Stanford Prison Experiment
I knew Stanford Prison Experiment by some articles in Chinese listing it as one of the examples long ago. But, maybe they are all paperback or don't provide a reference/link. They just mention the experiment and go on with their own arguments.
This post, Startup Recruiting and the Standford Prison Experiment, caught my attention and made me thought, by linking to Wikipedia, and quoting text from Wikipedia:
The results of the experiment argue in favor of situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities.
Although, I am not going to read the original report or materials. It just supports my suspect: it is the position/role makes people behaved so differently. But still leaves a question: how about the very start, before the the situations/positions/roles been set? Or, how do these things been setup?
It's natural to think that, everyone sets their own position/role, then competes and adjusts, and eventually forms a dynamically balanced system. But I'm not fully convinced.
It's said there are two fundamental assumptions (by physicists):
- Everything should be reasonable
- Everything should be determined
But you can only choose one, for you have "reasonable", then "random" or "free will" cannot be avoided; if you have "determined", then not everything is guaranteed to be "reasonable".
Most of physicists might choose the first one, so that nothing can be faster that light, and also "GOD plays dice" - even if you get all the inputs, you cannot know the outputs for sure.
And I'm also wondering, if there is a random seed for real life, just like we have in the computer world. Or, the rule has randomness inside itself?
If you give an interview you cannot pass, how do you distinguish between the quality of different correct responses?Because the candidate is able to explain their answer at your level.
That's how you know they actually know what they're talking about - the ability to explain it to their grandmother.
Using this same principle though we can argue that someone who knows nothing about brain surgery, such as myself, is qualified to hire brain surgeons based on whether they can explain how to do it in a way that I personally think makes sense to me. I might like to commend myself for being able to hire brain surgeons by virtue of my own ignorance, but it seems to me that the flaw here is I don't really know whether what he explained is true, or if it just sounds good.
So basically you hire the best bull shitter?
No comments:
Post a Comment