Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

No offense to anyone but…

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I thought it was a good epsiode and will explain in a comment separately.

robotaholic—you might consider
(a) giving constructive feedback to POI on which sort of episodes you like
(b) going to http://digg.com/podcasts/Point_of_Inquiry_4 and (i) voting for favorite episodes and (ii) reviewing the episodes with high scores and commenting.

Great episode. I found it enlightening with regard to certain sociological research popularized by the press.

Great episode! I am definitely getting Barbara Oakley’s book. Thanks.

Great episode! I am definitely getting Barbara Oakley’s book. Thanks.

I agree with George—I’m going to get the book.
I was interested in whether there was an audio book and couldn’t find one. So whenever D.J. puts in an ad for audible.com, I’ll put in a request for them to carry this book…  If it is available on audio CD etc. could you give us a link.

I was particularly interested in Barbara Oakley’s critique of the famous work of Zimbardo and Milgram—especially Milgram, whose famous book Obedience to Authority made an impression on me and can still be found assigned as reading in college courses.  I still think I believe certain parts of Milgram’s assertions (people tend to be susceptible to persuasion by appeal to authority), but Oakley helps to see that maybe they aren’t supported as scientifically as I had thought. 

The point that Zimbardo told people in his recruiting advertisements that he wanted folks for a ‘prison experiment’ is a strong rebuttal.  Those of us who have never had nothing to do with prisons or prisoners have a different perspective than those who know prison workers or prisoners.  But I hadn’t thought about it the same way before this audio.

I liked the episode.

I’d like to know more about her criticism about Milgram’s experiment. As far I see, she made strong points againts the prision experiment in the podcast, but I couldn’t see any good point againts Milgram in the podcast.

She said that some people who participate in the experiment, when they thinked they killed or badly injured someone went under severe stress. As far I understood, the point wasn’t that the people didn’t suffer, the point was that people tend to obey authority.

About the claim that people don’t expect that someone get injured in a experiment in a college, I must admit I don’t know where Milgram ‘harvested’ his subjects, but I’d say that this concept is not clear outside campuses.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting her thesis but she seems to be defining jerks out of existence. Does every self-absorbed ass need a scientific description to explain away their faults, can’t most of us inherently recognize them and act appropriatley? I also agree with the comments that she didn’t really get at the heart of the Millgram experiment

I was somewhat taken aback by her strong critisism of Zimbardo.  It’s been some time since I read his recent book, and I loaned out my copy so I can’t check myself, but my impression was that his book was hardly a defense of his own experiment.  While he certainly reached very different conclusions from Barbara Oakley, I think he was pretty critical of many of the same aspects of the study that she was. 

  Her assertion that the ads he placed would have attracted aberrant personalities may well have merit, but I think Zimbardo claims they tested out as pretty normal people using the standard tests available at that time.  The behaviors, admittedly through his own observations, occurred pretty universally among all the subjects, i.e. the guards became frightenly abusive and the prisoners submissive.  I would think it unlikely that any advertisement could attract such a specific group of such abberant personalities, and none would stand out, even if the tests available at that time were far less able to diagnose such personalities.  If Dr Oakleys assertions are correct you’d think he would have had to reject a large percentage of clearly unsuitable applicants, and perhaps he did.

  In addition, didn’t several members of the study, specifically some who were guards, go on to dedicate a significant part of their careers to understanding the prisoner/guard relationship.  That doesn’t seem to indicate a lack of ability among those subjects to evaluate, address, and change their behavior, which would seem to indicate they were not too far out on the scale.

  I suppose I’m coming on a little fiercly in Zimbardo’s defense and in oppposition to Oakley.  I in no way dismiss the idea that genetics play a large role in behavior, and I’ve met a few people who in retrospect were truly frightening,  but I’m pretty fond of the idea that most of us exercise some degree of ability to evaluate and modify our own behavior.  Perhaps it’s just to depressing and dire for me to believe otherwise.

In my opinion, this was one of the weaker episodes.  Psychology is not one of the specialist fields of DJ Grothe (which is not his fault!) but I think it showed in the lack of critical questions.

