Isaiah90

I'm interested in seeing if there's any benefits.

59 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But that is not evidence that the experiment was biased. He may simply have hoped, or expected, that a fair experiment would make his point for him. Plenty of scientists carry out experiments in the hope or expectation that their hypothesis will be confirmed by it. It's one of the most normal motives for doing science.  

 What, in your opinion, is the evidence that the experiment itself was biased?  

As a side note, I don't believe the study is biased. I'm just trying to address criticisms others have made about it. Critics say Zimbardo coached volunteers how to be cruel and didn't show most of the experiment's footage.  

13 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I didn't want to watch a video, I wondered what you thought there being bias

Apparently, Zimbardo had a hidden agenda to prove prisons in America were too cruel and dysfunctional to be effective. He put out ads which looked for college students who wanted to volunteer for a study on prison life. This implies he was biased from the start.   

11 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

How so?

https://youtu.be/CElJEVMrnto

I've heard this experiment is biased. Do you agree? If so, how and why?

5 hours ago, MigL said:

We are also 'hardwired' to be very competitive, belligerent and tribal.
This instinctive behavior is also evident in chimps.
But we have come to realize that certain instinctive behaviors are detrimental to out society, and we try to control them with education, and laws, where needed.
Similarly, child rearing is beneficial to our society, and birth-mothers/fathers provide the best care of their own offspring.

Sometimes, 'natural' behavior is not the best option.

Why would things like polyamory be wrong even if it's natural? 

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Link to survey does not seem to work.

In nature you can find every single strategy in partner search. Using the majority argument to try to apply it to a specific species is silly, of course. Every species has their particular constraint and is more or less likely to have a specific reproductive strategy. 

Note that in humans many potential constraints are changed due to e.g. availability of reproductive control, but also things like easy availability of food or water (for most) and other technological and social elements.

Finally, few things are that hardwired to begin with. We have learned to live in a highly artificial environment. None of us are hardwired to move faster than running speed, yet we can drive cars, for example. 

Why is it silly? Chimps are highly promiscuous. They're also our cousins. Why wouldn't it make sense to say we're naturally inclined to promiscuity since we evolved from them?

It's true that potential constraints changed like cultural expectations via. monogamy, but I don't think they've changed much. Cheating rates are high. 

I've done a bit of scientific research and found we're hardwired for more than one partner. Here's a few facts I've learned. 

* A survey was conducted on 16,000 people from every continent. Participants said they wanted more than one sexual partner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-innate/4cc92d41-21f1-4a52-a89a-721658f096be/

* Biologists say women are hardwired to have multiple sex partners to boost the chances of having healthy children with the best chances of survival. Females across the animal kingdom are promiscuous. Since we evolved from other animals, women are likely hardwired for promiscuity. The strongest evidence of promiscuity is in testicles. Sperm competition means males evolved to make as much sperm as possible to eliminate competition. The more promiscuous females are, the larger male testicles will get. We find female chimps are very promiscuous and male chimps have large testicles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

* Monogamy is rare in the animal kingdom. Most are promiscuous.

* 80% of early human societies were polygamous. Monogamy is a modern social invention.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...y/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings

* Many people do not have just one partner in their lives. They've had more than one at a time. This is not monogamy. It's serial polygyny.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/121...nogamous-heres-what-5-researchers-have-to-say

It's fascinating information. I'm wondering what to make of this.