Quoting Cicero is usually good start to any piece but then I think of the Romans daily. I was compelled to go back and read my X posts and it is swarm of negative commentary. This is where completing my business career is problematic. My LinkedIn posts were almost always positive. Gandhi said, "I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors and to retrace my steps." Since I am no Gandhi, not eve a Carpenter, I cannot quite commit to 30 full days of positivity. However I do have my Twitter rules pinned to my portrait and will commit to at least three positive posts per day.
So Cialdiani is writing about the Robber’s Cave experiment, right? There’s a lot of context surrounding that experiment that really casts doubt on it. For one thing, the way he characterizes it is exactly the opposite of what happened in real life: the researchers harassed the boys into going to war with one another and actually had to go to pretty great lengths to do it. They essentially started the experiment knowing what they wanted to find and then did what they had to do to get that result. You can learn more in this interview:
Otherwise I agree with your point. I think you could use a different example to support your point and that would make the article stronger.
In general, the majority of psychological studies going back for decades don’t replicate and/or have context which casts strong doubt on their findings. Stanley Milgram’s electric shocks. The Stanford Prison experiment. Etc.
Quoting Cicero is usually good start to any piece but then I think of the Romans daily. I was compelled to go back and read my X posts and it is swarm of negative commentary. This is where completing my business career is problematic. My LinkedIn posts were almost always positive. Gandhi said, "I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors and to retrace my steps." Since I am no Gandhi, not eve a Carpenter, I cannot quite commit to 30 full days of positivity. However I do have my Twitter rules pinned to my portrait and will commit to at least three positive posts per day.
So Cialdiani is writing about the Robber’s Cave experiment, right? There’s a lot of context surrounding that experiment that really casts doubt on it. For one thing, the way he characterizes it is exactly the opposite of what happened in real life: the researchers harassed the boys into going to war with one another and actually had to go to pretty great lengths to do it. They essentially started the experiment knowing what they wanted to find and then did what they had to do to get that result. You can learn more in this interview:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/knowledge-of-men/robbers-cave-experiment/
Otherwise I agree with your point. I think you could use a different example to support your point and that would make the article stronger.
In general, the majority of psychological studies going back for decades don’t replicate and/or have context which casts strong doubt on their findings. Stanley Milgram’s electric shocks. The Stanford Prison experiment. Etc.