02 Class THU SEP 08
Warmup
- Riddle: Empty Bottle of Scotch
Housekeeping / Mechanics
- Class Notes
- For Participation Grades
- Name the Takeaways / Specific Lessons
- Make bold, specific claims
- Avoid “Talked About” Language
Web Skills
Demonstration
Class Photos
- Class Roster with Photos
- password: hodgescomp2
Class Discussion
- The Stanford Prison “Experiment”
Lecture
- Quick Preview of a Researched Persuasive Argument
Today’s New Tasks
- Task: Preliminary Draft of My Hypothesis
- DUE before class TUE SEP 13 (11:59pm MON SEP 12)
..
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
At 2.55 when they did a coin toss to see which of the participants would be prisoners and which of them would be guards.
3.33 the fact that a chain was placed on of the prisoners legs
4.50 when the prisoners rebelled after only a headcount was done. Moreover, by removing their numbers and barricading themselves in.
5.25 The guards retaliated by breaking in and stripping the prisoners of all clothing and putting them in solitary confinement with no bed.
5.59 The guards developed a system involving a “good cell” where well behaved prisoners were able to sleep on beds and eat better food.
7.10 after all of the abuse the prisoners were facing. One specific prisoner, Doug Korpi became extremely distressed and was released from the experiment.
7.40 While conducting mock parole trials, head researcher Zimbardo realized that the prisoners no longer saw themselves as participants in an experiment but instead as real prisoners.
They found that there were 3 types of guards, tough but fair guards, good guards, and guards who enjoyed power over prisoners.
8.35 Prisoner 819 broke down when talking to the priest and had to be taken to a doctor. He however refused to leave the experiment being that the other inmates labeled him a bad prisoner.
9.05 Prisoner 819 was reminded that it was an experiment and then agreed to leave.
Zimbardo also had not realized how deeply he internalized his role as well.
I didn’t recognize the value of these Notes at first, shepardspy, because I forgot what question I had asked. Now I see that they’re timestamps for the moments in the video when your expectations were disappointed.
5.59 The guards developed a system involving a “good cell” where well behaved prisoners were able to sleep on beds and eat better food.
—I wonder if this is natural intelligence, or whether the “guards” were instructed that this would be a good tactic. Either way, it’s brilliant. But what followed, when the guards arbitrarily replaced some prisoners from the good cell with others, was, I’m tempted to say, diabolical.
7.40 While conducting mock parole trials, head researcher Zimbardo realized that the prisoners no longer saw themselves as participants in an experiment but instead as real prisoners.
—I don’t know how much we can trust Zimbardo’s characterizations of anything, but to the extent his report is reliable, it’s stunning.
8.35 Prisoner 819 broke down when talking to the priest and had to be taken to a doctor. He however refused to leave the experiment being that the other inmates labeled him a bad prisoner.
—If it’s really true that 819 stayed on in the experiment to maintain the respect of other prisoners by submitting to abuse, then I have no words for how warped that is.
I will invite you to revisit these observations on Wednesday, if you wish. They’re riveting, and I didn’t hear them expressed today.
Stanford Prison Experiment Pre-class Notes:
I found the timeline and results of the Stanford Prison Experiment to be fascinating. I wouldn’t say my expectations were disappointed at any point in the video. However, I did notice something interesting. It made me think of the ‘old fish young fish water’ phrase. The experiment received funding and the green light, yet nobody knew the water they were in until the experiment was prematurely concluded. Nobody had any idea that the experiment would go the way it did (causing mental anguish among multiple students), and that it would cause the repercussions that it did until a female observer snapped Zimbardo out of his ‘prison warden’ trance. As the video states, Zimbardo wasn’t thinking like an experimenter. He was consumed by the experiment just like the prisoners and the guards and he became his role. The water didn’t exist until they realized it existed.
That’s a clever observation, 44elk, about the experimenters who didn’t recognize the water they were swimming in. I didn’t deliberately choose to juxtapose the two bits of content, but the connection you’ve identified is undeniable.
I like your “prison warden trance” declaration too. Embrace this talent for “naming” your observations and your positions. They will serve as bright lights for your readers to follow to your conclusion.
Small but important punctuation note: even for small phrases, quoted or, as you’ve used them here, to identify them as distinct bits of language, use Double Quotes. The only legitimate use of single quotes in American English is to quote something inside a pair of double quotes. Example:
My clever student, 44elk, noted in his observations, “It made me think of the ‘old fish young fish water’ phrase.” There the single quotes are correct.
But otherwise:
It made me think of the “old fish young fish water” phrase.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
-Mock Prison that was made in the basement of Stanford Jordan’s Hall
-Prisoners having to be blindfolded before being taken to the bathroom is baffling to me because what is that doing?
-The fact that a coin toss was done to see who would be guards and who would be prisoners makes it seem like this experiment was a joke and not taken seriously.
-No underwear was given out which is dirty to me
-Withholding of food was done during this “experiment” , but that is still done today in prisons.
-Stripping the prisoners naked due to them retaliating against the guards is dehumanizing.
-As the experiment went on, the people participating as prisoners began to feel like real prisoners due to the conditions of the experiment.
-Based on the experiment , their were 3 kinds of guards
-The experiment only lasted 6 days instead of 2 weeks
Thanks for these “markers” of places that took you by surprise or raised questions, chance.
-Mock Prison that was made in the basement of Stanford Jordan’s Hall
—I’m not sure what’s startling about this, but maybe it’s that they went to the trouble to make a new place instead of using an existing jail?
-Prisoners having to be blindfolded before being taken to the bathroom is baffling to me because what is that doing?
—Good question. Could it be simply to exercise the guards’ privileged status? As in: you wouldn’t even know how to get to the bathroom without us.
-The fact that a coin toss was done to see who would be guards and who would be prisoners makes it seem like this experiment was a joke and not taken seriously.
—I’m going to push back on that one a little. If something other than chance decided who was who, wouldn’t the experimenters be accused of having “chosen” guards who were more likely to be brutal, for example?
-No underwear was given out which is dirty to me.
—I completely agree. But, just thinking about it makes me feel naked and exposed. A smock, for goodness’s sake, and nothing under? I would feel utterly vulnerable and at risk of exposure all day. Could that have been the point?
-Withholding of food was done during this “experiment” , but that is still done today in prisons.
—Yeah. It’s a common method for controlling behavior. Did you think it would be abandoned as a practice following this demonstration?
-Stripping the prisoners naked due to them retaliating against the guards is dehumanizing.
—Oh, yeah. You might not want to watch the film “Attica.” Following that uprising, naked prisoners were forced at gunpoint to crawl through the latrine trenches they had dug to relieve themselves in the yard during their revolt. Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were also commonly stripped deliberately to enhance their degradation.
-As the experiment went on, the people participating as prisoners began to feel like real prisoners due to the conditions of the experiment.
—That will always mystify me, too. But, that’s what makes the observation valuable. Look very hard at things you feel compelled to do and ask yourself, “why?” Am I really powerless? Or do I oppress myself? You might not recognize the water you’re swimming in. 😉
The way they had attracted the students by telling them this is for an experiment was a little unfair because they weren’t told the full details about the experiment. The time in the video that I was disappointed is when they were stating that they were using college students and saying that this is just an experiment.
The way that this experiment had started out with a coin toss to see which person has which role at the moment was definitely causing some of the participants to become a little nervous. This had made me feel nervous because I understood how they felt when they were standing up there to see the role they would have to play in this experiment.
In my opinion, the coin toss was not fair because the participants should have had the choice on which role they want to play.
There had been some feeling of scariness because the student had no idea of what they had been putting themselves through.
I feel that it is not fair how the prisoners had been treated so harshly and treated like they were nothing.
Zimbardo had found that prisoners would listen to the guards although they may have not liked them.
The idea of trying to figure out the brutality among guards in American prisons by doing an experiment but the way that it was planned out was way out of proportion for just an experiment. When reading the article this had made me think that they were on the right track but had taken it a little too far.
The way they had attracted the students by telling them this is for an experiment was a little unfair because they weren’t told the full details about the experiment. The time in the video that I was disappointed is when they were stating that they were using college students and saying that this is just an experiment.
—Unfair if you think experimenters owe their subjects an explanation. In this case, HELL YEAH!, if you offer to pay me to be in an experiment and neglect to mention that you’re going to confine me in a prison cell for two weeks, um, yeah, I have a right to complain. In this century, Zimbardo would have been sued for wrongful detention by every one of his victims.
The way that this experiment had started out with a coin toss to see which person has which role at the moment was definitely causing some of the participants to become a little nervous. This had made me feel nervous because I understood how they felt when they were standing up there to see the role they would have to play in this experiment.
—Interesting. That doesn’t bother me at all. I appreciate that chance had to be the method for deciding.
In my opinion, the coin toss was not fair because the participants should have had the choice on which role they want to play.
—Have to push back a little here, njd. Let me rephrase your position here. I’m going to test whether randomly-selected subjects are better at math skills or verbal skills, and you want the participants to volunteer which group they should be in? Wouldn’t self-selection completely pollute the results?
There had been some feeling of scariness because the student had no idea of what they had been putting themselves through.
—Turns out they were right to be scared. 🙂
I feel that it is not fair how the prisoners had been treated so harshly and treated like they were nothing.
—My heart reaches out to your heart, njdevil. You are very concerned about fairness toward these volunteer subjects. It’s impossible not to admire you for that. It’s also impossible to study abuse without subjecting somebody to abuse. Right? I guess the question for you is, “Was the outcome worth the cost to the participants?” It’s a high hurdle for the creators of the experiment. Did they clear it?
Zimbardo had found that prisoners would listen to the guards although they may have not liked them.
—Unclear who didn’t like who. Can you rephrase so that it’s clear either 1) that the prisoners didn’t like the guards, or 2) the guards didn’t like the prisoners?
The idea of trying to figure out the brutality among guards in American prisons by doing an experiment but the way that it was planned out was way out of proportion for just an experiment. When reading the article this had made me think that they were on the right track but had taken it a little too far.
—I’m going to rephrase that for you as a model, if I may. “Studying brutality among guards in American prisons is a worthwhile goal, but the methodology of this experiment put too many subjects at an unjustifiable risk of harm.”
