Why the Stanford Prison Experiment is a Lie
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2018
- SUPPORT more videos like this at / rebecca
SUBSCRIBE at th-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
+++
A new examination of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment has found that it was a complete fabrication and shouldn't be used to prove any points about human behavior today.
Links + transcript available at / 19588461
+++
ABOUT: Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick Network, a collection of sites focused on science and critical thinking. She has written for outlets such as Slate, Popular Science, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. She's also the host of Quizotron, a rowdy, live quiz show that pits scientists against comedians. Asteroid 153289 Rebeccawatson is named after her (her real name being 153289).
+++
MORE: www.skepchick.org
FOLLOW: / skepchicks
AND: / rebeccawatson
LIKE: / skepchicks - บันเทิง
![[4K] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) “FOREVER” Band LIVE Concert “영원히” 베몬만을 사랑하게 되…💗 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TQfC0xdpiw4/mqdefault.jpg)
How did Zimbardo not get sued to the moon and back? He broke every promise in the contract those kids signed.
I have a BS in psych. When I took introductory psych, the prof showed a series of videos featuring Zimbardo. I never trusted him. He always struck me as just slimy.
We watched them in high school. He's used often to parrot "environment" over biological predisposition I think. It's why the Staford Prison Experiment will live on while twin experiments will be on the sidelines despite their extremely high rate of replicability.
I got the same slimy impression. I chalked it up to an odd preference in facial hair grooming style. I also got the impression that the guards and prisoners were acting. I ignored my instincts and deferred to the professionals presenting the information. Huh...
@@HavanaSyndrome69 The MN twin experiments results were fudged to support the authors' belief in eugenics. so....
The tape of a "guard" being explicitly led and instructed is unambiguous proof the result (that people will fall into the role rather than need to be pushed) is not reliable, as well.
I think they were pushed only to actually feel the situation as real, not just an experiment. I think in real life too guards are pushed by their job & salary and need to maintain order and not allowing prisoner to leave before definite period.
Though, they were pushed more than the actual guards. As they are not getting regular salary, they were poor probably, for getting money they needed to complete the task.
If u offer money to a person for a task and he is poor, then he is not a really a volunteer, and task is not just an experiment only, bcoz thing involved which he value. Situation was made as real as it could be.
@@ak220880 My Dad is a retired California state correctional officer, and he was never talked into doing the kind of things done in the Stanford study. In fact, my Dad had the respect of both staff AND inmates during his 20+ years with CDC.
@@jenniferbrewer5370 Is that the same California where convicts have to spend hours extinguishing forest fires for slave wages?
I think his work has proven itself to be true considering, over and over again.
Youre just too mush brained to realize it.
@@thumblesteen7696 What else are they supposed to do? Do you expect us to house and feed felons expecting nothing in return?
The older I get, the more I learn, the less I know.
The more you know, the more you realise you don't know.
@@JamieBainbridge Ah, I used to think that...
@@letMeSayThatInIrish
Wooow so deep
So true
In 2005 polish director Artur Żmijewski copied this experiment and you won't believe - nothing bad happened! Guards and prisoners even had last meal on the round table, as equals
Why use a simulation to prove anything when there is lots of examples suggesting people are capable of committing dehumanizing atrocities.
The case for Zimbardo is just how close his experiment is reflected in the 2004 real-life example of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and others that followed. Perhaps this is a clear reflection that Zimbardo was correct concerning the potential for "good people" doing "bad things" and the role of authority.
Zimbardo has acknowledged that, as a participant in the study, he too "got caught up" in the scenario. This is actually the problem with just about all of the research supporting transgender affirming care for children. Perhaps you should turn a critical eye towards transgender research that puts children on a path to an eventual sex change
The fact that Philip Zimbardo still has a job makes me seriously doubt any other research coming out of Stanford. It's not just this one study. Zimbardo has a long history of questionable studies just to grab headlines. I can see a pattern of headline grabbing studies coming from Stanford. I see rich Stanford students inventing things that are the simplest thing you can imagine, like a flat plate for transferring heat from one system to another, and Stanford's PR department claims it's going to save the world.
Wait, no safeword? That's bad form.
So when a poor person commits a violent crime, are they a victim of society, of did they do it of their own free will?
Yeah, having read the recent articles this study needed taking down. The takeaway I think *can* be had, is that people will behave in certain ways if carefully trained and instructed and under institutional pressure, not (as you ofc pointed out) that humans become monsters when put in adverse situations.
There's also no reason to try to replicate the study, since we have ample room for study of actual prison environments and can focus on individual moral culpability within systems set up to punish rather than reintegrate, to profit from incarceration and bad laws, rather than improve society.
Thanks for the upload!
