소스 코드
- 게시일 2018. 12. 18.
- Normal people can become monsters given the right situation. That’s the standard narrative of the Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the most famous psychological experiments of all time. But what if the cause of its participants’ cruel behavior wasn’t what we’ve always been told?
- 과학기술
![[트랜스포머 ONE] 1차 예고편🤖](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wKiwHP3s5hI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#예능연구소8K] RIIZE (라이즈) - Impossible FullCam | Show! MusicCore | MBC240420방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JjY2WyP41Tk/mqdefault.jpg)
"Dr Zimbardo" sounds like some sketchy character from classical scooby doo and i love it
Looks the part too
Or like Archer 😂
Where do you think they got the inspiration?
They pull off his mask and all shout “PHILLIP!”
Reminds me of zoidberg
Zimbardo sounds so much like a cartoon villain
And he looks like one too
Haha super dude you’ve fallen into my lair prepare to be vaporized by my ZIMBARDINATOR
Yep
He had a tv show
Mohammed Zameer - Snidely Whiplash
I want to see the flipside of michael's experiment where they choose only people who are pre-disposed and see what happens before and after demand characteristics are introduced. I'd also love to see the most neutral individuals with no predisposition to either violence or kindness.
Yeah I was really hoping they were going to test another group where they did that, I'm really disappointed by this experiment.
Is anyone going to comment the elephant in the room? Black people tend to be violent in general.
@@ChrisM-bn5vr It's easy to gather a group of objectively "good" people and run tests on them, because it's ultimately a compliment. "Look, these good guys remained nice in a situation where they didn't have to."
How would you feel if you were cast in a social experiment, just to find out from scientists that you have an objectively bad personality, and then get your face and bad behavior uploaded to KRplus for millions to see?
@@ChrisM-bn5vr I feel like the point was getting people with a different disposition. After all, the video opened with question the conclusion of the Stanford Experiment on the basis that the guards were predisposed and encouraged to cruelty. If you take people who aren't predisposed to that and they don't act cruel, it adds evidence to their original statement. The argument that they were making is that it perhaps isn't strictly the environment, but personality, that plays a role in abusing power, and it seems that they were right.
you can also just got to an american jail
that guy who was noted as the most neferious guard is such an evil guy
you're right. he had over forty years to think up the shit he just spewd
To me this proves people in positions to boss around other people like police ,or ceo , someone in a higher position they look down on people
glad someone else noticed it lol
@brandonsexperience2008 A police officer actually has more in common with an intern than a CEO.
And a coward- note he's not saying "I got off on the power" or "I was insensitive" he tried to implicate his conversation partner/people in general. Ala, "18 year olds are insensitive" and "you get off on the power" and justify his actions with circumstance. IMO: weakness incarnate.
People really are built different, I think most people are kind. But the Daoism/Roseau vs Confucianism/Hobbs debate exists for a reason.
I can see my self as the dude seeing no difference between closing his eyes and having them open
are you Azeri lol
ýəəţüş řəəťûş ĐƏƏŁƏŢÜŞ Read this as he was saying it. I thought “Found the stoner!”
When I close my eyes, it doesn't seem so dark.
@@JustinWPruett hahaha exactly my train of thought
Yeah. Power goes out in the middle of the night and I panic because of that
Vsauce was given enough budget to produce high-quality psychological studies in exchange for KRplus premium and he just decided to make it free for all of us to watch. What a legend
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
yeah but if you're going to pick a topic this polemic, you should've tested the oposite spectrum of personality at least.
This hole thing really reminds me of Nazism... you know... everyone being told that doing those unhuman acts are for a better good. And did happen... the environment did made people nuts
It's interesting for a show but it's definitely not high quality experiments. Here most people understood they had been lied to when presented with the purpose of the experiment. That totally biases their perception of expectations.
@@mauro_weee this fascinates me. I can’t remember exactly the name or person who carried out an experiment surrounding this, but basically they got some actors to dress up in scientific gear (lab coats etc.) and through the course of the experiment one participant had administered what he thought was a real lethal injection to a patient under the command of some authoritative figure with a clipboard and a lab coat. I refuse to believe all of Hitler’s or Putin’s army just so happen to be evil men who willingly carry out atrocities… If a reliable authoritative figure tells us to do something and if everyone else does, most will follow suit. There’s also been another mini experiment conducted showing that we follow the crowd: one person stepped into an elevator and the actors inside were facing the wall and not the entrance… The participant also faced the wall in the ride up in the elevator, though it was an extremely odd thing to do. All mind boggling stuff isn’t it…
There's already a selection bias, because he has people who volunteered. This filters out a lot of people: people who are busy in their lives, people who are too rich to care about meager payouts, etc. It would be difficult to get a balanced selection for an experiment this deep and complicated. We're talking about the nature of people, not the LD50 of a pill.
12:41
Michael: “I would love to do the experiment again.”
Jared: (almost gets up and walks away)
A weakness of this experiment is its lack of validity. While they reduced demand characteristics, normative social influence and conformity still played a part. Once one person pressed their button, the others may have felt inclined to press their control if they were nervous about being the first to do so out of fear of being seen as 'cruel'. While Vsauce was basing the groups on having similar personalities, no two people are the same and will have other aspects of themselves playing a part in their individual decision-making.
May have felt?
why "may have felt" when the second group showed that to not be the case?
Yes basically there were no similarities in these two experiments due to the simple fact that was no interaction between two individual groups just one imaginary possibility of another.
Now if that imaginary was God or the devil would have certainly changed the outcome
or maybe but a cruel in
Yeah they kinda changed their goal post on this experiment to fit their own parameters. not very impressed. I mean they said "anything below a 7 SHOULD be safe for the opposing teams hearing" then when that one girl "thought" there might not be another team she turned it straight up to 7 and started blasting over and over. The researchers overlooked that completely as they concluded they couldn't get anyone to act cruel at all. I think blasting someone at the borderline unsafe levels over and over repeatedly is pretty cruel. Sounds like confirmation bias to me.. I'd be interested to read the full report on their results from each round.
12:16 Vsauce: ..., can anonimity, power and depersonalization alone lead to evil?
Me: * points at twitter *
modern warfare lobbies
Not really.
The average person rarely exhibit violent or cruel behavior on Twitter consciously.
It is simply the hateful one being given both anonymity and a stage to act.
@candy
Thank you for the compliment, but why is it irrelevant?
