>>12703456>i want to repeat this infamous study with no idea how to do it or why I am doing it>”thats pointless”>”REEEEE something about repeating experiments”It’s the fact that I am an active researcher that I can say this is pointless. There is no active question which needs answering here, just a load of hand wavy “well you know, might be interesting...” stuff. Science works within stricter limits than that because results tend to become entirely invalid very quickly when you have no idea what you are doing or why.
Why this study? What will it show that studying a prison system, which is a far better model of actual human behaviour, wont? How will it be more applicable than the previous studies? What is the benefit of repeating this balanced against the ethical cost? If it is trying to repeat the study then whats the point since it has been essentially rendered moot? If it is set up to study other aspects, how is it repeating the initial ones? Scientists tend to be less interested in entertaining ideas which have been done, and demonstrated as of little use, as interesting as they may initially have been.
Also, this was not n=1, since that typically refers to the number of participants in a study, rather than the number of studies. And in any case, he ran it twice, one on a massive scale, and then on a smaller more controlled scale. So n=fucking thousands across two studies.