=8)-DX
I agree with everything you said about how a single event can't totally transform a human, and that their behavior is based on a collection of every experience they've ever had. But then you make this wild assertion that people who do bad things (like ripping a child from their parents' arms) sought that role out because they take pleasure in it. What??? You are totally ignoring the fact that people often do bad things because they don't feel like they have a choice, and because someone powerful stands to benefit from convincing them they're doing something good. Do you seriously believe that every single slaughterhouse employee gets off on abusing animals? This is ludicrous. People work in slaughterhouses because they are poor and want to feed their families. You say you would die before separating families, but you are speaking from the privileged position of knowing precisely the senselessness of the harm you are doing, and of knowing that you could just go off and make money some other way. Please be more mindful of how ignorance and poverty impact behavior.
Superb comment.
Yes!!! THIS!!!
I just watched this video and I enjoyed it until I was jarred by that strange and privileged “they are just bad people” ending. Frankly I found that statement ironically bigoted and othering itself. She just blanketed people who might be under economic oppression under capitalism as “just bad”.
While I don’t doubt there are a disproportionate number of racists, psychopaths, sadists, and others lacking in empathy in LEO jobs, there are many who take the jobs because of lack of options for economic opportunity.
In her defense I’ll add that I do think it’s fair to say that folks join a willful white supremacists march are at the very least toxically damaged, and likely even “evil” people. Still, I don’t think the blanket correlation to people in jobs that fall prey to white supremacy pitfalls are “just bad” is a fair one.
you can't conduct an honest psychological experiment when the participants know they are in a psychological experiment.
And you can't conduct an ethical psychological experiment when the participants aren't able to actively consent to everything that is happening.
You can if the ppl don't at all know what is being tested and if they accept the fiction a s real (which we do on the Opera in order to be moved. f ex.)
PPl go into roles. I have talked with several ones, a hospital safety guard said: He was not as self confident and styrdy privately as in his role and uniform. ( He was wonderful to me)
An rehabilitation worker man said the same thing: He wouldn't be as sure of himself as he was, if he was in y position, a visitor, or the 1st time he walked in here.
A high executive boss in big pharamaceutical company , whom I hitch-hiked with , said he would deflate totally if he did not have his job and his good wife , position, to support him.
So maybe I am not that weak, really. Because I have never had a position or support, but s8rvived neglect, withholding of treatment and assistence and helpers' abuse, - for decades.
@@MedietosWhy use a simulation to prove anything when there are lots of real life examples suggesting people are capable of committing dehumanizing atrocities.
Despite serious flaws the case for Zimbardo is just how close his experiment is reflected in the real-life example of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Perhaps this is a clear reflection that Zimbardo was correct concerning the potential for "good people" doing "bad things" and the role of authority.
Zimbardo has acknowledged that, as a participant in the study, he too "got caught up" in the scenario. This is actually the problem with just about all of the research supporting transgender affirming care for children. Perhaps this is where you should turn a critical eye given you can actually prevent real harms. These are the reseachers driven by an ideology that will manufacturer evidence to support their belief, while ignoring results which do not fit their desired narrative. The actual outcome here is this is "science" and "research" putting children on a pathway to a sex change. When you dig into it this makes Zimbardo's flaws look pretty small.
You can design an experiment in which people do X while at the same time you are observing for Y. It happens frequently. Example, perception and "unconscious bias" research: how do sales staff respond to certain customers. Better still exploring group dynamics by creating a simulation and capturing the interpersonal interactions and approaches to leadership while completing the task. The task, often a competition with another team, is irrelevant. That is what the subjects do. The researchers are looking at the behaviours.
Thank you. Taking those kids makes me sick.
On the other hand, the Milgram experiment has been replicated, though.
Listen to this.
th-cam.com/video/Wzeo7RyGIvQ/w-d-xo.html
Dar Williams has a song called Buzzer that talks about the Milgram Experiment. It's really interesting because it sort of shows that the people running the study didn't realize that they were acting in the same unethical way that they were investigating.
I had a teacher that tried to run the eye color 'The Wave' experiment one period. I was already familiar with it. A bunch of my classmates acted like jerks pretty quickly.
I agree though that forgiving violence because of the conditions around it can be a dangerous precedent.
I find the experiment ironic. He says in his book the Lucifer Effect: "They chose authority over humanity."
He was saying in the experience: "Anyone who has power can chose authority over humanity given the circumstance." Irionic how he chose authority over humanity without any pushing.
I'm pretty sure a majority of the people arguing this topic haven't taken more than a low level high school psychology course.
"I personally don't believe in free will..."
"You guys just need to be better"
Logically, these statements are at odds. If free will doesn't exist, then the capacity to make a person "be better" exists firmly outside of that person's control. Telling anybody to "be better" is therefore meaningless and irrational. Every person is already as good as they can possibly be.
Well said. I think this person needs to work on her critical thinking skills.
This experiment always bothered me. I would never have gone for any of it. And I don’t think I’m THAT uncommon a person. By my estimate, about half of us are prone to truly shitty behavior if we can rationalize it.
I also read about this in So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson, super interesting book, btw. Apparently one of the people who was a guard (Dave Eshelman) said that nothing was happening in the first day of the experiment and it was boring to him. He thought that someone was spending a lot of money to put on the experiment and there were no results, so he decided to act like a dick to ramp things up. He was quoted as saying, "I planned it. I mapped it out. I carried it through. It was all done for a purpose. I thought I was doing something good at the time."
