) incite other people to act violently against them because it backs them up and validates their beliefs. Thus another example of physical harm from just words.
this would be insanely popular on Netflix.
True
The movie isn't on there anymore?
I *wish* it was on Netflix. I wouldn't have to pay extra money, plus, they would include subtitles for my native language
So true
@@brodiemedders9388 I just checked. The movie is still on Netflix.
A better way to do it would be to mix the personalities and see if a aggressive person can convince the others to be aggressive and so on.
Zimbardo doesn’t seem to want to admit that his experiment was flawed.
In what way?
ClapTrap ah I see
@@Bramble20322 What makes it flawed?
@@darrenblair9316 wholeass 34 minutes on how his experiment was flawed, and you *still* ask that question? Really?
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
'Everybody hates power until you offer them some' - The Constant
@Алексей Прокопенко They wouldn’t be wise if they would do that, intelligent doesn’t matter because abusing power isn’t stupid, just morally wrong.
People dont hate _power_ necessarily, they just hate how others use it.
It is the enemy from the game hitman
*Arthur Edwards
@Алексей Прокопенко the point is that everyone is by nature egoistic and i doubt you wouldnt also use power if the chance presented itselfand you wouldnt be punished for using it in whatever way you desire. A point you mentioned is retaliation(making it worse for everyone) which is a valid point but if one were truly anonymous i belive anyone would use the power to their own benefit.
i wished that they had a group that are low on morality scale, and a group with a mix of high and low morality. Just so that it is a more balanced experiment to determine if personality does influence cruelty. It'll also be interesting to find out if in a mixed group the high morality will be influenced by the low morality ones.
I've heard a study that dictates low morality people can influence others pretty easily into following suit. They did a sociology study I heard once where a small community was thriving together. Leaving doors unlocked etc. But they introduced one sociopath or kleptomaniac (person that is addicted to stealing) and the entire community quickly got paranoid, locked doors, etc.
@@user-zx4vj6ub8r well it's common sense that the bad people will influence people more then good
You put a dirty towel and a clean towel together the clean towel doesn won't make the dirty towel any cleaner
Instead the dirty towel makes everything it touches tainted
It's like the old saying a bad apple will ruin the whole barrel
I was thinking the same thing I feel it was certainly weighted because of that
I imagine a couple possible problems might emerge from posting a video of "5 predetermined nice people and 1 predetermined psychopath", from the validity of multiple choice personality tests to justice-seeking internet mobs.
Would I watch it? Absolutely. Could it be done ethically on Mind Field? Prob not so much
What about a woman prison?
Does the females got evil as easy as man?
I so appreciate the honesty and reflection of the people involved in the experiment!
I feel that in your experiment there was no way for the participants to take pleasure in the exercise of their power. The Stanford Prison experiment allowed the guards to take pleasure in their actions, which could easily have motivated them to become increasingly sadistic as time went on.
I think this was also missing a sense of moral superiority that could have played a significant role in the sadistic behavior.
Thats kind of right, but I think not every one takes pleasure out of hurting otherd
Yeah I think the point is to figure out if this is a universal characteristic that everyone can exhibit under the right circumstances or if personality plays a role. I agree with you that not everyone is capable of sadistic behavior under most circumstances but I don't think Michael really showed this result in the video. I think a great example of regular people being capable of becoming horrible people were the Nazis leading up to and during WWII. If you are primed to believe that you are morally superior to another group then you can justify bad behavior much more easily because it can be rationalized as justice or something similar. I think this behavior is also present in cults and most religions of the past.
@@mikerd1994 indeed! That's such a complex and fascinating thing, I would love 1 hole season about it ^^
As I see it, the personality is shaped by your live and experience [for the (very least) most part] so at an experimental level / simplified level, I think if you raise someone into some beleave and the environment doesn't shape him any other way, he is likely to do even a horrible thing without any haditation or even "moral-issues" do to the reason that there is nothing wrong with it in the first place for him. It's not the best way explained but I hope you can tell what I am trying to say.
@@mikerd1994
And law enforcement, even when specific personnel are corrupt.
Boredom is a big variable that shouldn't be ignored.
