Wtf I hate psychology now!

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.