Just a few comments:
- To my knowledge, Zimbardo never said that it’s *only* environment that has an influence. But he did want to make the point that given the right environment even “normal” people can be made to do horrible things, in other words, that the “bad apple in a good barrel” argument does not always hold.

- It seems a valid point to me that the base line of people who would apply for the experiment might differ from the normal population. However, another central point of his study still holds: there was no difference between the group of guards and inmates. In other words, because he assigned the people entirely randomly to the two conditions, and because personality tests showed no difference between the two groups, it could be safely argued that the difference in behaviour and personality throughout the experiment was entirely due to the allocation of the two groups.

- I find it harsh and inappropriate of Barbara Oakley to presume that Zimbardo is happy/“Was scraping the barrel” because his study can not be repeated. That to me seems to imply that he doesn’t want it repeated, not for ethical reasons but because he is afraid that the results won’t be supported. Given that real-life tragedies like the Abu Ghreib incidences still happen, his research and his results seem more valid than ever.

What really irked me throughout the entire interview was Barbara’s differentiation between “real” science and (social) psychology. Yes, I am biased because I am a psychologist myself. But she seemed to be of the position that only biology/genetics are hard/real sciences and psychology is not. There may be cases of individual studies or researchers that fail to live up to the standard. But Psychology as a whole is a valid, regular, real science and I didn’t like the dismissive tone of her.

Finally, when DJ asked whether her research couldn’t be used by “bad” people as an excuse for their behaviour, she launched into a very general quip about how everything in science has its advantages and disadvantages. That missed the point of the question, which I understood to be about predetermination and accountability, and I was disappointed that DJ didn’t pursue that question more.

Given that real-life tragedies like the Abu Ghreib incidences still happen, his research and his results seem more valid than ever.

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible that those who committed the atrocities in Abu Ghraib were already genetically predisposed to behave the way they did. Since we are discussing “real-life tragedies” instead of science, I’ll add one of mine: my grandfather who was in the German army during the WWII escaped after being positioned at the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. Abu Ghraib doesn’t add any validation to Zimbardo’s experiment because the same “experiment” didn’t work on my grandfather.

Given that real-life tragedies like the Abu Ghreib incidences still happen, his research and his results seem more valid than ever.

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible that those who committed the atrocities in Abu Ghraib were already genetically predisposed to behave the way they did. Since we are discussing “real-life tragedies” instead of science, I’ll add one of mine: my grandfather who was in the German army during the WWII escaped after being positioned at the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. Abu Ghraib doesn’t add any validation to Zimbardo’s experiment because the same “experiment” didn’t work on my grandfather.

I am not quite sure I understand your point with the last example. Can you explain?

When Zimbardo talks about Abu Ghraib he is arguing that saying those people were alread “evil” is wrong for several reasons:
- It creates the illusion that you’re either good or bad, that being evil is determined
- Subsequently it creates the illusion of control, i.e. the feeling “Oh, that won’t happen to me, I wouldn’t do a thing lik this”
- It severely underestimates the impact of environment and chain of command

And that’s what I mean by saying Abu Ghraib validates his research, in a way, by showing that normal people can be affected by circumstances in such a way that they commit such atrocities. I’m using the example of AG because he writes about it at length in his book “Lucifer effect, how good people turn evil” and I find it very compelling, though also very scary.

And that’s what I mean by saying Abu Ghraib validates his research, in a way, by showing that normal people can be affected by circumstances in such a way that they commit such atrocities. I’m using the example of AG because he writes about it at length in his book “Lucifer effect, how good people turn evil” and I find it very compelling, though also very scary.

I think knowing we might turn evil helps us guard against it, whilst complacently thinking we wouldn’t behave like that puts us in m ore danger.

I also think it’s important to rememeber “evil” people can turn good too. So I can imagine someone who did something absolutely dreadful when young, being very upset by the experience and what they did and changing for the better.

I think it’s important not to brand people as good or evil, we are all capable of both.

Stephen

Daniela,

Why do think my grandfather didn’t turn evil while serving at Mauthausen? How come the same environment doesn’t impact everybody in a similar way?

