# data[].attributes.body
Disinterestedness:
Pursuit of knowledge: attempt at discovering something

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidALyBwat0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Superpredator Scare | Retro Report | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
"Disinterestedness is essential in the pursuit of knowledge". Discuss this claim with reference to two different AoK's.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Woman Who Changed Her Brain: Barbara Arrowsmith-Young at TEDxToronto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Karl Popper, echoing David Hume, argued that no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient to establish that a law of nature is true. Some subsequent observation of the world might contravene the proposed law, demonstrating that it fails to hold universally after all. Popper held that the importance of empirical research in science arises from its ability to falsify, not confirm, hypotheses. Cognitive scientists of science have provided evidence that, Popper's analyses notwithstanding, scientists often exhibit confirmation bias. They seek out and emphasize evidence that supports their hypotheses, and they dismiss contrary evidence as artifacts of incautious observations or experimental designs.

Ben Tappin, Leslie van der Leer, and Ryan McKay explore an alternative hypothesis that might explain scientists' (and other humans') proclivities to emphasize confirming evidence. They consider the possibility that what humans have is a desirability bias in addition to or instead of a confirmation bias. A desirability bias leads people to prefer and attend to new desirable evidence over new undesirable evidence when updating their beliefs. The problem with distinguishing these two hypotheses from one another is that their predictions usually coincide. That is especially so with regard to arguments about the merits of scientific hypotheses, since scientists think that their hypotheses have merit but also want them to have merit and want to exhibit that merit. In order to tease the two hypotheses apart, these researchers studied political belief revision instead.
Teasing Apart the Two Hypotheses
The authors undertook a study in advance of the recent American presidential election. Participants were first asked to state which candidate they supported. They then indicated which candidate they thought was more likely to win by setting a marker on a line between the two candidates' names, which were situated at the opposite ends of the line. (Crucially, this method ensured that the probabilities of victory that participants accorded to each candidate were dependent upon one another.) After this, they received an account of what was presented to them as recent polling data about the upcoming election. In the test stage participants placed the marker a second time, in light of the new information that they had just received.

In two situations, the different hypotheses' predictions diverge on how participants would update their beliefs about the candidates' probabilities of winning: 1) when new information corroborates an earlier judgement but is undesirable (e.g., I expect Clinton will win and want Trump to win, but the new information favors Clinton), or 2) when it is contrary to an earlier judgment but is desirable (e.g., I think Clinton will win and want Trump to win, and the new information favors Trump).
A Bipartisan Desirability Bias
Tappin, van der Leer, and McKay's findings revealed a substantial desirability bias. Participants were significantly more likely to incorporate the new information into their second assessment of the candidates' probabilities of winning if that new information favored the election result that they desired. The effects of this bias were independent of whether the new information corroborated or contradicted participants' initial beliefs. Moreover, once the desirability bias was taken into account, their findings provided only modest evidence for an independent confirmation bias.

Exactly how much these findings pertain to the conduct of scientists is unclear. Updating political beliefs in light of what was putatively recent polling information is not, for example, the same task as either producing or searching for new evidence. Still, as the authors note, the study was concerned with judgments about factual matters rather than political attitudes.

Finally, it is worth noting that regardless of whether participants thought Trump or Clinton would win the election and regardless of which candidate they supported, they exhibited the desirability bias.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study Shows a Bias for Evidence of What We Want to Be True

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New experimental findings suggest that we seek and stress corroborating evidence based on what we desire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can People be Unbiased?

People can't be truly unbiased; we are hardwired with bias and create bias constantly as part of the natural neurological process of learning.

In simple terms, bias is just another word for our brain recognizing patterns and making conscious and subconscious choices based on efficiency. These choices "re-wire" our brain ( neuroplasticity, learning, memory), reinforcing the bias for or against something (for better or worse).

For example a caveman might develop the following biases: "don't touch fire, fire bad", "stick helpful to get apple; not climbing tree is easier and less dangerous", and "don't talk to strangers, strangers dangerous". The more times a line of thinking works, or the more impactful the experience, the more ingrained a "bias" becomes.

Essentially, bias describes learning, memory, and instinct with the goal of efficiency. Generally, there are two important bias types: " cognitive" (in our heads, decision making bias) and " social " (group decision making bias).