Boredom - devils playground!
yea that's just lack of discipline. That's an individual problem, not a societal (though not many people have self control these days, they are raised not to)
My favorite part was the guy that saw no difference between closing and opening his eyes
Definitely pot
The Stanford experiment was like a micro sample of what the naxys did to Germany after ‘33. The modern study used the best of a personality scale while Stanford used moderate to borderline. I like learning about this topic and psych in general including pharmaceutically. Nice video
what if when he came in and someone heard him and just said “is that vsauce?”
This is my third episode of Mine Field I've seen and I've been seriously wondering "isn't one of the participants bound to recognize him at some point? Wouldn't that completely mess up the results of the study depending on when Michael showed himself?
@@ArcanineEspeon I think he only shows at the end of the experment
@@therewill1584 in some of the 'game shows' performed in mainly the first season, he is the host.
@@ArcanineEspeon they could get more volunteers, I'm sure it happened at least once over the 3 seasons
@@secnytsecnyt2981 I assume they just show the people who don’t know that Michael stevens = vsauce
2 factors might have caused an error in this experiment:
1) the buzz coming from the researchers was at a constant level, never increasing to provoke a higher buzz retaliation. This could explain why it never got above the safe level of 7.
2) the people in the experiment didn't really see the consequence of their buzzing. If they saw what effects the buzz was having on the other team, they might have started to enjoy it and do it more intensely.
I would say 3 things, Firstly some sort of Visual Indicator of what the “other side” was up to.
Secondly they Could have had a sort of Timer counting down to Increase anxiety.
But also thirdly as this Was a way to parallel the Stanford experiment, he should have Provided motivation as the Old man who Was a Guard stayed that they were payed Quite well at that particular time for that Task.
I’d Wager that If nothing else they had been informed that there are two teams, and whichever team finished the Puzzle first would split the Money and the other team would Get nothing, they would Break their fingers From mashing that Button.
@@Blackdog9871 the thing was, the new experiment aimed to leave extrinsic motivation out in order to see whether people have the innate tendency to commit violence on their own.
Or they might feel bad seeing how it hurts the other team and stop buzzing altogether.
I completely agree. The participants didn’t have any human reaction face to face which is a big part of how people react with to each other.
I completely agree on the second point. The team didn't see a personal reaction from using the buzzer and so if they do have an inherent sadistic characteristic, it couldn't be realized as they couldn't see the pain it was causing the other team.
This experiment would have been more valid if you did different types of groups. One with all compassionate, one with mid range, and one with less compassionate, and one with a mix of all. That would tell you how the different personalities would react facing a conflict between the different personalities and which personality type might end up influencing the others.
Ha! 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
That was way too watered down and short. Compassionate people in a controlled and recorded environment, for a TH-cam show, how the hell are they expecting people to be real into this?
and to avoid the groups to think there is no other group, they can show the other group probably in siluet at the other room
Well to be fair it wasn’t a selection process. It was a college course so students chose the go there and from there it was still a random selection to picked guard or prisoner. On a mental perspective I think that a pure form of a diverse unit.
Wrong @@enlcmusic2158, it wasn't a course, it was a research experiment, and it wasn't random at all. Volunteers were chosen after assessments of psychological stability, and then assigned to being prisoners or prison guards. There have been many studies on the Standford fiasco, that have proven that the researchers intentionally sought out specific types of individuals for the experiment, and even formulated the ad seeking volunteers to attract the specific type of people they were looking for.
The researchers also interfered with the experiment by giving the 'guards' specific instructions on what to do and how to act.
I majored in Psych in college and to this day I'm astounded that not a single one of my professors spoke about the illegitimacy and red flags in this experiment.
I took AP Psych in High School and General Psychology in College and both my HS teacher and Gen Psych professor spoke about the criticisms of the experiment. Though I took both more recently, so depending on when you went to University, it might have changed.
@taiwandxt6493 I graduated college in 2019, I'm not that old 🤣
But yeah the experiments problems have been well documented for years now and critics have come out but I don't know what it was about my professors just didn't say anything about it so I had to find it out on my own.
@@lucastoole1 Perhaps you missed such curriculum changes just by a hair. 2019 is when attitudes began to change regarding the experiment widespread outside of small contrarian circles.
@taiwandxt6493 that might be it then
8:52 In case you are wondering $15 a day in 1971 is $93 a day in 2018.
Figured
MVP
i get more then that and im on minimum wage and i only work 10 hours a day fuck getting that much and working 24 hours
@Tony Paphonies if you're a fairly well off college student it's fine
The environment creates a personality as personality defines an environment.
