In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards had sunglasses on when interacting with the prisoners so as not to have eye contact. I think that was a big part of the experiment, but your cartoon did not have sunglasses so I thought I would share.
rossanna xx because humans require eye contact to create bonds and to communicate. When they use sunglasses it dehumanize them. For an example babies need eye contact to bond with their mothers. I don't remember exactly how or why. If you want to learn more, there are videos and documentation regarding it.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Maybe this is an additional reason why bicyclists have trouble with car drivers? (they usually wear glasses and car drivers of course are hidden already.) Here is a series that addresses the topic, but this is not covered...interesting. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9sZOpgUkZtQ.html
Finally! My favorite branch of psychology. The situations that bring people to act in a certain matter have always intrigued me. How positions given make people change and do things that they wouldn't have normally done before.
Yea, I hate psychologists, because I was around them a lot because of some stuff that happened a few years ago with my dad. Then again, I act like a psychologist, I'll just go around watching people's reactions to the world... I'm weird
People think my polite friendliness- to anyone, really- is me flirting. I've had a lot of guys develop crushes on me because they think I'm flirting with them, when I'm really just being genial.
I wish I could just pay this guy instead of a whole uni sessions and then just pay to take the exam at the end of the year as he's the reason why I'm passing my Bachelor degree so far.
I personally believe that you are one of the best Psychology-related videos that are fun, informative and don't miss out on any broad important bits. As a psychology student, I ask you to please continue making these.
Kylo was meant to start out as childish. Over the next few movies, he should mature more and either return home at some point of go full dark side. It's unfair to judge his character like this when he played out the character perfectly. He's one of the main characters to the center plot of the new trilogy, so they won't kill him off, or at least won't kill him off any time soon. There's still 5 or so more movies to come; two more main ones and about three spin-offs (the first being Rogue One).
No one is. The brain can only focus on one thing at once. Switching back and forth between comments & video is mentally taxing and difficult to maintain. Just read the comments after the video.
There was one fatal flaw in the Stanford prison experiment: The guy in charge was stage directing the whole thing. Zimbardo didn't step back and watch the events unfold as an observer; he played the part of head guard, even going so far as using these totally scientifically unbiased instructions to his student guards: "In general, what all this should create in them is a sense of powerlessness. We have total power in the situation. They have none.
Something to note about the prison experiment is that recently they found a lot of stuff that calls I to question the whole experiment. Like how they advertised to college students looking for guards and prisons. It may have been because college students just act like that and 2 that already aggresive people would be looking to be a guard and that the situation didnt make them like that. They also found that a lot of the participants, mostly the prisoners were acting crazy because they thought that's how they were supposed to be reacting. They were acting. Just something to keep in mind for new watchers.
Hey, I am an autistic 12 year old girl trying to learn about psychology. Certain parts of psychology kind of helps me understand people better, even though it is more confusing for me. Even though you did not talk about ASD in this video, I enjoyed it.
This video remind me of that one day, when I asked my sister "why are you so selfish ?" and that she told me: " I'd rather be selfish and happy than selfless and depressed like you." I still don't know if she was right or If I was...
Remember, Central route persuasion is rarely the one that actually persuades people. That's very important to recognize. Peripheral route persuasion rules the world, as "pessimistic" as that view may seem.
Remember the blind spot bias --- it's easier for us to identify biases in other people than in ourselfs. or, less politely expressed: we tend to believe that we are less likely to be biased and manipulated than other people.
Thank you, Crash Course, for existing. It's amazing that you guys are giving people education for free (and covering so many subjects as well!). I love every single episode and I'm absolutely obsessed with the AWESOME animation and Hank's explanations (because he always manages to sound interested and enthusiastic ) and gah I just love you guys so much thank you thank you thank you! ❤❤❤
Thanks for this video- I am a psychology student at university, and in almost every course, my teachers inevitably at some point will mention Zimbardo's name, but no one ever actually CLEARLY talks about the detailed actions that were in his experiment. All they really say is "Zimbardo did a study on how roles shape a situation. People respond to being casted roles by adhering to them. Zimbardo's study was dangerous and no one's allowed to do it again because it caused emotional harm", and then move on to talk, in detail, about the Milgram experiment instead.