We cover bias in detail below, but if your attention is waining I suggest a quick look at Business Insider's 20 Cognitive Biases that screw up your decisions and 58 cognitive biases that screw up everything we do.

TIP: There are two types of bias, implicit bias (bias that is subconscious and is part of our natural internal process) and explicit bias (bias that is consciously applied). Learn more about the difference between implicit and explicit bias.

TIP: If you are coming from a business background, realize that bias applies to everything. It is a major point of contention in politics (see politically correct), and generally bias is also a technology we can use to our advantage (so bias isn't just good or bad). If you think it is good or bad, or you only understand bias in one context, bare with me, read up, and watch the videos on this page.

Big Think on Bias. This video gives an overview of cognitive bias.

FACT: Every bit of information stored in your gray matter, all sensory memory in your long term memory, the stuff that makes you an individual, nature and nurture, everything from your DNA to this article, creates bias. Luckily bias isn't bad or good, it just exists. Realizing "all humans are bias driven" is one of what I would consider the most fundamental steps to being successful. A close second is understanding the related neuroplasticity.

TIP: We can also express biases as fallacies (false beliefs), but keep in mind, a bias doesn't have to be false to be a bias.

What Does it Mean That Everyone is Bias?

This means there is, in a theoretical sense, no unbiased thought, word, or action. In a more practical sense, however, we can eliminate much bias by being aware of it and accounting for it.

It's important to understand that cognitive bias (the type we are talking about) is a broad subject that involves near everything related to cognition and patterns, both neurologically and psychologically: our belief systems, our behaviors, how we act to others, how our memory works, how we receive information, and our perception of ourselves. Meanwhile, bias in the way we present information to others is much more manageable.

Striking the right balance between under- and over-compensating for our natural bias in the way we process and present information is the key to getting as close as possible to being "truly unbiased".

Paul Bloom: The Psychology of Everything. Paul Bloom looks at the psychology of everything. This video doubles as a great long-form introduction to human cognitive bias.

FACT: When we put time, energy, and other resources into something, we get " commitment bias " and the related "loss aversion bias" kicks in along with "sunk cost bias". We can put the word "bias" next to just about any hardwired tendency toward a behavior. Bias is a very vast and broad subject.

What is Bias?

Bias is an inclination toward a perspective. It applies to almost every area of life: racial bias, bias in the food you are hungry for, a bias of what music you want to listen to, bias in research, bias in nature, bias in math. If something is deterministic (like humans and computers), it has a bias because it uses "algorithm" based on bias.

Scientific Explanation

Neurologically our brains encode, store, recall, and connect information in a way that favors efficiency. Every connection that your brain makes is based on what has worked or what was experienced. Our instincts back this up, as we are also hardwired to make choices that create bias.

Is Bias Good or Bad?

Bias isn't bad or good, it's simply a side effect of our brain's process of categorizing experience in a way that improves efficiency and increases the chances of survival and procreation.

This video works as a quick introduction to cognitive bias types.

TIP: Some bias are both "good" and "bad", authority bias is a bias toward following authority. Great for team projects and national pride, not so great in WWII Nazi Germany. Learn about authority bias. Both authority and rebellion have corresponding biases.

Types of Bias

There are so many types of biases that we could create a whole site listing bias types. Let's look at some large overarching types of biases.

Statistics Versus Cognitive Bias

Cognitive Bias is any bias relating to behavior, biology, and psychology.

Statistical bias is any bias relating the field of statistics and methods for accounting for it.

The bias we are focused on here is the cognitive bias. Neurology and statistics theory draw many parallels, but for now, let's ignore everything math-based except the fact that bias is overcome in statistics by realizing it and compensating for it.

Hardwired Versus Learned

All bias can be put into two general groups. Hardwired bias and learned bias. A bias can also be a mix of the two, we are constantly learning so most things aren't 100% hardwired.

Hardwired Bias: Genetically programmed bias, nature not nurture.
An example of hardwired bias: Babies are hardwired to know their mother will care for them and strangers can be dangerous. Babies show a natural bias toward their caretakers (their in-group) and against strangers (out-group).

Learned Bias: Bias we learn, nurture not nature.
An example of learned bias: Fire is hot. Get too close and you get warm, touch it and it burns you. Assuming that fear of fire isn't hardwired, which it may be, a child might develop a bias toward being close to a fire, and a bias against getting too close.

