The Stanford Prison Experiment.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

In publishing the book rec earlier, I set out to argue (if not actually show) that the most civilised and urbane of us can become evil, twisted savages if certain conditions were met - or if certain restraints upon human behaviour were removed.

Sadly, a few people fastened onto spelling mistakes, and it became an argument about the definition of genocide. But, it may also be argued that the kids in the book were just kids - and that the book was a work of fiction.

I mean, supposing you took a bunch of older boys- young adults. supposing you selected a bunch of American ubdergraduates, young men who were by definition, above average intelligence, well educated, and from the sort of backgrounds that many middle class americans would deem 'respectable'. Supposing you took these college boys and put them through tests to weed out anyone with emotional or psychologiccal flaws and difficulties, anyone with medical health problems, anyone with a criminal record or drugs convictions. these were real life All American Boys.

To say that humanity is flaws really presupposes a weakness exists. supposing that this sort of situation that the boys were thrown into was not' evil' but simply a place that lacked humanity.
Would these young men, these intelligent and urbane American citizens impose their own cultural standards of humanity and decency on the place, or would the place strip them of their humanity?

It was an interesting question. And one researcher decided he would find out. Read what happened next.
http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/1

The bottom line is that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
This experiment took place in America, but I doubt that any other group of people from another nation would have shown a different result.

Keep in mind that they were all volunteers, and the role of guards and prisoners was decided on the flip of a coin. And yet, when given the right( or should I say the wrong) situation, a group of ordinary people showed themselves capable of sadism and unbelievable inhumanity towards total strangers.

The experiment shows we need to question how we runall our institutions, not just our prisons.

Comments

[thies.livejournal.com]

bullshit, something like this would never happen in a market driven libertarian society.


ahahaha hahahaha haha.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be widespread like it is under government systems.

[thies.livejournal.com]

omg they are coming for you! run!!!

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

omg they are coming for you! run

Wait, I forgot my tinfoil hat!

[thies.livejournal.com]

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Actually the entire point of a market driven libertarian society is to minimize the risk of this.


Think of it, what was the problem wioth the Stanford prison experiment? The power offered to the guards gave them licence to act on their darkest urges.

Power is the problem.

Libertarianism seeks to minimize the strength of power structures by not giving the power to anyone because no one could legally compel you to do anything.


With every other system of government designed by man they work all well and good right up until you run out of angles to man the positions of authority and people like George Bush decide to fill their place.

[thies.livejournal.com]

the more free a market the greater the ability to concentrate wealth and power. the experiment merely cut out the process of getting there.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

This statement shows in such clarity how little understanding of what a free market is.

Tell me, what mechanisms exist that allow one to concentrate wealth and power that do not rely on using the police power of the state? What mechanism's exist for those who do acquire wealth and power to compel others to do their bidding that similarly do nor rely on using the police power of the state for enforcement (either through convincing the existing state to do your bidding or supplanting it by hiring your own private army and becoming a defacto government on your own).

[thies.livejournal.com]

resources and employment are limited, being the most competitive allows for concentration and control of the first and offering the second which equals control over those depending on either for their livelihood equaling political power without the balances policing and enforcement powers granted to individuals through the current political system.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

This is only true when/if people freely choose to give their power to that person who is "in control". Offering employment to someone does not give them control over them when there are other choices available for them to work for. And concentration of resources depends on cooperation of people, which again is those people giving their power to another.

[thies.livejournal.com]

it is rather "if" there are other choices available. I know, the old myth about anyone who really wants to work can find employment. again, employment is a limited 'resource' as well. Being in the position to employ and pay wages is control. to take this further down the road, the recourse for those employed to counter that control was historically unionizing, yet that would appear to be a rather political approach which I assume would not be in the spirit of libertarianism and in the past largely depended upon actual politics supporting unions and limiting the employers response to it and strikes.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Collective bargaining is libertarian. Government enforced unions is not. Neither is government enforced anti-worker actions by businesses.

I know, the old myth about anyone who really wants to work can find employment.

Not at all. But anyone who really wants to work is not prevented from doing so by the government, and anyone who wants to exchange money with another for services rendered is also not prevented.

[thies.livejournal.com]

"Collective bargaining is libertarian. Government enforced unions is not. Neither is government enforced anti-worker actions by businesses."

that was my point. unions are not libertarian, yet they are the check and balance representing the interests of the workers who are controlled by the wealth and power of the employers.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Government enforced unions is not.
In what land does the government insist that the worker MUST join a union ? not in the UK, for sure, and I doubt that this is true of the USA.