Can I just thank you for helping me review through finals for my first four semesters of college! 👏🏾 thank you thank you thank you. An hour of class summed up in 15 minutes or less. :)
Hi hi, I'm not a psych expert or student. But I had heard that the Stanford Prison Experiment was discredited for its findings because of the unethical practices, disarray of variables, and many other reasons. Can someone explain to me why people still use it as an example or a discussion topic? I too feel like it holds value, but I don't know how to explain that.
Life saver, my lecture didn't explain this module any where near as concise and sensibly as Hank has done. Exam is tomorrow morning and 2 hours ago I understood nothing. THANK YOOOOU
I notice that it is being implied that anyone who is tempted to do bad things has 2 options: don't do it because it's bad, or do it because of the situation. I think there's another possibility here. Some people, more often in fiction, but also in real life, refuse to be tempted out of sheer contrariness: they don't want to do it BECAUSE the situation demands that they do it.
Then they don't do it because it's BAD. You seem to be thinking that not doing something because it's bad suggests that "bad" would be objective. It is not the case, what matters is what's bad to *you* specifically. See, bad is always subjective. There is no universal standard which people evaluate when they make decisions, there is only personal standard, being constantly influenced by social presure. This presure exerts such an influence that our personalities change to be more conformist, but situations differ and so not all people become more complisant over time. And I know this, because I am such a person you're reffering to. Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is a matter of staying true to yourself, it's a moral dillema in which you treat remaining yourself- not being pressured into action by outside sources, as a moraly GOOD decision. It's a moral choice in the same way that refusing to participate in stoning a person is a moral choice, derived from personal belief in value of nonviolnce, or human life, or the golden rule. Except that in this case the moral quality that is being "held on the line" as it were, is the personal belief of the value of nonconformism.
Pooja Sandhu No. More like you're ordered by your superior or pressured by your peers to do something, and you choose not to do so because either 1) You don't like being ordered/pressured, or 2) You don't like those giving the orders/ doing the pressuring The first example is a dispositional contrariness, the second is situational contrariness. In either case, the person doing "good" here doesn't necessarily ever even bother to consider the moral content of the action they are expected to perform. So if this person had been instead ordered/pressured NOT to do some "bad" thing, they would possibly go ahead and do it just out of spite.
thelonelydirector I keep forgetting that Crashcourse is not just Hank, it's plenty of other fantastic people who are dedicated to producing important content. Thank you muchly :)
I remember reading that prisoner scenario in Malcolm Gladwell's book _The Tipping Point._ He used the FAE and this prisoner example in making the point that situational differences is a large plausible cause in creating large-scale epidemics, which he personally named the Power of Context. A great author and a great read, I definitely recommend his books to anyone into that sort of thing, or just looking for some worldly insight. (Ah, it's a great feeling to see similarities in your favorite books and favorite educational RU-vid channels about one of your favorite subjects! I really am such a nerd. Haha)
This actually makes me happy because for once ever I knew every term talked about in a crash course video, and could follow along perfectly! This is only because I am taking an AP psychology class, but still!
Very informative! I hope very much that I'm one of those who would not change my beliefs in a hard situation. My personality (from Jung's personality tests or myers briggs) is of an idealist, so I don't think I would!
but what if your beliefs aren't necessarily "good"? Then wouldn't you want too? For example, you grew up being told blacks are not human and you believe that. If there was a situation where a black person was being tortured and you felt bad, then you wouldn't want to change your beliefs?
That is one of the characteristics of an Idealist though. They always seek the "good". I change less important beliefs all the time, in order to be more flexible. But there are some beliefs I hold that I will never change, because I know they are tried and true "good" beliefs that, if compromised, would indicate a serious lack of moral fiber on my part. For example, if I had a choice between sacrificing my life to save someone else, or many people, or escaping and letting them die, well that's a hard choice to make. We praise and emulate this in movies, but in real life when it's you on the chopping block? The urge to live is very strong. The reason we idolize this behavior so much is partially because, in reality, it is very rare. For me, if I were to have to make that decision, the only way I would not choose to save their life, is if the whole situation happened so fast, I couldn't save them in time, say like jumping in front of a bullet. But if it was like, choose, should I shoot you? or this stranger? I would choose myself. I honestly can't imagine living after that, if I chose the stranger. You could say I'd do it for honor. My moral integrity to me is more valuable than my life.