Notes
Was it the acquisition of power that made the guards turn brutal or is brutality intrinsic to human nature itself? (0:16)
Are relationships between guards and inmates shaped more by the environment or the personalities of the guards? (1:07)
Important Points
Guards and inmates were selected based on a coin-toss?! (2:59)
Inmates rebelled by the second morning of the experiment; tore number badges off and barricaded themselves in their cells. (4:47)
Guards stripped the inmates naked, placed them in isolation, and took away their beds as punishment for rebelling… on the second morning!! (5:30)
After 36-hours the first inmate was sent home due to erratic behavior and being unable to cope with stress… only after the guards tried to make him their snitch. (6:58)
Inmates, guards, staff, and even the warden began to internalize their roles in the experiment. (8:20)
Inmate 819 had to be reminded that it was all just an experiment before he agreed to go home. (9:10)
Maslack was horrified by the experiment and it wasn’t until she spoke with Zimbardo that he realized how much he had internalized his role as a warden, he then called off the 2 week experiment after only 6 days. (9:25)
After watching this video I realized that the only times when my expectations were disappointed were when the experiment was called off prematurely and the fact that there was no information on Maslack’s interviews.
Britannica Article Notes
“Intended to measure the effect of role-playing, labeling, and social expectations on behavior over a period of two weeks” (Encyclopedia Britannica).
“Within the first four days, three prisoners had become so traumatized that they were released” (Encyclopedia Britannica).
“Zimbardo admitted that during the experiment he had sometimes felt more like a prison superintendent than a research psychologist. Later on, he claimed that the experiment’s “social forces and environmental contingencies” had led the guards to behave badly” (Encyclopedia Britannica).
“The British experimenters called the Stanford experiment ‘a study of what happens when a powerful authority figure (Zimbardo) imposes tyranny.’”(Encyclopedia Britannica).
APA Article Notes
“A situation-centered approach, in contrast, focuses on factors external to the person, to the behavioral context in which individuals are functioning. Although human behavior is almost always a function of the interaction of person and situation, social psychologists have called attention to the attributional biases in much of psychology and among the general public that overestimates the importance of dispositional factors while underestimating situational factors” (2004, APA)
“They wanted to determine what prison-like settings bring out in people that are not confounded by what people bring into prisons. They sought to discover to what extent the violence and antisocial behaviors often found in prisons can be traced to the “bad apples” that go into prisons or to the “bad barrels” (the prisons themselves) that can corrupt behavior of even ordinary, good people” (2004, APA)
“The Stanford Prison Experiment has become one of psychology’s most dramatic illustrations of how good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions – traceable to situational forces” (2004, APA)
“Senator Birch Bayh, prepared a new law for federal prisons requiring juveniles in pre-trial detention to be housed separately from adult inmates (to prevent their being abused), based on the abuse reported in the Stanford Prison Experiment of its juveniles in the pre-trial detention facility of the Stanford jail” (2004, APA)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association. (2004). Demonstrating the power of social situations via a simulated prison experiment. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/research/action/prison
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Stanford Prison Experiment. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-Experiment
YouTube. (2020, July 10). The Stanford prison experiment was one of the most disturbing studies ever. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRR7CwdHxUE
Was it the acquisition of power that made the guards turn brutal or is brutality intrinsic to human nature itself? (0:16)
—Do you have an answer for that question?
Are relationships between guards and inmates shaped more by the environment or the personalities of the guards? (1:07)
—Another worthwhile question.
Important Points
Guards and inmates were selected based on a coin-toss?! (2:59)
—You seem surprised, but I wonder if you think the choice should have been made more deliberately. Wouldn’t any non-random selection process prejudice how the subjects in the different roles would behave on average?
Inmates rebelled by the second morning of the experiment; tore number badges off and barricaded themselves in their cells. (4:47)
—I’m both shocked and not surprised that this happened so quickly. Was it a reflex reaction to the basic unfairness of the selection process? “Why do we have to be locked up and the guards can go home after their shift?”
Guards stripped the inmates naked, placed them in isolation, and took away their beds as punishment for rebelling… on the second morning!! (5:30)
—I think we suffer from not having enough information. How exactly was the role of the guards explained to them? Did they really think they could strip and punish their fellow experimental subjects on their own authority?
After 36-hours the first inmate was sent home due to erratic behavior and being unable to cope with stress… only after the guards tried to make him their snitch. (6:58)
Inmates, guards, staff, and even the warden began to internalize their roles in the experiment. (8:20)
Inmate 819 had to be reminded that it was all just an experiment before he agreed to go home. (9:10)
Maslack was horrified by the experiment and it wasn’t until she spoke with Zimbardo that he realized how much he had internalized his role as a warden, he then called off the 2 week experiment after only 6 days. (9:25)
—This is the central failing of the demonstration, don’t you think? That Zimbardo took an authoritative role?
After watching this video I realized that the only times when my expectations were disappointed were when the experiment was called off prematurely and the fact that there was no information on Maslack’s interviews.
—I feel similarly disappointed that we don’t have enough information about SO MANY FACTORS of the demonstration to draw informed conclusions.
In the video, I felt disappointed because it made me feel sad about what was going on with the prisoners, they were being brutally beaten for no reason.
In the video, I also felt disappointed because in the Experiment none of the prisoners knew what was going at that point, I would never do it.
In my opinion, I don’t like the Stanford Experiment because, it’s awful to feel what the prisoners were feeling back then.
That’s perfectly reasonable.
-On the hand out received before entering class , I agree with the statement that ” a student who takes the same seat for the first time two classes in a semester will likely continue to take the same seat for fifteen weeks.” I agree with this because when I start a new class I try to stay in the same seat every single class.
-Bishop Desmond Tutu was the leader of the reconciliation committee.
– I can relate to Tutu’s experience on the plane when he saw a black pilot and co pilot because growing up I was not used to seeing African American doctors, therapists, teachers etc. When I got to high school though, that all changed and I was enlightened to see that times were changing.
– The song “Kiss from a Rose” that wad played in class off of Spotify was actually a nice song , and I never heard it before until today’s class
Archbishop Tutu was really surprised at his reaction (and ashamed of it, too) because it revealed to him that even though he had spent his entire life rebelling against the overwhelming public sentiment that black South Africans were not capable of holding responsible jobs, he had internalized that point of view despite his fierce resistance to the unfairness and illogic of it. I thought it was particularly brave of him to tell this story about himself. I also think it gives the rest of us both a broader understanding of how pervasive horrible myths can be AND a chance to be a little tolerant of ourselves when we find that those myths have infected our thinking.
There’s a parallel here to the Stanford Demonstration, don’t you think? We’re appalled to see how quickly reasonable people can behave abominably, but the experiment in part excuses us for the reprehensible things we do if we can blame our situation, not ourselves, for our failings.
Regarding the experiment, one prisoner in particulars mind was so clouded that he forgot that he was not a real prisoner. When this was revealed to him , he was in shock and was upset. This goes to show that the experiment had effects on the prisoners mental state.
It seems almost impossible to believe, doesn’t it, chance?
Professor went over some of his thoughts:
-The government set up
*In the US it’s a semicircular set up, in Britain it’s a “face to face” conversation
–I knew that the US government set up their government based off of Greco-Roman antiquity, but I didn’t realize how much. Britain created their own history whereas the US stole others.
—The semicircular set-up is standard in ancient Roman theaters. We see this in architecture in places like the theater of Pompey.
—The US chose to model over “influential societies” rather than just making their own influence.
-South African Prime minister
*Nobel peace prize winner
*told a story about his experience on a plane ride
–Makes me wonder if racism is an eternal thing. That we can’t get rid of until it’s not talked about
—Just because it’s not talked about doesn’t mean it isn’t thought, but does that mean that it’s not prevalent? Can it ever fade?
Demonstration vs. Experiment
Stanford Prison “experiment”
-Lacked a lot of important control groups and factors
–Ethical components? Is there a way to even do this experiment without resulting in a potential confirmation bias or irrational conclusion?
–If Zimbardo became so encompassed by his role, how do we know that his nots/conclusions are valid?
–Can this be ethically recreated with new guidelines?
Your scholarship is impressive, Pluto. Racism may be eternal, but I don’t think the anecdote supports that position. Its value for me is that it indicates how pervasive is the the myth of racial superiority/inferiority in the present. If Tutu shows symptoms, we’re all diseased (and can cut ourselves some slack about it?). The man is an exemplar of forgiveness and tolerance. Yeah, Zimbardo fatally tainted his own experiment.
Objective: to determine if punishment was based more on the environment or personalities of the guards
Philip Zimbardo offered college students $15 to attempt this experiment
70 total applicants total signed up, then the interview process began
When the experiment started, prisoners rebelled, resulting in the loss of their bed. The privilege cell was installed to bribe prisoners
36 hours in, Doug Korpi began going mentally insane
Three different types of guards
Most people would fulfill the role they were given
Only lasted six days
Even Zimbardo got too carried away in the study and forgot his role as a researcher, rather than the prison superintendent
Simply Psychology:
Dispositional (personalities) vs. Situational (environment)
Zimbardo predicted that they would act the way that they would because of the environment that they were in
“…In the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility”
Many found they did not know they had that side of themselves to them
The prisoners had forgotten that this was an experiment
90% of conversation was about conditions of prison and 10% was about life outside of the prison
Khan Academy Video:
Uneventful first day
Day 2: began rebelling against the guards, they were over the situations, first prisoner dropped out
Day 3: started showing signs of depression, mental breakdowns, went on hunger strikes, attempts to turn prisoners against one another
Day 4 and 5: continued escalation
Day 6: Christina Mazlach visited and said that she was horrified by what she saw and she threatened to breakup with him if he did not end the experiment
The House of Commons was built so that the middle of the table can be reached at a swords distance+1 inch. This serves as a reminder that there are other ways of making decisions, rather than physical fighting.
Seal focused on incorporating different aspects of instruments and melodies together, resulting in many considering him a musical genius.
Zimbardo changed his “experiment” from an experiment to a demonstration because nothing was scientifically proven or concluded from it.
The demonstration consisted of primarily white males in college and while a portion of the population consists of such, it is by no means limited to white males, so it is not an accurate or beneficial studies.
All participants in the study fell into different roles and stereotypes and forgot they had never committed a crime or belonged in prison.
