Yeah there were so many flaws in what went on and how it was guided. Still a pretty hard lesson on what people do when given almost unlimited power over others

`felt sympathetic towards the professor` rofl

https://youtu.be/CElJEVMrnto

Yeah I've looked into it. Far better example here: https://youtu.be/JM2o9e-pwoE

My father in law (Polish) survived Auschwitz. Brainwashing and psychological transformation is totally possible but not likely to happen within a few weeks without a major cataclysmic event imho ☺

* grandfather-in-law

Yeah, it takes four years to brainwash people on average.


I mean four years ago all my liberal friends believed everyone’s vote should count equally. Flash forward to two weeks ago and I see people saying they would rather end Trump than COVID.

@Lady Georgia You dont need to brainwash people to bring out the tyrant. Its build into the human psyche and will come out if nurtured. It looks like the "debunker" has misunderstood the experiment and is attempting to falsify an experiment which did not take place. Zimbardo is showing what *can* be done. Not what develops by random. Massive difference.

I think the experiment has largely been used to 'prove' what is likely to happen in the absence of external factors, and that seems to be the conclusion encouraged by the researchers 🙂

If so, that is a misunderstanding of data provided.

I agree a tyrant is within each of us. I just disagree that the experiment does much to prove that.

Its not what Zimbardo is showing. Like Milgram, he demonstrates what can be done.

We repeated it when I was a resident, and i checked out here as well. Nurses were inclined to administer harmful doses of medication if an authoritarian doctor ordered it.

If key participants stated they were in fact 'acting' the whole time, in such a small sample I would suggest that puts the experiment largely out of the pool of useful research

Unless you can confirm it again and again.

And test it by *coherency*

Oh for sure, but that's not what the Stanford experiment was about, no? The idea was without authoritarian leaders, individuals are still likelu to devolve into cruelty.

Id call that misinterpreting the data.

and misunderstanding how humans act in packs.

Humans in populus always have leaders.

You cant avoid that, as hierarchies are formed 3 sec after the elevator stops.

So the authoritarian doctor in the Stanford scenario is one of guards who's taken control?

I can see that.

You can have one authoritarian captain who demands cruelty. Does not invalidate the experiment. Such captains are found plentyful in the real world. All colors, genders and nationalities.

It really depends on who gets the leadership in a lot of ways. But again if the 'pack leader' in the experiment was 'acting'....

I agree.

We're basically turning the scotus chat into a Petersonesque discussion lol

It is polyfactorial. Always.

For sure.

We are. And I would like to continue it. I have a full day, however, and we are contaminating now, yes. Ill look you up later for this? It is interesting.

I think Ordinary Men is still far better example

Sure

Have a good one!

u2

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

what's that?

ahh

scotus orders

What happens if they hadn't separated the votes?

Since per constitution the state legislators make election rules, it is silly that roberts bounced it back, this could have been avoided.

The reason it got bounced back is because of the potential of a 4/4 split. At least now it could be a 5/4 or 6/3 in favor of Trump

@WatchingYouDaily If ACB votes as we expect. She's already declined to participate. Robert Barnes has no faith in her.