Intentional Bias Versus Unintentional Bias

Some bias is largely subconscious and unintentional while other biases are conscious and intentional. Some, of course, are a mix of the two, such as perhaps the fire example above.

Unintentional Bias: Subconscious bias, we react based on hardwired or learned bias. Or we simply act based on our past experiences and instincts in such a way that results in bias.
An example of unintentional bias: Assuming a person in a suit works at a store due to the way they are dressed. Or, assuming a person agrees with all your political ideas because they liked a Facebook post you liked.

Intentional Bias: Reacting to a situation based on conscious bias.
An example of intentional bias: Not going down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood because you know that dark alleys and bad neighborhood aren't safe. Or, assuming every Facebook post a person likes is "stupidity and lies" because you disagree with their politics.

Decision-making, Belief, and Behavioral bias | Social and Attribution Bias | Memory Bias

The three groups below break bias down into: how bias shapes you, how bias affects your social interactions, and how the way your memory affects bias.

Decision-Making, Belief, and Behavioral Bias: Everything related to your belief system and, therefore, your decisions and behavior. People's tendency to believe something, their corresponding behavior, and why it happens.
Example: The Gambler's Fallacy is the mistaken belief that past odds affect future results. They don't, but many believe this since it's easy (efficient) to make sense of.

Social Bias and Attribution Bias: Everything that relates to how you interact with other people. This includes groups of people and individuals and can include something like how you structure a business or organize a country politically.
Example: In-group and out-group bias, which we talk about above, is the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

Memory Bias: Everything to do with memory. The brain reconnects the sensory information stored your neurons constantly (i.e. your brain reconnects memories all the time). Every time you remember your brain does it's best to re-piece the memory. All the shenanigans that ensue given how memory works are memory bias.
Example: The Google effect is when you forget something even though it's important because it's easy to Google. (Don't forget our FactMyth-ism, but do google them often). This is a memory and not decision bias as your brain is choosing not to remember it, as it's more efficient to store the information on the internet than it is your brain.

More Bias Types

Since bias is so fundamental to life there are many additional bias types, each explaining a different phenomenon. You can get lots of examples by going to Wikipedia's list of cognitive biases. You can see Wireless Philosophy's YouTube channel for videos. We also cover more bias types on the site, see more factoids on a bias.

One of many types of cognitive biases explained. The self-serving bias you attribute your success to yourself, likewise, we can attribute negative things to others. Your brain is efficient, but it isn't always trustworthy when gone unchecked.

How to Compensate for Bias

The best way to compensate for bias is to be aware that you have a bias in everything you do: which site you click on next, how much of a page you read, what you remember. Everything you'll do today is influenced by bias. The way you present information and most of what you do and say help to reinforce bias in yourself and others.

Being aware of your bias, being accepting of your own bias, and being understanding and accepting of someone else's bias is the key to transcending the negative aspects of bias.

In short, we must nurture optimism and understanding, or negative bias may take over without us ever realizing it.

TIP: People can't avoid having biases, but information can be presented in an unbiased way. To present unbiased information present only the facts and pay special attention to the avoiding of constructing a list of facts that tells a bias narrative. It is easier said than done, but it is technically possible. Learn more about t ruth, lies, half-truths, and other forms of information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People Can be Truly Unbiased - Fact or Myth?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People can't be truly unbiased; we are hardwired with bias and create bias constantly as part of the natural neurological process of learning. In simple terms, bias is just another word for our brain recognizing patterns and making conscious and subconscious choices based on efficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
“You can have no greater or lesser dominion than the one over yourself. The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.”

# data[].attributes.body
We are driven by curiosity, and our curiosity is limited by the things we like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, carried out one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, the story of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment has gone like this: Stanford professor Philip Zimbardo assigned paid volunteers to be either inmates or guards in a simulated prison in the basement of the school's psychology building. Very quickly, the guards became cruel, and the prisoners more submissive and depressed. The situation grew chaotic, and the experiment, meant to last two weeks, had to be ended after five days.

The lesson drawn from the research was that situations can bring out the worst in people. That, in the absence of firm instructions of how to act, we'll act in accordance to the roles we're assigned. The tale, which was made into a feature film, has been a lens through which we can understand human-rights violations, like American soldier's maltreatment of inmates at the Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the early 2000s.

