The purpose of the experiment, the control group, the control variables and constants, a large amount of experimental data, the selection of generality by removing the particularity of the experimental object, etc. Therefore, an experiment cannot prove the conclusion that human nature is evil.
Secondly, it is also inaccurate if it is to demonstrate the influence of environment or system on people. After all, I don't know how much performance is involved in the experiment.
"Jailer" and "Prisoner" are out of control, we may guess the reason:
"Jailer" is placed in a temporary position of absolute power, and does not have to bear any consequences for his actions, so choosing to release the evil of human nature is just one of them way, and they're in a role-playing position where even acting outrageously can give themselves a justification.
The reaction of the "prisoner" is not so much the obedience influenced by the experiment as it is the embodiment of individual tolerance differences. After all, this is still a short-term job with pay, and the experiment magnifies these differences, family background, education, personality ...
last but not least, some questions are indeed worth thinking about.
What is the reason for the sense of substitution?
What is the allowable range of harm to the experimenter? Where are the boundaries of experimental ethics?
If I switch positions, how will I "play"?
View more about The Stanford Prison Experiment reviews