In high school I loved learning about Philip Zimbardo's experiments and we used to watch his videos in class. Pretty disappointing to find out he's a liar.
The fact remains that the guards *did* act like monsters and what's even more important isn't whether they did this of their own volition or because they were told to, but that they did it at all. Also, people that go around saying _"I would rather *die* than do such and such" will be surprised to see what they *actually* do when really put in that situation. Imagining yourself in that situation is not the same as actually being in it.
For example given your own example, if you were a border guard and discovered that a father had given his children to "coyotes" (people that are paid to help you cross borders etc.) so that they may have a better chance of settling in a prosperous or better country, and the father is going to attempt the crossing on his own using different methods.
When they are all caught it is discovered that the children belong to the father and not the coyotes. You and many other westerners would consider him an unfit father and to not deserve to have his children under his care since he exposed them to dangerous strangers and situations. So you'd immediately put them under the care of children services thereby separating them from their father. He thinks he's doing the best for his children and you think you have their best interests in mind.
The entire family should be sent back with an explicit warning not to return illegally. The "father" would be legally a criminal. What do you want? Lock the kids up with the parents?
It seems like anytime a scientific study has reached the point of common knowledge it has been distorted or misunderstood to a degree that it's original intention is totally subverted. The other route seems to be that the research is falsified and somehow this enables it to become extremely popular and well-known, although not for being false but for being true.
Prisoners would make a great study for psychologists. Its amazing how prisoners(especially those doing all day) find ways to hold on to some semblance of freedom. My celly in calipatria used to put a scented soap inside his pillow case trying to imagine he was still sleeping @ home next to his wife. This homosexual guy would trade smokes for eminems & would leave them in a water cup to extract the dye for his makeshift make up. My neighbor could play chess with me calling out the movements without a chessboard. Strictly by recall. Their mind was free for sure
What I find extremely irritating is that Zimbardo still has clout and the SPE is still cited in academic settings. The SPE is literally a textbook example of demand characteristics, but then sometimes the same textbooks cover the experiment without a critical lens (particularly MCAT books).
Despite serious flaws in the design the case for Zimbardo is just how close his simulation is reflected in the real-life example of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Perhaps this is a clear reflection that Zimbardo was correct concerning the potential for "good people" doing "bad things" and the role of authority.
Zimbardo has acknowledged that, as a participant in the study, he too "got caught up" in the scenario. This is actually the problem with just about all of the research supporting transgender affirming care for children. Perhaps this is where you should turn a critical eye given you can actually prevent real harms. These are the reseachers driven by an ideology that will manufacturer evidence to support their belief, while ignoring results which do not fit their desired narrative. The actual outcome here is this is "science" and "research" putting children on a pathway to a sex change. When you dig into it this makes Zimbardo's flaws look pretty small.
Korpi actually said he faked it so he can “get the hell out of that place”. Not to act for the experiment
Have you talked about the experiment in the west coast where they split up twins and studied them? There were triplets that were part of it also and they ended up being pretty famous once they found each other. Wish I could remember names right now, but I’m thinking you’ve heard of this, it’s gained a lot of popularity lately. It’s heartbreaking.
I hadn't considered that the results of that experiment would be a fatalism that could be used by people to excuse bad behavior. If anything, I would have thought it would lead to prison and jail reform. But of course, it didn't.
Wow, this was going really well, right until it went into politics-of-the-now. I suggest that every time anyone goes down the "this message is even more true today because..." you stop listening at that point; because everything before is suddenly suspect, and everything that comes after is irrelevant. How exactly is Zimbardo's antics related to Ms. Watson's "I'd rather die"? Not bloody much, is how. Ms. Watson, I recommend next time you make two videos: one on the critiques of Zimbardo, and another about how much you hate Donald Trump. I'll watch 'em both, but to imply that one is related to the other is, well, false advertising.
Ethics? They just get in the way.
I agree with you on a lot of things but if we’re going to talk about pseudoscience, the concept of IQ is extremely shaky and problematic. Not to mention, bigots aren’t necessarily stupid, they are pieces of shit but they can be tactical and clever in their methods which is what makes them really dangerous
My mother has a Masters in psychology and was a warden of a men's prison; she kinda knew something was a bit off. She, of course, still didn't allow the guards to make their own rules. She and the guards had to OBEY federal and state laws and regulations for the SAFETY of all involved including the all people working at the prison and surrounding community.
BINGO!!! There are rules and leaders do their job. Despite serious flaws the case for Zimbardo is just how close his experiment is reflected in the real-life example of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. When leadership fails to regulate behaviour.
Perhaps this is a clear reflection that Zimbardo was correct concerning the potential for "good people" doing "bad things" and the role of authority.
