The Stanford Prison Experiment

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
..but I thought since no one else would expose your little Marxist/anti US criminal justice system thread, that I would.

Care to discuss what Phil Z and his band of communist thugs have in store for the Judeo Christian based US criminal justice system?

Because that's not what the thread is. Either connect to the OP in some sane fashion, or go back to your basement.

Let's see what the author of this thread has to say in her OP:

One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?...

Granted, your liberal laws have destroyed the nucleus of society, the traditional family (no fault divorce, cohabitation, adultery, abortion, etc.), so crime is pretty much a given in your new Utopia, but the crux of the issue is whether or not we're given FREE WILL to make the right choices in life.

It's obvious that comrade Zimbardo and his associates don't think so, what say you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I actually watched a film that was based on this recently:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/?ref_=nv_sr_1

There's some stuff added for dramatic effect as films tend to do but well worth a watch. There's an American remake also but the original is superior if you can hack subtitles.

Insightful, thought provoking thread anna, despite aCW's derailment...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I actually watched a film that was based on this recently:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/?ref_=nv_sr_1

There's some stuff added for dramatic effect as films tend to do but well worth a watch. There's an American remake also but the original is superior if you can hack subtitles.

Insightful, thought provoking thread anna, despite aCW's derailment...

From your link:

"26 men are chosen to participate in the roles of guards and prisoners in a psychological study that ultimately spirals out of control."

How did it spiral out of control?

 

[Arthur Brain]

From your link:

"26 men are chosen to participate in the roles of guards and prisoners in a psychological study that ultimately spirals out of control."

How did it spiral out of control?

Why don't you watch it and see?

lain:

Good to see you back btw! Was beginning to think you'd gotten lost on a pride float...

:cloud9:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why don't you watch it and see?

lain:

I'll put that on my long list of liberal feel good movies to watch someday.

In the meantime, why don't you share what went wrong in the liberal uptopia?

Good to see you back btw! Was beginning to think you'd gotten lost on a pride float...

:cloud9:

Save your obsession for appropriate threads.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'll put that on my long list of liberal feel good movies to watch someday.

In the meantime, why don't you share what went wrong in the liberal uptopia?

Well let's put it this way. I can well imagine you acting like some of the "officers" in the situation were you to be in any position of *authority*.

The film isn't 'liberal' either. You really are a whole hamper short of a picnic...

Save your obsession for appropriate threads.

I do apologize, it's just that I'm waiting with baited breath for WHMBR! Part IV and I'm still mourning the loss of parts I & II...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll put that on my long list of liberal feel good movies to watch someday.

In the meantime, why don't you share what went wrong in the liberal uptopia?

Well let's put it this way. I can well imagine you acting like some of the "officers" in the situation were you to be in any position of *authority*.

The film isn't 'liberal' either. You really are a whole hamper short of a picnic...

Siskel and Ebert you're not.

I gather it's another movie where untrained professionals pretend to be correction officers? (no civil service exam, psychological/background checks, academy training, etc.).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Siskel and Ebert you're not.

I gather it's another movie where untrained professionals pretend to be correction officers? (no civil service exam, psychological/background checks, academy training, etc.).

OTOH Chief Wiggum you are. Not to mention you're missing the point but then what's new?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Siskel and Ebert you're not.

I gather it's another movie where untrained professionals pretend to be correction officers? (no civil service exam, psychological/background checks, academy training, etc.).

OTOH Chief Wiggum you are. Not to mention you're missing the point but then what's new?

Why is it that you liberals are afraid to share "the point"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why is it that you liberals are afraid to share "the point"?

The point was right there in the OP...:doh:

Your hiatus hasn't improved your thinking skills has it?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The point was right there in the OP...:doh:

Thanks for confirming what I knew all along (the secular humanist movement's desire to destroy the Judeo-Christian based criminal justice system).

Your hiatus hasn't improved your thinking skills has it?

Just because I haven't been posting doesn't mean that I haven't been preparing for Part 4 of

"The LGQTQueer Movement: Molesting children so quietly that no one would ever know".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks for confirming what I knew all along (the secular humanist movement's desire to destroy the Judeo-Christian based criminal justice system).