The study would be almost impossible to replicate because of the amount of attention the experiment has received since it was conducted.
Nice notes, coffee.
I wonder about that observation that the Prison experiment could not be replicated. I think team sports, frat houses, scout troops, and other social groups offer plenty of opportunity for experimental manipulation. We wouldn’t have to solicit volunteers to take part knowingly in an experiment. We could just organize their activities (on a retreat, or a team-building weekend, a camping trip, or during rush week) so that one group had authority over another and provide an incentive for the authority group to achieve some sort of measurable outcome from their team. If they were told to use whatever means necessary to achieve maximum performance, there’s no telling what mischief they’d get up to.
The stanford prison experiment had the goal to distinguish whether or not power made the guards brutal or if it was human nature itself. I think everyone is capable of evil, even if they believe it would be impossible to treat someone with such disrespect. Give a guard a little bit of power and they take it to a new extreme. I believe the situation and environment they are in will reflect how they react in certain situations. Prisoners began to no longer see themselves in an experiment, instead as true prisoners. Throughout the experiment I noticed the loss of identity the prisoners experienced. The numbers written on their prison outfits were what they referred to themselves as not their true names. They became obedient to the guards who they forgot were simply college students.
I chose my seat in advance of class, I knew exactly where I wanted to sit and who I planned to sit with in class and they had a mutual feeling about our seats for the next class. When viewing the paper about my seat it did not affect my thinking. Things that are permanently embedded into our culture are so hard for us to forget and get rid of. It will be years before we will get rid of things such as differences in culture, or ethnicity. How we view African Americans will always be different from how white people are viewed no matter how many movements we may go through. As explained how African Americans were unable to vote let alone have any other privileges, because they are viewed differently. Times yes indeed have changed slightly but we will always all be seen as different, but never all just as people. The paper we received at the beginning of class regarding our seats in the classroom was simply a demonstration just like the Stanford Prison Experiment. No true data was actually collected. In the Stanford prison experiment the men were all white men, which in reality is not the reality of people who are in prison. Those in real prison are from all different ethnicities. Also there were no women. Within the experiment they began to take the roles extremely seriously. We all take our roles seriously, we are now students, we have been students our whole lives. It is all we ever know, it plays a part in how we act. I personally feel it has made me a listener and always following directions. Supposedly if my situation was different, I would have turned out differently than I am now. Maybe I would be more rebellious and less determined to be a good person. I began to question why the prisoners became so obedient. And why did the guards choose negative reinforcement as their course of action? I discovered that the prisoners were avoiding the negative reinforcement and they became obedient so they could become rewarded. By doing this resulted in giving the guards more power and praise for what they were doing. Based on our social situations we will react differently. I think the guards had no idea how they originally were going to act when the experiment began. We are in social experiments like this everyday where we have to decide how to act based on the situations that we are in. Like in the classroom we decided how we should act and how that is different as if I am with my friends at a party on the weekend.
That was a very enjoyable read, pieces, and thoughtful, too. I get the sense you’re starting to be more observant of your own reality and the situation you find yourself in. Before long, you’ll be recognizing the water you swim in. I hope this class will always feel like a prod to your thinking as much as a way to improve your writing. I firmly believe that the best writing depends very little on style and almost entirely on good ideas clearly and briefly expressed.
Notes for 1/24
STANFORD PRISION EXPERIMENT VIDEO
Wanted to study the power dynamics between guards and inmates in a prison
What is the gaining of power that made guards turn brutal or is it just human nature?
Was it the prison itself or the relationship of guards
Things quickly turned sadistic by the 2nd night
Guards- tough by fair, good guys, and guards who enjoyed the power they got
I thought it was interesting that they eliminated anyone who had a history of abuse or signs of a personality disorder to make the experiment as fair as possible
Dehumanizing
Prisoners had to be blindfolded when taken to the bathroom- take away the power of knowing where they are
They were given no underwear
They were given a number and were called that number- taken away their name. The main thing used to identify someone
Punishments included withholding of food and privileges
Prisoners were not allowed to use the bathroom at night
I thought it was interesting how by the 6th night the participants didn’t see themselves as being apart of an experiment, but they genuinely thought they were prisoners
Zimbardo began to internalize his role as superintendent rather than psychologist. It was until after a conversation with someone who was not apart of the experiment he realized that he was thinking more like a superintendent than a researcher.
One prisoner had to be reminded that he was in an experiment after being asked if he wanted to go home
-“Like a small child awakened from a nightmare”
Takeaways- people seemed to really take on the role of whichever part they played. Some had a hard time believing or remembering that they are in an experiment
STANFORD PRISION EXPERIMENT DISCUSSION
– Was it a demonstration or experiment
-depending on how you view the results and what became of the experiment you can better answer that question.
– Believed it was unfair that these people had no idea what they were getting themselves into, but on the other-hand if they did know then the experiments results would have been controlled
– Everyone got lost within themselves, even after six days one participant completely forgot who he was and completely believed he was a prisoner
– people take the roles they have in life very seriously. Once you are given a role for example the guards. you start to believe that you are not just a human anymore, but you are a prison guard in this case. The guards completely dehumanized these “prisoners” when in reality they didn’t even do anything. Real life jail’s are not even this bad, so it was confusing on why this experiment that went on for six days turned so dark and sadistic
– Both fell into stereotypes almost immediately
– guards- mean, brutal, always giving harsh punishments
– prisoners- angry, wanting to rebel
– Is the reason that these people behaved so sadistically based on human nature? is it because of the human desire for power and to make sure others know of their power.
-Crab grass adapted to growing short so they do not get cut by the lawnmowers
– passed through generations
Write about a specific topic for your hypothesis
It’s informative, isn’t it, that the “researchers” would weed out applicants they could determine has suffered abuse? On the one hand, eliminating such candidates makes them seem more objective and fair, but on the other, it clearly demonstrates what they WANTED to prove: that “ordinary” guys would be warped into brutal abusers by being given power over others. The fact that they had given themselves a goal to achieve warps the validity of the outcome, doesn’t it? We have so little information about how the guards were prepped to assume their roles. It’s easy to imagine that they were encouraged to behave brutally to achieve the desired outcome.
You’ve written very fine notes, swim.
I want to take issue with one bit of phrasing that indicates I did not communicate what I intended. (It provides a good example of how carefully we need to phrase things to be fully comprehended.)
You say: “-Crab grass adapted to growing short so they do not get cut by the lawnmowers.”
Which is exactly the opposite of what I meant to communicate. “So they don’t get cut” attributes INTENTIONALITY to the grass. It indicates that the grass behaved in a way to avoid being cut, as if it knew that hugging the ground would be a good survival tactic. But of course, it thinks no such thing. It doesn’t act intentionally at all. It simply grows the way it grows and gets lucky. It thrives and spreads because of circumstance. We make the same mistake when we say that viruses have adapted to meet new conditions. They have done no such thing. Instead, they generate thousands of random mutations entirely by accident and some of them turn out to be lucky. Those are the ones that survive long enough to replicate, spread, replicate again, and become the dominant strain. They only look smart after they dominate.
-Facing each other so you cannot ignore the point of view of the opposing side, facing each other the whole time. Two sword lengths + 1 inch of space from each other. If you can’t reach him with a sword you must reach him another way.
-We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.
-Pianist sits for 4 minutes and 33 seconds.
-Stanford “Experiment” was a demonstration. Take One sheet from beginning also a demonstration. No one knew they were “in the water” until things started to go wrong. If he told them everything that was going to happen it would of made it worse if they knew what the outcome was supposed to be. All white males in college, not what prisons are actually comprised of. Cannot draw conclusions about the American prison system without involving race and gender. People took their roles from stereotypes and acted in a way that wasn’t truly them, and they lost themselves. Acted as the job. Zimbardo took his role over his actual job. Prisoner woke up from the nightmare and realized he wasn’t actually a prisoner, agrees to leave. Wanted to stay and be a better prisoner. If you place good people in the wrong situation they will behave in ways that do not reflect their actual character. Can blame behavior on the pressures of social situational ethics.
Thibault Le Tesier, in his recent thorough debunking of the “results” of the Stanford demonstration, points out repeatedly that Zimbardo had never been inside a prison before he authored his broad characterizations of their systematic and pervasive brutality. He had access to white male college students and used them despite their dissimilarity to the common prison population. It might be fair to characterize his demonstration as a conclusion in search of proof instead of as an experiment from which conclusions were drawn.
– Standford Prison Experiment
Took place in 1970’s
21 participants were selected to participate in this experiment, out of 70 who applied.
The reward for participation was 15 dollars per day. When adjusted for inflation, this is considered equal to 106 dollars today.
Participant’s fates were left to a coin toss, wether they would be a guard or a prisoner.
The experiment would be cut off after 6 days due to horrifying results.
Guards took their power extremely seriously. While it did vary from guard to guard, at least 1/3 of the guards were directly abusive to the prisoners.
Dehumanization of the prisoners was very common. They were referred to as their numbers, forced to strip naked, placed in solitary confinement, had food taken away, and suffered through unsanitary living conditions such as sleeping on the floor or latrine buckets not being cleaned.
The participants had completely internalized their roles as guard/prisoner, meaning they completely believed that they were their role.
This was despite fully knowing that this was only a two week experiment.
One of the prisoners suffered from emotional distress, and was taken out of the experiment. He was told he could leave, but was adament that he would be returned so that he could prove he was a good prisoner. He had to be firmly reminded that this was an experiment and he was not a real prisoner before he agreed to stop.
The most terrifying thing was that the person running the experiment was playing the role of the prison superintendent had internalized that role. He had to be reminded by a third party that these results were extremely gruesome and that for the students sake should be shut down. It was only after this reminder he agreed.
I believe that this experiment proves that there is an internalized brutality among all of us, waiting for the right circumstances to be awakened.
Class Mon 24
Empty bottle of scotch: My guess to the answer of this riddle was that it was a metaphor for alcoholism, that the bottle was never truly empty because it can always be refilled. The actual grammatical answer made a lot of sense, and I couldn’t help but feel like that was an easier solution than what I came up with.