Why is not the individual blamed for the Vietnam war, but the Unites States of America ? Because the of the bystander effect or something similar, we remove our individual responsibility in a large wast society. We evolved in small groups not as large nations. We got old genes that can't handle our planet responsibility. So I think there are some truth in the experiments result.
Before things like ethics, does Zimbardo have ethics now? A: NO
What about the Milgram experiment?
Milgram is way more ethical i think
Listen to this.
th-cam.com/video/Wzeo7RyGIvQ/w-d-xo.html
I can't hear you, I am hypnotized by that Wolverine t-shirt.
Amazing how nobody ever asked Zimbardo two simple questions: 1) "When you say the experiment took place in the Stanford Psychology Department Buildings basement in a pretend jail, aren't you saying the experiment took place on a stage?" and 2) "what do people do on a stage and what are they called while doing it?"
And psychologists pride themselves on being the smartest people in the room.
”All the world's a stage!"
Sincerely,
Shakespeare
All psychologists pride themselves on being the smartest people in the room?
What an awful argumentation.
Just a troll@@danzigvssartre
Last time I was this early people didn't want to kick my ass for zombifying this meme.
Le Texier is pronounced Texyay. Good on you for saying Thibault right though, normally Anglophones have problems with that name.
You just made a psychology study political. Wow. I’ve seen it all
Studying brain functions alone won't improve our understanding of human psychology, just like learning paper alone won't help us understand literature; studying the marble won't help us understand sculpture.
Studying genes can help us understand hereditary disorders, and studying the brain can help us understand neural diseases. That's it. They won't help us understand people who committed atrocity for the sake of their genes or neural function.
After all, it is more relatable and empowering for us to blame the genes, the brain functions, the media, the government, political correctness, and everything than to see the real social problems and find their solutions.
Once this trump episode is over we are going to need comeuppance trials for ICE employees. Send them to the Hague
It's not a Trump episode. It's a fascist episode, and it's been going on for far longer than Trump's election, to the point it's more a period or an era than a mere episode. Trump's just the latest symptom.
Seeing as this ICE issue has been going on since at least the Obama era (with the kids being separated and the camps) and the current Democrat nominee is Obama vp I doubt anything will change even if trump leaves. I could ge wrong but I have a feeling almost nothing will change in those regards
Except, other experiments that are not exactly the same point to similar conclusions such as the Milgram experiment that has been replicated in many ways to confirm the results, as well as the Ashe Conformity experiments.
Rebecca Watson only has a passing interest in cognitive sciences and has decided that it is entirely unworthy as a field of study. It doesn't fit her dogmatic beliefs.
What are your thoughts on Robbers Cave Experiment?
Very limited and almost useless as a single stand alone experiment.
Those are all different studies.
Also, psychological experiments themselves are somewhat questionable. Particularly when cherry picked.
They are quite different... Maybe think of it this way:
Stanford Prison Exp. result (supposedly) was that an environment where people had near absolute power over other people would result in spontaneous abuse.
Milgram's result is that people would sometimes trust/defer to authority over their own senses.
The Stanford Prison Exp., as actually conducted, appears to be more of a test of Milgram's hypothesis than what Zimbardo reported.
Love this video, but plz put references and names,
This is pretty off topic, but here it goes:
I am quite fond of this channel because of how critically Rebecca usually looks at everything, and because of her dedication to fighting bigotry, but I was disappointed to hear the phrasing "more grammatically correct" in this video. The concept of "grammatical correctness" is usually used to mean the rules of grammar as written by people who have the power to do so (for example, those who write dictionaries or writing materials for school children) rather than the rules of grammar as practiced. I know that this phrasing was used with respect to the first lady, who is a non-native English speaker, but the concept of grammatical correctness itself is problematic. It assumes that there is one right way to speak, despite the fact that not everyone is exposed to the standard dialect in a meaningful way as they acquire language, and despite the fact that linguistic diversity arises from change (think "perversions" of Latin becoming respected languages worthy of study like French and Italian, or Germanic giving rise to English and German). If an English speaker is told to use or avoid certain vocabulary, constructions or sounds in the name of "grammatical correctness", it ultimately tells that speaker that their version of English is wrong. Since language is part of one's identity, this can be alienating. So if you are trying to communicate with someone, correcting their grammar is counter-productive at best; at worst it can crush linguistic diversity if the speaker commits to changing the way they speak.
Languages and dialects are lost daily. This is a problem for a number of reasons, including the loss of a cultural identity, the loss of diversity and the loss of opportunities to study and record these languages in order to better understand the nature of human language as a whole. Language change and language diversity are natural (as well as beneficial for multilinguals).
