Wtf I hate psychology now!

I never thought of this being a movie but now it seems obvious.

the execution of the experiment is done in such poor manner that is as if it was conceived by Hollywood, is sad that my SST textbook quoted it as a legit one and that book was fairly recent too.

Psychiatry BTFO twice. How will they ever recover?

Gud

psychology fucking sucks ass

There were females in the experiment too.

But yeah the rest is accurate.

Sure - but what's the alternative?

It's not psychology's fault that we're monsters on the inside.

Neuroscience?

But it's not just this experiment that suggests we might be violent animals. Lots of things suggest this.

Neuroscience is the wave of the future and will (and currently does) help psychiatry and psychology immensely.

But what do we do with patients in the meantime? People who need therapy and counseling? Aside from throwing medication at them, there's nothing else we can do. Talk therapy is necessary in those cases.

I'm 99.999...(repeating)% sure that the guys acting the part of the wardens were thinking; 'hey, its just an experiment anyways, what the heck, why not go buck wild?'

And so they did.

What? This is the worst attempt at explaining this experiment away that I've seen.

"hey guys, lets deliberately make ourselves and our profession look like a ridiculous failure, you know cos its funny"

Definitely what happened

>be Lynndie England
>hey they're just sandniggers anyways, what the heck, why not go buck wild
okay your argument is starting to make sense

Don't listen to these guys
I get what you're saying. The fact that this was an "experiment" and the guards participating in it knew that meant that they were able to give themselves permission to act out control fantasies - to "play the part" of sadistic prison guards. One of the guards basically said this in an interview years later - he consciously used the experiment to play the role of a sadistic guard on a power trip.

The whole experiment was fucked from the beginning and can't really teach us much of anything. There wasn't even a control group or independent variable.

No one is really trying to argue in favor of the scientific validity of the experiment. That is entirely beside the point. What you're saying actually supports the point that when people feel there will be no consequences for their actions, they go "buck wild". This is in fact, what the experiment accidentally showed.

It's hard to recover when you never got up. Psychiatry was, is, and will remain pseudoscientific.

No one is really trying to argue in favor of the scientific validity of the experiment. That is entirely beside the point. What you're saying actually supports the point that when people feel there will be no consequences for their actions, they go "buck wild". This is in fact, what the experiment accidentally showed.

It's not about the experiment. It's about the "event" surrounding it. Trying to argue that it was unscientific misses the point entirely. It's really mainly known for being so famously out of control.

Professors are all narcissistic autists who stroke "muh intelligence" and believe they're superior to everyone else, including each other.

Isn't _higher_ intelligence the very definition of _superiority_? At least when it comes to intelligence?

This is the worst thing about equality proponents. They enable anti-intellectuals like yourself.

I'm not an anti-intellectual, I don't know why I would frequent Veeky Forums if I was. I definitely am not an equality proponent either, you're inferring my position from my short statement.

I was just criticising the narcissistic overtones that many intellectuals seemingly have, especially when talking to those of less academic esteem.

But of course, higher intelligence = higher superiority, I never hinted otherwise. I just have a problem in the manner of which it manifests, and I think others may agree with me.

Your previous comment makes you an anti-intellectual. People who make exactly the kinds of comments you made are the definition of anti-intellectual.

>Professors are all narcissistic
>all
This is what you said.

You'll find that it actually doesn't. That is, unless your belief of intellectualism is belittling anyone beneath you because they have less academic merits than you is somehow """intellectual""" then you'd be right.

However, that's actually not what intellectualism is.

Hyperbole, I didn't mean every single one.

>What you're saying actually supports the point that when people feel there will be no consequences for their actions, they go "buck wild". This is in fact, what the experiment accidentally showed.

But that's what's entirely arguable. There's no indication that, in a REAL WORLD scenario, people would naturally go "buck wild."

All this experiment showed was that if there were no consequences to one's actions AND no real consequences to the people they are in control of, people would go "buck wild." The guards in this scenario knew that it would all be over in two weeks, and that the people they were in control of were willing participants in the experiment and that no harm would actually come of them.

For the results you're talking about to be valid, the "guards" would have had to fully believe that they were in control of actual prisoners - but they weren't. Everyone was playing a role, and everyone knew it. Even the "accidental" nature of the experiment shows nothing other than "people will go buck wild if they believe there are no consequences to their actions OR to the people they're fucking with."

You could prove this by watching people kill NPC's in video games for fucks sake.

Watch the one with the decent actors you fucking pleb.

Bogus experiment.
psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook
Zimbardo told his prison guard actors to act like dicks. Result they act like dicks. Conlusion Lucifer effect is something we are all susceptible to. That is psychology.

>entirely arguable
Didn't say it wasn't arguable. In fact, I said that that's exactly what it is, but that it's worth arguing about. Again, the experiment showed this in a very non-rigorous way. It suggested that perhaps there is something of interest here, which at the very least, merits more careful study.

>it shows me
it has nothing to do with you,
a self-centred narcissist,
Lrn2movie fgt pls

>Lucifer effect is something we are all susceptible to.
WTF? It's a great experiment but I think that's a shitty conclusion. If anything I think it tells us just how malleable our personal morals are.

People who look believe the world is perfect (mostly devout religious people) and look to the outside (rather than in themselves) for moral for cues and hints for their moral compass (again, religious doctrine) will assume anything that they can get away without repercussions with is morally acceptable. Because in their head the world is perfect and if it was morally wrong, the world wouldn't let them get away with it with no consequences. If anything it tells us the Lucifer effect, like Lucifer himself, is a product of religious indoctrination.

That post was being sarcastic. The experiment was so poorly designed, that no valid conslusions can be inferred from it. Read the link. It is outright travesty that this is one of psychology's most famous experiments.

Well I suppose we're in agreement then. Good day to you, sir.

>Forest Whitaker
I typically reject nog films on principle with one rare exception being anything with this character in them.

I heard about these experiments, and the Milgram experiments which cause some people to actually lose faith in humanity and for good reason. Just look at the totalitarian Chinkland, the oldest culture on earth, this is where humanity is headed.