Parliament: My conclusion of this was that the british parliament’s set up to discuss political issues is interesting. Looking at your opponent would definitely make for much more fierce debates, which leads to better outcomes. I think the US government system could learn from this, because of how different Republicans and Democrats are. There always seems to be another government political shutdown. Maybe all they need is to face one another.
Tutu: I really liked the plane story. I thought it was a great showcase of how white supremacy’s shadow still grips us today, in tutu feeling nervous in the black pilots when hitting turbulence.
Grammy award winner: listening to his music was eye opening considering he couldn’t play an instrument when he wrote it. The icing on the cake is that it was groundbreaking and won awards. It shows that you are capable if you put in enough effort.
433: I don’t think I could sit for this long in complete silence, even though that’s the whole point of the piece. I suppose it’s about forming a connection with all the other people in the audiencesuffering in silence.
Class Discussion: This discussion helped me to consider the Stanford Prison Experiment in a much deeper way. The point about all of the people who participated entering the water without knowing it and connecting this back to last wednesday’s class was a very interesting way to look at it. My other favorite point was that this experiment has some form of invalidity because the participants were white males instead of using an actual prison demographic. Overall, I liked to hear what everyone thought.
I find your notes quite striking, blue.
—Thank you for the perspective on the pay scale. The minimum wage in 1975 had recently been raised to just over $2/hr, so $15/day seemed quite reasonable for a college student on break to help out with an experiment.
—I agree with you that Zimbardo’s participation as “superintendent” came as a truly frightening revelation. It’s just SOOO irresponsible and completely invalidates any findings that might have resulted. I don’t remember which source contained the astonishing observation by Zimbardo himself that he went to the local jail seeking collaboration (and temporary cells) to house his “inmates” while he rebuilt his phony prison and was dumbfounded that they didn’t immediately offer support. He had so completely lost perspective he thought of other wardens as colleagues.
—I like the connection you discovered between the environment of the fake prison and the fish who don’t perceive the water they’re swimming in.
Beginning of Class
We started off class and learned there is no such thing as an empty scotch bottle.
There’s more than physical force to reach a person. Words can reach and “touch” a person harder than physical touch can. As mentioned from the Churchill building.
It may take generations and generations to get rid of horrid thoughts.
4 minutes and 33 seconds made something evident, grammar has no clear meaning. Punctuation can make a big difference in ways phrases or words are determined.
Stanford Jail Experiment
“Experiment” was more of a demonstration rather than an experiment. Roles ended up being taken too seriously and the subjects ended up thinking they were actually jail inmates and guards. Zimbardo, the researcher even made his role too defined as the prison superintendent.
This “experiment” had no diversity and just consisted of white males in college. Considering what our jails look like today, it wasn’t the best to just supply white males.
Guards and jail inmates lost their true selves, and became and acted like someone they never thought they would.
An outside lady had to come in and stop the experiment short. It lasted 6 days rather than two weeks.
Showing how caught up us humans can be in having “roles.”
This “experiment” ultimately cannot be redone, due to deciding factors of this disturbing situation.
Good people placed in an unnatural situation, which in essence is the wrong situation, can cause different behavior, and behave uncharacteristically.
Researched Persuasive Argument
A 3,000 page paper will make a strong argument made up through the entire semester.
Made up of 3 separate arguments to demonstrate commitment to the research process.
Goal is to have too much material to fit into the paper.
Edit, squeeze, and formalize the strongest argument.
“3,000 words made into a 5,000 page paper is not what we are looking for.”
Yeah, I followed most of that.
Today, I learned that there is no such thing as an empty bottle of scotch.
Mr. Hodges next told us about the British parliament and how it’s designed in a way so that each party stares directly at each other in a duel. However, it’s poetic how the seats are positioned 2 sword lengths + 1 inch because it is impossible to reach the other side with a sword, so they must reach the other side some other way.
Mr. Hodges next talked to us about “Kiss From a Rose” (one of my personal favorite songs that I will one day be able to sing without lowering my voice) and it’s unexpected yet incredible choices that the songwriter made when creating the song.
Mr. Hodges next talked about posts on the blog and how revision history works. Both he and I can see every revision, so my work is safe in case it’s deleted and saved.
We then moved into our discussion about the Stanford Prison “Experiment”, or “Demonstration” as Zimbardo eventually called it. I gave my thoughts, and Jules touched on some interesting information that information about the outcome of the experiment was probably withheld from the guards because if they were told, the experiment would be inconclusive. If you place good people in the “right situation”, they are capable of doing things that do not reflect their good attributes. Good people can be compelled to do horrible things by the social situations they are in. It’s only natural.
We finished class by discussing the hypothesis assignment that is due before the next class.
I like your anecdotal approach to note-taking, elk. Very readable.
Discussion
In the house of congress you’re never looking at the person you are arguing with.
The House of commons was built in a way where you can’t ignore the person you are arguing with; the middle of the table can be reached with a sword in hand.
“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” -Shakespeare
Desmond Tutu could be considered one of the most generous and color-blind towards all races
Made it possible to give amnesty to anyone who repressed certain races.
It is difficult to get away from things that are bred into us; it takes generations.
Seal’s “A Kiss From a Rose”
Seal said he didn’t know you couldn’t do such things in a pop song (when discussing the melody and how he came up with it).
Social Experiment
Ultimately you can’t make an accurate prison study with all white male college students.
“Inmates” and “guards” may have felt they had to act a certain way for their intended roles.
This experiment shows the dangers of experiments that can’t be replicated
This study also shows how people behave uncharacteristically in certain situations and how the situation can often be to blame for one’s actions.
Hypothesis
How did crabgrass become so ‘smart’?
What you do here is admirable, sillybones. You make a series of claims. It seems to me a very effective way to interact with the material, drive to conclusions, and record them.
Some small observations:
—It could also be a bottle emptied of scotch.
—The quote about buildings shaping us is actually Churchill. I did say “That’s Shakespeare,” but I meant, “That’s worthy of Shakespeare.”
COMP II Notes : Stanford Prison Experiment
Acquisition of power leads to brutality? Or Brutality = human nature?
Why just (white) college males?
Coin toss ?!?
Prisoners:
Head “shaved”
Given little/dirty clothing
Assigned a number
Scarce food
Chained up
= Holocaust like
Guards Role = maintain order; were guided
“Subjects becoming their role”
Doug Korpi (Prisoner) = experienced major distress
“Prisoners turning on each other” = No more solidarity
Two week experiment —> 6 days
“No longer an experiment” —> became a demonstration (Zimbardo)
Felt trapped/wanted out (Prisoners)
Manipulation – tricked the families of the subjects into thinking their kids were fine
More concerned for the prison/experiment than for the actual “prisoners”
Prisoner 819!!! – Just wanted to be a better prisoner; fell into the genuineness of the experiment
Conditions have worsened in real life prisons/policies since the experiment (1970s)
Class Notes/Discussion:
Riddle = bottle of scotch; a scotch bottle can be empty but a bottle of scotch can never be; Grammar problem
British Parliament: “opponents” facing each other in their seats; we shape our buildings so they can shape us
“You don’t know you’re in the water until your there”
Confirmation bias
If the subjects were told everything it wouldn’t be authentic
Too far into their role…Became their role
Some saw the experiment as better than their reality
I’m comfortable with this notation style if it works for you, Wanda. I find that writing complete sentences encourages me to process the material, synthesize it, and make my own claims. But that’s my style. As long as you use notes to demonstrate your engagement with the material as it’s being presented, I’m OK.
After the parliament was destroyed by Hitlers bombs. The US wanted to rebuild it in a different form.
Winston Churchill refused this suggestion and ordered for it to be restored back to its original form.
He quoted the powerful phrase “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us”
Bishop Desmond Tutu, a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace , was known for his work of providing healing and amnesty for the perpetrators of generations of repression on blacks in South America.
Songwriter seal was interviewed for his unorthodox hit song called “Kiss From a Rose”.
When asked about a decision made about the unusual but beautiful intervals in the melody, he replied “I didn’t know I couldn’t.”
One of the “Prisoners” in the experiment was actually homeless, which is why he was so obedient.
It’s only natural that people placed in unnatural conditions will act according to the situation.
Couple things, shepardspy.
—As far as I know, the US did not express an opinion about rebuilding the House of Commons.
—Churchill said, “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” The statement was original to him. WE quote HIM.
—The point of the Tutu anecdote, which he told on himself, was that he was shocked and ashamed to find vestiges of bigotry in himself.
—The “homeless” prisoner character was probably a screenwriter’s invention. I read no evidence of it in any of the materials I consulted for our discussion.
All that said, it’s clear you were paying attention in class, which is one of the primary purposes of writing notes on the Agenda page. 🙂
-buildings shape who we are (Parliament and its US counterpart do different things for debate)
– some things written are unconventional and seem to be normal
– Stanford experiment became “demonstration”
– became demonstration when it became an unconventional method of seeing the patterns
– “you don’t know you’re in the water until you see it.”
– confirmation bias lacking created a more authentic study
– presumptions of roles and traits can really grab you and affect your conscious
– all dependency on AGENCY goes out the window and you fall right into a STRUCTURE in the experiment
– put good people in bad situations and see different/worse characteristics come out
– social situations can create new traits awakening
– there is a hierarchy in every social structure
– your character is the same everywhere you are but aspects can change depending on place/people
Class notes 1/24/2022
Professor Hodge’s journal discussed what we take for granted such as having many opportunities in life and trying to track our favorite memories as a way of self-expression.
Churchill stated,” We shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us.”
Bishop Desmond Tutu won a Nobel Prize for his work towards peace after he was given a task except amnesty towards those who suffered from racism.
Sometimes it can be hard in this day and age to ignore ideas that are engraved in our culture which makes it hard for us to change and adapt to different situations.
Professor Hodges talked about John Cage who doesn’t play his sheet music for 4 minute and 33 seconds making those in the audience pay more attention to their surroundings in the meantime such as those around them and noises such as suffering 4’33’’. Which taught me that sometimes it’s not what we do, it’s what we don’t do that can make a big impact.
Discussion on Stanford Experiment Notes:
The Psychologist Zimbardo wanted to get research based on his experiment but later called it a “demonstration”.
There should have been more variety in the Stanford experiment. The experiment consisted only of middle-class white men which was a red flag to get inaccurate results and behaviors.
