If so, why? What criteria did Stanford have that would have invited anyone to say "this is an artificial game with mechanics you wholly constructed for eager upper-crust players, not a legitimate social experiment"?
Show this thread
Let's ask this: would the individual typical admission-seeking future Stanford degree-holder psyche have been selected for Stanford, among the throng, had it been prone to reject the guidance of the esteemed Stanford professor?https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/1184594267747930112 …
-
-
-
I don't say this with too much judgment. In some plausible past, I'd have been the "best and brightest" at any cost, and it was familial dysfunction, not efficacy, that pushed me off the tracks. Developing skepticism via family culture vs. trial by fire is new territory for me
Show this thread -
There's some version of me (male, fine) that's happy to be recruited, asking, "Can I hit them? Should I hit them? Is it helpful for some hitting to happen?" because all trained ladder-climbers are also trained to expect ladders to be pulled up at any moment
Show this thread -
People can and should try to cultivate some personal ethics, but guess what: when you're in a prison experiment run by someone in a white coat who apparently wants to make you a sociopath or an animal, ethics looks like a late-stagevmental breakdown. And indeed, there were a few.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think there’s a lot of truth to this, but in fairness: - ⅔ of the guards didn’t become cruel (Fromm ‘73/the podcast), so the “typical” student *did* reject guidance
-
Slackers
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.