Profile picture
Patrick S. Forscher @psforscher
, 12 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
I noticed an interesting post by Phil Zimbardo this morning on the Stanford Prison Experiment via the @SPSPnews listserv
There's also a new notice if you go to prisonexp.org. It's good that he's directing people to both criticisms and responses, though I find it quite odd that Zimbardo continues to use the term "bloggers" to describe the critics
cc @jayvanbavel @alexanderhaslam @B_resnick
🤔 (cc @sTeamTraen)
🤔
🤔
For those of you without access to the listserv, there have been a few more responses since this last one. I'm posting them all here
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Patrick S. Forscher
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @psforscher see all

Profile picture
#ML2 (psyarxiv.com/9654g) has got me thinking about the following thesis: Over the past ~20 odd years (or longer), social psychologists have grossly underestimated how hard it is for people to change
Let me state up front that this thesis is not new. I'm also not sure that social psychologists actually *believe* that people are easy to change. Nevertheless, the assumption of changeability underlies a lot of social psychology research from the past ~20-30 years
The assumption of changeability is most extreme in the various flavors of social priming studies. Being outside a box enhances creativity (journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09…), exposure to money increases conservatism (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22774789) and on and on and on
Read 12 tweets
Profile picture
In wake of the reaction to the preprint (psyarxiv.com/r2xvb) released by me, @ScienceCox, @brauerlab1, and @DevineLab, I have a few thoughts on scientific criticism and culture
First, I want to acknowledge that the preprint received a lot of useful, constructive criticism. For example, this thread by @NIH_Bear is both thoughtful and useful. It will certainly help us improve the next version of our paper
As another example, I found this interaction with @PsycGrrrl to be very constructive . That said, not all of the criticism was constructive, and some of it was quite vehement
Read 10 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
At dinner, I learned more about corruption + racism built into society by our masters. A book we discussed (Zinn) was used as part of this "Left" resource's bibliography. I had to share. [A thread]

@BlackSocialists - thoughts on this resource?

historyisaweapon.com/indextrue.html
It very simply lays out the case that we are all being controlled. It covers hidden history of the United States including their (and, due to the systems created by our masters, our) racism. 

#racism #systemicracism #history
If you haven't been in school for a while (or are in a terrible school), some of the words might trip you up. Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.org are two good resources to help you.
Read 39 tweets
Profile picture
Conservatism and Liberalism--to use two much-abused words--basically see human nature quite differently:
Conservatives see an ultimate inner essence, some inborn quality, be it your soul, nature, or DNA, which you can mold but cannot fundamentally change.
Through Free Will, or Virtuous Living, you can make the most of your inner essence. For example, even someone who was born dull--an unchangeable state--may be honest, hard working, and follow the advise of smarter people.
Read 23 tweets
Profile picture
I'm getting increasingly pissed off with the Stanford Prison Experiment coverage. This was ALWAYS, a compelling narrative only... and a bad scientific study. The first report was in '72, first paper proper in '73. Guess what was published in '75?

This.

psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-27…
Yeah. A full paper-length analysis of its deficiencies.

Original report? 1500 cites.
First paper? 500 cites.

This methodological analysis? 90.

The marvelous asymmetry of bollocks, on display again.
What's that you say? It's somehow unrepresentative to stick college students in a basement, poke em with a broom, and call it a prison? Say it ain't so.
Read 8 tweets
Profile picture
On the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) bombshell:

I also attended Haslam's excellent talk and heard the tapes; indeed, they’re shocking. It's clear the SPE was an elaborate production; "subjects" were coached on how to act and informed about the intended results.

1/7
BUT, I don’t think it’s scientific fraud in the typical sense.

The SPE was never considered to be scientific. It’s typically presented in classrooms as a demonstration, not an experiment, and as a notorious case of ethical malfeasance.

2/7
Also, the SPE report was not published in a reputable psychology journal; it came out in the obscure Naval Research Review. Apparently, peer review did its job.

3/7
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
wow someone got really offended about @jbouie's tweets from earlier today but is too scared to tag him



with some assist from historian twitter let's get into it #twitterstorian
The bit that seems to bog folks down is "but ppl hated each other before the Enlightenment, therefore racism must have already existed."

This is a misreading of history. But before we get into the details, let's talk WHY this particular misreading of history. Who does it serve?
There are people whose political & career ambitions depend on racial conflict.

They need it to thrive.

So they need people to believe that racial conflict is natural. Inevitable. Primordial.
Read 25 tweets
Profile picture
Likely unpopular opinion: 1) Campaigns’ abilities to muck about with data scraping & A/B testing ++ may be further along than than the relevant academic psych lit that documents what works & why in individual political behaviour.
2) The psych lit on experimenting with voters moves slowly, testing, replicating, subject to peer review & research ethics. Like most forms of social sciences research, as it should.
3) Parties, campaigns & consultants don’t worry about research ethics boards or peer review. They also face real problems in attributing impact. What’s the counterfactual? We can’t run elections with control groups.
Read 12 tweets

Trending hashtags

#WeThePeople #WRWY #Traitors #GreatActors #QAnonPosts #QCrop #Pray4DJT #TheFightToSaveTheWorld #Nunes #DoTheRightThing #Iran #Military #Connections #AbortionIsMurder #economy #QIsBack #WeHaveItAll #Left #ThesePeopleAreStupid #TarmacMeeting #Rodney #DebbieWassermanSchultz #Astoria #education #people

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!