RainAngel111 Good and bad can be subjective. There are many situations where there is no good. Would you save yourself and your lover and let someone die or save that 1 person and let you and your lover die? This is an extreme scenario but you get the idea.
please do a series on Sociology!!!! I love your videos for my classroom and I am teaching Sociology this semester. I would love some more videos! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!
"Yes, it means I'm freeee-" "No. It means you get your yellow ticket of leave. You are a thief-" "I stole a loaf of bread-" "You robbed a house-" "I broke a window pane."
I wonder if social thinking can be applied to a larger cultural scale? Gender Roles could be a perfect example; something we may initially see as mundane, but allot of the time the way many men and women behave may be a part of social thinking, since our culture has formed a social standard that says boys enjoy X and girls enjoy Y.
I'm wary of anyone who cites the Zimbardo Prison experiment in anything. The subjects were non-random and the experimenter was also an active participant.
troty99 Well they don't need to be completely random but it would have been better if they weren't all college students, that I think went to the same college. Just the fact that some of the students want to impress the professor skews the results a ton!
troty99 The experimenter chose the subjects from a pool, rather than choosing randomly. This lets in personal biases and other random variables that partially or completely invalidate their findings. There's a reason sociology is regarded as a 'soft' science, compared to things like physics and mathematics.
It shouldn't be called an experiment. Is should be called an incident, like any other thing non-reproducable that happened in history. We can still learn from it, but we should cite other things that are actually reproducable far more often.
".. It would never fly by today's ethical standards.." Well in Denmark it did, it flew right over with the recreation of Zimbardo's experiment in the televised program "Ond, ondere, ondest"
This video really help me make sense to my social psychology class and a quick review for my upcoming exam :). Why have I not been watching these videos throughout my college career?!
Rob Willer's Social Psychology course is available free on youtube and it is THE best thing in the world. Fascinating, insightful, hilarious, and has possibly saved people's lives.
A CrashCourse video covering Autism Sepectrum Disorders (ASD), specifically High Functioning Autism (HFA), also known as Aspergers Syndrome (AS) would be amazing!
I'd love to see that, and right after he has talked about ASD, HFA and AS he makes a new video about their cousins: AD(H)D [Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder]. Everyone of these belong in some kind of same spectrum, and is very common disorders and symptoms that needs to be better understood. Having ADD myself with influences of Asperger behaviour would love to see someone like Green to explain and teach more about them all.
Situations affect our behavior. Depending on the different situations we face in our lives, our response tends to be positive or negative. A situation that is humiliating or makes us think low of ourselves leads us to take actions that could be harmful to somebody else or even ourselves. But such actions do not describe one’s overall behavior or personality and are restricted to specific situations. One should try to resolve the conflict between their thoughts and actions in a positive manner so that it could help them to better comprehend and react to situations in the future.
Yes It's insanely easy People will tell you it's not but they're lying because they can't organize themselves Either that or I just got a really good teacher There's never any homework but to study and take notes on vocab
Grace Laurent Go for it. Coming from a junior who only recently started enrolling in AP, I'd firmly say AP Psychology has been one of the most enriching courses I've ever taken, no contest. Make sure you're organized and willing to put in the effort though!
Even Zimbardo himself got so invloved in the fake situation that he didn't realise how bad everything was getting and would have probably continued with the experiment.
I've always thought people do all kinds of things because there really isn't good or evil; There are only different points of view. Same points of view combine to create cultures, customs, habits, morals and so on. If you ask, Why do people do what they do? To get an answer you just have to look at the circumstances they grew on and the experiences they got.
It is important to remember that the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the related Milgram Obedience Study, are rather contentious within academic circles, for their methods and ambiguity. Philip Zimbardo was involved in the experiment as a guard, and therefore has been accused of putting his finger on the scale, so to speak. Additionally, neither experiment had a strong hypothesis, something that is important in creating and running an experiment.
When I was religious, I was nearly torn apart by cognitive dissonance. Atheism makes so much more sense, and I'm a much happier person now that I deconverted.
+FirstRisingSouI - I get what your saying. I wasn't conflicted, however everyone in our 'church' the adults especially were displaying strange behaviour. I was raised in religion, left at age 13. Its like a bunch of zombies, torn with guilt, shame, and generally defensive.