The dialect or language a person speaks does not say anything about their intelligence or education level, only about their linguistic environment (contrary to the idea of "grammatical correctness"). This becomes very clear when comparing linguistic features in different dialects. For example, r-lessness exists in both Received Pronunciation (the privileged dialect in England) and Boston English. Yet, in the U.S., speakers of RP are typically thought to sound sophisticated, and Bostonians are thought to sound crude and are often chastised for not pronouncing their 'r's. Here is a news story about a class that seeks to change the accent of individuals with Boston accents: th-cam.com/video/ketrhWr58wA/w-d-xo.html There are more current examples of classes that seek to change individuals' accents, including this one: www.speechcoachcompany.com/AccentReduction.html
Additionally, in U.S. English, there is no one standard. There is no English version of the "real academia española" nor "l'academie française"; instead Standard American English only exists as an idea. You will notice that grammar books will vary from author to author in the rules they present to students. Although there are commonalities among them, there is no one standard. This means that the pursuit to speak "perfect" English is impossible.
This whole discussion is not to say that there cannot be ungrammatical sentences. For example, for most English speakers, it would sound very wrong to switch the verb and the direct object: "I see the dog" sounds better than "I the dog see". However, the idea of a sentence being grammatical or ungrammatical depends on the judgement of a native speaker, rather than the judgement of written rules of how language ought to be. Judgements can vary from person to person (because they speak different dialects) and can be used by linguists to identify generational, regional or sociolinguistic differences in dialect. This being said, I myself find "be best" to be clunky and awkward, but I don't find it to be ungrammatical.
To wrap up this very long post that has veered far off topic of the original video, I am trying to say that the concept of "grammatical correctness" does not hold up to scrutiny and does a disservice to the speakers of non-standard dialects and to linguists trying to record and study them. I hope that future videos will reflect, or even focus on, inclusion of linguistic diversity.
Erin Jessee, very thoughtful comment. However, I disagree. How do you imagine teaching a language to other people without following rules of grammar that are accepted as valid/binding in that language? This is apparent where trying to teach a foreign language. In such settings, focus on "linguistic diversity" would be nonsensical. The concept of "grammatical correctness" is, IMHO, developed as a consensus from a corpus of language use.
Conundrum right. There is plenty of evidence that choosing one dialect (usually the standard variety) for teaching purposes is beneficial for students learning a foreign language. However, in the context of one being a native speaker (which I know Melania is not, but the comment was made outside the context of learning a foreign language, so I think it is still worthy of discussion), the concept of a person's grammar being right or wrong is harmful. I think, though, to integrate more inclusive teaching of foreign language, saying things like "this is nonstandard", "you can say that in a different dialect of the language we are learning" or "native speakers of this language don't say it that way" , the goal of teaching one dialect can be accomplished without alienating native speakers of that language and without implicitly teaching the students that diversity doesn't exist in that language.
From my experience with foreign language, I found it helpful when teachers aknowledged coloquialisms and nonstandard constructions because when I actually used those languages, I was not surprised to discover that the dialect I was taught didn't match the dialect of the area I was using the language in. This made it easier for me to adjust my vocabulary and sentence structure.
Anyhow, I have gotten even more off topic. I should have clarified in my post that correction in a foreign language context can be helpful to an extent. However, the idea of a grammar being correct or incorrect is still problematic. In the context of foreign language learning in particular, the goal of speaking "correctly" can become the goal of speaking "grammatically" or in other words, the way a native speaker of the target dialect would speak.
Even if it turns out that the idea of having one right way to speak is not harmful in the specific context of foreign language learning, it is harmful in general and I still hope to see it used less or not at all in common discourse outside of a foreign language teaching environment.
Disagree. There are generally accepted grammatical standards (as with most things) by the dominant culture. Variations on that standard are are dialects and recognized as correct in the correct circumstances such as age of speakers, their backgrounds, etc.
I would love for you to list some examples, but as far as English goes, there are plenty of examples where people within a linguistic community face discrimination outside of their language community. For example, in media, a Southern accent is often used as a shorthand for unintelligent. Laci Green has put on this accent in several (now older) videos when mocking her opponents. Sheldon's mom Mary in 'The Big Bang Theory' is both Southern-sounding (though lacking other Southern dialect markers) and portrayed to be unintelligent. I'm sure you will find more examples if you look. This is a form of discrimination because it misrepresents speakers and overlooks the diversity of character and background within a linguistic community.
Here is an example of a person who has taken it upon himself to "correct" students who have what you might expect to be the appropriate background to be speaking AAVE: th-cam.com/video/X_KKLkmIrDk/w-d-xo.html The students in this video grew up in a linguistic community in which these practices were acceptable and even expected, yet outside of that community they are told it is wrong and "not proper". That is not what acceptance of linguistic diversity looks like.
Pay special attention to the compilation of other examples of "bad English" these are all implied to be coming from native speakers who don't know any better. If a speaker doesn't know better, the most likely explanation is that they are speaking the way they learned (so they have the "correct circumstances" as you put it) and they are still being chastised for using their native dialect.
Even something as simple as telling someone not to leave a dangling preposition (which most English speakers naturally do) or not to use a double negative is failing to recognize a feature of natively spoken English as acceptable or "correct".
