"Initially there were a few giggles among the participants, but as the guards began enforcing rules, the mock prison began to feel very real. Though critics have accused Dr. Zimbardo of coaching the guards to act sadistic, he told the guards only to 'create feelings of boredom, frustration, fear and a "sense of powerlessness,"' according to a defense of the study on his website. They were, he said, given no 'formal or detailed instructions about how to be an effective guard.' Within a day, the guards had become abusive and were engaging in psychological torture: making the prisoners defecate in buckets, waking them up repeatedly through the night, forcing them to simulate sodomy. Several prisoners suffered emotional breakdowns. But Dr. Zimbardo kept the study going...."
From "Philip Zimbardo, 91, Whose Stanford Prison Experiment Studied Evil, Dies/ His provocative research made him a popular figure on campus. But his exploration of how good people can turn evil raised ethical questions" (NYT).
October 25, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
College students descending into barbarity? Yeah, I can see that.
"...raised ethical questions."
What were those ethical questions? Were they focused on the experiment, or the good people who participated? The former for the most part. Few questioned the notion that being a good person in the eyes of others tracks closely with being a compliant person.
I was just listening to The Road to Serfdom, and there is chapter 10
Why the Worst Get on Top
this is ALWAYS the case
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton
There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending towards totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime
i WOULDN'T have expected a College Professor to be familiar with FA Hayek thought
Those "guards" now retired teachers and Democrat politicians. Time flies.
the belief that the most repellent features of the totalitarian regimes are due to the historical accident that they were established by groups of blackguards and thugs. Surely, it is argued, if in Germany the creation of a totalitarian regime brought the Streichers and Killingers, the Leys and Heines, the Himmlers and Heydrichs to power, this may prove the viciousness of the German character, but not that the rise of such people is the necessary consequence of a totalitarian system.
Everyone has the capacity for evil.
It is the people who scream the loudest they are the good people that you have to watch out for.
Lord Acton was wrong.
Power does not corrupt.
Power is magnetic to corrupt/corruptible people.
"College students descending into barbarity? Yeah, I can see that."
Hitler saw that, too. Academics and university students were more supportive of National Socialism than the German working class, if not clearly in absolute numbers, certainly by proportion. The proportion of SS members with doctorates receiving full-time pay is astonishing. Obviously, knowledge is no guarantor of moral goodness. However, what is yet unexplored is to what degree academic life inculcates compliance with authority, authority being not necessarily official authority.
A more interesting study would be to see how ordinary people, flawed as they are, can turn out to be good.
Democrats are saying this study needs to be replicated and peer reviewed...on a national scale.
Orwell noted that it is young women who fall into these patterns the fastest.
Zimbardo was sadistic and evil. He donned the guise of good-intentioned researcher to carry out his sick impulses. Clever
Video: It was made into a movie
I can't. There is very little evidence that these experiments were even carried out. This is anti-prison propaganda by people who are unscientific and untrustworthy.
They will have to PROVE to me that they even did these experiments because I don't think they can prove it.
"We created an unethical prison. Therefore this raises questions about whether we should have prisons."
These people are unserious.
Now do Tuskegee.
The boys who were suffering had to wait for Dr Z to end the study?! Not this boy!
Oh yeah. Abu Ghraib I take it the Zimbardo study was never picked up by the Pentagon.
Power is magnetic to corrupt/corruptible people.
which is EXACTLY what Hayek was saying..
If you prefer, Power is Enabling (for corruptible people)
Actually, whay Hayek was saying, was that in a system of Complete Control
(Nazi Germany/USSR/Pol Pot's Cambodia), The people that "get things done" will be the people that Enjoy getting things done
Didn't I read somewhere that it was his wife that appealed to him to end the study prematurely, based on the horrific behavior they were seeing?