@@alucard347 twitter is
poop shit
well until you get doxxed by Skai Jackson because one of your ex's photoshopped a picture of you saying the Nword
My favorite dude was the one going “There’s no difference if you close your eyes or open them.” 👁👄👁. ➖👄➖
I can’t believe they left that in the video 😂
A true human does not see with his eyes. He sees with his clear mind and flaming heart.
that dude cracked me up🤣
He was the cutest
He's a mood.
the noise experiment doesn't say much because the team knew that they were going to be buzzed too by the noise, meanwhile the guards in the prison knew they would suffer no consequences due to their actions and cruelty, and i think that these people from the noise experiment would have been more cruel if they were prison guards and would have also been dehumanized sooner or later
In the second half of the experiment, the group was allowed to send noise without receiving any noise back
@@ellienyah i agree but it's not the same feeling of dominance and pleasure
I’d like to add to this that the main flaw I see in Michael’s experiment is that there is not haptic feedback for those causing the buzzing. The prisoners would react or attempt to retaliate to the guards. That in it of itself creates a sort of rivalry and anger in the guards and doing something painful back and seeing that pain be felt is a huge part of rewarding the retaliation/cruel behavior. Without the haptic feedback of seeing what you’re doing is actually causing pain/harm etc. the experiment isn’t 1:1
@@JamesCA michael’s main hypothesis is that due to the way the experiment was done, the results may have been biased or influenced by uncontrolled variables. I believe this experiment proved that
@@jackarmstrong8790 I think James is right the missing feedback was important. The guards became more cruel after the prisoners ignored and then challenged their authority. The guards felt they needed to assert their authority over the prisoners to gain control. The lack of feedback influenced theses students lack of response. Theses students likely would have used the buzzer more if the 'other group' responded with anger and contempt for what they were doing. With no feedback you have no true idea if what you are doing has any effect.
I'm surprised that nobody was suspicious of the 'up till level 7 it's not dangerous' thing. That they have been told they could bother the other team with a sound that could permanently damage someone's hearing should have made it obvious that it was fake. Maybe that's also why team 2 figured it out. After that experiment with the fake painful shocks and Stanford, a lot of ethical restrictions were made. I do think Michael's criticism of the Stanford experiment is totally valid.
How would that be obviously fake? If a level 3 was already that loud and annoying, and there were still several more levels to get to 7, then there is really no reason to think anything higher than a level 7 is safe for hearing. Also permanent damage was never mentioned. Safety was. Things like fluid buildup arent necessarily safe for their ears but do not equate permanent damage.
@@kaazimsheikh9034 they could've figured out it was fake because the group knows that Michael wouldn't subject the other team to dangerous levels of sound, so if they put the dial to 12 and push the button they know that it's probably just a test to see if they'll do it and that there really isn't an effect on the other team
@@swarmy5856 see that experiment where people were pressured to electrocute. They believed someone else was there.
"It's so weird, there's no difference if you... close your eyes or open them, it's really weird." - this guy was my favorite
That was cute, I have a slight crush on that guy after watching this haha
@@VioletSky908 Same. Don't tell my gf or she'll remind me that I'm not gay. :(
@@VioletSky908 Haha that's cool, even though I did not mean it in that way
I know right? I was like give me a puff.
@@shaegis lol your gf
Everybody: this is so annoying, we should retaliate. One guy: dude closing your eyes is so weird
Yeah
Some people are into fight and some are into weed
@@RaulTorres-lj3ki hahaha i was thinking the same thing. dude seems like he's just here to pick up his next quarter
+
It probably would be weird
You need incentive for this to work. If you did this exact same experiment but said if they finished their puzzle before the other team they would get $1000 I guarantee you the results would be wildly different. Them incentive role is fulfilled in the Stamford prison experiment partly by Zambardo telling them to be more like a guard.... while not the same as monetary incentive its still gives the "guards" a reason to act like guards. This was missing from your experiment.
This!
that was the Problem with zambardos experiment
@@Mole-Estherit was a problem, but also served an important purpose.
Thats the point though? He wanted to show that demand characteristics had a huge role in Zimbardos experiment which directly decreases validity.
I feel like that was Michaels point, removing demand characteristics, this would just be giving them a demand characteristic and hence performing a excitement similar to the Stanford one.
"I would love to so the stanford prison experiment again"
-Michael, Vsauce.
Lol
He also gave himself the buzzer lol
*_I am still not paying for KRplus Red._*
Whole Food Plant-Based Man 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I feel you on that! They can try to entice us as much as they like!
There is no such thing as youtube red. What are you 80?
Same here!!!
@@goodman854 no need to be rude.
@0ff topic guy He's right, KRplus Red is now KRplus Premium
Controversial experiment: exists
Vsauce: *lets do it again*
MATT0927 56 Erin: Thats not vegan
Horatio Huskisson wow I actually understand the reference
I’ll fucking do it again
And that's great ^^
I saw a bit earlier that drama around the trolley dilemma. I know I'm late, but I couldn't find what was the truth/what really happened and disabled comments on many episodes troubled me for a while. Does anyone has answers ?
PS : I want to make sure that I do NOT doubt Michael's honesty and will to produce entertaining content ❤
@@montecrysto33 i dont really know what happened either but i loved that episode tbh
It would be interesting to see if the test groups were not selected based on their compassion. Zimbardo said the Stanford experiment had a fairly average distribution of personality characteristics, which surely plays an integral role in the outcome of the experiment.
The cloak of anonymity and demand characteristics obviously plays a huge role, but in this experiment the most aggressive behaviour we saw was retaliatory even if they COULD turn the volume up and intensify the frequency without repercussions in the second phase.
Now, imagine if the test group had a more average distribution of characteristics AND more subjects. 4 people in a dark room becomes very intimate and even though you can't see eachother I assume they didn't TRULY feel completely anonymous due to the groups small size. An observation I made was that the subjects often told the group what they were doing. How high they turned it and "I'm not going to let go of the button....ok that's enough". Which tells me that these people sought feedback from the group about wether what they were going to do was acceptable or not.
My hypothesis is that a bigger group creates a larger sense of anonymity and the need for feedback from the group would not be as strong.
Another hypothesis is that in a group of more evenly distributed personality traits there would be someone that has less of a problem increasing the volume and intensity, which COULD result in others being more willing to accept using a higher volume and intensity as well. We've all probably heard or used some version of the "They did it, so I did it too" argument. We all want to conform(heard mentality) to a group regardless of if we feel anonymous or not and that need for conformity can make us do things we normally wouldn't do.
The bystander effect also comes into play. The bigger the group the less likely someone are to intervene even if they consider it to be wrong.
So no, EVERYONE isn't inherantly sadistic if given anonymity, power and instruction, but that doesn't mean they don't have it in them if someone around them "sets the bar".
In other words, the experiment was flawed in the sense that subjects were intentionally selected and that helped to achieve a specific outcome, but it does tell us that anonymity, power and direction alone does not inherantly mean that the subjects will resort to abuse of power and sadism.
If this expriment would have had larger test groups and a wider distribution of personality traits my hypothesis is that the results would have been very different.
I'm not and expert, however I have studied psychology.
however, only certain types would be attracted to that ad in the paper.
On the money!
Just accept that Zimbardo's experiment is wrong. LMAO.
You are not an expert in experimental psychology. Don't be pretentious, it's just makes you look bad.
@@-TheUnkownUser I clearly state that I'm not an expert but tha tI have a degree in psychology. So don't be a dick if you haven'
t even read what's been written. It just makes you look bad.
20:30 I think one flaw with this experiment was the retaliation element.