And the cycle continues.
Life is in cycle.
Cycle is in life.
Missed opportunity for a control group and an 'evil' personality group. You only tested 'nice' people.
SpaceNavy90 ya mean pushovers
Whats there to learn from a group of 'bad' people doing 'bad' things? the idea of the experiment is to see if good people can go bad when given the power to. Of course the unethical minds will be unethical, theres nothing to learn from that. making GOOD people do BAD things is where the interest lies
the experiment is to find out if extreme conditions bring out the evil in people so there's no point testing people who are "evil" already
Foo Teik I wish they used actual extreme conditions
That was intentional. If power and all that will turn _anyone_ evil, it’ll turn nice people, too, and that was what this was testing
After watching, I have to conclude that there are only two kinds of people.
People 1: fvck em imma retaliate
People 2: closing your eyes is so weirdd
People 3: Poke it with a stick.
26:06
😂😂😂😂
Hahaha 😅
Would have liked the sound experiment with mixed personalities and aggressive personalities
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:04 *🏢 The Stanford Prison Experiment Overview*
- Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 at Stanford University.
- Led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the experiment involved 24 volunteers, 12 guards, and 12 prisoners.
- Participants were subjected to simulated prison conditions, leading to controversial findings regarding the influence of environment on behavior.
03:10 *📰 Controversies and Personal Accounts*
- Journalist Ben Blum discusses his personal connection to the experiment and revelations that contradict the official narrative.
- Contradictory accounts from participants challenge the traditional interpretation of the experiment's results.
- Examining the role of personal responsibility versus situational influence on behavior.
06:18 *🔍 Critique and Analysis*
- Criticism of the experiment's methodology, including demand characteristics and explicit instructions to behave oppressively.
- Reevaluation of the experiment's conclusions and the need for more nuanced interpretation.
- Discussion on the implications of the experiment's flaws for understanding human behavior.
08:18 *👥 Interview with a Former Guard*
- Interview with Dave Eshelman, a participant in the Stanford Prison Experiment, provides insights into his experience.
- Eshelman's perspective challenges the notion of inherent aggression and highlights the influence of situational factors.
- Exploration of personal responsibility and the role of authority in influencing behavior.
12:25 *🛠️ Proposal for a New Experiment*
- Proposal to design a new experiment to test the influence of anonymity, power, and depersonalization on behavior.
- Discussion with psychologist Dr. Jared Bartels on potential methodologies and considerations for ethical experimentation.
- Emphasis on the importance of understanding situational factors in shaping human behavior.
15:23 *🔍 Designing the New Experiment*
- Planning process for a new experiment to isolate the core elements of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
- Consideration of anonymity, depersonalization, and power dynamics in creating experimental conditions.
- Introduction of controlled variables to test the influence of situational factors on behavior.
18:55 *🧠 Conducting the New Experiment*
- Implementation of the new experiment, including the use of darkness, anonymity, and power dynamics.
- Evaluation of participant behavior in response to the experimental conditions.
- Examination of moral characteristics and predispositions in influencing behavior.
21:57 *📊 Analysis of Participant Behavior*
- Analysis of participant responses to the experimental conditions, including levels of aggression and cooperation.
- Comparison of findings with the traditional narrative of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
- Implications for understanding the role of situational factors in shaping behavior.
24:04 *🧠 Debriefing and Conclusion*
- Debriefing participants on the true nature of the experiment and its objectives.
- Reflection on participant reactions and implications for understanding human behavior.
- Conclusion and potential avenues for further research.
25:27 *🔊 Participant reactions to buzzing noises*
- Participants responded differently to the buzzing noises, with some retaliating.
- The group seemed more willing to retaliate when provoked.
- Despite retaliation, the situational factors did not induce sadistic behavior.
28:10 *🎚️ Effect of assigned task on behavior*
- Participants' behavior changed significantly when told that pressing the button was their only task.
- Similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, participants adhered to assigned roles.
- The demand characteristics influenced participants' behavior significantly.
29:18 *💡 Insight from participants' responses*
- Participants demonstrated awareness of ethical boundaries despite situational pressures.
- Personality traits influenced participants' reactions more than situational factors.
- Results suggest that personality dominates over situational influences in certain contexts.