What in the world are you blabbering on about now? The OP has nothing to do with that and once again you're simply deflecting away from the point. Just because you've never been a cop or been sacked from such a position is no reason to derail the thread.

Just because I haven't been posting doesn't mean that I haven't been preparing for Part 4 of

"The LGQTQueer Movement: Molesting children so quietly that no one would ever know".

Oh, I'm sure you've been scouring the net for all sorts of salacious and graphic material to "entertain" us with. Of course when homosexuality was still criminalized there was no such thing as child molestation or rape was there? Oh, wait...women didn't have a voice and nor did children, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it a coupla hundred years ago was there?

 

[chrysostom]

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed.

it makes me think about the tol experiment
and
how hate can affect christians
and
how it can be justified

 

[annabenedetti]

I actually watched a film that was based on this recently:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/?ref_=nv_sr_1

There's some stuff added for dramatic effect as films tend to do but well worth a watch. There's an American remake also but the original is superior if you can hack subtitles.

Insightful, thought provoking thread anna, despite aCW's derailment...

Thanks Arthur, I'll have to watch it. It'll be interesting to set that against the recent version and the documentary, especially in light of German attitudes towards law, order, conformity. And thinking about how it's all but impossible to form a unified group without a leader, and how much some followers are willing to put aside their own identity in order to assume by proxy the identity of the leader. I've long been interested in how mob mentality forms - how, by some fleeting moment of converging circumstance, a group of individuals become of one mind and one purpose.

 

[annabenedetti]

You might also be interested in the Milgram Experiment:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

As Christians we are so wedded to the idea of following authority, whether it is an obedience-based father model or the "authority of the Bible" we are taught from the pulpit and other authority figures.

The results of Milgram's experiment is horrific and truly chilling.

As long as someone who we believe is an "authority" we will kill for them without a second thought.

I'm familiar with it, and yes, it's chilling, although there are criticisms of that study too. Not only the ethical considerations, but if I'm remembering correctly, what didn't/doesn't often come out in discussion is how many of the participants withdrew from the experiment, which is encouraging.

The experiment has value, because history shows us that people will do the most heinous things simply because they're following orders and it's important to learn what can be learned about the hows and whys. And some cultures place a higher value on authority and following rules and then you have to take into account the inability to see clearly what's been ingrained into individuals by their environment.

 

[Town Heretic]

A compelling underline regarding the need for a) a standard to which we answer that is independent of and higher in our estimation than our nature and b) the present need for reflection and self examination relating to a.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Bump for the author of this enlightening thread:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
..but I thought since no one else would expose your little Marxist/anti US criminal justice system thread, that I would.

Care to discuss what Phil Z and his band of communist thugs have in store for the Judeo Christian based US criminal justice system?


Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
Because that's not what the thread is. Either connect to the OP in some sane fashion, or go back to your basement.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's see what the author of this thread has to say in her OP:


Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?...

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Granted, your liberal laws have destroyed the nucleus of society, the traditional family (no fault divorce, cohabitation, adultery, abortion, etc.), so crime is pretty much a given in your new Utopia, but the crux of the issue is whether or not we're given FREE WILL to make the right choices in life.

It's obvious that comrade Zimbardo and his associates don't think so, what say you?

 

[annabenedetti]

I found this article by the former President of the ultra left wing American Psychological Association (Philip Zimbardo) very revealing:

"Third, our system of criminal legal justice over relies on common-sense lay views held by the general pubic about what things cause people to commit crimes, usually motivational and personality determinants. It is time for the legal justice system to take into account the substantial body of evidence from the behavioral sciences about the power of the social context in influencing behavior, criminal actions as well as moral ones. My colleagues, Lee Ross and Donna Shestowsky have offered a penetrating analysis of the challenges that contemporary psychology poses to legal theory and practice. Their conclusion is that the legal system might adopt the model of medical science and practice by taking advantage of current research on what goes wrong, as well as right, in how the mind and body work.

”The workings of the criminal justice system should not continue to be guided by illusions about cross-situational consistency in behavior, by erroneous notions about the impact of dispositions versus situations in guiding behavior, or by failures to think through the logic of ‘person by situation’ interactions, or even comforting but largely fanciful notions of free will, any more than it should be guided by once common notions about witchcraft or demonic possession.”
http://www.lucifereffect.com/aboutphil_bio.htm

Don't cha just hate people that come from low income homes and make use of their FREE WILL to make something of themselves?