And that’s what I mean by saying Abu Ghraib validates his research, in a way, by showing that normal people can be affected by circumstances in such a way that they commit such atrocities. I’m using the example of AG because he writes about it at length in his book “Lucifer effect, how good people turn evil” and I find it very compelling, though also very scary.

I think knowing we might turn evil helps us guard against it, whilst complacently thinking we wouldn’t behave like that puts us in m ore danger.

I also think it’s important to rememeber “evil” people can turn good too. So I can imagine someone who did something absolutely dreadful when young, being very upset by the experience and what they did and changing for the better.

I think it’s important not to brand people as good or evil, we are all capable of both.

Stephen

Stephen,

These are very weak arguments indeed. We are all capable of good or evil? Are psychopathic imbeciles capable of good?

These are very weak arguments indeed. We are all capable of good or evil? Are psychopathic imbeciles capable of good?

Yes, in two ways. 1) because somebody is a psychopathic imbecile for one period of their life, doesn’t mean they will be so for all of their life.

2) because even if given their circumstances, they remain a psychopathic imbecile, it’s still true that if they were in or had been in different circumstances, they could be good.

Stephen

Daniela,

Why do think my grandfather didn’t turn evil while serving at Mauthausen? How come the same environment doesn’t impact everybody in a similar way?

George,

Nobody is in the same environment! Often the same question is asked about say three children, two who turned out well and one who was a “bad apple.“

If you have an older brother you are in a different environment than if you have a younger brother, for instance.

Stephen

If you have an older brother you are in a different environment than if you have a younger brother, for instance.

First of all, you only share 50% of your genes with your brother. But you’re right that you’ll grow up in a different environment than your brother: you are most likely to have different friends. But the question here is if the same environment at a given time will affect two people equally. Will both brothers who end up at Abu Ghraib or Mauthausen react in the same way? I am a little confused by your reasoning, Stephen.

These are very weak arguments indeed. We are all capable of good or evil? Are psychopathic imbeciles capable of good?

Yes, in two ways. 1) because somebody is a psychopathic imbecile for one period of their life, doesn’t mean they will be so for all of their life.

2) because even if given their circumstances, they remain a psychopathic imbecile, it’s still true that if they were in or had been in different circumstances, they could be good.

Stephen

Both of you points are incorrect. Psychopathy is a genetic condition and psychopaths will remain this way for the rest of their lives. So the only “given circumstances” would have to be a different biological parent.

Since you have a brain there is very little you can do about that or about how it operates. Good people don’t just magically “turn bad.“

And that’s what I mean by saying Abu Ghraib validates his research, in a way, by showing that normal people can be affected by circumstances in such a way that they commit such atrocities. I’m using the example of AG because he writes about it at length in his book “Lucifer effect, how good people turn evil” and I find it very compelling, though also very scary.

Re: “real” science
Frankly, Social science has such an ignoble history of disregard for objective standards, rigorous testing, openly imbued with political not scientific goals and generally full of absolutely worthless research.. it has in fact earned its reputation as “soft science”. Earned it 100 times over, I’d say. Here I’m talking about the last hundred years or so. This is not to say there are not or have not been important works and people in these fields or that things are not improiving.. but it must be admitted there is a huge debt of dishonor that must be paid. Also, there does seem to be a lingering civil war in Psychology inparticular and this thread is the most recent proof. I wish to be a psychologist some day, myself.

re: Abu Ghraib. The military was investigating the place many months before the press ever caught wind of it. That’s because at least several soldiers tipped them off- in doing so they betrayed their peers and commanders.. its not a stretch to say they risked their lives in fact. Why did some soldiers behave with bravery and integrity and others with barbarism? They worked in the same environment. If the study can not explain this, then it really doesn’t explain much of anything. (That’s even assuming the study was conducted in a rigorous way, which seems not to be the case).

By the way- I’m a soldier, inculcated with the respect for orders and the chain of command and all that. I’ve been to war. I have questioned and defied my superiors and/or peers hundreds of times for a variety of reasons including purely moral grounds. There is no “environment” whereby I forget my conscience.