Additionally, for clarification, when I talk about dialects, I am not using the layman's term to mean someone who speaks in a non-standard way. I am using it as it is used by linguists to describe different sub-groups of a language, meaning that for every language that has a standard form, the standard form is itself a dialect; it is a sub-group of that language, just as any non-standard dialect is also a sub-group of that same language.
tl;dr but as you said grammar is correct how MOST people speak it, not how one non-native speaker does.
The same people dissing that study wants to cancel Lincoln and Grant. Stop applying today's standards, knowledge, and experience to yesterday's events in way to cancel historic figures and events!
He aint play acting hes just extremely embarrassed as he should be
his girlfriend and his GA...
Blackshirt, SS induction.
Who did what they were told?
I'm wearing that shirt right now, lol.
Enjoyed the video! I appreciate this is an older one (5 years now wowie), but I did just want to say my one criticism is the mention of 'IQ', which of course is a questionable rank of intelligence on its own. But even if we change it to "intelligence" I think it's incorrect to suggest folk like you mention are low of intelligence, I think they're more so low in *emotional* intelligence. Bigots can be extremely successful and sharp people, what they often lack is the ability to emapthise, understand being in someone elses place, or literally even see some folk as human.
Sorry but your whole argument tends to fall apart when you hypothesize about what you would do in a particular theoretical situation. This is simply guess work on your part until you are in that situation. I suspect many Germans did not believe they would burn books or get up to many other appalling deeds but they did. Its has also been shown many times over that cult members will do pretty terrible things after mind control/conditioning, although I except this normally takes far longer than a few days.
Justin How, I’ll just mention Pavlov here in support of your comment
I watched a fucking terrible Ted Talk by Zimbardo recently
I've been waiting for this video sense high school psychology, ya know a year
So is this what the film The Wave was based on?It was mid 80s and that film was shown to us (at my school) and it was hammered home as actual fact. Honest. And a situation like that from the real world (students becoming nazis because they had a chance to) wa mentioned, so there would be no doubt.
Flapjackbatter I liked that movie but I always kind of thought of it more presented as stylized social commentary. I just saw it on Netflix and thought it was supposed to be fiction.
No, the Wave was based on this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)
Sounds like a lot of projection on your part with regard to the causes of intolerance. Why do you feel the need to leap to Charlottesville?
really really interesting
Intelligent people, raised in nice homes, with good education and good moral values can do horrible things at war that they later regret doing. I know this from experience counselling war veterans. Sorry Rebecca, but I think you're overselling your moral virtue and capacity to not compromise your values in extreme and difficult circumstances. I hope for your sake you never get proven wrong.
Good video although you are mistaken about free will.
If free will doesn’t exist, how can anyone be held responsible for any actions that they commit ? I’ve never understood the argument, it seems to be an infinite regression of causation.
@@clinttaylor4032 There several problems including an evolutionary need for consciousness. I'll publish a disproof at some point.
This is being educated vs being intelligent
She is like Oprah" be better " beeeee Bettah "
Great video, you’re awesome!😃👍🏻
partly right, partyl wrong, but imo very misleading.
We definitely need to replicate the Prison Experiment. No matter the ethical concerns, humanity needs to know the psychological effects of grouping people into guards and prisoners. The World Court rejected the defense of _Respondeat Superior_ a long time ago. The "I was just following orders" defense fails now.
why do you need to replicate it when it's going on all over America right now
Doesn’t believe in free will, and doesn’t believe that evil exists...
Sorry, you’ve lost me here.
Tell me evil doesn’t exists when there is satanic sexual abuse of children.
People absolutely have free will, even if trained by those before them.. how people were able to break free of religious bigotry and now we have marriage equaliy
_"Tell me evil doesn’t exists when there is satanic sexual abuse of children."_
There isn't. SRA has been soundly debunked for decades now.
Good video, but things were far off the mark with the causes of bigotry and then the current immigrant children issue. I wish things were so simple.
Could you elaborate?
I dunno, stanford experiment was maybe a lie but milgrem experiments are very, very true...
Listen to this.
th-cam.com/video/Wzeo7RyGIvQ/w-d-xo.html
good video, thank you ~hug~
Rebecca - I agree with you almost completely on political and social issues, but I think you are making logic errors. In this case, the fact that the Stanford Prison Experiment was flawed does NOT mean that its basic conclusions are. The Milgram Experiment is very similar and has been repeatedly reproduced with similar results.
Another mistake is to say that if people can be manipulated they aren’t responsible for their actions is also false. I agree with you that people don’t truly have free will, but there are so many variables that people should be treated as though they had free will.
My concern is that if we abandon the idea that people can be manipulated, that gives an “out” for people who manipulate others for personal gain (cult leaders, con men, etc.). Guys like Bernie Madoff could claim they are innocent because he couldn’t possibly have psychologically manipulated his victims.
Another example: why try to protect people against Russian election manipulation if the people exposed to it are completely to blame? I was raised to question authority and majority opinion, but most people aren’t. I have seen groups accept terrible things simply because no one wants to call attention to themselves (basically the idea behind “The Emperor’s New Clothes”).