While the noise level *is* anonymous, all the participants are aware of the fact that their opponents can make a level 12 noise in retaliation, which could cause hearing damage.
Trueee
having dark rooms like that is dangerous, mobs could spawn
hah
hahah
i have given you your 69th like, this is the highest honour one can bestow upon another.
Still happens in small rooms, my enchanting room is tiny and I get a lot of creepers
@@merrikerfle9415 and when the facility closes and everybody clears out?
I think the reason they didn't become "sadistic" or cruel is because they couldn't see the affects of their actions. I think that's where sadistic behavior comes from. They can see the effects of their actions and they enjoy it. This experiment in my mind is more so how people react to being annoyed.
Also it took atleast one day in the SPE for the behaviour to change. And in the SPE there was no "you press the button, im gonna press it too", they weren't untouchable in this kinda situation here.
@@DisguisedRory exactly!
Finally someone with basic understanding of the psychology of cruelty. You need to see it to want it.
Yess. This thread.
Mind field didn't do a very good job in this experiment and the moral licensing one.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. The buzzer was more of a annoyance than the potential power high that can follow from say a prison guard abusing inmates. There are so many components this "experiment" was missing from the original. For instance there was no positive reinforcement from the "cruelty" where the original guards would receive positive stimuli from hearing the researchers get excited at their tormenting. There was also a lack of response stimuli from abusing others in this, a huge deciding factor for this stuff is often generated from the victims reactions. The power high for instance can be experienced when the victims cower/plead/resist whatever it may be, there is more of a "reward" for the abusers actions than say "god I bet those people are so annoyed right now"
I remember watching Vsauce as a kid, and now I realize this channel is the whole reason why I ended up developing such a passion for scientific research as an adult now. I feel like a kid all over again, thanks for making us curious.
The perspective Dave is able to have is amazing. He's able to discuss the influences to his behavior while still taking accountability.
“I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy” that line kind of set the moral guideline for that group.
Carol Howard yeah, you are white.
@@moomin8470 can we not bring race into an experiment about cruelty, all that will do is further divide us
@@moomin8470 lol the Asian chick buzzed 37 out of 38 times, and you're going on about white people xD 27:16
You'd be right if it wasn't pitch black and nobody would know if they did.
sky you’re probably white too
"Give somebody a mask and they will show their true face."
@@nav5738 it means that people are their true selves when they're anonymous, because their anonymity frees them from consequences
deep uwu
@@kwingle why
Jasnam Mansa its just a deep thing to say, its just something that opens up some true things that you’ve never really thought about..
This is an Oscar Wilde quote haha .. "Man is least himself in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you the truth" or something like that. Cool cool
Something important to note here is they're called "guards" and "prisoners", if you called them "carers" and "people who need care" you'd get a completely different result, even if everything else was the same.
This video with it’s interview context is just as much part of Psychology History as the Experiment it’s self, Thank you Michael!
I love how one guy is just closing and opening his eyes, and then glasses girl is just going *HAM* on that button
Thx
I got you to 666likes!
Never mind
Thanks lol
666 likes gone...
F in the chat for the 666 likes
I’m glad the guard was truly honest about what he felt. That really helps Michael’s hypothesis be as accurate as possible. Well done.
Or was that a coached response to push michaels narrative?
@@erik.cowell1277 damn
slow down there mr scientist, no need to use big words like "hypothesis"
It was really frustrating to hear but I agree completely.
@@Andrew-th8jk Dude wtf ? It's not that big of a word, if ur not sure about the meaning of a word you can Google it, just don't act like he's a show of for using a word you wouldn't 😂
As someone with autism, I've always wanted to know what these kinds of experiments would show about people that are neurodivergent. How would they act differently considering many of the common neurotypical behaviors don't apply to them
@@jellopy24bro 😭
@@VortexNowwhat did he say
yes, I would like to see that too! I know for me, and a lot of other autistic people, authority holds no weight. Further, social pressures are less extreme to us. It would be interesting to see the ramifications of these traits.
@@Sir_Rat6225 he said if it were a bunch of autistics it would be a daycare and said nobody cares
@@VortexNowThat‘s Just funny, That’s a good one
The Stanford experiment was like a micro sample of what the naxys did to Germany after ‘33. The modern study used the best of a personality scale while Stanford used moderate to borderline. I like learning about this topic and psych in general including pharmaceutically. Nice video
I was in prison for 16 years. Lived in 7 different prisons in California. Each prison had a different culture. Ranging from somewhat pleasant to the worst. I've seen rookie guards come into the job with a good personality and overtime succumb to being influenced by the harshness of the veteran guards or inmates.
However I've seen rookie guards who've stayed with their moral integrity intact despite the bad influences.
@@doodlium2093 he'd probably prefer not to say?
He is probably lying
Tehachapi at 16 years old in 2001.
Lancaster 2004
Centinela 2008
Soledad 2008
Salinas Valley 2009
Solano 2010-17
A brief stint in Chino for 2 months during the 2010-2017 era
@Sunita Krishna i was tried as an adult when i was 15 for a carjacking with a gun. I was a dumb kid who didnt care for people or their well being. I paid a heavy penalty. However nothing compares to the pain ive caused the man i committed the crime against.
How intresting would it be if in the prison experiment at the end they switched roles...
Konstantinos Mparmpounis back in the 70’s and 60’s here in Arkansas when the prison system was severely screwed up, they had prisoners that were “trustees” who were turned into guards and carried shot guns in the prison. They abused their power. Look up the movie Brubaker. They had a hand crank telephone at Tucker Max that they called the Tucker Telephone. When you acted up, they would hook one wire to your testicle and the other to your big toe and cranked that handle and it would shock you. Horrifically. This actually happened, I live 50 minutes from Tucker Max.
James Haynes interesting
I think there was an experiment where they did do that
People would die lmao
The prisoners could lash out in revenge or perhaps hold back unable to make themselves do what others did to them.
I think an important part of the original prison experiment was the prisoner/guard roles...maybe people have preconceptions about prisons but that doesnt mean they have to be cruel guards. Now if they were indeed instructed or led to believe being cruel was required or expected that definitely skews the results.
But it would be interesting to repeat the experiment with average personalities and no instruction for how to act other than the basic expectations of a prison.
I also think an important aspect of this dynamic, as they found, was personality, and its well known that people who want to be prison guards in real life tend to have authoritarian, and even abusive or violent personalities...
I was a bill collector for 13 years. I did not know at the time, but I have a neurological disorder. I was “Too nice” for phone work, so I had other rolls in the department.
I did observe some of the things the collectors would do or say. The successful collector said stuff over the phone they wouldn’t say to people face to face. They made it their business why people didn’t pay their bills and even how they will pay. One gal asked “do you smoke” the debtor said yes. She told the debtor to pay their bill instead of smoke.
Another collector told a debtor to collect bottles to take back to pay the bill.
This one collector called in because she was in the hospital. A different collector called the hospital to make sure.
Anonymous can create evil. Because collectors got monetary bonuses, behavior became more cruel to get more money.
