I never shifted my goals, from the beginning I’m calling you out on saying fast food is not food, you’re the one who used dirt as a counter example of things that are clearly not food yet would, according to you, fit the definition of food. I’m giving you an example that clearly exemplifies why fast food sustains you, and is therefore food, but dirt doesn’t. If you weren’t babbling on and on trying to throw as many arguments as possible to try to evade from the simple fact that you haven’t even given a food definition that doesn’t include fast food you might see the point that by any meaningful definition of the word (including the one you gave) fast food is food.
There are several problems with your post, I’ll pick a couple and try to quickly go over them:
That’s not true, someone with social anxiety will have problems being on a video call with other people, someone with agoraphobia not necessarily.
His career is not that of a psychologist, so not sure what the longevity of his career matters here.
That’s how science works, someone makes an experiment and gets a result, others either validate or get a different result, and when science has a consensus it advances. Like you have mentioned here, the consensus is that the Standford Prison Experiment results are non-reproductible therefore it’s not accepted by the scientific community.
You seem to be expecting a 100% cause-effect response, which is not how biological sciences work, the same is true of medicine for example.
AFAIK the Milgeam experiment has been reproduced several times.
Which is not recognized as a condition. I’m not sure what your point was here, it’s like someone criticizing chemistry because of the atom model an the ether theory.
That’s not how it works, what you’re suggesting is called anecdotal evidence, and you would find the same problems in any other science, especially biological. For example, I personally know dozens of people who’ve smoked all of their life and don’t have lung cancer, that is NOT evidence against cigarettes causing lung cancer, just because some amount of people don’t get it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cause-effect relationship.
It’s not a rule, it’s a theory
It’s not from psychology but from game theory, which is mostly mathematics.
That’s not what it says at all, it makes no prediction on what people would choose, it’s a dilemma because choosing one option is Bettie for you but the other is better for everyone.
So it was not a Prisoner’s dilemma, if it had been if you both had talked you would both have served a sever sentence, if neither had talked you both would have served a lower sentence. There’s no option where both walk free in the prisoner dilemma, either only one walks or you both serve sentence, that’s where the dilemma comes from, if both keeping quiet gets everyone free there’s no dilemma.