Skip to main content

Stanford Prison Experiment



Am I again the last person on the planet to learn about something big? It's all right -- it isn't as if this would be the first time (or one or the first several times) that has happened. Then I become the last blogger in the world to write about it, which is where we are.

What I'm on about is the recent wave of debunking articles about the Stanford Prison Experiment. This was the famous/notorious 1971 experiment in which (as the usual account goes) some young male volunteers were arbitrarily assigned the roles of "guard" or "prisoner" in a simulated prison environment. The role playing exercise turned shockingly real, and the "guards" took to torturing their "prisoners." The experiment was supposed to last for two weeks, but it was stopped after only six days for fear of irreversible injuries should it continue.

That is the usual account, anyway. It is nowadays often taught in undergraduate level on social psychology, and discussed together with the Kitty Genovese case and the even more famous Milgram experiment (in which an experimental subject is instructed by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to someone he thinks is another experimental subject -- but who is actually an actor). What these three data points have in common is the notion that evil behavior, or at least a turning of a blind eye to evil behavior (in the Genovese case) can be induced very easily in very ordinary people. 

The plausible philosophical conclusion is: "don't blame the players, blame the game." 

Now it appears that the Stanford Prison Experiment was a hoax. The guards weren't torturing the prisoners -- both guards and prisoners were putting on an act. For a detailed debunking study by Dr. Ben Blum:  


In fact there have been efforts to debunk both the Milgram results and the first reports of what happened in the Genovese case. But at present I find this the most successful debunking thus far.

     
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more