i recommend reading the full article before this post
Lets start with criteria of credibility (CRAVEN), and possible sources for bias.
“Sherif” is not a highly credible scientific accolade. Indeed, the fact that they work for the ‘law’ already means their fine with making the appeal to authority fallacy. Which casts a shadow over this whole experimental report. The one responsible for the most descrete and subtle uses of biases and fallacies is most likely, the law.
See if you can spot the hidden term, which might be biased in the so called “experiments” stated aim:
“investigate the causes—and possible remedies—of intergroup conflict.”
Done?
The term remedy is a legalese term that implies that injury has already occurred. But it also assumes a guilty party, the party that shall be “remedying” the problem, that is, if the law can make them. (so we’re already agreeing with the law as a scientific instrument, and as the top authority, even If we didn’t know it.)
This leaves the objective of the experiment as; to determine the guilty party and remedy of class warfare.
Furthermore, its conclusion; “The only way the counsellors managed to bring the groups together was by giving the two groups a common enemy.”
This is clearly a biased interpretation of what happened. They were, more likely, prioritising. Deciding; “I’ll deal with this asshole before I deal with these other assholes because without water we’ll all be dead in a week.” And all this happened subconsciously, or group consciously, or even consciously… we cant really know. But in any case, they were making the right decision.
But what of the other objective? To “investigate the causes”.
Well from this experiment we can only conclude one thing, and it’s a doozy. Care to speculate what it is?
Done?
The only thing that this experiment proves fully is; that when groups are split apart and given tasks which bring them into conflict. That it is to the benefit of a third group. In this case, those creating the experiment.
Not only does this directly echo what conspiracy theorists are always saying. But it proves they are likely to use positions of authority(authoritarianism) to do it i.e. camp councillor, assigning camps etc.
Even more ironically, considering that the experiment was conducted in the aftermath of ww2. Hitler himself was responsible for several conspiracies to worsen the crisis and force conflict between germans and german jews, communists. Such as the Reichstag fire.
On another note. They are very free with the use of the term ‘class warfare’ for the situation they have directly created, even though it bares only passing resemblances to the subjugation of jews in ww2. This is infact a fallacy, most likely a necessary and sufficient condition confusion or, weak analogy.
If I were to name the situation, I would think it better called rivalry. (that’s Victorian grammar btw)
So, the stated aim
“investigate the causes—and possible remedies—of intergroup conflict.”
Should instead resemble:
’investigate the causes—how to determine a guilty party—of rivalry—when instigated by a third party.
And my final criticism is that no one has asked themselves “should we even stop a conflict”. “Whoever said that conflict is so unnatural and unscientific?” May I remind you that the target of “stopping all conflict” is an extremist end of the spectrum, and the preserve of ideologies like Buddhism and not evidence based science.
So, this is the strange conclusion we find ourselves with.
i recommend reading the full article before this post
Lets start with criteria of credibility (CRAVEN), and possible sources for bias.
“Sherif” is not a highly credible scientific accolade. Indeed, the fact that they work for the ‘law’ already means their fine with making the appeal to authority fallacy. Which casts a shadow over this whole experimental report. The one responsible for the most descrete and subtle uses of biases and fallacies is most likely, the law.
See if you can spot the hidden term, which might be biased in the so called “experiments” stated aim:
“investigate the causes—and possible remedies—of intergroup conflict.”
Done?
The term remedy is a legalese term that implies that injury has already occurred. But it also assumes a guilty party, the party that shall be “remedying” the problem, that is, if the law can make them. (so we’re already agreeing with the law as a scientific instrument, and as the top authority, even If we didn’t know it.)
This leaves the objective of the experiment as; to determine the guilty party and remedy of class warfare.
Furthermore, its conclusion; “The only way the counsellors managed to bring the groups together was by giving the two groups a common enemy.”
This is clearly a biased interpretation of what happened. They were, more likely, prioritising. Deciding; “I’ll deal with this asshole before I deal with these other assholes because without water we’ll all be dead in a week.” And all this happened subconsciously, or group consciously, or even consciously… we cant really know. But in any case, they were making the right decision.
But what of the other objective? To “investigate the causes”. Well from this experiment we can only conclude one thing, and it’s a doozy. Care to speculate what it is?
Done?
The only thing that this experiment proves fully is; that when groups are split apart and given tasks which bring them into conflict. That it is to the benefit of a third group. In this case, those creating the experiment. Not only does this directly echo what conspiracy theorists are always saying. But it proves they are likely to use positions of authority(authoritarianism) to do it i.e. camp councillor, assigning camps etc.
Even more ironically, considering that the experiment was conducted in the aftermath of ww2. Hitler himself was responsible for several conspiracies to worsen the crisis and force conflict between germans and german jews, communists. Such as the Reichstag fire.
On another note. They are very free with the use of the term ‘class warfare’ for the situation they have directly created, even though it bares only passing resemblances to the subjugation of jews in ww2. This is infact a fallacy, most likely a necessary and sufficient condition confusion or, weak analogy.
If I were to name the situation, I would think it better called rivalry. (that’s Victorian grammar btw) So, the stated aim “investigate the causes—and possible remedies—of intergroup conflict.”
Should instead resemble: ’investigate the causes—how to determine a guilty party—of rivalry—when instigated by a third party.
And my final criticism is that no one has asked themselves “should we even stop a conflict”. “Whoever said that conflict is so unnatural and unscientific?” May I remind you that the target of “stopping all conflict” is an extremist end of the spectrum, and the preserve of ideologies like Buddhism and not evidence based science.
So, this is the strange conclusion we find ourselves with.