This month, the scientific validity of the experiment was boldly challenged. In a thoroughly reported exposé on Medium, journalist Ben Blum found compelling evidence that the experiment wasn't as naturalistic and un-manipulated by the experimenters as we've been told.

A recording from the experiment reveals that the "warden," a research assistant, told a reluctant guard that "the guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a 'tough guard.'" The warden implored the guard to act tough because "we hope will come out of the study is a very serious recommendation for [criminal justice] reform." The implication being that if the guard didn't play the part, the study would fail.

Additionally, one of the "prisoners" in the study told Blum that he was "acting" during a what was observed to be a mental breakdown.

These new findings don't mean that everything that happened in the experiment was theater. The "prisoners" really did rebel at one point, and the "guards" were cruel. But the new evidence suggests that the main conclusion of the experiment - the one that has been republished in psychology textbooks for years - doesn't necessarily hold up. Zimbardo stated over and over the behavior seen in the experiment was the result of their own minds conforming to a situation. The new evidence suggests there was a lot more going on.

I wrote a piece highlighting Blum's exposé and putting the prison experiment in the larger context of psychology's replication crisis. Our headline stated "we just learned it [the Stanford Prison Experiment] was a fraud."

Fraud is a moral judgment. And Zimbardo, now a professor emeritus, wrote to Vox, unhappy with this characterization of his study. (You can Zimbardo's full written response to the criticisms here.)

So I called Zimbardo up to ask about the evidence in Blum's piece. I also wanted to know: As a scientist, what do you do when the narrative of your most famous work changes dramatically and spirals out of your own control?

The conversation was tense. At one point, Zimbardo threatened to hang up.

Zimbardo believes Blum (and Vox) got the story wrong. He says only one guard was prodded to act tougher. (We did not discuss Blum's evidence that the "prisoners" in the experiment were held against their will, despite pleas to leave.)

After talking with him, the results of the prison experiment still seem unscientific and untrustworthy. It's an interesting demonstration, but should enduring lessons in psychology be based off of it? I doubt it.

Here's our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity.

Brian Resnick

Here's my understanding of the criticisms that have come to light recently about the Stanford Prison Experiment.

For years, the conclusion that has been drawn from the study was that circumstances can bring out the worst in people or encourage bad behavior. And when some people are given power, and some people are stripped of it, that fosters ugly behavior.

What's comes to light - what I got out of that Ben Blum's report - was that it might not have all been the circumstance. That these guards that you employed were possibly coached in some ways.

There's audio. And for me, it sounded pretty compelling that the warden in your experiment, who I understand was an experimental collaborator - was calling out a guard for not being tough enough. [The warden told the guard, "The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a 'tough guard.'" Listen to the tape here.]

So does that not invalidate the conclusion?

Philip Zimbardo

Not at all!

Brian Resnick

And why not?

Philip Zimbardo

Because he's talking to one guard who was doing nothing. These are people we've hired who are doing it for a salary, $15 a day, to play the role of guard. And Jaffe [the warden] picks on this guy because he is doing nothing. He's sitting on the sideline, doing nothing, watching. He's gotta earn his keep as a guard.

The point is telling a guard to be tough does not mean telling a guard to be mean, to be cruel, to be sadistic, which many of the guards became of their own volition playing the role of what they thought was a prison guard. So I reject your assumption entirely.

Brian Resnick

Here's the description of the experiment as written on your website: It says "the guards made up their own set of rules which they carried into effect." In another paper, you wrote that the guards' behavior was left up "to each subject's prior societal learning of the meaning of prisons."

But here's a different possibility: Do you think it is possible that some of these guards were acting to please you, to please the study, and to do something good for science?

Even without telling the guards to explicitly do something, they might have gotten the impression that it was important for them to play these roles. And they were compelled to because of your authority.

Philip Zimbardo

Some of them might, but I think most of them didn't.

For many of them, it was simply a way to make $15 a day during a two-week summer break between summer school and the start of classes in September. It was nothing more than that. It was not wanting to help science.

Some of them were increasingly mean, cruel, and sadistic way beyond any definition of tough. Some of them were guards who simply enforced the rules. And some of them were "good guards" who never did anything abusive to the prisoners. So it's not that the situation brought a single quality in the guard. It's a mix.