Don't cha just hate it when your strawman collapses?

First, Zimbardo isn't the author of your quote with the bolded section on free will. He was quoting someone else.

Second, how could you overlook his first paragraph?

It is a truism in psychology that personality and situations interact to generate behavior; people are always acting within various behavioral contexts. People are both products of their different environments and producers of the environments they encounter. Human beings are not passive objects simply buffeted about by environmental contingencies. People usually select the settings they will enter or avoid, can change the setting by their presence and their actions, influence others in that social sphere, and transform environments in myriad ways. More often than not, we are active agents capable of influencing the course of events that our lives take and also of shaping our destinies. Moreover, human behavior and human societies are greatly affected by fundamental biological mechanisms as well as by cultural values and practices.


​

That sounds like free will to me.

Thanks for playing.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I found this article by the former President of the ultra left wing American Psychological Association (Philip Zimbardo) very revealing:

"Third, our system of criminal legal justice over relies on common-sense lay views held by the general pubic about what things cause people to commit crimes, usually motivational and personality determinants. It is time for the legal justice system to take into account the substantial body of evidence from the behavioral sciences about the power of the social context in influencing behavior, criminal actions as well as moral ones. My colleagues, Lee Ross and Donna Shestowsky have offered a penetrating analysis of the challenges that contemporary psychology poses to legal theory and practice. Their conclusion is that the legal system might adopt the model of medical science and practice by taking advantage of current research on what goes wrong, as well as right, in how the mind and body work.

”The workings of the criminal justice system should not continue to be guided by illusions about cross-situational consistency in behavior, by erroneous notions about the impact of dispositions versus situations in guiding behavior, or by failures to think through the logic of ‘person by situation’ interactions, or even comforting but largely fanciful notions of free will, any more than it should be guided by once common notions about witchcraft or demonic possession.”
http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_content_situations.htm

Don't cha just hate people that come from low income homes and make use of their FREE WILL to make something of themselves?

[Photo of Dr. Ben Carson]

Don't cha just hate it when your strawman collapses?

No strawman, I'm just trying to establish where the male version of Hanoi Jane Fonda (ultra left wing hero Philip Zimbardo) stands on our current criminal justice system.

First, Zimbardo isn't the author of your quote with the bolded section on free will. He was quoting someone else.

Yet he didn't disagree with the quotes.

Second, how could you overlook his first paragraph?
It is a truism in psychology that personality and situations interact to generate behavior; people are always acting within various behavioral contexts. People are both products of their different environments and producers of the environments they encounter. Human beings are not passive objects simply buffeted about by environmental contingencies. People usually select the settings they will enter or avoid, can change the setting by their presence and their actions, influence others in that social sphere, and transform environments in myriad ways. More often than not, we are active agents capable of influencing the course of events that our lives take and also of shaping our destinies. Moreover, human behavior and human societies are greatly affected by fundamental biological mechanisms as well as by cultural values and practices.

That sounds like free will to me.

Thanks for playing.

"More often than not we are active agents capable of influencing the course of invents that our lives take and also of shaping our destinies"?

How often is that, 51% of the time? Either we have 100% FREE WILL to influence our lives or we don't. Granted, bad things happen to good people all of the time, but it's what we make of the bad situation that counts.

"Moreover, human behavior and human societies are greatly affected by fundamental biological mechanisms as well as by cultural values and practices".

"Biological mechanisms, cultural values and practices"?

Of course people and entire societies change their morals based on cultural values and practices (it's called "moral relativism"), but what does the male version of Hanoi Jane Fonda mean by "biological mechanisms"?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Challenging The Stanford Prison Experiment
(Part I of III)
http://www.swans.com/library/art17/barker82.html

Challenging The Stanford Prison Experiment
Undermining Prisoner Solidarity (Part II of III)
http://www.swans.com/library/art17/barker83.html

Challenging The Stanford Prison Experiment
Military Connections (Part III of III)
http://www.swans.com/library/art17/barker84.html