MovieChat Forums > The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015) Discussion > "The only difference between them was a ...

"The only difference between them was a coin flip"- HIGHLY DUBIOUS claim

posted 9 years ago by Navaros
6 replies | jump to latest

The so-called scientist in this film makes the assertion, "The only difference between them [a guard research subject and a prisoner research subject] was a coin flip." That claim is highly dubious. Yet it is meant to infuse his thesis with scientific legitimacy and prove it as true.

Basically, this film is presenting that highly dubious claim as a "scientific fact," in order in turn to assert the idea that science proves all people assigned to guard duties in a prison would behave like psychopaths.

Those assertions are so absurd I don't even know where to begin with debunking them, because they could be debunked in legions of ways.

I.e:

How did the researchers determine that their subjects were exactly the same, apart from a coin flip? By interviewing each subject for an hour or two? How could that possibly be enough time to prove that two persons are identical?

How do the researchers know that the subjects were honest in their screening interviews? In fact, the film itself shows the research subjects flubbing and fabricating some of their answers, which indicates that they were not entirely honest. In this way, the film itself contributes to debunking its own core "scientific fact"/"moral lesson!" LOL

How could two people even possibly be identical apart from a coin flip? They have different genes, they have different spirits, they have different brains, they have a countless number of different life experiences, etc. Heck, even identical twins with the same genes who are raised in the same households are not exactly the same in every way. That fact alone pretty much renders this film's assertion that two non-identical, unrelated people from different households could be exactly the same apart from a coin flip as sheer bunkum.

How do they know that the two research subjects who they were analyzing are equivalent to any and all other human beings?

How do they account for all the real prison guards who disprove their thesis by not behaving like psychopaths?

In summary, this film's core assertion is highly dubious, and based on flaky "science" that does not hold up to any form of basic scrutiny.

[–] rc-108 9 years ago

I agree..

I was expecting one of the inmates to tell the psychopath guard they were going to kick his ass when this was over.

the cast was good.

[–] legendlength 9 years ago

"to assert the idea that science proves all people assigned to guard duties in a prison would behave like psychopaths"

I agree it's a dumb assertion and it has really the main claim of this experiment in my opinion.

In real life people do have 100% power over others (e.g. their own children) yet they don't turn into gestapo monsters for the most part.

Pseudo science really annoys me especially because sociology contains so much of it.

[–] gbts1 9 years ago

Agreed!

I was really surprised to hear the real Zimbardo claim (in one of the special features) something to the effect that they were all "good people" and the situation they were in (being a guard or prisoner) turned them into the people they became, as if they had no real say in the matter. Though he may blindly believe what his study supposedly proved (which, as Navaros pointed out, is "highly dubious"), it seems to reveal a real lack of understanding of human nature. To me a much more likely explanation is that the experiment simply revealed the true nature of each participant. When they were no longer forced to live within the constraints of polite society -- and no longer expected to put on the veneer of being a "good person" -- their true selves were exposed. I cannot believe that the Michael Angarano character did not have a very cruel streak long before his participation in the study. And the Miles Heizer character was obviously a decent human being with a conscience -- but one who was maybe too weak to take a stand against some of the stronger personalities on display. Two people -- both guards -- but very different. (For what it's worth, I think that most decent people would probably react much like Heizer's character in a similar situation.)

I found the movie and the study very interesting -- from the aspect of observing human nature -- but I completely agree with Navaros that the core assertions are "highly dubious".

[–] mgsgamer2009 9 years ago

You're reading too much into the movie. Go read the book if you want to get all technical.

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

Well, their first mistake was their apparent assumption that the middle-class white college-aged male is somehow the representation of "default" human.

But as it happens, yes, these were the terms that were set: white males imprisoning other white males in a uniquely male-made system of punishment: white males humiliating other white males through the most expedient method available to them - which is to clothe them in the traditional garb of women, thus instantly "lowering" their status.

Thus at least one of their methods was "psychopathic", in regards to having placed their utter faith in its effectiveness.

And by the way? Women don't find wearing dresses without underwear particularly comfortable, either.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] FilmFigment 9 years ago

I completely agree with you. I was turned off when I heard him say the coin flip comment, I didn't agree with that at all.