I have discussed this topic ad nauseum with my friends. I came to the conclusion that if I were a "prisoner" in this situation, I would fight the guards tooth and nail if at any point I were unjustly treated--I have a pretty short temper at times. If I were a "guard" I think I would enjoy the temporary power that had been given to me, and trust that the prisoners had strong enough minds to tell me when enough was enough.
If this were real--I have no idea. As a prisoner I would do whatever was asked of me to avoid being tortured/killed, but I like to think that if Uncle Sam came to me and said "Hey we need someone to guard these political prisoners from wherever" I would do the morally right thing, whether that meant guarding them while treating them compassionately, or flat out refusing to. But perhaps I am just flattering myself. How would you cope?
I agree this is the right question. The Banality of Evil: it can (apparently) be very easy to "adopt" a role. The "prisoners" were in a vulnerable position and had to figure out how to adapt in order to survive. The "guards" soon found they could do whatever they wanted and decided to have "fun" doing whatever they wanted. Only one of the guards didn't participate, but he didn't really say anything to stop the nonsense either.
AtoZ2014 I agree this is the right question. The Banality of Evil: it can (apparently) be very easy to "adopt" a role. The "prisoners" were in a vulnerable position and had to figure out how to adapt in order to survive. The "guards" soon found they could do whatever they wanted and decided to have "fun" doing whatever they wanted. Only one of the guards didn't participate, but he didn't really say anything to stop the nonsense either.
thats why the experiment failed because in real prison there would be punishment for the officers and if there were not then there would riots in the prison.
Plus in prison there would sometimes be officers loved ones in prison.
So Plus in prison there is also gangs and drugs and contraband being passed on in the courtyard where the prisoners can congruate
Yes, ok, that's right. And the "experiment design" of the "experiment" was to test the "prisoners" and how quickly they lose their self-identify. So, in a sense, what the "guards" did supported the "experiment design." The epilogue that explains what happened later states that Zimbardo switched his focus from prisoners to guard and how to train guards aimed essentially at training guards to not exploit their opportunity to misuse their power.That does seem to be a good lesson to learn from the "experiment."
> but what did it do to the prisoners? They havent spoken yet
The epilogue said that the experiment had no long-term effects on the participants. Personally, I'm not sure that I believe that. I mean, there were 18 people and things got pretty far out of hand. Surely a few of them had a bad enough experience to affect their life going forward. I mean, if I were one of the prisoners, I'd have hunted down the guards later on and done some serious damage to them. At minimum, I'd sue the guards, the professor and the university.
-- What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
bing-57 > but what did it do to the prisoners? They havent spoken yet
The epilogue said that the experiment had no long-term effects on the participants. Personally, I'm not sure that I believe that. I mean, there were 18 people and things got pretty far out of hand. Surely a few of them had a bad enough experience to affect their life going forward. I mean, if I were one of the prisoners, I'd have hunted down the guards later on and done some serious damage to them. At minimum, I'd sue the guards, the professor and the university.
Well, if you are referring to suing them, I'd bet that university lawyers approached each participant 5-10 years later and offered a big cash settlement to keep the issue out of court.
-- What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Well, if you are referring to suing them, I'd bet that university lawyers approached each participant 5-10 years later and offered a big cash settlement to keep the issue out of court.
Oh I am sure we never get the real story though do we about anything really big and major its only stories that have happy ending we get to see the real stories stories like this they get covered up
There are different prisons. The one you are describing is a prison in a normal functioning society. But in prisons like Abu Gharib in Iraq where the prisoners were abused at the hands of American soldiers, things are very different.
It's a situation without normal rules. The guards know they can do whatever they want, even kill the prisoners, without any consequences. And the prisoners know they can easily be shoot for no reason, let alone rioting.
The ONLY reason it all was stopped was because those pictures got out and published. And still no real punishment for the sadistic guards. So yes, it can easily happen. Just needs the right conditions.
There are different prisons. The one you are describing is a prison in a normal functioning society. But in prisons like Abu Gharib in Iraq where the prisoners were abused at the hands of American soldiers, things are very different.
It's a situation without normal rules. The guards know they can do whatever they want, even kill the prisoners, without any consequences. And the prisoners know they can easily be shoot for no reason, let alone rioting.
The ONLY reason it all was stopped was because those pictures got out and published. And still no real punishment for the sadistic guards. So yes, it can easily happen. Just needs the right conditions.
well anything can happen in the right conditions
superharrybird
Take over the prison and throw the guards into the cells
there was a riot and it want on for a few days then stopped
Of course. I simply wanted to point to what power does to people. Specially people that have NEVER tasted it before.