Made with HARPA AI
11:00
Guard: "I cannot say that I did not enjoy what I was doing"
Michael: 👀👄👀
Why does he have four eyes 😂
👀
👄
I can kinda see how if you don’t believe you are actively harming someone you might enjoy something like playing the part of the guards.
He genuinely disgusts me
@@avadae9126 glasses
12:45 micheal steven is so great, they made a micheal stevens 2.
Hey VSauce, clone here.
Don't they already have Vsauce2?
And yet you can't even write his name...
Michael and Dark Michael
It's him in 15 years
Imagine buzzing it to 12 and the other team goes silent for the rest of the experiment
💀💀💀💀
You just described the Milgram experiment.
@@sarahgordis Milgram didnt include actual shocks. Just fake shocks.
@@jermu8706 I know, my point is if the team they were testing with in this experiment were to turn it to twelve and the "other team" (who did not exist and therefore there'd be no actual sound) didn't respond, it'd be very similar to the Milgram experiment.
lmfaooooooooooo
i tip my hat to dave eshelman for acknowledging and learning from his actions in the experiment
especially coming to be interviewed on the matter
not a lot of men have the courage to face themselves to become a better man and also share their growths so publicly
When Michael introduced himself how did no one immediately say "HEYYY VSAUCE, MICHAEL THERE"
He normally doesn't do that in the premium series.
@@huntersmoone9123 no he meant the people in the experiment, as in they should have known who he was.
Ahh. I see. In that case, I have no idea.
haine cuz he says michael here*
There is one person which did recognize him, you can see it in the extra of how to get somone to convict himself of a crime he didn't do
even a sadist wouldn't really want to push the button all that much, because what they enjoy is being able to see the other person in pain. Also I am sure it is because TH-cam and how they budget, but they need more groups, for example have a group for high, medium, and low morality.
Yeah, I expected the first group to be more of a control, but either way this doesn't prove anything about people's willingness to be cruel to others. Because they weren't being cruel to others and they knew (or at the least assumed) they didn't actually effect anyone so the entire premise fails. I expected a much different episode for this.
What about a sadist with vivid imagination ?
I agree, and I hope mind field or another group can do another larger more diverse group of personalities.
dawn spier
They picked the nicest people ( anyone noticed how not nice all the ladies were btw) in purpose. Did you miss that ?
This wasn’t meant to be a full experiment. This is meant to push for further studies into the topic. Using what they had, I still consider the episode to have some things of interest.
It would’ve been neat to see the roles reversed after a week.
Would be interesting to see if Prisoners who were targeted and harassed would do the same when they have the same power like the harassers
Yes!!!!! That, to me, would be the true experiment. Would people who have been dehumanized and abused overcome the human desire for retribution or would they actively retaliate? Human nature is what it is. I have my own hypothesis, and it’s likely unethical to test, but it would certainly be interesting.
That would tell people who has good morality and who doesn’t. But clearly this experiment was flawed.
If it did happen, they would probably be even more brutal than the previous guards, because it's human nature to give revenge.
@@CommanderCodey That would simply determine if humans like the sweet taste of revenge or not.
@@RGC_animation Revenge aint that sweet. Planning it though? Like the king of desserts.
VSauce: tries to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment
Also VSauce: accidentally replicates the breakfast club.
Anonymity, power, and depersonalization...
Kinda sounds like what can be experienced over the internet..
I’m so powerful I can comment lololilolololololololololilolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololold olilolol gyiityusoqonsncjjjehhekq
@@itchyandscratchy7350 yeeahhh no. I'm not specifically talking about youtube, I'm commenting on social media in general. I think you and most others would agree that social media has a way of bringing out the worst in people. It may seem like a small thing to bring up but it can have a much greater affect than you might realize. Many people spend a large majority of their day on social networking sites and when you do a lot of anything every day it will begin to rub off on you.
Very well.
jacker willy it’s kinda tricky to have power and anonymity on the internet tho
@@itchyandscratchy7350 banned for racism
when you realize that $15 in 1971 is like $95 today
Oh shiiid
Yeah he was making that for the entire day though
Conner Broeker that’s still $12/hr working 8 hour shifts.
But you're not working 8 hour shifts though
And he said "wasn't bad" like wtf bro
Michael : *picks kind people*
People : *being kind*
Michael :
* Surprised Pikachu *
such a stupid experiment really
If you didn't understand the experiment, it doesn't mean it's stupid. But I would agree that they should've also picked a group who scored middle in morals.