Listen to this.
th-cam.com/video/Wzeo7RyGIvQ/w-d-xo.html
The TV series The Walking Dead promotes Zimbardo's views more than the Stanford Experiment did.
This study might be controversial but I wouldn't call it a complete lie. And I wouldn't consider the 'slave to your environment' argument comforting in the slightest, it's actually very scary. Obviously there are 'bad' people who would relish in their environment encouraging them to act out psychopathic tendencies, but 'good' people subjected to the same thing are just as capable. The take-home being that you cannot conclusively say 'I would never have been a Nazi guard'. You have less control over your actions and thought processes than you might perceive in a situation like that. Further, there were many documented 'good' people in Abu Ghraib. How does one explain why they did what they did?
And sorry but you're views on ICE and Trump are just absurd. Think about what the Mexican cartels are doing to children they bring over the border under the pretense of being their guardians.
Why use a simulation to prove anything when there are lots real life examples suggesting people are capable of committing dehumanizing atrocities.
Despite serious flaws the case for Zimbardo is just how close his experiment is reflected in the real-life example of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Perhaps this is a clear reflection that Zimbardo was correct concerning the potential for "good people" doing "bad things" and the role of authority.
Zimbardo has acknowledged that, as a participant in the study, he too "got caught up" in the scenario. This is actually the problem with just about all of the research supporting transgender affirming care for children. Perhaps this is where you should turn a critical eye given you can actually prevent real harms. These are the reseachers driven by an ideology that will manufacturer evidence to support their belief, while ignoring results which do not fit their desired narrative. The actual outcome here is this is "science" and "research" putting children on a pathway to a sex change. When you dig into it this makes Zimbardo's flaws look pretty small.
Thats not why Stanford experiment stopped. please get facts straight
I find your statement that you would "rather die" than do a morally heinous act kind of obnoxious. I hope you're just being hyperbolic since nobody at ICE would ever put a gun to your head, but it still seems an ignorant thing to say.
If you haven't been in that kind of situation, how can you know that you would forfeit your life rather than your morals? Isn't the self-preservation instinct too strong for that in most people? What if you know they will just get somebody else to do the act? What if not doing the act will lead to consequences for your loved ones - through not having your income and protection, or through retaliation?
I understand your meaning, but i think it’s more of an hyperbole, you get the meaning! I agree with her still. Here’s how I see it, some people are forced to do things that are contrary to their beliefs and against their conscience but would do it anyway because not doing it would affect their circumstances adversely, such as their economy, Family (especially when you’re all everyone depends on), e.t.c i won’t judge, however the question is ‘at what point will you draw the line’? If you keep doing it and keep moving up the line, then it’s become who you are, you are out of excuses. And some, as she rightly said enjoy evil and look for every opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, that’s reality. If I find myself in a situation where I have to be forced to do even, I have a choice: Do it or don’t; because in the end, you, no one else but you, will be responsible for the choices you make and will stand before your maker and be accountable. The choice is yours, not the system!!! God help us.
Covid?
You have stated before that you don't believe in behavioural psychology. You don't believe that the human brain has innate characteristics. You argue the blank slate. In a very post modern "everything is an artificial construct" kind of way. This is just madness.
You don’t think they’re evil? They’re just bad people who joined to do bad things? Isn’t that evil? Or do you subscribe to the notion that good people swept up in a bad situation can be made to do evil? And while we’re at it let’s examine the notion of racists and sexist being a rule of nurture. While I do not deny it remains a factor, the problem is that when we start to look at the long history of these practices, the shear amount of empirical data suggests a larger problem than nurture. I know white progressives such as yourself have this idea that things changed since the falsely named “Civil Rights Era” but that’s because history tends to be taken in isolated doses. Civil Rights and the right to vote was afforded to black people right after slavery. Yet two or three generations later another amendment had to be signed to protect it. That right there at least implies there much more going on than racist grandpa teaching his racism to sin and they passing it on like a virus to grandson. Do a study specifically on white ally groups in every era of American history and where they started and how they ended up. Interesting that in every iteration they grow out of being allies and become just as bad as the so-called overt racists. These are reasons I advocate not giving excuses to evil behavior. I sometime they are just evil, they are just monsters.
ICE agents have a good paying job with benefits that's safer than other jobs in law enforcement, and most have student loans and dependents. Saying "they'd quite their jobs if they were good people" is oversimplifying the situation.
Wow 😂 so people who don’t believe what u do ate bad people?
Good video as always.
Do you really think all ICE people are bad, though? I think a lot probably are. But shouldnt that be measured against their livelihoods? Quit your ICE job and career then try to re apply when a new president is elected? And in the mean time, have no job or a harder time?
I think you're right that a lot of people DO sign up for those things because they are bad and or callous to the plight of the other. But that cant be true for everyone, can it?
I don't think it's even that complex. Imagine you're a working American who never finished high school or never went to university, living in a low-income small town where ICE is pretty much the only employer. You have a mortgage and kids. If you're lucky you have 4 figures in the bank for a rainy day, but you're probably living within a paycheck of $0. "Just quit your job" isn't an option. Not everyone is an intellectual living in a cosmopolitan city with many employment opportunities, nor do many lower class people have the means to get to that point.