That example shows what power can do to people and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a need for checks and balances to supervise people in power and the greater the power the more rigorous supervision is needed for societies to developed and not get corrupted.
We have to make sure that we have uncorrupted institutes and government agencies to monitor our leaders. These are our standard safeguards. In the end the people need to have the courage to stand up against leaders that abuse their power or cross any lines.
bezorta We have to make sure that we have uncorrupted institutes and government agencies to monitor our leaders. These are our standard safeguards. In the end the people need to have the courage to stand up against leaders that abuse their power or cross any lines.
Agreed. There is always some level of corruption in society. But if left alone, it will grow beyond control. Soon you have to pay to get electricity in your house or water. Or pay the police officer to look the other way, etc. Or your elected president drags your country into unlawful wars by ignoring all the laws and legislation. So how far this corruption grabs the society is up to us. At some point we have to stop it before it swallows us.
There is a saying, "people deserve the rule they live under". We deserve our governments as it's us voting for them and allowing them to do what they do. How much our elected are corrupted is up to us. There are countless countries where people have let it go too far and now live under fear and corruption. How far is far enough?
what I am trying to say is how does the average person or prisoner have? Then if the person or prisoner how do they over throw the mean corrupt police force.
Not too say all people in the prison system like the cops are crooked
I agree with all you say. ALL of it. Society is corrupted to a degree. Our rights seems to disappear little by little for the "greater good". I know as a single person you can't do much about it. But when ever you get a chance to stop the corruption you have to do it, no matter how small it seems or feels. I've seen how fast it goes in countries without strong institutes. Those institutes and government offices has to be there for US, the people. In 2nd and 3rd world countries all that has disappeared to some degree or totally. And you are at the mercy of who ever has the weapons or power. We can't ever let it go that far.
In a prison you have very few rights as society has send you there as a punishment. Prison means few rights. But even there people want to keep those few rights and fight for them. In a prison, with guards that don't respect those rights, you get riots. The same happens outside. For example, when our police, which is there to protect us, shoot people for no good reason, we get riots. We can obviously accept some degree of police corruption (meaning a few killings) but when the corruption gets to far (meaning too many killings) then we don't accept it anymore. If the elected people take care of it and solve the corruption then the system is working. The problem starts when they don't. At that point the trust agreement between the people and the elected is broken. That is what happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries. And we don't ever want to get to that point.
bezorta In a prison you have very few rights as society has send you there as a punishment. Prison means few rights. But even there people want to keep those few rights and fight for them. In a prison, with guards that don't respect those rights, you get riots. The same happens outside. For example, when our police, which is there to protect us, shoot people for no good reason, we get riots. We can obviously accept some degree of police corruption (meaning a few killings) but when the corruption gets to far (meaning too many killings) then we don't accept it anymore. If the elected people take care of it and solve the corruption then the system is working. The problem starts when they don't. At that point the trust agreement between the people and the elected is broken. That is what happens in 2nd and 3rd world countries. And we don't ever want to get to that point.
I dont think even elected people have done anything why so much race relations even with Obama being in office?
Well the trust is broken when american elect this people in office and all those promises are then not done
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about any specific person or elected people. All I'm saying is that we all need to be careful of the system we have so it doesn't go bust. That is why I mentioned countries were the system failed and people did nothing to stop it. So far we are the lucky ones.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about any specific person or elected people. All I'm saying is that we all need to be careful of the system we have so it doesn't go bust. That is why I mentioned countries were the system failed and people did nothing to stop it. So far we are the lucky ones.
Correct. There are opportunities that inmates present due to their own disruptive and combative behavior that basically allows for a "free for all" if you will in using force, but by in large Officers in my state remember that they have a pension worth approx $1.75-$2.1 million to protect so it isn't worth letting a convicted POS felon get under your skin and take that from you.
We don't care about inmates, you committed a crime, you violated someone, you are accountable for your own actions that's the way life works. I don't give a crap about how an inmate "feels", they didn't give a crap when they did what they did, period.
> thats why the experiment failed because in real prison there would be punishment for the officers and if there were not then there would riots in the prison.
Correct. That's what I found frustrating with the movie; the simulation was not very accurate. Prisons are not like that. In real prisons, the prisoners have some limited freedoms and rights. They can mingle and talk during recreation and meal time. They have some entertainment options, such as books and newspapers and TV. They can write and receive letters freely and they can initiate phone calls and talk to a lawyer frequently.