The experiment results may have been based on stereotypical behaviors the students have witnessed from movies, books, or the news which could’ve made the guards more strict and the prisoners really get an internal shock of uncontrollable emotions.
Both the prisoners and guards that were a part of the Stanford experiment lost themselves and changed their personalities quickly which shows how we can adapt so quickly to different behaviors and normalize them. It was interesting how dehumanization became acceptable during the experiment and none of the participants seemed to realize where to draw the boundaries.
Once we have a role we take it seriously and even to an extreme such as the guards taking advantage of the power they were given. This abuse of power leads to emotional distress and countless changes in the prisoner’s behavior and overall character.
Demonstrations that have not been replicated can be dangerous.
The Holocaust is a great example of the Stanford experiment. The opportunity for good people to get power can make them capable of doing horrific things.
Social situations change our behavior such as acting mature in a classroom setting instead of acting goofy and loud. Different aspects of our character are expressed in different situations.
Class notes 1/24/2022
Professor Hodge’s journal discussed what we take for granted such as having many opportunities in life and trying to track our favorite memories as a way of self-expression.
Churchill stated,” We shape our buildings, and afterward our buildings shape us.”
Bishop Desmond Tutu won a Nobel Prize for his work towards peace after he was given a task except amnesty towards those who suffered from racism.
Sometimes it can be hard in this day and age to ignore ideas that are engraved in our culture which makes it hard for us to change and adapt to different situations.
Professor Hodges talked about John Cage who doesn’t play his sheet music for 4 minutes and 33 seconds making those in the audience pay more attention to their surroundings in the meantime such as those around them and noises such as suffering 4’33’’. Which taught me that sometimes it’s not what we do, it’s what we don’t do that can make a big impact.
Discussion on Stanford Experiment Notes:
The Psychologist Zimbardo wanted to get research based on his experiment but later called it a “demonstration”.
There should have been more variety in the Stanford experiment. The experiment consisted only of middle-class white men which was a red flag to get inaccurate results and behaviors.
The experiment results may have been based on stereotypical behaviors the students have witnessed from movies, books, or the news which could’ve made the guards more strict and the prisoners really get an internal shock of uncontrollable emotions.
Both the prisoners and guards that were a part of the Stanford experiment lost themselves and changed their personalities quickly which shows how we can adapt so quickly to different behaviors and normalize them. It was interesting how dehumanization became acceptable during the experiment and none of the participants seemed to realize where to draw the boundaries.
Once we have a role we take it seriously and even to an extreme such as the guards taking advantage of the power they were given. This abuse of power leads to emotional distress and countless changes in the prisoner’s behavior and overall character.
Demonstrations that have not been replicated can be dangerous.
The Holocaust is a great example of the Stanford experiment. The opportunity for good people to get power can make them capable of doing horrific things.
Social situations change our behavior such as acting mature in a classroom setting instead of acting goofy and loud. Different aspects of our character are expressed in different situations.
I’m glad the scotch bottle riddle makes sense! 🙂 Sounds like an interesting class. Did you learn anything about writing?
1:44
I just want to know why there were only all white males. I guess maybe there were only males who joined in the study and they just happened to only choose them but out of 70 there wasn’t a person of any other ethnicity? Maybe since it was another time period.
SimplyPsycology.com It was interesting to see who was the most physically and mentally stable, but how did they figure that out? What I mean is, how long was the process of figuring out these guys’ mental states?
2:49
How they would blind fold them just to take them to the bathroom kind of confused me. Was it to make them truly believe that this was prison? Or was it another reason?
7:10
The experiment went too far to me, like how their mental states started to change so quickly? How far does it have to go before someone breaks down? Like there should’ve been lines you do not cross and the fact that they crossed so many boundaries so quickly was mind boggling.
Verywellmind.com talked about how the guards started to act in ways they wouldn’t normally do because of the position of power, but why would they ever think to terrible things like that in power? They had to have thought about it
9:25
How did he JUST realize what was going on. It’s crazy that he even stopped acting like a psychologist. I just want to know how it got to that point when his entire mindset changed and he himself, a psychologist, wasn’t self aware. It’s so weird how he had to have someone else tell him that it wasn’t okay to figure out that this wasn’t a normal study.
—I’m bothered by the homogeneity of the subject class too, f0restrun. Most likely part of the explanation is what publication they put the ad in. There may have been bias in the selection process, too. We just don’t know enough about the mechanics of the study.
—Nobody is comfortable giving others the authority to decide who’s “normal.”
—It’s stunning that the prisoners rebelled on the second day. Were they reacting to the perceived unfairness of the “coin toss” method of determining who’d get to go home at night and who had to stay locked up for two weeks?
—What makes a person think it’s OK to leave human waste in an open container in a fellow student’s living space?
—It’s very difficult to respect the “findings” of a demonstration conducted by a supposed professional who so completely loses his perspective and involves himself directly in manipulating the outcome of a study.
Bubba, I want you to completely eliminate “talked about” language from your Notes.
You said:
In class we talked about the assignment that the teacher is giving. It is a Researched Persuasive Argument.
We also talked about the My Hypothesis assignment which is going to be due tomorrow night at 11:59.
At the end of the semester, when you review your notes to remind yourself what you learned, those notes will be useless. What was said about the Persuasive Argument would be useful to remember. What was said about the My Hypothesis assignment would be useful too.
For example: We learned that the semester-long Researched Persuasive Argument will have to persuade our readers of a surprising concept or bold claim. It should be about something that we’re passionate about. If possible, it should make a claim that seems illogical or contrary to our expectations.
There was a prisoner that was homeless so he was following all the rules and wasn’t fighting back because he had said this is better than going back to being homeless.
The interesting thing is how the parliament meets and the way that they face each other when they argue. The way that they measure the distance between the two sides is two sword lengths and an inch which I think is very interesting.
The way that Seal was able to pull off the music without knowing that he may have been doing something that has not been done by anyone else is interesting. The fact that this had surprised Rick Beato had caught my attention.
—Possibly, but he may very well be the invention of a screenwriter. I didn’t encounter any evidence of the homeless participant, but he apparently was a character in the Hollywood film.
I’m glad you’re interested, njdevilsred17, but you should challenge yourself to share your analysis of the subject matter. Notice that your reaction, four times in what follows, is to express that you found something interesting:
– The Stanford Prison Experiment is an extremely important study in psychology because it gave a lot of insight on obedience and power dynamics. The coin toss to see who is a guard and who is a prisoner was a good way to keep things random. It is mind-blowing how fast the guards began abusing their power because in just one day, someone broke the rules and hit someone. The dehumanizing nature of the experiment made me feel slightly uncomfortable.
Observations from Original Video
1:42 Mark
I found it interesting that they would exclude anyone who has been in prison before, considering they know what it’s like most to be in there. However, I understand not bringing ex-inmates into the experiment as they could sway the results of the experiment due to their past habits from incarceration.
2:30 Mark
The lengths of commitment for this experiment are unreal. I am intrigued that they used real police officers to arrest and book the “prisoners”.
3:40 Mark
The guards immediately turn soulless and sadistic. I think that the fact they, in an instant, became sadistic means they had some preconceived notion of how they were supposed to act.
6:15 Mark
The psychological damage that must have come from being stripped down for being a prisoner, and deprived of food is unfathomable.
7:08 Mark
36 Hours is all it took for one of the prisoners to break down!
7:30 Mark
6 Days, 6 Days and everyone actually believed that they were actually prisoners, and they actually committed a crime.
8:24
Even though the psychologist had internalized that he indeed was a warden of a prison, how is this even a valid experiment at this point?
9:30ish
The fact that Zimbardo went from “experiment” to demonstration should prove the invalidity of the Stanford Experiment. An experiment that was meant to give you insight to how prisoners and guards act in tandem did just the opposite, it made actual prisoners and guards.
Notes From Zimbardo’s Interview with Vox
The article from Vox is now stating that the prisoners and guards were told to act in certain ways. Whether it be a tough guard, or a prisoner having a mental breakdown. Either way, my question is why continue with the charade? Is it not human nature to see how you’re treating another person and know that it is wrong? The fact that Zimbardo is defensive in his interview makes it seem as if he did set all the situations up the way he wanted them to be.
Khan Academy Test Video
The Khan academy video really sheds light on Zimbardo’s actions. I find it so interesting how all the participants from Zimbardo, to the guards, to the prisoners all slipped into their roles so easily. The last thing I find intriguing is the fact that depending on what source you go to the information brought up can be varying. For instance, the original video and the article from Vox failed to mention that the grad student that visited the prison was Zimbardo’s girlfriend.
Zimbardo Prison Experiment Pre-Notes:
My initial reaction to the video was concern, as the basis of the most experiments during this time period were very unethical. Zimbardo was one of many psychology researchers that went against common ethics for the pursuit of answers. As were many of the experiments during this time, the study of human behavior was crucial, but the natural dehumanization that occurred within the experiments should be frowned upon. I will not fault Zimbardo for trying, as the premise of the experiment seemed controllable, but I will fault him for falling for the exact idea that he was trying to demonstrate: that humans naturally adapt and personify the roles they are given. This resulted in the college students representing the prisoners getting verbally abused and humiliated, as well as undergoing physical stress, since meals were something commonly taken away from them courtesy of the “guards”.
Specific times where I was disappointed:
3:35: while much of the dehumanization resulted from the natural progression of the experiment, I am disappointed to see that the first examples came from the researchers themselves. While it was important to maintain a prison environment, measures such as chains on the ankles, the lack of underwear, and names being replaced by numbers all start the prisoners off with no resemblance of humanity to the guards, which perhaps facilitated the future abuse.
4:47: This was the first case of the abuse of power and the effect that it gives to those in control of it. What could have been a routine headcount turned into the beginning of the conflict between prisoners and guards, which only gets emboldened over time. Who can fault the prisoners when not even a day in they are getting harassed and taken advantage of by the guards.
5:49: By this time, the guards have already developed into their roles, and have no problem with overstepping their rule. While punishing a prisoner for rebelling is reasonable for their assignment, making an example out of all the other prisoners was excessive and combative. I am less disappointed in the guards than I am Zimbardo. In the video, he explains he gave frequent reminders to the guards, but ultimately he has the power to rule something off limits, in order to preserve the safety and mental health of the prisoners. He didn’t, so the guards continued on their crusade of beating away all of the privileges the prisoners did have.