Jason B I don’t think so...nothing could make me be a part of ICE. I’m a social worker and I refuse to work for CPS. There are selfish reasons, like the high amounts of burnout and the insane case loads. But I’ve heard too many wrong cases to put myself in the position to judge whether children should be removed or not. But CPS is needed, there are many children that need to be taken out of their homes, and CPS saves many kids. But they’re also being put into a broken system that’s a whole other issue. I just don’t think I could forgive myself if I made the wrong call. I’m biased, as I have a child with a disability, and there are many kids with disabilities who are abused and need to be removed. However, I have a friend who works CPS and she’s had to remove children she didn’t believe were being abused, that she felt the system didn’t understand the plight of parents of special needs children. For example, kids with autism can elope, one mother did everything she could to keep her child in, but her landlord made her remove her alarm device she installed. So she decided to move, but the day before she moved her child got out again and CPS took that child and her other children. There were zero signs of abuse or neglect, in fact the house was set up like an occupational therapy room. Everything points to this mother doing the best she could, but the state threw this kid in a group home instead, where he’s actually much more likely to get out. My refusal to work for CPS is also based on the broken system, just like we have a broken immigration system. I’d much rather work from a macro perspective to change systems and implement new policies than be the person on the ground adding to the issues and making mistakes, being forced to follow things I don’t believe in or risk my livelihood. And if ICE is the only job in town, there’s no excuse anymore, there’s tons of jobs people can work from home now. I don’t think all CPS workers are bad, especially in comparison to ICE workers, it just reminded me of that. I think the people working for ICE and ripping families apart either enjoy it, are so strongly indoctrinated in their beliefs, or need to suck it up and stop doing something so awful if they don’t believe in it. It’s not the military, they can leave.
I do not agree with you there. Never watched your channel before so I don't know enough about you. Yes, the study is quite questionable but the result reflects none the less how things like this happen in the real world. You used ICE for an example and said that anyone who willingly joins and stays in that job is a horrible and evil person. Totally disagree. Judging off this comment and a few others about racism, Trump and what not, I'm assuming you're left leaning at least and a hardcore feminist liberal at most. That's fine. I could care less but I mention that because you probably won't care to look into a libertarian political activist but I'll mention him anyway. His name is Adam Kokesh. He was in the military because he wanted to fight the war on terror. He totally believed in torturing the "terrorists" in Afghanistan while invading their soil. Only after he got back as a veteran he realized he was morally in the wrong and that many of those "terrorists" were just people defending their land from the American Invaders that were enforcing Marshall Law in their backyards. Usually people in positions of power like this tend to believe what they are told and justify it because it's for the good of the country. Not all positions like this are bad. An invading military on a land which was never involved, hell no that is not justified. ICE though is essential for the safety of the state. I have people in my life that are not legal but that doesn't mean I think all illegals get a free pass. The process has to be a lot easier but we can't allow people to cross the border willy nilly. Especially during epidemics/pandemics, terrorism and when cartels can cross at ease with abductions for sex trafficking, drugs and crime. Plus, there's no way to vet the good and bad people to see if they are wanted in our society if they come illegally. If you committed rape, are a major criminal (robbery, violent, ect), are associated with the cartels and are not seeking to leave and start a new life or are infected with a highly contagious disease there's no way you should be let in. There should be a better process to vet people for sure. Once there is, I think shooting on sight is fine. If you can come legally, then you have no reason to come illegally. Only people who would come illegally would be a danger to society. We're not there yet though. So I do agree somewhat that ICE is wrong because they don't differentiate. How can you though when the legal option is nearly impossible? Regardless of the situation, open boarders is not the solution. I'd rather have completely closed boarders than completely open for the reasons I state above. Anyway, yeah I think all atrocities committed by a group tend to happen because authority tells their goons to commit them and they obey whether they agree or not. That's just how the human psyche works. We do horrible things if our jobs and our livelihoods are on the line.
Take off the Wolverine T-shirt, get rid of the Anime (?) binder, and maybe you’ll see that reality is a lot different and horrifying outside Fantasyland.
Rebecca Watson can your thesis explain Rwanda , Serbia or Cambodia.
5:23 extremely bad take, friend. Firstly, IQ is junk science and you of all people should know this. Secondly, race realism/chauvinism is in no way related to intellectual prowess and the very assertion is itself based in an intellectual-chauvinist realism.
This being an old video, I imagine you’ve done some reflection on this; I’m surprised you’d let this take sit out there unaddressed.
I think there are similarities between Zimbardo and Rebecca since both skewed their arguements with personal agenda
You're ignoring the evidence because you fear that people will use it as an excuse for poor behaviour. But by understanding human psychology scientists are trying to help reform policing and correctional services. Don't you see the failure of your own dogmatic beliefs?
Ugh. You somehow managed to say nothing in 7 minutes.