+E.T. it's a defensive technique man.. we all do that on the individual level every fucking day of our lives. it's just the whole fuckin god thing that ruins it
Mario Lolrapeface I have even done the same. The thing is, too many people brush these feelings of theirs under a rug and it festers. My experience in religion was a breeding ground for emotional tormented minds.
Observation may be influential, but we still have long to go to explain the human mind. Just like going to space to explore, we have much more to yet explore in our own backyard, (the mind)
How is the Zimbardo experiment still even relevant for this video? By today's standards it's highly unethical, the subjects were not randomly selected and personally I could see how the would take it too far just to impress the professor, not even cause that's how they would naturally act.
I think he's mentioning the Zimbardo experiment because it has become "a classic": a thing that everyone is expected to have heard of. Freud is pretty widely discredited, but an intro to psych class has to mention him in passing because he was influential for so long. Hopefully in 20 years, the same will be true of Zimbardo and we'll talk about the work of Walter Mischel (AKA, the Marshmallow test guy) on the influence of situation on personality traits.
I heard the experiment wasn't exactly to the standards of the scientific method. the guards were (to my understanding) asked to be aggressive, and heavy reports of police brutality influenced behavior. TD;LR no control group
wanderingdude777 So what your saying is..It wasn't done according to the scientific method because the guards were told to be brutal and there were other pollice being brutal? but, isn't that kind of related? Like, how people are influenced based on what authority tells you to do, and what other people are doing around you? Which is basically the situation? Which John Green was talking about influences how people act?
Pooja Sandhu It wasn't performed to the scientific method for a number of reasons. It was terrible science at the time and only became famous because it was shocking. It's basically the 70s equivalent of that one study that showed a link between autism and vaccines (even though the study was awful and has been heavily discredited).
Question: Why do people do horrible things? Answer: Because people are horrible. Never, EVER underestimate the average person's ability to be an enormous idiot, asshat, etc.
Then how do you explain the Billions in Change foundation, charities and other positive things we do for each other? Do you mean that we have the potential to be an idiot and jerk but aren't initially? I'm confused.
+Manabender Take a look at the Thomas Hobbes point of view. He believed that people are naturally bad, and brings up good points. However, John Locke believed that humans are naturally good, and brings up good points as well. People have the ability to do both. Never, EVER underestimate the average person's ability to be an enormous help, friend, supporter, etc.
WAT? Anakin becomes evil? And you didn't even include a spoiler warning? What comes next? Palpatine turns out to be a Sith lord or some twisted stuff like that?
The Stanford prison experiment is one of a handful - the Milgram experiment being another - that makes me genuinely fearful of myself. I miss my naivety from the days I believed I could never be capable of such atrocities. We do, as you said, lose that innocent by increments.
I can't help but wonder how many of those 'angry guards' were cluster B personalities, that had been chosen based off of their 'ability to remain calm under extreme duress.'
While I understand you kinda have to mention Zimbardo because this is an intro class and everyone does, does the CC team know of anyones work they could talk about that goes into the effect of situations on behavior but is actually reproducible and ethically sound? I know Walter Mischel, before he did his work on self-control that came to be called "The Marshmallow Test", did a bunch of work on this and argued that personality traits were actually situational rather than consistent across many different situations.
thelonelydirector Then perhaps at least one of them should've spoken up when this trainwreck of an experiment was brought up as something worth including in the episode. I realize it neatly "proves" a couple psychological theories, but it was also extremely bad science: skeptoid.com/episodes/4102
***** Don't forget they can't help pushing their feminist propaganda bs every video.The comment about women's actions being mistaken for sexual ones was frankly ridiculous. They didn't even bother to mention the male side of things, I wonder if the study they're quoting even did.
why is bruno resting all his weight on his twisted ankle? and how did he get his good leg through his crutch? He's gonna end up in worse shape than if he'd danced all night. who doesn't know how to use crutches?
Hi from New York, I am a student of psychology, I like the way you gather the material on the subject that you are going to talk about ... BUT ... PLEASE Breathe, relax and try * MODULAR * the rhythm of your voice. Apart from that, good job. You get an A +