6:36: Simply a cruel and unusual punishment. At this point, none of these punishments were reactionary, but proactionary, which is the biggest issue of the experiment. Without direct regulation, the guards were able to do whatever they pleased, and they didn’t feel remorse for it, since the dehumanization of the prisoners was already well in effect.
8:25: By now, Zimbardo received his answer for the experiment. In clear colors, he was able to concur that people adopt the roles that they are given in an environment. While it is important to continue data to ensure accuracy, it was at the expense of several human beings, which was highly immoral.
Thoughts after other articles:
After reading the article by SimplyPsychology, more information was given. One of the big pieces that was missing from the video was the visitation from parents. This marks a very unethical way of thinking: that the guards knew their treatment of the prisoners was dehumanizing and would be seen as cruel to the parents, but still did not have enough heart to see them as human again and lighten up on their treatment. Another huge issue I saw was when the priest was brought in. While the priest is supposed to bring so guidance towards the prisoners, especially when they desperately needed it, the priest instead reaffirmed the experiment, explaining that the only way they could get out was through a lawyer
After reading the interview with Zimbardo, my view completely shifted about the experiment as a whole. The interview between Zimbardo and Brian Resnick dissects the integrity of the prison experiment, questioning whether some of the behaviors of both the guards and the prisoners was not a result of the environment, but rather through authority, specifically the “warden” of the experiment, telling a guard to become tougher. Zimbardo reaffirms that the guard in question was not doing anything, and that the warden was merely spurring him on to participate in the experiment. More disagreement occurs until the ultimate question of the experiment: does it provide any scientific importance? Zimbardo reacts to the question with the statement that the experiment was more aligned with a demonstration, and therefore should be continued by other scientists, but the integrity of the demonstration nonetheless should not be questioned, as the results were clear that the students and guards inhabited their respective roles. Regardless of the integrity of the demonstration, the historical value it possesses immortalizes it as one of the most controversial and infamous psychology experiments.
Good notes are purposeful summaries. Rather than using more words, focus on the takeaway and emphasize that.
The original material is reshaped to become a purpose towards the reader
A student should be able to look back at the notes and understand the important topics
Bad notes describe what was talked about, only at face value. Good notes on the other hand create claims based on the information.
“Talked about” language essentially says nothing in the lengthiness way possible.
Things on the internet may be created in one area, but then is preserved elsewhere
The Wayback machine is the tool used to browse “the history of the internet”, including different documents.
404’s will never be feared again with the wayback machine
Life is filled with things that are counterintuitive. It is up to us to recognize those examples and take note of them
What is natural to some may seem like an impossibility to others.
Putting a value on the lateness allowed adults to surmise that other things are more important than the late, and proceeded to be late more and more often
The zimbardo prison experiment was designed to test whether human personalities in prisons created the natural conflict within prisons, or if it were the positions that created the power dynamic.
The conditions of the experiment were not well regulated which resulted in guards overstepping power very early.
3 types of guards were identified during the experiments, guards that just followed the rules, ones that were kinder towards the prisoners, and ones that were extra harsh towards the prisoners.
An important note was that the guards understood the mistreatment of the prisoners, yet did nothing to change their behavior
Times where I was dissapointed:
9:16-9:50- Zimbardo realised how he had internalised his role.
10:02-10:08- Zimbardo admits it was more of a demonstration than an experiment.
10:08-10:02- Thibaul dismises the whole experiment as nonsense.
Experiment backed by US Navy 1min – Why did the US Navy back this experiment. If things get too out of hand will they step in and stop the experiment?
2:19 prisoners were arrested by actual cops and booked. They were blindfolded and put into cells – Why were they blindfolded? Wouldn’t this invoke fear and a sense of false reality? Why did they use real cops to arrest participants? Was this to create a realer scenario for the prisoners?
2:45- Solitary confinement cell created in a closet with no windows and very small space. Is the purpose of this to drive mock prisoners into feeling vulnerable and like they are actual convicts?
2:49- Why do prisoners have to be blindfolded to be taken into the bathroom? This doesn’t happen in a prison setting and wouldn’t it make the mock prisoners feel vulnerable as they have no idea where they are being led?
3:44- The prisoners were placed without and underwear, asked to shave their heads and had to wear a big smock while the guards wore real uniforms and mirrored sunglasses to avoid eye contact. This immediately creates a divider between the participants and right away the guards take to their role and become soulless and dehumanized.
4:08 – The guards were given the power to harass, withhold food, and deprive inmates of privileges. This gives a large sense of power to the guards who did not hold any power such as this before the experiment. Wouldn’t they like the power they are now given and take advantage of a power they did not hold before the experiment as a student?
4:22 – the guards were allowed to work in 8 hour shifts which gives them a chance to be back in touch with reality while the prisoners have to remain in the jail setting. This keeps them in the false reality and they can easily lose touch with the fact that this is just an experiment.
5:16- We can quickly see the guard becoming careless and authoritative as they take fire extinguishers to force prisoners away from their cell doors to barge in on only day 2
7:03- At only 36 hours the first prisoners experienced emotional disturbance. This shows the emotional toll that the actions of the guards and the setting was taking place
7:41 – Guards realized prisoners no longer saw themselves as participants. This is when the experiment should have been stopped as the roles have already proven the brutality that comes with power.
9:11- Prisoner 819 actually believed he was a prisoner and insisted he couldn’t leave because others viewed him as a bad inmate. When he was reminded he’s not a real inmate a moment of realization made him decide to leave. This goes to show that when put into situations like these it is easy to become lost and start to believe what you are hearing.
“They sought to discover to what extent the violence and antisocial behaviors often found in prisons can be traced to the “bad apples” that go into prisons or to the “bad barrels” (the prisons themselves) that can corrupt behavior of even ordinary, good people ”
The purpose of this was to prove whether or not the harsh conditions would be traced back to the brutality of human nature and be shown in these types of settings. This is trying to prove that people in positions of power may express this characteristic of brutality and these settings are giving them a place to act out these actions.
“The study was conducted this way: College students from all over the United States who answered a city newspaper ad for participants in a study of prison life ”
These were just normal college students who volunteer themselves for this experiment. They knew what they were being asked to do but did not think they would become so overwhelmed by this role and actually start to become the role they were asked to play”
“many of the normal, healthy mock prisoners suffered such intense emotional stress reactions that they had to be released in a matter of days; most of the other prisoners acted like zombies totally obeying the demeaning orders of the guards; the distress of the prisoners was caused by their sense of powerlessness induced by the guards who began acting in cruel, dehumanizing and even sadistic ways”
Once healthy physically and mentally students quickly breakdown and experience emotional distress when placed in unfamiliar and harsh conditions. The students who played guards quickly took on the role and started to harness the power and use it to torture the inmates who lack the power they have.
“good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions – traceable to situational forces”
This goes to show that although they have never expressed these characteristics certain conditions can lead to soulessness and lack of empathy.
https://www.apa.org/topics/forensics-law-public-safety/prison
“The volunteers agreed to participate during a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day”
Students participated in this experiment as they were offered money for their time. Quickly it became apparent that once they started the experiment they were not in it for the money as they really took on their roles and began to forget it was just an experiment and not real life.
“The 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24 hours a day during the study.”
The students were chosen at random which proves that it could’ve been any of them in that situation. It wasn’t that the students who were chosen as guards portrayed the characteristics that you would expect a guard to possess. The students took to their roles and acted based on what their role was. This proves that the overwhelming sense of power or loss of power can change one’s personality and well-being.
“While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were hostile or even dehumanizing”
The participants could have acted in any way they wanted. The guards could’ve been easier on the inmates but instead, they chose to use corporal punishment and take away privileges of those who portrayed inmates. The guards harnessed the power of privilege and used it to their advantage.
https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment-2794995
Stanford Experiment After Class Discussion Notes:
The navy may have been trying to figure out if people conform to the roles they were scheduled to play
They were more interested in the guards to see how they would act. They wanted to see if they would become authoritative and brutal, just conform and follow rules, or be too nice to follow this role.
The whole purpose of this experiment was to understand the power dynamic to be able to gain better control of their prison system and the effects on prisoners of war. They set up this experiment instead of going to actual prisons to put ordinary people in positions of power or powerlessness to see the natural instincts of human nature.
The flaw in the system was that in actual prison settings the inmates are more violent and actually live through experiences so it is hard to gauge exactly how a prison system works when you are not studying real people in these positions.
The guards and inmates at the end of the experiment really started to believe they were in these roles. They forgot that they were just in an experiment and were in emotional distress by the end of the 6 days. Even the psychologist in charge of the experiment took on his role as the superintendent and forgot the goal of the experiment.
When parents came for visiting hours, the guards tried to make the place look cleaner and more hospitable so that the parents didn’t pull their children out of the experiment.
Before Class Notes:
Stanford Prison Experiment:
– Zimbardo wanted to figure out if power made a person brutal, or if brutality was a part of human nature
– A mock prison was created for the experiment. I found it interesting as to why they couldn’t have just used a pre-existing prison and decided to make one in a basement. I think that would have caused an entirely different outcome of the study if they chose a different location.
– All participant were white males. This stood out to me because there was no variation in ethnicities or gender. However, I do see their point of trying to keep the study accurate by only picking people from one social group.
– The “prisoners” were actually arrested by real cops and booked. They were blindfolded and moved into a holding cell. I think is was so they couldn’t see that the prison was fake. If a real prison had been used, there would be no need to blindfold people. This act only added stress and anxiety to the participants.
– A coin toss decided who would be a guard and who would be a prisoner. This kept things random and up to chance. It left zero human input that could later alter the outcome.
– The “guards” had taken to their roles very seriously. They were given uniforms, whistles, and nightsticks. This part made me wonder that if they weren’t given weapons, would they still treat the “prisoners” the same.
– The “prisoners” were stripped down and given noting but a numbered smock and a nylon sock to wear instead of shaving their heads. They didn’t have any underwear or personal belongings. This disturbed me because the act is so dehumanizing and left the people feeling exposed and afraid. This, in my opinion, was when the prisoners started to accept their position in the hierarchy.