I have literally said all of that to friends/ colleagues face when they are complaining that they're low on money... How is it cruel to call someone out of smoking or telling them to do what it takes (collect bottles) to get their life together? If anything, those collectors were problem solving on a level where they eliminated unnecessary empathy and made it clear that there are options, there are ways. Stop the bs, just do it.
It seems strange to me that you actually have made it your business to interject your unsolicited "advice" on multiple people who simply talked openly about running short on money at some point while in your presence . Seems pretentious to me. I'd imagine the people probably see some flaws in you as well and realize you might not have all the answers either. Especially if those people know you have a habit of this behavior. I guess you and I just have a different understanding of boundaries and perception is reality as they say.
How has nobody been like "MICHAEL, FROM VSAUCE??? IS THAT YOU?" yet? I can only imagine how I would react if I was in a dark room, the lights turned on, and I saw the patron saint Michael himself standing there.
I have a question Make your predictions now
Will the first manned spacecraft to mars?????
(A - Land on mars all good mission success)
(B - blow up shortly befor / after take off)
(C - blow up anytimeafter leaving earths atmosphere)
@@sdoilpaint4368 D - Land on Mars, open the hatch, and by greeted by "Hey NASA, Michael here. Welcome to Mars. Did you know that Martian winds..."
I've wondered the same thing. I guess not as many people watch Vsauce as I thought. Either that, or they ask if they've heard of Vsauce before, and then turn them away if they have, but who knows?
The Patron Saint Michael himself
My guess is they realize it's a formal situation and they don't want to mess it up and/or embarrass themselves by fangirling.
I'd be interested to see a study on how people can be cruel online, because while the participants in this experiment couldn't see each other, I felt that just being in the presence of others could have influenced their morality.
I was watching a documentary on homelessness in Scotland and I made a comment about how hard it is to get a job because the rent in a hostel or furnished flat is over £300 a week because you have to pay the ground rent, the rent for the white goods, your furniture pack and in a hostel part of your rent goes to pay the staff. I know this because I was homeless in Scotland. Some woman who has never lived in Scotland in her life called me a liar so I posted a link to a rent chart. She then posted a load of replies calling me for all sorts and really insulting me. And I mean getting really personal. She had read in a previous post that I had been gang raped by eight men while I was homeless and she was saying things like "you probably weren't raped, you probably got paid for it coz you're a dirty junkie bastard" everytime I reported it the comments would disappear for a minute then reappeared. I legit cried for days. I really think you tube should be more on the ball with this stuff
@@starrchild254 sorry about that. Hope you are fine now
@@Nai_101 I'm not letting some internet troll get me down. Bit it does prove ince again that with the advent of social media people are using the anonymity to say crueler nd crueler things to each other that they woukd never say to a persons face. I strongly believe that when someone reports a comment on you tube it should be people checking them instead of the current methid looking for certain keywords tat are banned because a lot of bullying slips through the net that way
@@starrchild254 youtube moderation isn't the greatest. AI (what they are using) doesn't understand context like a human being would. This is why those comments probably still exist. Stay strong :)
@@Nai_101 thank you. I have bigger things to worry me than a shitebag anonymous troll on youtube
Found this after looking for a clip of the actual experiment and am now fascinated to know more! Humans are so complex and I really appreciated learning from your experiment! Be so interested to see other personality types going through the experimant too as well as introducing more demand charateristics! Thanks for the learnings!
Im not a psychologist or anything, but I think that pressure, personality and background plays a major role. The experiement has great concepts in which if you take someone who takes their role very seriously they would put so much dedication in it. But if you take someone whos less invested or being idle into things you would get average or more below average results.
edit
I think the psych test you put to filter the participants was unnescessary to have a more wider result. Thats like picking day care employees to be prison guards in that matter. These experiments would be a lot better if Dr Zimbardo tests extremely hardened excons to be guards or day care employees or caregivers.
"People are quick to be cruel if an authority figure suggests that doing so will serve a greater cause", see Germany 1939-45
Damn right
Well, and if standing up to the authority means you, your family, and your friends are likely to suffer dire consequences it is so much easier to just obey. And rationalise the bad deeds.
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
YoursTrulyEmma what's the context of your question? What's there to "believe?" I don't understand the question....
I don't THINK anything... it WAS a sham... the professor engineered the experiment to get the desired result.
The "guards" were told how to behave, already invalidating the notion that "power corrupts" or whatever nonsense but even the "subjects" exaggerated their responses and to quote one directly
"I was afraid of failing the class more than anything else"
So if that qualifies as a successful experiment than.... what's a bad experiment to you? I mean literally nothing about it was organic and the professor himself admitted as much so what's there to "believe" exactly?
Amethyst Girl it actually was a sham though, fucking hell the main guy who became ‘sadistic’ ‘John Wayne’ thought he was just helping with the experiment by playing a character, unless you think being given power also gives you a southern accent the way he behaved was not genuine or organic, it’s what he was told to do
They are missing a CRUCIAL piece!
One of the most important part is being able to see the reaction of the prisoners!
Well i thinks its easy for normal humans to understand the consequences of their actions. Dont you think that these geniuses would know what theyre doing and to consider all variables?
@@whocares8567 and yet they didnt factor that one in, and it changed the results of the experiment
This is a very important point. Those who start being cruel often are lured down that road through the reactions of others. By removing the interaction between the parties, Vsauce removed two crucial elements. First: Vsauce removed the feeling of competition. Most of the participants concluded by the end that there was no other team and thus no point in pushing the button. Second: Vsauce removed the emotional stimuli that comes through the act of domination. For those who are inclined to it, domination gives a huge dopamine rush. Both factors will seriously influence this situation.
naaaa...nope...the crucial thing is that those experiments should be done with presidents and the whole gov ..not with normsl people
@@tigern_i_f_rimeri6069 found the guy that makes everything political
Standford experiment : controversial experiment with psychological torture
Vsauce : yeah we're gonna do this again
The most tragic thing about this "experiment" is that it didn't even have to happen at all since there are actual people in those situations already. Just go to any prison already in operation and record and interview actual guards and prisoners if you really want to know what it's like in them.
that would be a good case study, but given typical scientific conventions experiments are supposed to be replicated. otherwise it’s hard to determine if it’s something specific to the prison, the guards, or the community.
You don't understand the SPE at all if you think you can just go in to a regular prison and talk guards and prisoners. Under no circumstance would anyone involved in prison in any way would be able to be a subject in the experiment because they already know what it takes... What guards and/or prisoners can be like and would be predisposed to acting/responding a certain way because of their past experience. That is what is referred to in the science community as a variable. When someone says there are too many variables for something to work it means that there are too many factors involved to make the a choice. In an experiment the people doing the study need to be able to control all of the factors (variables) accept the ones they are testing.