Social science has such an ignoble history of disregard for objective standards… there is a huge debt of dishonor that must be paid.

That’s a really strong position to take. How familiar are you with social science? Have you read any scholarly works in the field? Not just popular works, but the real thing. Have you ever spent any time conversing with a social scientist?

You shouldn’t condemn a person until you’ve driven a hundred miles in their car (modern version of old saying).

That’s a really strong position to take. How familiar are you with social science? Have you read any scholarly works in the field? Not just popular works, but the real thing.

Yes, well said. There is some nonsense in the social sciences, but there are also a lot of very dedicated and competent researchers doing the best to understand complex phenomena.  “Dishonor” is way too strong a descriptor here, at least for the vast majority of practitioners. One has to be careful not to collectively condemn, particularly when it comes to a difficult and important field of study.

Social science has such an ignoble history of disregard for objective standards… there is a huge debt of dishonor that must be paid.

That’s a really strong position to take. How familiar are you with social science? Have you read any scholarly works in the field? Not just popular works, but the real thing. Have you ever spent any time conversing with a social scientist?

You shouldn’t condemn a person until you’ve driven a hundred miles in their car (modern version of old saying).

Ive had courses in psychology, sociology, anthropology and gender studies. Im reasonably well acquainted with the historical development of the social sciences and popular literature. I have had discussions with several social scientists. I stand by my remarks.
Doug, i said and know there are very fine minds and research. For example I very much admire anthropologists like Donald Brown and Derek Freemon. I could name at least ten such in psychology. I endeavor to be a psychologist myself.  If anything my bias should favor social science.

sate, I can understand a condemnation of social science as it was practiced in the 19th century, or even the first half of the 20th. But I cannot understand a condemnation of social science as it has been practiced for the last 50 years. Can you be more explicit regarding your condemnation?

Barbara Oakley mentioned a book by Augustine Brannigan called The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology: The Use and Misuse of the Experimental Method (Social Problems and Social Issues), for those of you who are interested. I looked for it at a local bookstore but they didn’t have it. Has anyone here read it?

If you have an older brother you are in a different environment than if you have a younger brother, for instance.

First of all, you only share 50% of your genes with your brother. But you’re right that you’ll grow up in a different environment than your brother: you are most likely to have different friends. But the question here is if the same environment at a given time will affect two people equally. Will both brothers who end up at Abu Ghraib or Mauthausen react in the same way? I am a little confused by your reasoning, Stephen.

Hi George,

I think I confused matters by saying we never are in the same environment. What I really meant was we are all, always, in a unique set of circumstances and therefore we wouldn’t expect the same environment to have the same effect on two people even if they were identical.

You might say if two people were in the same room that they would share certain experiences but it’s not true. We each sit in a different space have a different view, etc etc.

In the case of two brothers they won’t only have different friends, the interaction they have with their parents will be different. Their parents will themselves be different each time they interact and so on. So to give an example my yongest daughter who is ten is experiencing having quite a different father than my oldest daughter who is 22 did as I’ve changed quite alot since my eldest daughter was ten. But although this is obvious over a period of 12 years, it is true over periods of seconds too. 

Stephen

Yes, Stephen. No two people are exactly the same. Even identical twins who share all of their genes differ in personalities (less than fraternal twins) and even the physical structure of their brains are not the exactly the same. They still don’t know what causes these differences. But I am not sure any of this disproves that people might be genetically predisposed to engage in evil acts when the opportunity presents itself, neither it proves that undesirable environment will have the same negative impact on everybody.

sate, I can understand a condemnation of social science as it was practiced in the 19th century, or even the first half of the 20th. But I cannot understand a condemnation of social science as it has been practiced for the last 50 years. Can you be more explicit regarding your condemnation?

If you would like. I may not be the best commentator, but where I lack in experience I can make up for in colourful venom. However, the scope must be limited because vitiating 50 years of multidisiplinary science sounds more like a thesis project than a casual forum romp. Also my assault on soft science would be better housed in a new thread in a more relevant forum, may I suggest psuedoscience.