The criticism that you're raising, that Blum raised, that others are raising, is that we told the guards to do what they ended up doing. And therefore, [the results were due to] obedience to authority, and it's not the evolution of cruel behavior in the situation of a prison-like environment.

And I reject that.

Brian Resnick

Is it possible that some of the "prisoners" in your experiment were acting, playing along?

Philip Zimbardo

No, zero.

Brian Resnick

Zero? How can you say zero?

Philip Zimbardo

Okay, I can't say.

I mean, the point was they locked themselves in their cells, they ripped off their numbers, they're yelling and cursing at the guards. So, yeah, they could be acting. But why would they be acting. ... What would they get out of that?

Brian Resnick

Blum quoted one of the prisoners, Douglas Korpi, who had a breakdown. Korpi told Blum that he was acting. That he was in the midsts of studying for the GREs and just really wanted to get out of the experiment. Korpi told Blum, "Anybody who is a clinician would know that I was faking."

Philip Zimbardo

Brian, Brian, I'm telling you every fucking thing that Ben Blum said is a lie; it's false.

Nothing Korpi said to Ben Blum has any truth, zero. Look at Quiet Rage [a documentary about the prison experiment], look at where he says, "I was overcome in that situation. I broke down, I lost control of myself."

Retrospectively now, he's ashamed of having broken down. So he says he "was studying the Graduate Record Exam, I was faking it, I wanted to show I could get out and liberate my colleagues," etc, etc.

So he is the least reliable source of any information about the study, except he documents the power of the situation to get somebody who's psychologically normal, 36 hours before, who in an experiment, knowing it's an experiment, has an emotional "breakdown," and had to be released.

Brian Resnick

Let's say: Regardless of whether guards were coached or not...

Philip Zimbardo

Brian, I'm gonna stop you.

Brian Resnick

Can I finish the question?

Philip Zimbardo

A guard, a single guard, okay? When you say guards you're slipping back into your assumption, you're slipping back to be like Blum. A guard was coached to be tough, and end of sentence there.
[Note: As a reminder, the tape of the experiment quoted the Jaffe, the "warden," who played a critical role in leading the experiment, as saying, "The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a 'tough guard.'" Also, as Blum discovered in the Stanford archives, Jaffe wrote in his , "I was given the responsibility of trying to elicit 'tough-guard' behavior." Which, again, raises suspicions that the experiment wasn't as naturalistic as the experimenters implied.]
Brian Resnick

What I want to ask is: What is the case that this experiment should be seen as anything more than an anecdote? I don't think anyone denies its historical value. It's an interesting demonstration. Ideas that generated from it are worthwhile to follow up on and to study more carefully. Do you think the experiment itself has a definitive scientific value? If so, what is it?

Philip Zimbardo

It depends what you mean by scientific value. From the beginning, I have always said it's a demonstration. The only thing that makes it an experiment is the random assignment to prisoners and guards, that's the independent variable. There is no control group. There's no comparison group. So it doesn't fit the standards of what it means to be "an experiment." It's a very powerful demonstration of a psychological phenomenon, and it has had relevance.

So, yes, if you want to call it anecdote, that's one way to demean it. If you want to say, "Is it a scientifically valid conclusion?" I say ... it doesn't have to be scientifically valid. It means it's a conclusion drawn from this powerful, unique demonstration.

Brian Resnick

Would you agree, as a scientist, that an early demonstration of an idea is bound to be reinterpreted in time, bound to be reevaluated?

Philip Zimbardo

Oh, they should. The essence of science is you don't believe anything until it has a) been replicated, or b) been critically evaluated, as the study is being done now. I'm hoping a positive consequence of all of this is a better, fuller appreciation of what happened in the Stanford prison study.

Let me just add one thing: There are many, many classic studies that are now all under attack. ... by psychologists from a very different domain. It's curious.

Brian Resnick

I've talked to a lot of researchers who are interested in replication, and reevaluating past work. They want to correct the record. I think they're scared about what happens to the credibility of science if they don't scrutinize the classics.

And I wonder from your point of view, as a scientist, do you need to be okay with losing control of the narrative of your work as it gets reevaluated?

Philip Zimbardo

Of course. The moment, the moment any of it was published, the moment any of this was put online, which I did as soon as I could, I lost. ... You lose control of it. Once it's out there it's not in your head anymore. Once it's out in any public forum, then, of course, I lost control of "the narrative."