There are *THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS * of prison interviews done asking what it's like in prison. There have been millions and millions of conversations people have had about what it's like. What new thing will talking about it again teach people?? Nothing at all.. we have preconceived notions about prison because of our experiences and knowledge. Watching another KRplus video or Netflix docuseries isn't likely to teach us something new. Vsauce didn't want to do anything regarding prison because we all "know" how guards and prisoners act the act of those in the study knowing is a variable that cannot be controlled only one to study.. To see if we're more likely to fall in line when you have expectations of how people will act? SPE was trying to see what would happen if you just said your a guard your a prisoner be safe and they were SUPPOSED to want true outcomes of how that power (or lack power) makes people act. When you tell the guards to really keep them in line and be hard on them you're changing the study because your telling them how to act... So now the study is just... See how bad it can get when you tell them to be bad.
Whatever... I won't go on... Just know that your suggestion isn't a scientific study, it is an interview and situations that scientist didn't have control over. Studies need to be able to be reproduced the exact same way to many groups. To study and to find out *new* information.
@@pumpkinkoot865 I understand what you are saying, but the thing is that the experiment didn't prove or disprove anything except for the fact that locking people up is never a good idea. Even when everyone involved in the experiment KNEW that it was an experiment and only temporary, they still "devolved" to depravity and suffered mental issues because of it, much like those who are sent to prison for real. As I said, the experiment didn't need to happen at all, it proved nothing that wasn't already known.
So why not test also 'cruel' personalities? Really expected the second group to be a control :(
Well i guess that'd be too inevitable... Would you really expect people *_already predisposed to cruelty_* to not act on that given favourable circumstances?!
But i wonder why not test the mid-range personalities... As they even say in the video description: this is supposed to be about NORMAL people, not the best of us. Would be pretty sad to have had the best give in so easily. ^^
@@irrelevant_noob Exactly! Why not test those who are just, well, the average human? It's also expected that people with good morals will do good, as it is expected people with poor morals will do poorly
Yeah I expected that too, but this made good sense really. To get a true picture, you should repeat the experiment with different subjects, of the same personality types.
well i feel most people by default will not actively harm others for no reason other than the fact that they have the ability to do so.
people only really act in violent ways, when there is some external force that compels them to in some way or another.
@@sgx9874 actually the role of responsibility is different here. Those kids prob didnt see it as a big deal like they were given small roles. Give people big roles, their responsibilities make their personalities spawn in a way that the situation make it compelling to do so
"Give someone a mask and they'll show you who they are"
Where is that quote from?
@@user-vu2ki5rg6e cat in a hat
It's a quote from Oscar Wilde
Crazily true
I think it is from The Dark Knight. It is a quote from the Joker.
I think that the experience of having power over somebody consists in knowing that the other has not as much power as us, but also in looking at the consequences of it. One feels really powerful when he sees his effects on another. So coming up with a team over whom the actual one could exercise a power, but not giving the actual team the opportunity to look at it, maybe it made people feel their power in a less concrete way. This imaginary team supposedly had the same power as the actual one at the beginning, but then lost it without knowing. What if: there were an other team made of actors, in an adjacent room, ready to fictionally react to the sounds ? And what if there were a one way mirror, and the actual team were informed that the other team (of actors) could not see them while they could ? It would be pretty interesting. Not saying people would necessary come out as sadistic, but it’s much easier when you look at the effect of your power. Plus, the thought of seeing without being seen can be extraordinarily empowering. And what if, at some point, the actual team were informed that the other team could not use the buttons
The problem is that in Zambardo‘s study they were told to be harsh, that it was even necessary. It makes it impossible to know what impact it had or didn’t have. Zambardo‘s study was more like a repeat of Stanley Milgram‘s experiments.
'people were mean to each other'
i think mean is a bit of an *UNDERSTATEMENT*
Only a bit?
Imagine how awkward it was after the experiment and being in the same class as one of the guards.
I'm incredibly surprised there wasn't an altercation. I really don't want to portray myself as a "Billy Badass", but I know I have anger issues. If you sat someone in a room with me that made me feel fear, anxiety and humiliation for days on end, there is little to no chance I wouldn't put my hands on them.
@@Zachdidntdoit True. Those "prisoners" must have been really compassionate people to sit down and have a civil conversation with their tormentors after a whole week of that nonstop.
@@michaeld4861 I think he said it was shut down after 2 days
@@jimmymarrs1556 6 days
Basically a week of torture
A better way to do it would be to mix the personalities and see if a aggressive person can convince the others to be aggressive and so on.
I think that randomly picking a person, running the experiment and just after that doing the psychological tests would be a really good way to see if the group becoming sadistic (or not) is related to a predisposition or if it's related to the task they were given.
Good point.
That first group seemed so chill, I love when they just ended up chatting lol
Hi
@real sad egg. 💖 your avatar.
Nice duck man
1st group mad attractive
having dark rooms like that is dangerous, mobs could spawn
11:00
Guard: "I cannot say that I did not enjoy what I was doing"
Michael: 👀👄👀
Why does he have four eyes 😂
👀
👄
I can kinda see how if you don’t believe you are actively harming someone you might enjoy something like playing the part of the guards.
He genuinely disgusts me
@@avadae9126 glasses
i tip my hat to dave eshelman for acknowledging and learning from his actions in the experiment
especially coming to be interviewed on the matter
not a lot of men have the courage to face themselves to become a better man and also share their growths so publicly
YOUR A FREAKING LEGEND you could have easily made this not free and no one would judge you thanks so much for making it free
I don’t have KRplus premium, so I absolutely cherish whenever Mindfield episodes are free to watch.
Doubt you’ll see this, Michael, but if you do: your work is fantastic!
Hank
Which other ones are free?
@@waterfox2110 look on his channel
Scare pewdipie 1 may not of been as good, bet we all know 2 was gonna be lit
Justin go on ph, people reupload them there
Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”
Fun fact, this quote is actually not from Lincoln. Its origins are unclear, but it was actually said about Lincoln, not by him. The quote can be more accurately attributed to author Robert G. Ingersoll. quoteinvestigator.com/2016/04/14/adversity/
That's not meant to say that you're wrong or uneducated, I just wanted to share the knowledge because I learned about the quote's origins when I did an English project about it and I thought it was kind of interesting
@@ouisamus No, you ARE telling them they are wrong. When someone says "Lincoln said x" and you say "not from Lincoln", then that is you claiming that their statement is wrong. I do not appreciate that you denying what you are doing. It implicitly suggests saying people are wrong is somehow a worse situation than it actually is. You are attempting to undermine normal corrective behavior, YOUR OWN corrective behavior, and you must be told with no uncertainty that you are wrong and you are giving red flags leading me to suspect that you are also acting maliciously.
MeshTexture this paragraph wasn’t needed at all. You’re malicious and fucking weird.
@@meshtexture3490 TheLrd Roca said "Lincoln said" Just because Lincoln said something doesn't mean the quote came from him, it just means that he said the quote, which makes your whole paragraph pointless.
I absolutely love how honest the "guard" is. It really is detrimental to the authenticity of the science experiment.
