We social psychologists really need to discuss "Humankind" by @rcbregman.

I finished listening to audiobook yesterday. Putting aside inspirational message, I think social psychologists should read chapters regarding the classic findings in social psychology.

Explanation

Background: I've been teaching social psychology focusing on understanding replication crisis with understanding social psychology.

One lecture focused on "Human Nature".
Course materials: https://osf.io/ayxr4/ 

My argument:
Findings about "humans inherently bad" are flawed.

To my great surprise, all that I've taught in that class was covered in great detail with remarkable storytelling by @rcbregman.

Example #1:
Humankind Chapter 7: Stanford Prison.
Not an experiment, staged, unethical, flawed to the core.

My slides:

Example #2:
Humankind Chapter 9: Bystander effect

Overhyped, misunderstood. Replications and meta-analyses show a much more complex phenomenon.

My slides:

Example #3:
Humankind Chapter 9: Kitty Genovese

All we thought we knew about this case seems wrong.

My slides:

Example #4:
Humankind Chapter 8: Milgram

Yes, I agree, this one does seem to hold & replicate. Yet, @rcbregman offers new insights.

My slides:

In Humankind @rcbregman takes the case I've been trying to make much further, looking into "Lord of the flies" and other myths about human nature being bad.

It's what I've been trying to teach since I became an assistant professor and was hoping someone would write.

Humankind @rcbregman is possibly the most important book about the implications of =replication/reproducibility crisis= to classics in social psychology. It tackles old classics one by one, checks on their evidence and takes a humble perspective on revisiting their conclusions.

It's worth a read, it deserves a public discussion.
We need to revisit and reexamine everything.

Core message about being skeptical about brainwash we've had regarding old social psychology classics & "bad human nature" needs to be embedded into our social psychology courses.