In the USA, the worker MAY carry a gun ( in some states) - in the UK the worker MAY carry a Union card.

surely, by Freeedom of association, the Libertarian must also allow this.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

By government enforced unions he is referring to government requiring corporations to accept the union and engage in collective bargaining as well as prevailing wage laws that require all corporations in various fields to pay union scale wages even when they could find employees perfectly willing to do the work for less.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So is a collective bargaining group. Unions are an inferior solution to the real problem.

[thies.livejournal.com]

real world example of a collective bargaining group replacing a union, being embroiled in a labor dispute and to what outcome?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You're missing the point. The real problem that unions "solve" that collective bargaining groups don't is the problem of businesses using government force against its workers. Unions don't solve that, they just try to get some government force of their own, rather than removing government force from the equation which works out better for everyone.

[thies.livejournal.com]

then why did unions form during the laissez fair period of the mid 19th century? I also note the lack of a concrete example sustaining your argument and would like to point to concentration of power by employers which increases during a worsening economy, something usually disputed could happen by libertarians.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

then why did unions form during the laissez fair period of the mid 19th century?

Because it wasn't any such thing.

[thies.livejournal.com]

you still seem to lack in providing a concrete example for a working collective bargaining group in a labor dispute. I mark that up as being a nice unproven theory of yours then and prefer sticking to what worked well enough so far, namely unions and political intervention to balance the power accumulation of a corporation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps instead that the thesis of humans are basically good should be revised to humans are at root amoral and morality is determined by culture. I mean to be perfectly forthright at least a part of US society/culture was totalitarian for the century of 1877-1968.

[lordtwinkie.livejournal.com]

I thought everyone knew that the Stanford Prison Experiment was a bunch of bad science bullshit that none of the experts use for the basis of jack and shit.

[lordtwinkie.livejournal.com]

heres a good primer for all the flaws with that so called experiment, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102 I implore you and others to no longer refer to SPE as proof for your thesis.

thanks and good night.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link.

Given that it was called off early, it did not go according to plan.
it was ' bad science' in that it had no proper' control group' and yes, the man doing the experiment had an agenda.

However, Franklin had an agenda when he flew his kite in a thunderstorm. bad science? I think not.

The fact that the researcher himself got caught up in his role of 'Prison Govenor' shows the risks involved.

In terms of the criticism that the group was 'self selecting' -well, how about real life prison guards? isn't it likely that the people who apply for the job are also ' self selectors'?

Isn't it likely that what happened here can also happen in prison , in places like Abu graib and also in military training camps like Deepcut, in the UK?

When you give people power over others, without meaningful checks and balances, you create situations where abuse and inhuman treatment of other people become the norm.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The problem is that it is too easily replicable, and numerous experiments and studies have been done about this. The SPE is still used as a reference point for many things, including how not to run experiments. The phenomenon is prevalent, so really in the aggregate, there is something there that people continue to study and pursue.

[lordtwinkie.livejournal.com]

Actually one if the major flaws of the study and a major point of contention is that it is not replicable in the slightest.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, the phenomenon of power and abuse is not limited to the purview of the SPE.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Er, no - the experiment was going badly wrong in the sense that the bullying that the guards manifestedso early was so bad that the experiment got terminated early.

what happened in the Holocaust is not something that anyone would replicate in the lab, and yet what happened there has provided 'data', information that sociologists discuss , debate and use as a basis for theories on how human dynamics operate.

likewise the Stanford Experiment, to the best of my knowledge and belief. if you say otherwise, can you show a citation plz?

[drcruel.livejournal.com]

The SPE was terminated early because it was becoming dangerous, which is interesting in itself. Methodological flaws can be found with every study, especially if you don't want to accept the results, but the basic findings of the SPE have been replicated many times, in much more tightly controlled conditions, and the study is still seen as a watershed. It will never be repeated exactly as it was done, because IRBs these days are much tighter on rules that protect study participants.

In other words, yes, very disquieting conclusions can and should be drawn from that study. It's just that we don't like to believe those conclusions apply to us.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yeah but I read something on the internet so now I know what the professional community thinks.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I liked this movie better when it was called "Saw".

And I didn't like that movie's premise at all. :P