I think this experiment would be really cool if repeated with the same personality type i.e. high morality etc and if some participants acted cruelly. I think it would probably show a mob mentality kind of result but I think it would be really cool just because (and I'm speculating here) it could be that even though the other team members didn't see if the dial was turned up maybe they still felt like they should hold back? So what if one person selected for for cruel personality or a plant that would increase it above 7, would the team members look down on them because of morality or would they join because of mob mentality? I think this video was honestly great, good job guys!!
People: “this was wrong”
The American education system: “here’s a little lesson in trickery”
This is going down in history.
If you want to pay to learn nothing
Stop trying to be edgy
Lettuce Man public school idiot
@@danijelujcic8644 if you wanna be a villain number one
Would've been great if after turning the light on again you bursted into the room yelling "HEY VSAUCE MICHAEL HERE"
LOOOL
Or maybe plant a buzzer that screams "HEY VSAUCE MICHAEL HERE"
Or maybe a participant yelling, "HEY MICHAEL VSAUCE HERE"
"HEY, MICHAEL V. SAUCE HERE"
How did no one recognise him?
I think it also depends hugely where the participants are during the experiment, a room full of other people and a game is calmer and more relaxing than a prison cell with walls between and a closed space …the participants know what a prison cell is, so their brains produce more fear in the participants
I really enjoyed this. It made me think of people that murder in groups,or when couples murder. Would the other person of committed such brutal acts if they never met the other person(s)??..this really brings to mind infinity lol..
I love this channel one of the best I have found. Now I get easily distracted & Michael has managed to keep me intrested in whatever subject he has covered,so far,as I haven't watched all of his video's..Thanks Michael/Vsauce.
my main issue with this is that, unlike the stanford prison experiment, the participants didn't get to directly see how their actions were impacting the other team
bumping this
This.
I think, partly, that was the intention. Yet it leads to a massive side effect. It's kind of comparable to the internet in a way
also, the participants are all high on moral scores, no tests for the average person
I do agree.
I'm not a person with high morals. I can act cruel ("evil") given the situation, but, for me, it's unlikely to impossible to kill (or harm permanently) a person whatever the situation is. If I can't see how bad my actions will harm the other person, I can't go playing around with a thing that's out of my control and could cause, in this case, deafness in someone else.
I think one crucial element that wasn't mentioned was the idea that the guards could see how as a consequence of their actions, they could see the suffering of the prisoners.
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
Toori Baba the point of the experiment is why they do it though and if normal people will not just be dicks but be actively cruel to an extreme extent given the opportunity
This reminds me the Milgram experiment in some levels. Not the obedience aspect, but the consequences of power.
@Charged or they become False GeNiUsEs and believe the first article they read written in a no name vlog
@@Eexpers DUDE! YOU ARE RIGHT! BUSH ORGANIZED 9/11, MONSANTO IS POISONING US, AND THE EARTH IS FLAT MAN! OMG www.livescience.com/what-if-flat-earth.html
I think that if they could have brought in a third or fourth group with personalities that were meaner, they could of had a more conclusive idea of whether or not the groups folded to be cruel because of those personalities, or because the situation wasn't set up right. Also if they created a situation where there was only one person in the group that wasn't an actor, then they could have looked into how peer pressure creates creulty, or if peer pressure creates kindness, and (not for this show but) if done with more subjects then they could work out, which side people tend towards.
Good study, probably lots of situations you can get into, well done
this would be insanely popular on Netflix.
True
The movie isn't on there anymore?
I *wish* it was on Netflix. I wouldn't have to pay extra money, plus, they would include subtitles for my native language
So true
@@brodiemedders9388 I just checked. The movie is still on Netflix.
Can we talk about how hard that puzzle has to be when you can't see anything.
They wanted that Potion of Night Vision
Probably not that hard. Seperate the pieces. Find a hole and try and rotate them one by one till one fits.
This is all I could think about!!
And the difficulty must be increased tenfold by how weirdly shaped the pieces are
i guess it was important so that it ultimately makes the participants frustrated by being unable to solve it and it would directly affect them pressing the button out of frustration.
Have to appreciate Dave's honesty. If I was in his place I'd try to get away with attributing all the blame to the experimenters
this was very interesting, i wonder what would’ve happened if they added just 1 person who wasn’t ranked so high on valuing moral. i wonder if it would be easy to sway their morals if encouraged by someone who appears to be on their team is doing it, like maybe they can do it too.
the girl hitting the buzzer in the second team started doing it more after saying she thought there was no other team, and the guy also started hitting it after she said that. like if he believed it too and that’s why it was okay to try it out.
Michael's experiment really should've included a group predisposed to sadism. I bet they would've popped that dial up to 12 almost immediately.
Not really because they don't get to see how it affects the other team, thus it wouldn't be satisfying. (source: I'm a sadist-lite).
@@peacefuldawn6823 I'm not talking about that. They tested two groups both made up of "good" people and because of that, little "evil" was found. They should have also tested "bad" people to see how they would react in the same situation.
Well we already saw that in the original experiment
@@loganbradford2343 Not really if they were told to act that way and reprimanded if they weren't being "tough" enough. If that is true it immediately invalidates the experiment. The fact is there that Zimbardo only stopped the experiment after a girl he liked insisted he stop this clearly out of control study that was getting more inhumane by the day but he didn't fucking care. He clearly only cared about how cruel he could get the "guards" to act, and not at all concerned about the well being of the "inmates". Who is the real sadist in this situation?
EDIT: because I'm not entirely sober and typing meaningful sentences is a little tough atm
I doubt it, I feel like explicitly telling them that anything above 7 can cause damage lowered their possible anonymity and increased their moral responsibilities pretty much immediately.
'Everybody hates power until you offer them some' - The Constant
@Алексей Прокопенко They wouldn’t be wise if they would do that, intelligent doesn’t matter because abusing power isn’t stupid, just morally wrong.
People dont hate _power_ necessarily, they just hate how others use it.
It is the enemy from the game hitman
*Arthur Edwards
@Алексей Прокопенко the point is that everyone is by nature egoistic and i doubt you wouldnt also use power if the chance presented itselfand you wouldnt be punished for using it in whatever way you desire. A point you mentioned is retaliation(making it worse for everyone) which is a valid point but if one were truly anonymous i belive anyone would use the power to their own benefit.
I think in the first stage the fear of getting hit back with a high level intensity noise might have stopped them from sending anything too high. had they told them from the beginning only they could send noise and maybe adding visuals of the other teams progress so a real competitive feeling arises might have been better
the first session was so wholesome
i like seeing them all work together and put out a few jokes
Would have been interesting to bring in a 3rd group to try the puzzle experiment with those on the complete OPPOSITE end of the personality test.
I was waiting for that, even just the average would have been interesting
They'd all hold the 12 intensity for the duration of the experiment.
Exactly what i was thinking
What I was thinking as well
I feel like this is flaw in their method. They set out to see how situation effects the actions of a person including if a certain behaviour was expected of them but they changes both the situation the subjects were placed in but also the personality and predisposition of the subjects. I would much prefer it if they hadn't selected only one personality but rather a range of personalities to properly draw conclusion on the effects of the personality on behaviour and then compare the over all result to the Stanford Prison Experiment results. To me, that evidence would have been more convincing
After watching, I have to conclude that there are only two kinds of people.