I think that they were contrasting Zimbardo's assertion that anyone would turn evil under the right circumstances. But I agree with you,, and I would have liked to have seen a mid-range group, as well.
@@chiellazona5624 yeah i agree ..also the prison guard was 18-21 years of age. No wonder this experiment get criticism
Sanaasna the second team wasn’t so kind lol
23:33 Would have loved to see how they would act if placed individually each in a room .. will being bored made them go to the extreme?
Also, if everytime they buzzed, while placed in their individual rooms, they got the same sound they giving the other team, would they still buzz ?
Also, if after their friendly conversation, they were told, while still being individually placed in a room, that they will be buzzing their team mates cause they are now rivals solving a minature puzzle, would they still buzz ?
who the heck doesn't recognise vsauce when they do these experiments and he walks in
those people who doesnt watch youtube
People over the age of 20
I'd say people over 30, I'm in my 20s and everyone I know recognizes Michael
@@spencergallucci5309 Hey, Michael here. I'm 5 years past that, and recognize ez but I think you're right. People in their 20s and probably teens recognize him faster, in no small part due to memes.
CringeGuy That or they watch the plenty of garbage that is on TH-cam.
26:15 I love how this dude can do anything and he's high out of his mind thinking about how there's no difference between closing his eyes and opening them
26:37 big bum
He's a chad
So basically the Standford Prison Experiment was the first reality tv show.
exactly lmaooo
Big brother stole their idea
Yeah it just wasn't as fake and gay as mind field
@@TurkishRepublicanX stop.
@@patrikfrroku7215 fuck yourself
Anyone here in 2024? ah.. probably only me
I'm here definitely still intrigued
Me too
Me- rip zimbardo
Here
Yes. These people must have not ever heard of 60 Days In.
I see a few problems with this experiment which I've seen some others mention too. I'll try to compress them into a brief list...
1. The first experiment prompts the possibility that SEEING the effect of your actions may cause a sadistic satisfaction, all these people could get as a response was retaliation. Thus no such thing as greeting that feeling of seeing the person you "harmed".
2. In the first experiment, there where no difference in the power and abuse between the groups. Obviously I wouldn't press the button over 7 against the other group since they'd propably just do it back to me. There were no authority but rather you gave a group a bat and told them the other group also has a bat. Attacking would obviously be a bad idea.
3. Specifically picking nice people is bound to give a more mild result. Probably a more varied test-range and seeing how personality really influenced the action.
Something I'd really like to see is if you pick three "BAD" people and one "GOOD" person. Would the GOOD person alter themselves to fit into the BAD group because they'd see it as their role? Either way a really interesting concept to discuss.
Exactly what I thought
yeah, there was a lot wrong with this experiment...
About your second point... you’re kind of backing up their idea that with a power balance, people are more benevolent and the two groups reacted differently when given a power advantage showing that the reaction of power is kind of case dependent on the individual of the experiment
valrossenOliver how would you pick 3 bad and 3 good people
How would we define wether the individuals are “bad” or “good”?
@@keegan6298 Too be fair, no clue. But judging from how they perceived themselves picking GOOD people. Let them do the opposite in their search so we can see if the test changed and how.
I admire the honesty Dave Eschilman had, he admitted that he indeed was satisfied with being harsh and that he got off from the state of power that he owned over the defence less prisoners in the study. Interesting man.
Lil'Pie he’s probably into bdsm
He's a sociopath and regrets nothing
@@Mr.Isquierdo you can't dilute something as complex as that experiment into a single concept that fits into your comfortable worldview.
he might be a sociopath, but he is also human like the rest of us, meaning we should study it and try to learn from it. his honesty is an important role in the process imo
@@bryanjk -
- Yeah I fucking love to torture people
- well... your honesty is important :) keep up the good work
@@Mr.Isquierdo thats what i call being in denial that humans can be scum
Failed experiment. There was a very important element missing: validation. They didn't see the other team suffer.
Even worse is that they know someone can retaliate. In American war prisons across the world the prisoners can't retaliate.
