so-called Stanford experiment but please stay tuned

[Jon Ford]

Wayne-- he's mixing up Milgram's experiment and Zimbardo's, which was 
actually done with Stanford students and under rather loose experimental 
conditions.

Jon


>From: "Wayne Johnson" <cadaobh@shentel.net>
>Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>Subject: Re: so-called Stanford experiment but please stay tuned
>Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 18:35:01 -0400
>
>What Stanford students?
>
>Are you saying Milgram's experiment is bogus?  Who has the 
"proof" of that?  Why is the "proof" more believable 
than the original article which has been re-printed over and over during the 
last forty years.  Odd, that this should happen now, I say.
>
>Still with Milgram until I see better info.
>
>wayne
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Michael Eisenstadt
>   To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>   Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:39 PM
>   Subject: Re: so-called Stanford experiment but please stay tuned
>
>
>   yeah, the book was there and i got it.
>
>   and whadduhya know? it seems i was right. its bogus
>   and Milgram cooked the results, set it up so it would
>   produce the data he was looking for.
>
>   Stanford Univ students? No way. There is NO mention
>   of any Stanford Experiment in the index.
>
>   What it was was Milgram who was at Yale at this
>   time advertised for New Haven townies offering $4.00
>   an hour for his experiment. He handpicked the "prisoner"
>   for his loser looks and dress (see photo below) referring
>   to him as a "rotund accountant." He describes one of the
>   hired jailors thus:
>
>   "Fred Prozi, Unemployed (in Experiment 5)
>
>   The subject is about fifty ears old, dressed in a jacket
>   but no tie; he has a good-natured, if slightly dissolute,
>   appearance. He employs working-class grammar and
>   strikes one as a rather ordinary fellow."
>
>   Milgram then intimidates the jailer into administering
>   stronger and stronger electric shocks to the prisoner
>   which elicit louder and louder shrieks and banging
>   on the wall which, at a certain point, ominously cease.
>
>   Then, following Milgram's oh so objective description of
>   Mr. Prozi quoted above, there are 3 pages of transcribed
>   conversation as Prozi gets tricked into continuing the
>   fake torture despite his palpable reluctance to do so.
>
>   Proving?  Proving nothing of course. Psychology is
>   notorious for cooked experiments and the number of
>   fakers interviewed on TV is astounding. See Richard
>   Posner's very entertaining Public Intellectuals which
>   is a close look at the most frequently seen 100
>   speaking heads on TV and what they argue for and
>   what their track record is on what they argued for the
>   week or year before.
>
>   I am not surprised that Frances took my doubting
>   the likelihood of the legend as yet another example of
>   my moral delinquencies. It's easier for her to put me
>   down than to think through the possibility that what
>   she so readily believed just ain't so (about the
>   imaginary Stanford students torturing one another).
>
>
>   Unsurprisingly the copy of Milgram's book is underlined
>   throughout in colored ink and highlighted elsewhere
>   in yellow. As i said, Milgram's argument is the kind
>   that the unthoughtful automatically swallow down: for
>   them it is so counterintuitive that it must be right
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/