People 1: fvck em imma retaliate
People 2: closing your eyes is so weirdd
People 3: Poke it with a stick.
26:06
😂😂😂😂
Hahaha 😅
Would have liked the sound experiment with mixed personalities and aggressive personalities
Truly amazing and interesting video! My question though is if Vsauce (& colleagues) are truly neutral in this experiment. Aren't they the 'guards' in this experiment? Shouldn't their reactions and temptation to cause the 'blast' be considered as data too?
Iv been binge watching this series, I love Michael's content. Iv enjoyed every episode so far. Not just because the topic of each video and the conclusion that is made in the end, but what I like most is the process of scientific analysis that the team chooses for each experiment. However this episode does not match with the usual method of the series. I believe if we are going to make a conclusion, we should have a control group, just like micheal has always shown us. to see if the morality of this individuals actually plays a role in the equation. For example we should have a control group of individuals that showed sadistic tendencies, or just a random unfiltered group might have been the better choice. Im relatively sure that micheal would agree that we could have had a more certain conclusion here if we had a reference for our theory. but mindfield is clearly a much bigger project than the normal vsauce content, so it is understandable that there are compromises to be made along the way. And in all the episodes Iv watched so far, this was the only instance that I felt the method may not be optimal, so thats a still a pretty awesome quality ratio. The vsauce channel is pretty huge, It may be too improbable but I hope micheal sees my comment. Thanks again for the great content.
what if when he came in and someone heard him and just said “is that vsauce?”
This is my third episode of Mine Field I've seen and I've been seriously wondering "isn't one of the participants bound to recognize him at some point? Wouldn't that completely mess up the results of the study depending on when Michael showed himself?
@@ArcanineEspeon I think he only shows at the end of the experment
@@therewill1584 in some of the 'game shows' performed in mainly the first season, he is the host.
@@ArcanineEspeon they could get more volunteers, I'm sure it happened at least once over the 3 seasons
@@secnytsecnyt2981 I assume they just show the people who don’t know that Michael stevens = vsauce
As someone studying psychology (specifically social psychology): Demand characteristics are a *huge* issue. I think that they may have played a role in the Stanford Prison Experiment, especially given that the “guard” participants were told that they were a part of the experiment, not the participants. There was a BBC Replication study done in 2006 that found very different results from the original. They found that people adhered to their social roles more in relation to the supposed “other,” and that having a group to identify with gave the “prisoners” the confidence to retaliate against the “guards.”
I think that the “experiment” done in this episode introduced a confounding variable by picking the “best” people to be participants. If the participants had been chosen at random, or if they had tried to pick the most “average” people, then that confound likely wouldn’t exist and you would get a more accurate view of how the average person might behave.
I had to watch this video as part of a unit in my psychology class. I think it's interesting but I feel like to adequately recreate a study you have to get all the parts as close to the original study. Yes they couldn't actually recreate the guard-prisoner dynamic but I feel like they stacked the deck with the participants having a similar personality type. I wonder how it would have gone if they had run this updated study with a wider range of personality types?
There are a few factors to consider in this specific experiment.
1) You never gave the team the chance to see the 'other team's ' reaction and response to their actions. Part of the sense of power is what the person perceives. For example in the Stanford Prison Experiment: The guards could see how their actions were taking effect over the prisoners which would have enticed more of this power behaviour. The guards would not have been aggressive if they didn't see or get the response from the prisoners. This behaviour is commonly seen in a workplace where the boss or supervisor throws their weight (Power) to get people to do their bidding. The aftermath of their power results in people being shy, timid, afraid, cautious and these are all visible to the person in power, therefore this creates the need to exercise the power more and more creating the so-called evil described in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
2) You never adjusted the volume to properly reenact human behaviour and choice. Because you always made it volume 3 out of the potential 1-12 there's no sense that the 'other team' were being spiteful or malicious. If the 'other team' were not exercising their power then why should anyone else do the same? The biggest indicator for this was team 2 where number 2 always pressed 3 instead of a higher or lower number due to the receiving sound being the same and saw no need to retaliate nor exercise any more power than need be, only creating an equilibrium.
3) Part 2 from both teams was a null and void section because of what I said in my first factor. One of the experimentee's even noted that there is no other team because no one got the sense of power towards another person due to no response. There is no such thing as power when you cannot personally gauge your dominance and influence over another. Power is perceived and not felt or measured in any other form. A few examples of that are: A nuclear bomb, if a nuclear bomb video has never shown the shockwave effect of destruction, you never saw the crater from the fireball, never saw a mass of water being moved and never heard it. YOU COULD NEVER gauge the power of a nuclear bomb. Same goes for earthquakes, I have never experienced an earthquake, therefore I can not understand the power of an earthquake. I can look at what it can do damage wise, but that is as far as my understanding goes. Again, power is perceived and without that perception, you cannot run an experiment to get people to maliciously exercise their power and rights over others.
Thank you for reading, I hope I got my points across. And thank you for the video, was interesting, despite the flaws.
I completely agree with you
I absolutely agree with all being said. To the point 3 I would also add supporting point, that the since the second team could retaliate, they had no perceived power difference. Also I would add that the second stage of the experiments is absolutely inconclusive since in both cases participants didn't think that there is other team at all .
@@elvagar You mean couldn't retaliate?
Thank you for supporting replies. You're right about inconclusive as mentioned by myself as null and void. Power is perception. No perception no power. Very basic and simple psychology yet overlooked in this potential fundemental experiment. I've never studied psychology but I have a huge passion for advanced human psychology as I analysis every person I see and meet on a day to day basis. So if VSauce want an extra head to help with psychology on people ... I'm here o/
@@anubisstargate Sorry I did not express my thoughts clearly. I meant that they could retaliate, but in relation to the first part of experiment... What I was trying to say, that your point 3) applies also to the first part of experiment. If the participants believe that the other team has the same capabilities as they do, so there is no perceived power over the other team. And to me the experiment in that case resembles more the iterated prisoners dilemma.
Thank you very much! That was exactly what I was thinking. I hope they read this and try again, but the results from this experiment don't show anything. Also, there is nothing to gain which is also why people tend not to use the buzzer, because... why would they? Now they just buzz because: "oh yeah we can buzz them, almost forgot"
Hey have you herd of the “monster experiment”. In that they took kids with lysps and kids without one some books to read and insulted the normal kids and complemented the kids with lysps. The kids with lysps got better but the normal kids got lysps so bad they got compensation for it and can’t speak correctly to this day.
yeah I've heard of stuff like that with eye color too, pretty neat
Ah, actually, I don’t think it went that way. The group was divided regardless of whether or not they had a speech impediment (normals AND stutters). What ended up happening was that praise vs belittling didn’t do that much in preventing or causing stuttering. What did happen was that the kids that were praised became more confident when they spoke, and kids who weren’t more than likely had permanent self esteem issues and became withdrawn. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
@@painbowx7986 interesting, I'll love to watch a vsauce episode about that .