Is it a study with flaws? I was the first to admit that many, many years ago.

Brian Resnick

A study like the prison experiment might just be too big and complicated, with too many inputs, too many variables, to really nail down or understand a single, simple conclusion from it.

Philip Zimbardo

The single conclusion is a broad line: Human behavior, for many people, is much more under the influence of social situational variables than we had ever thought of before.

I will stand by that conclusion for the rest of my life, no matter what anyone says.

Brian Resnick

I'm just unsure if we have the evidence to say if it's true or not.

There are other researchers who are trying to drill down more into understanding what turns bad behavior on and off. And I'm sure you're not a fan of him, but Alexander Haslam - [a psychologist who has tried to replicate the prison experiment study, and an academic critic of Zimbardo's conclusions]

Philip Zimbardo

Oh, God! ... no, no, no.

Brian Resnick

You don't want to talk about him.

Philip Zimbardo

Yeah, okay, No, I don't want to talk about [him] at all.

Brian Resnick

Well, the gist of what he and his colleagues are arguing is this: Social identity is a really powerful motivator. And it's perhaps more influential than situational factors. And perhaps the guards in your experiment became cruel because your warden used his authority to foster a social identity within them. [Here's a new paper with their latest arguments.]

Philip Zimbardo

I reject that. No, no. That's their shtick, that's what they're pushing.

Brian Resnick

You don't assume good faith on their part?

Philip Zimbardo

I'm not saying good faith. That's what their claim to fame is the importance of social identity.

Of course people have social identity. But, there's also something called situational identity. In a particular situation, you begin to play a role. You are the boss, you are the foreman, you are the drill sergeant, you are the fraternity hazing master. And in that role, which is not the usual you, you begin to do something which is role-bound. ... This is what anybody in this role does. And your behavior then changes.

Brian Resnick

Is there experimental evidence outside the prison experiment that supports that view?

Philip Zimbardo

The view that situation can make a difference?

Brian Resnick

Yeah. There are plenty of examples in history and current events, but is that something we know as a fact, as an experimental fact?

Philip Zimbardo

I don't know off the top of my head. ...

I've always said it's an interaction. I'm an interactionist. What I've said, if you read any of my textbooks, it's always an interaction between what people bring into a situation, which means genetics and personality, and what the situation brings out in you, which is a social/psychological power of some situations over others. And I will stand by that, my whole career depends on that.

It's not like I'm mindlessly promoting the situation is dominating everybody.

Brian Resnick

What would you fear might happen if people stop believing in the integrity of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

Philip Zimbardo

The fear is they will lose an important conclusion about the nature of human behavior as being, to some extent, situationally influenced.

Brian Resnick

You're afraid they'll lose an important conclusion even though the study is just a demonstration?

Philip Zimbardo

You demonstrate gravity by throwing a ball up and seeing if it comes down. I think you're insisting on a traditional view of what is scientific, what is a scientific experiment, what is a scientifically validated conclusion. And I am saying from the beginning the Stanford Prison Experiment is a unique and powerful demonstration of how social/situational variables can influence the behavior of some people, some of the time. That's a very modest conclusion.

Brian Resnick

All of this controversy is happening now because you gave your notes and tapes from the prison experiment to the Stanford archives. That transparency is commendable. Do you regret it?

Philip Zimbardo

No, I don't regret it. The reason I did it is to make it available for researchers, for anybody, and people have gone through it.

So again, the last thing in the world I need is for people to doubt my honesty, my professional credibility. That's an attack on me personally, and that I reject and I'm arguing it's absolutely wrong.

Brian Resnick

Is it okay if we just move on from the Stanford Prison Experiment? Like you said, it's a demonstration. Maybe we need to ground our understanding of acts of evil in something a little bit more scientific, to be honest.

Philip Zimbardo

At this point, I don't want anyone to reject that basic conclusion that I've said several times in this interview. I don't want that to be rejected. I would love for there to be better, more scientific evaluation of this conclusion, rather than a bunch of bloggers saying, "We're gonna shoot it down."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philip Zimbardo defends the Stanford Prison Experiment, his most famous work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What's the scientific value of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Zimbardo responds to the new allegations against his work.