As presented in the movie, the prisoners literally have nothing and no freedoms at all. They have no hope and no sense of normality. They were simply torture victims.
What we saw was interesting, but it was not a simulation of real prison life.
-- What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
The problem was that this was 1971 and there was no google and knowledge of Stanford Prison Experiment. So it is hard to say how people would have behaved if they would have had knowledge we have today. In 1970's smoking was still quite popular and it was advertised a cool thing to do. Still nowadays people smoke even though they know that it bad. People eat *beep* food and get overweight and know it is bad and which foods are fattening. So people do stupid things even though they know it is stupid. We are still animals and we try to be alpha and copulate as much as possible. Even though people aren't participating 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, they bully weaker on the internet, in the workplace etc.
Also everyone was just a teenager who didn't know really what prison was and everyone started on same day. So there was no learned experience on either side of experimenters. so everyone had their own agenda to take a part of that experiment and they used their imagination to create false reality. In real prison most people know why they are there and they have strict guidelines how to behave and also older inhabitants/guards to guide them, so in real prison there is no power vacuum. Basically guards know that their work is easier if they're behaving humane and don't try to create their own entertainment by harassing prisoners and prisoners know that it is easier for them not to try fight against guards. In this case prisoners were as guilty or innocent as their guards and Zimbardo created those abstract fantasy rules to test his thing, not observing prison experiment. So Zimbardo wanted create Nazi Germany style oppression and those participants didn't know that.
More similar experimenting was done in 1960's by Stanley Milgram and it feels odd that Zimbardo wouldn't have known about those experiments and wouldn't have learned them. So maybe Zimbardo just couldn't believe Milgram's experiments, like most of us don't believe that how people could have behaved like they did in Zimbardo's experiment. And they still don't believe that same style oppression has happened in Abu Ghraib and is still happening in Guantanamo. And if they believe it they still think that those prisoners deserved that oppression, because they were/are Muslims, terrorists, Jews, North Koreans, Russians, Nazis, black, gay, animals etc.
The thing about that experiment was that there was really only one bad guy. The first day crew treated the prisoners straight up with no sadism at all. It was the one guy on the second crew that made things spin out of control. Had he been a prisoner or not in this experiment, I doubt anything unusual would have happened and we'd never have heard of this.
> Basically guards know that their work is easier if they're behaving humane and don't try to create their own entertainment by harassing prisoners and prisoners know that it is easier for them not to try fight against guards.
Correct. So, this wasn't rally a prison experiment, it was more of a torture experiment.
-- What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
in real prison there would be punishment for the officers
Not all prisons.
And it wasn't meant to be a simulation. It was an experiment. Something to do with how personalities change when there is an imbalance of power and little consequence.
I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe reply share
It's the only thing that would happen... Fake it, until you can eliminate them all /escape. What else would they think would happen (yeah, yeah, to see what the prisoners would put up with until they could gain an upper hand /snap & how big of a psychopath a guard could be). xD
If I was a guard, I think my 18 year old self might have gone along with what the other guards were doing and even taken some small part but without being the ring leader, but my 18 year old self wouldn't have admitted that on here or even to himself that this would be possible.
Now my 35 year old self, having being shown and read about all kinds of different social experiments would almost certainly stick up for the prisoners in this situation and not let himself get influenced by the mob (I would like to think)
I became so inraged I wanted to kill that little "guard" bastard, because he was a reall sadist without any conection to this poor "situation" excuse. (wich is proven by his own words at the and, wich are lacking any kind of remorse), Anyways, I felt the inner sycho in me raging out, imagined myself taking that stick of him so fast the other guards heads would spin and do a little 'Midnight Express' thing on him. And then take on the others too :P.. knowing myself I would be a good gaurd and get kicked in the ass by the prisoners :/ Being violent towards evel dosen't condridict..
Passive aggressive the situation because it does work in some situations.....and once they began to ignore you slowly began to take over. Stroke their egos a bit, do what they say most of the time, make them feel like you're not a threat.Then take over the prison and throw their arses into the cell.....or rat them out to the families, including the Stanford people and get the hell out of the place. That was the most confusing part, why didn't they tell their families?
I think there might have been some careful selection according to the prospective subjects' financial situation(s). All those dudes needed the money, so I think the researchers used that to the experiment's advantage.