@painbowX No no no
Both of those theories are right the people with lysps got better and the ones without got worse and got self esteem issues
This kind of reminds me how Hugh Laurie really did start to develop a lingering physical problem with his right leg from how often he had to fake his limp for House.
I would love to see an inverted study where there are 2 teams of people competing to solve the puzzle first in their own separate rooms, cant see each other or the other teams (we maintain anonymity and depersonalisation). The first team to solve it, wins a grand.
Then there is a button available to each person which if triggered sends a hint to solve the puzzle to the other team. And it is told to the participants that no one has ever solved the puzzle.
This will show how kindness and selfishness works in such an environment.
Also such a study should have atleast 3 types of groups: highly moral, neutral, sadistic.
absolutely fascinating! thank you.
Michael : *picks kind people*
People : *being kind*
Michael :
* Surprised Pikachu *
such a stupid experiment really
If you didn't understand the experiment, it doesn't mean it's stupid. But I would agree that they should've also picked a group who scored middle in morals.
I think that they were contrasting Zimbardo's assertion that anyone would turn evil under the right circumstances. But I agree with you,, and I would have liked to have seen a mid-range group, as well.
@@chiellazona5624 yeah i agree ..also the prison guard was 18-21 years of age. No wonder this experiment get criticism
Sanaasna the second team wasn’t so kind lol
12:54 Michael is interviewing himself in 15 years.
G'day mate.
Dammit you beat me to it
Top 10 Archive lol
Yes! How is this even possible.. I was confused at first hearing Michael talk but his mouth wasn't moving
That check next to your name is satisfying to see
Props to the man for not turning into a psychopath after getting all the hate mail
Conduct the same study again over a matter of 6 days, select less passive more neutral participants. Have the buzzers interrupt sleep and general functioning and I believe you'll have greater clarity on your question.
Close enough to the original test while still controlling for your variables.
Zimbardo doesn’t seem to want to admit that his experiment was flawed.
In what way?
ClapTrap ah I see
@@Bramble20322 What makes it flawed?
@@darrenblair9316 wholeass 34 minutes on how his experiment was flawed, and you *still* ask that question? Really?
debunked - whole thing was a sham
gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62
I think the experiment was missing an important factor. While people were given the opportunity to be cruel, they could not see anyone feel the pain. It might be more satisfying to a sadist to see someone suffer, than just to know that someone is suffering.
Donar i feel like the people who participated in this video would be less inclined to harm the other individual if they could see them.
To that point, I found it personally interesting that Michael and the other guy got a laugh out of watching them get startled and want to retaliate, which is exactly this.
I'm thinking a true Sadist gets satisfaction either way. Seeing is great, just knowing, is as great.
Yeah but this wasn't about true sadists, it was about people having a hidden sadistic side No matter their moral spectrum.
@@RennyNanaya But this very experiment SELECTED FOR MORALITY, and the rest likely to demonstrate sadism, while Zimbardo allowed a more typically self-selected group prone towards IMMORALITY that we do see in actual prisons, or the military, where all participants choose to be a participant in the murder of other individuals or societies. The complete exclusion of such personalities in this study was far more unreal than Zimbardo's! What should be studied, is how individuals in a more normal, mixed personality group behave interpersonally with clear evidence of the other group having changeable actions/volumes and, does group size/balance/gender/race/religiosity effect outcomes?
What I really want to know, is will some follow evil AGAINST their own personality if their direct study-subject colleagues are known to be acting evilly and may even goad them on??? So, do the pre-(or-post?)-liminary personality testing and then find self-talk/mantras/rules that might help any personality type resist evil.
There's a major flaw in this experiment. There is a gratification in seeing the torment that you are inflicting on others, if you're so inclined. It is a power trip. By using the buzzers and not witnessing a response they're not getting the reward from the punishment, which was the feedback that made the Stanford prison experiment so powerful. Not only were they tormenting people, but they were getting off on it. Without being rewarded for the bad behavior these people pushing the buttons did not have as much of an incentive to do so thus rendering your findings innacurate.
Very interesting….
I’m curious to know if placing an add it the paper for participants, similar to the original experiment, would have provided a closer comparison…
just a thought, he should have ran the test with grps of different personalities, like grp1 is compassionate, group 2 is in the middle, etc, so we can properly test the hypothesis.
Personality tests have their own controversies, according to the David Myers AP psych textbook the current categories are known as the big 5, Openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, neurotocism and conciencousness, and if you were trying to simulate a prison you would want random selection anyway
Yeah, after the first group was done, I was expecting to see people who scored "bad" on their test.
@@somenerd9365 - Meyers-Briggs has its own suite of faults, the one they used here isn't that. That said though, this test wasn't to simulate a prison, it was check the stated results of that experiment, that the situation allowing for cruelty would inherently drive people into being so.
They definitely should have tried with other profiles of people though, this experiment still had no "control" room of people in the middle, nor a group of predetermined assholes easily prompted to be assholes like the study presumed.
Limited budget, time constraints and a prevailing sense of being “good” probably played a part in their experiment being so....limited, they were too scared to push their volunteers and their experiment which lead to the limited results they got.
I think this experiment tries to create a narrative that morally compassionate people are compliant to stay in line and hence are less prone to violence or evil things.
This experiment doesn't do well to distance itself from interpreting this fact indifferently enough, almost prescribing it as a good thing.
While it is great that the guys didn't do violent and evil things from our moral compass perspective, it isn't necessarily a positive thing. There are cases in history and life where hard decisions are necessary to be made in a timely fashion, decisions that are morally ambiguous at best, at worst are cruel and evil.
Contrary to this, there are situations where a bundle of compassionate people's inability to make hard decisions and retaliate had resulted in disasters as bad if not worse than decisions of cruel sociopaths.
I think psychology should move past the violence or cruelty perspective of human nature, but rather review those benevolent or violent events from evolutionary and societal perspectives.
when you realize that $15 in 1971 is like $95 today
Oh shiiid
Yeah he was making that for the entire day though
Conner Broeker that’s still $12/hr working 8 hour shifts.
But you're not working 8 hour shifts though
And he said "wasn't bad" like wtf bro
The cold malice when the guy says he got off on torturing prisoners… yikes.
I love this. It's the same issue I have when people say "money changes everyone" - no, there are people that don't care about power or money.
The Stanford prison experiment was a professor making a pretext to create a group of kids to abuse. The professor feigned shock and distain for his reaction.
When Michael introduced himself how did no one immediately say "HEYYY VSAUCE, MICHAEL THERE"
He normally doesn't do that in the premium series.
@@huntersmoone9123 no he meant the people in the experiment, as in they should have known who he was.
Ahh. I see. In that case, I have no idea.
haine cuz he says michael here*
There is one person which did recognize him, you can see it in the extra of how to get somone to convict himself of a crime he didn't do