@@ghosty0612 The retaliation was supposed to be that factor of being challenged. As seen in the video, they did pinpoint the "day 2" peak of the original experiment to "prisoners" acting up (it was probably more so due to a day 1 debrief, given that they had recordings of someone telling the "guards" they weren't tough enough).
ghosty06 that’s why they had two phases. First phase was to test how they would react knowing the other team can retaliate if they are abusive with it. Phase 2 they don’t have that fear of retaliation and combined with the already present anonymity they could be as sadistic with the buzzer as they wanted to. For the most part they were not.
Came here to comment exactly what you have said. If you don't have the feedback from you actions through the suffering of your "opponent" the incentive to keep going is minimal. It's like a very well known internet sentence: don't feed the trolls. If you don't feed them they most of the time just go away to bother other people that they can actually piss off. I guess you made the most valid point of this whole experiment.
ABSOLUTELY!!! I think this experiment cant even be used to prove something, it's pretty incorrect
Michael is like a grandkid, who is trying to be like his grandpa, and no, i really love Michael and vsause, but of course participants understood they're in experiment
this was super interesting!! i'd love to see a follow-up study where more interpersonal attributes are applied to the participants. in the stanford prison experiment, the interactions between guards & prisoners could have spurred animosity in a way the puzzle experiment lacks. for example, if one "person" on the nonexistent other team is being antagonistic/annoying, it might spur the participants to seek justice or vengeance on the presumed other party. this could be achieved by assigning each participant a different pitch to know if they're being targeted, then with a light that blinks whenever the "other" team targets them. this could simulate confrontation in a way the current experiment lacks while also ensuring the participants have the option to choose not retaliate. either way, loved the introspection!
11:02
“The guard”: I cannot say that I didn’t enjoy what I was doing
Michael: 👁👄👁
guard: "y'know maybe y'know you kinda get off on that a little bit?"
me: 👁 👄 👁
What an asshole
@@captainjackpugh6050 If that was you, you'd definitely do the same.
@@ethanhart7032 No I wouldn’t actually. I care about people.
@@captainjackpugh6050 Yes but under the circumstances you have no fucking idea buddy. In fact, you just saying that is so naïve
why did they select two groups of high conscientious people instead of one high, one average and one low?
It is a valid question tho
A coin flip i think. It was in the movie. A coin flip decided wheather they were going to be guards or prisoners.
Ya they biased the experiment. Selection should always be random
Michael wanted to test if super good people could turn super evil.
@Crystal KayNine obviously control is needed to compare to the treatment. But experiment will be highly biased if we only conduct with the control.
I agree with Zimbardo, in intentionally choosing only participants with HIGH morality traits, you changed the very possibility of the outcome... PLUS, another thing I noticed was that you ONLY gave them a level 3 buzz, and if all they hear is the exact same level, then either they believe that the other team isn't going to raise it, no matter what, OR that something isn't right... IF you would've had a variety of levels played at them, then they probably would've increased the intensity in a potential loop, as with the girl in the second group
Not only that, but my big criticism is that the puzzle was in no way solvable, and therefore the participants would not be inclined to distract another team especially if there is no reward for finishing first
Additionally when they press the buzz they should hear it from the other room in the corresponding level but accordingly reduced by going through the wall. In this way they know the buzz is working and get a feedback loop and are not that questioning that no other room and no other team exists.
What I also think is that there is a difference between a body involved experiment like the prison where you see each other and have physical contact
There's also the fact that they couldn't see their actions having an effect on the other team. There could have been some pre-recorded video of an "other team" that showed them reacting to the distractions (like the Trolley Problem experiment). That also would've allowed for a sense of competition if they saw this other team completing some of the puzzle (although any screen would allow some light for them to see, if the screen was dim enough, it shouldn't be a problem).
Doesn't that prove the point of the experiment, essentially demonstrating that the situation has less of an effect than personality? You could also say that the participants signing up for an experiment detailing "prison life" might have higher levels of aggression. The high morality crew had mostly never signed up for these experiments, so they might not sign up for one like that.
Indeed, this show completely ignored self-selection, that is, people with high empathy tend to not pursue careers as prison guards..
Or become soldiers, for that matter.
And you definitely don't want them as soldiers or prison guards, because "the enemy" or "the prisoners" aren't innocent individuals in most cases.
Found this after looking for a clip of the actual experiment and am now fascinated to know more! Humans are so complex and I really appreciated learning from your experiment! Be so interested to see other personality types going through the experimant too as well as introducing more demand charateristics! Thanks for the learnings!