– The guards were given rules to maintain order by any means necessary. This allowed them to really step up to the role. They used harassment and withheld food from the prisoners.
– The guards were also allowed to work in shifts. They could switch off, unlike the prisoners who had to stay at the prison the entire time.
– A privileged cell was created to bribe prisoners to behave.
– Zimbardo ended up acting like the prison superintendent, rather than a researcher. He got carried away in his experiment.
Simple Psychology Article:
– Dispositional vs Situational brutality
– Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do.
– Zimbardo had to almost snap one of the prisoners out of a “trance” in order to get him to agree to go home. The prisoner had really thought he and all the other inmates were actual prisoners and refused to go home because he didn’t want to be labeled as a “bad prisoner”.
– Many didn’t realize they had that side of them, where they completely forgot they were in an experiment.
– Majority of the guards’ conversations were about prisoner treatment, rather than life outside.
Khan Academy Video:
– Day 1: uneventful
– Day 2: prisoners rebelled against guards; first participant was removed
– Day 3: hunger strike; tried to make prisoners turn on each other
– Day 4/5: continued to escalate
– Day 6: Maslach, Zimbardo’s girlfriend, came to visit and was appalled by what she saw; threatened to breakup with him if he didn’t shut it down
Stanford Prison- all white men, were told to act a certain way (like their role), viewed as following conformity, people forgot it was just an experiment, psychologist even forgot and had to be told it was unethical, Zimbardo believes it was situational influence, mentally and emotionally harmful for participants, mixed view of results; Personal opinion- they were still conforming to what they viewed/know to be a prison guard, their own morals can determine how far to go
Before Video/ Discussion: Upon looking at the title of the video I was immediately reminded of a prison experiment I had learned about sometime in high school. My intuition tells me that many prison experiments have been performed, therefore, I doubt this experiment is the same exact experiment I previously learned about. From my knowledge of that experiment, however, I am coming into this video with the assumption that this experiment will have unethical, underlying, intentions.
0.04 – 0.28 ( very beginning of the video)
It became evident the potential occurrence of unethical research methods was implicated through an image of mistreatment of a male appearing to be inappropriately young for the experiment. At this moment, I felt both satisfied that my assumptions may be correct and also disappointed that cruel practices may have been performed on people not of appropriate age. I also noted in this section that the experiment claimed to attempt to derive the origin of guard brutality in prisons either as a result of an established superiority complex in the prison or as the result of natural human motivation. This thesis to me sounded hopeful in that it could produce unfortunate yet necessary findings. Lastly, I was frightened at the possible implication made in this portion of the video that, in reality, the experiment exposed unintentionally dark realizations about the entire human race.
0:35 – 4.11 ( beginning middle portion of the video )
Pure delight sculpted into a perfect little smile on my face as the author stated that the Stanford prison experiment could be considered “ the most disturbing study ever conducted.” I was right! Moving further into the specifics of the experiment I was both befuddled and infuriated to discover that male college students were used in these experiments, paid meagerly for their contributions than that this experiment occurred in a former lab in the basement of a college, closets were used as cells, “inmates” had to be blindfolded to go to the bathroom, and were not given any underwear. The seemingly never-ending stream of shocking surprises continued as I found out about the privileges. These bold privileges included the ability to harass, starve and deprive privileges to the inmates. I don’t feel that it is right to implement all these extreme and unnecessary measures on individuals who have not done anything wrong.
5;15- 9:35( end middle )
Upon realizing that it didn’t take long for the prisoners to rebel I felt a sense of pride wash over me. It terrorizes me to think that college student guards were both encouraged and fond of playing detrimental psychological games with the prisoners. Watching these circumstances escalate leaves me wondering, “was there anything they weren’t willing to do for this experiment? They claimed at the beginning of the video that violence wasn’t allowed, evidently, this didn’t include violence of the mental kind. I was relieved to see that the experiment ended before anyone was killed.
9:50 – ( conclusion )
As the video concluded, I found it crazy to believe that these individuals were able to encompass their roles so deeply while in full knowledge of it only being an experiment. For these reasons I am in full agreement with those scientists that profess the experiment to be a “sham.”
Khan Academy Article offered an informational breakdown of each day of an experiment about conformity and disobedience.
In the experiment from the perspective of this video, revealed that certain situations can be otherwise ordinary people act out. Normal people who were well aware that they were part of an experiment conformed to the roles of guards and prisoners.
Day 1 was uneventful Day 2 involved frustration and rebellion from prisoners’ guards. Prisoners started to break down, the first prisoner was removed. On day 3 prisoners started to indulge in the hunger strike, guard aggression increased, and necessities were removed from cells. Day 4-6 Continuous hell broke loose until eventually the experiment was ended on day 6 contrary to its intended end date.
A 2018 interview with Zimbardo from Vox.com
Allows for Zimbardo to argue the scientific value of his experiment
He is fully defensive of the result of his experiment which was that situations can bring out the worst in people. The purpose for the interview was to get Zimbardo’s take on a claim made about the experiment which stated that the experiment wasn’t natural and as unmanipulated as Zimbardo professed it to be.
Zimbardo was very defensive throughout the interview calling people liars and becoming outraged at certain comments such as mention of other researchers.
From its lack of control groups and comparison groups experiment Zimbardo stated that the experiment can’t be defined as experiment rather Zimbardo prefers to refer to it as a “demonstrationWhen questioned with the scientific value behind the experiment he prefers to imprint it as a powerful, unique demonstration portraying relevance Zimbardo sees the conclusion as “The single conclusion is a broad line: Human behavior, for many people, is much more under the influence of social situational variables than we had ever thought of before.”
Today’s agenda (Good Class Notes), So basically good notes are purposeful summaries, they should be brief and explain things in your on words, and this short brief summary should with very few words remind you of what you learnt that day.
Hypotheses are just ideas, you do not try to prove them instead you just want to see whether or not it is true, but you aren’t fixated on the hypothesis, example…if you go trying the research a hypothesis and you go down a rabbit hole, you might be lead to a new idea, now you aren’t focused on the old hypothesis anymore….you want to now research the new idea you have just come across, and publish that instead.
The parliament building in London is designed such that opposing sides face each other directly, doing this makes it so that the opposing sides look directly at each other, this makes lying harder, and makes each side more conscious about the emotions the people on the other side may have.
Kiss from a Rose is an interesting pop song, because it has such high low pitch tones which are unusual in pop music. When the songwriter was asked how he thought about it, he said that he didn’t know that you couldn’t make pop songs like that basically. I feel like I can apply this to myself in class and ask bold and unusual questions.
The counter intuitive idea of the 10 Shekels for lateness plan, basically the idea was to get parents to come on time to pick their kids, by fining them 10 shekels, however this only made parents come more later. The parents idea was basically “Oh only 10 shekels and I can come late”. Thus their idea of fining the parents , worked against them.
The Stanford Prison experiment, one opinion says the experiment was to see how to make soldiers obey orders more, another opinion says that it was just to show how people behave under different circumstances. My opinion is that it was just to show whether the abusive nature of the guards was innate to human nature, or whether is was because of the authority given to the guards, and I think it boils down to your personality, because why did the authority only make some guards bad, while some guards were good. If authority and power did make people abusive why were there any good guards at all.
Stanford Prison Experiment
It upset me that they were able to interact in any way they wanted, yet they decided to be cruel and hostile towards one another.
It is strange to me why the guards were violent towards the prisoners, even though they were not real criminals who had done bad things. The reason you would think real police officers are rough with prisoners is because of our crimes, but now I’m wondering if it is more so their position of power.
Bad treatment and tyrannical behavior causes people to become depressed and anxious, like the prisoners did after a little while of the guards’ abuse.
One prisoner even went crazy because of the treatment. Cruel treatment because somebody is a bad person will cause them to become even worse.
The experiment’s original purpose was to see how prisoners and guards interact with one another. They wanted to prove that people would conform to the societal expectations of the roles they play.
Being in positions of power will influence your personality and may cause some people to abuse their authority.
Both the inmates and the guards seemed to forget that they were in an experiment and began to think and behave as if the prison was real. When reminded that none of it was real, they appeared surprised and relieved.
When parents came in for visitation day, the guards freshened up the prison, played music, and made it appear that the inmates received better treatment. This shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but also that they were aware of how to treat inmates right.
You may come to a different conclusion than you had originally thought you would. If you go down a rabbit hole with expectations to find a rabbit but instead end up finding a puppy, your new task becomes explaining the puppy as if you were looking for it all along.
Your original hypothesis has room for improvement and accuracy depending on your research findings.
Many things on the internet get lost within the millions of other web pages and articles, but tools can be used to find the exact page you’re searching for. The Wayback Machine will alert you of other times similar searches as yours had been made over the years and the results they had come up with at the time.
“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,” was a quote by Winston Churchill. Depending on how the architecture is laid out, there will be different occurrences in the building had it been shaped another way. The way you organize your research and lay it out will affect your conclusion.
Seal is a pop singer whose music includes melodies and vocals that are not usually heard in other pop songs. Many people question how he even thought of these specific complex phrases and chord changes. When asked how he came up with this, he said that it just felt natural to him. There comes a time as a writer when you realize you are just treading water and doing what comes naturally.
At one point in time, parents were charged 10 shekels for being late to pick up their children from school. Psychologists suggested that they only enforce this rule in half of the schools, while the others stuck to the policies they already obtained. The schools were
Stanford prison experiments:
In the beginning, I was surprised they cared to bother trying to find out whether the guards are just straight-up aggressive or whether the setting has formed them to do so. Then the video springs up that to experiment about the relations between prisoners and guards were supposed to be carried out by college dudes that don’t have criminal records. That right there felt like the rest of the video would just be about the special environment they created rather than an experiment that correlates with their true objective. I also found it disappointing and rather weird that the makeshift prisoners were already getting aggravated with the guards and rebelled. Knowing full well they weren’t prisoners and were getting paid. It was like stacking of egos between the guards and prisoners which lasted very little before the guards made sure they were on top. I think the whole thing was ridiculous considering the extreme measures that were taken to set up an environment that Zimbardo imagined. Then out of nowhere one psychologist was brought in and mentioned how inhumane the makeshift prison was, and with that Zimbardo was like “oh yeah,” then canceled the experiment.