Lack of accountability and progressive processes. We saw the same thing at the girls' school in Britain, males identifying as feminine gender in America, grooming in scouts and schools, abortive ideation in human rites, transgender conversion therapy, medical mandates correlated with chronic conditions, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, ethnic Springs, etc. Wicked solutions with good intentions, perceptions.
cf: Stalinist Russia, mao's china, Castro's Cuba, french revolution, etc. Average people are conformists and follow orders.
Look at the IDF, no problem with shooting kids, bombing churches, etc. Raping prisoners is A-OK. Just following orders!
The "guards" tell a rather different story about Dr. Zimbardo's involvement.
In what sense was Zimbardo's study an "experiment," with all relevant conditions controlled, all variables and instructions made transparent for easy replication, all inferences supported by careful statistical analysis?
I always figured that everyone involved with that experiment was trolling.
Whose account? Were they caught in the crossfire? Dual-use facilities and institutions is what has kept people in Gaza oppressed for decades and enabled Hamas to pursue a progressive, migratory path.
How does this not describe the path of our own government, once it forgot it serves the people and started trying to control them?
To quote Sheldon Cooper, "the social sciences are largely hokum"
Under duress, yes. I am sure I have the capacity without the luxury of duress. But I think my wife does not
Today's headline brings it all into focus: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/small-business-owners-are-branded-terrorists-federal-government/
Bombing churches! Wickedness! Leave the Amish, the Quakers, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians and the Catholics alone!
Credit to Dr. Z for looking the part.
dIt may not have been a very rigorous scientific experiment but it certainly cause a stir. The behavior we saw years later at Abu Ghraib seemed to confirm the results.
Recent critics are saying that the experiment was fake ... like a lot of social science research.
The Lifespan of a Lie
This has long been known.
https://x.com/Russwarne/status/1847624510440157219
Completely bogus study that has never been replicated. Still he gained lifelong "fame". Sad.
Good riddance.
I notice they are not calling him an austere scholar.
That's science in the good old days tradition of Watson, when they actually found stuff out.
Watson, repeating similar experiments [to Pavlov], noted the transference aspect of such conditioning. Having found that the violent striking of an iron bar produced fear in an infant, he noted that he could give a fear character to some hitherto neutral object, such as a rabbit, by placing it before the child each time the iron bar was struck; he next demonstrated that t his conditioned fear of the rabbit was transferred with varying degrees of intensity to other things having similar properties (such as fur coats or cotton blankets).
Kenneth Burke _Permanence and Change_ p.11-12
Social "science" isn't.
The continued notoriety of this experiment long after it has been debunked as a fraud is an example of why it can be hard to take any research in the social sciences seriously. It was an early example of something so delicious, so aligned with notions of how the universe should be (to a certain mindset at least), that it had to be true. If a study so widely reported and discussed is fraudulent how can we have any confidence in other results?
It was a fraud
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17509470/stanford-prison-experiment-zimbardo-interview
This month, the scientific validity of the experiment was boldly challenged. In a thoroughly reported exposé on Medium, journalist Ben Blum found compelling evidence that the experiment wasn’t as naturalistic and un-manipulated by the experimenters as we’ve been told.
Note the cultural resonance of the tragedy of the novel Lord of the Flies compared to the largely unknown but true story of Tongan school boys marooned on a desert island for 15 months in the mid-sixties who, to the extent that a small group of boys can, flourished during their stay with no hint of a fall to barbarity.
Phil Zimbardo was the master of clever experiments. RIP.
He was a legend who made Stanford the top Social Psych grad school in the country by his work and by attracting top talent to the university.
Note that a large number of well publicized, clever Social Psychology experiments have never been replicated.
The point of Lord of the Flies wasn't that you descend into barbarity but that the slightest authority brings you back out.
We are all corruptible people, given the opportunity.
The men tasked with executing Polish and Jewish prisoners were police officers from the larger cities in Germany during the Reichs Polish campaign . All married middle age men. All were volunteers. Every one was given the opportunity to quit at any time. Few did.
That study was crap and dishonest, start to finish. I recommend this week's episode of The Studies Show for the details. Quite thorough.
Post a Comment