From the VeryWellMind website:
This website sheds light in a different direction starting out by saying how Zimbardo was interested in situation human behavior variables. I think if that was the objective said in the video then my opinions would differ, but the video didn’t say that. This website’s article provides a little bit of a line of reasoning as to why the experiments occurred. Though it still got confusing how it still describes the reason why Zimbardo stopped the experiments is because the psychiatrist said how cruel the experiment was and he was like “yeah I guess I got into my role,” seriously it was one week. In relation to actual guards and prisons, the experiment should have no standing. Yes, Zimbardo proved that situations can influence a person severely, but the claims about how it relates to a real prison are unreasonable.
2018 Interview with Zimbardo:
This has an interview between the author Brian Resnick and Zimbardo. The point of the article was to say that the experiments were tainted due to the influence on the guards to act more violently. In the interview, the argument is between whether the influence and acting for a job playing a role in the experiment rather than the guards actually becoming more brutal due to the situation despite the money or specified role of being a tough prison guard.
In class:
Do not regurgitate a summary from class to take notes.
A hypothesis can lead to different conclusions, so never be set on only one answer. A surprising conclusion can be exciting.
The Wayback Machine is a website that can help find old sites that you can’t really find anymore. The machine checks different areas on the internet where an old site has been possibly copied and reuploaded.
The use of counterintuitiveness can be ingenious in the way it shows how an odd situation or solution could work so well.
The teacher took the stance of why the navy wanted the experiment to happen and every answer was different but the end result was understanding the behavioral change depending on the situation. I felt like Zimbardo was the one who wanted to test situational behavior and not the navy experimenting for a purpose. The video never explained exactly why the experiment had a purpose. In the end, the class couldn’t come to a conclusion on the true purpose of the experiment showing how the video couldn’t really explain why the experiment was allowed.
Experiment Video
Blindfolded them 227.
325 weren’t issued underwear. Exposing clothing
First night the guards are on a power trip 512 how quickly things escalated.
As acting as warden to create real results why were they allowed to do this privilege system to some prisoners. 610
720 were these people going overboard because they were allowed or we they genuinely on a power trip?
751 with the treatment I see how prisoners could feel this way but not guards
917 the total experiment lasted 6 days
Class notes
Good notes focus on the purpose of the discussion by using your own words. They help remind you of the key take aways.
If your hypothesis leads to something completely different, prove what was found. After all people don’t care why you were looking only the results found. (rabbit hole illustration)
The house of commons was rebuilt after WW1 bombings in the same configuration because buildings will shape us. The layout forces opposing ideas/ people to face each other.
Counterintuitively when you expect an experiment to cause one reaction but it causes the near opposite. i.e. 10 sheckles policy. Expected to make people not late but results were people came later since fine was so minimal.
Prisoner Experiment Discussion-
Navy wanted to test the relationship between prisoners and guards. The experiment was conducted at Stanford. They wanted to understand the dynamic of prisoners and guards. A better understanding would help with prisoners of war. The students were selected after applications and a flip of a coin decided if they were prisoners and guards. With the almost immediate abuse by the guards and rebellion by the prisoners the study was canceled after 6 days. People almost immediately began believing they were actually within a prison and living in these roles. This even affected the warden. Most of the guards understood they were doing something wrong but were living in their roles and did nothing to change it. Overall the experiment, showed results of human nature when given unchecked power.
Stanford Prison Experiment
Was it the acquisition of power that make guards go brutal or whether brutality was instinsic to human nature itself.
– the relationship between guard and prisoner shaped by personality of the guard or by the prison environment?
– They were blindfolded going into holding cell and blindfolded if they wanted to use the bathroom
– Guess this was moreso to make the students think psychologically that they’re in a real prison and not just a school.
– seperated into 2 groups (prisoners and guards)
– by coin toss
– 4:05 Guards were told to maintain order
– use any means necessary (short of violence)
– harrassment, deprivation of priveledges, witholding of food
– 4:31 the guards used whistles at 2:30 am to rouse the prisoners from their sleep for a headcount
– Did they do the headcount to make fun of them or just so they could irritate the prisoners?
– some didn’t take the headcount seriously so the guards made them do pushups
– 4:45 prisoners decided to rebel
– removed numbers, pulled off stocking caps, and barricaded themselves in
– curse words at guards
– called in reinforcements to quell uprising
– stripped them naked
– birthday suit prisoner put in solitary confinement
– removed beds
Simply Psychology
push-ups
1. physical punishment
2. one guard stepped on prisoners’ backs
3. made other prisoners sit on the backs of fellow prisoners
Prisoner #8612
1. acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying/rage
2. after meeting with guards they told him he was weak
3. prisoners told him “You can’t leave. You can’t quit.”
4. most likely happened with other prisoners after they broke down
Visit from parents
1. guards worried what parents might think of the jail
2. washed prisoners, cleaned and polished cells, fed them a big dinner, and played music
rumor spread of mass escape
1. enlist the help and facilities of Palo Alto PD
2. escalated harassment
1. forced to do menial work, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with bare hands
Prisoner #819
1. guard made prisoners chant
“Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer.”
2. didn’t want to leave because others labeled him a bad prisoner
played roles stereotypically
study showed “prison” environment changed bahavior of guards
1. none of the participants showed sadistic tendencies before the study
2. concluded the findings support situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one
Very Well Mind
Zimbardo expanded on Milgram’s obedience experiment
– impact of situational variables on human behavior
1. researchers wondered if physically and psychologically healthy people who knew they were participating in an experiment would change their behavior in a prison-like setting
2. interaction between guard and prisoner were hostile and dehumanizing
3. guards aggressive and abusive
4. prisoners passive and depressed
5. 5 prisoners released early due to crying, anxiety, and negative emotion
6. guards had power (behaved irratically)
7. prisoners no real control (submissive and depressed)
– punishment if fought back
8. demonstrated the power that societal roles and expectations can play in a person’s behavior
– guard had power
– they were told to manage the prison
mostly white and middle class males
1. made it difficult to apply the results to a wider population
authenticity
1. faked breakdown so he could leave early
2. altering behavior to help experiment
3. experimenters encouraged guards to be abusive
– purposeful summary- make notes that provide information in a simple way
– “wayback machine” helps find lost websites
– acknowledge mistakes in order to fix them
– In the Stanford Prison experiment, they were trying to see how people followed conformity and how they would accept roles and follow orders despite how people felt. Interesting to see how far people will go for a part they’re playing. They lose themselves in the situation, could be innate or learned.
– we’ll be writing a 3,000 word argumentative paper for the semester, divided into 3 1,000 word segments
– requires research 10-15 sources, purposefully summarized
– write a hypothesis by next class
Good class notes reshape the narrative of the original material. Reminds you later what was most memorable and the take aways. “My research led me down a rabbit hole.” We have to prove whatever we find whether its a rabbit, puppy, etc.
Keeping a Counterintuitive journal for insights that we don’t want to lose down the road. Winston Churchill kept a journal about the bombing of the House of Commons and would like to reshape it to its original form rather than redesigning the building. We shape our building , and afterwards our buildings shape us.
10 Skekels for lateness is a good example of counterintuitivity. They did a psychology experiment where they left half of people late alone and fined the other half 10 skekels. The amount of lateness skyrocketed due to the fact that it was only 10 skekels. They thought that their time was much more important.
Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted to see if power changes the behavior of the guards and how the prisoners would react. The navy wanted to take a blank slate such as students rather than just goto a prison and conduct the experiment. Does the position change one’s behavior or is it just they’re human nature? It was said that the environment changed the behavior. None of the participants showed sadistic tendencies before the study. Concluded the findings support situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one. Everybody was so fully immersed in their role that they forgot what was actually going on. They had to be told by others to say that this was just an experiment.
class notes: Conceptualized the definition of counterintuitive as something you wouldn’t naturally expect from a situation through examples of professor’s journals of counterintuitive thoughts. Introduced us to leaving notes as a reply by allowing us to discuss and then write out our ideas on the homework assignment “ Stanford Prison Experiment.” Took some time to discuss our final paper, a paper consisting of approximately 10 pages in which we will need to begin developing a hypothesis and consequent thesis almost immediately.
Thur 9/8/22
Good notes
Good notes are pusposeful summarize of the article
Don’t try to summarize everything
Reshape the narrative of the original material
Good notes are anything that we take away from the source, what we learn, what we are concerned about, then try to make claims. Making claims and describing what you think, don’t just list out what we are talking about.
When people are making a building, then this building will shape us. Kiss from a Rose won 1996 grammy awards record for the Tear and Song of the year. The melody of this song are amazing with its colorfulness and the crazy idea of the writer of this song.
10 Skekels for Lateness was one of the psychology experiment where they leave half of the latecomers alone and find the other half 10 shekels.
Stanford prison experiment: they focus to see how prisoners and guards react to each other when they’re in prison, it was the purpose of the US navy to experiment and experiment on human nature to see if they become an evil of the harshness of the prisons. When the guard got so much power they probably overused it. The experiments show when people are put in a position so this position will give them the powers, it will show clearly their reaction, their behavior and how they change if they have these powers? Some of the guards treat the prison pretty good and some of them treat the prisoners really badly, and this is the reason that leads to one of the prisoners becoming depressed, stressed and anxious.
Good notes don’t try and summarize everything, but instead try to make purposeful takeaways.
Going down a rabbit hole can lead to much better discoveries. Never be limited to what just the hypothesis is, if there is something else in the research always go further.
Went over how the seal said how not knowing that certain things shouldn’t be done a certain way can lead to great results. Example: his hit song “Kiss from a Rose”
During class discussion
The navy wanted to see how people would react to their situation that they were thrown into. Whether they would abuse their power as guards or conform to the rules that a prisoner should follow.
Experiment could be flawed because if the volunteer prisoners started to rebel almost instantly, who’s to say real criminals or war prisoners wouldn’t do the same or act in worse ways.
They started to actually believe that their situation was their reality. They slowly conformed to the roles of their positions.
They tried to make the prison experience seem more hospitable when parents or relatives came to visit. They would play music, freshen them up, and give them a proper meal.
Just to prove I’m not crazy
Before Class
– (0:05) I’m already confused within the first 5 seconds of the video. I didn’t expect a prison to test the power dynamic with an experiment. I’ve never heard of that before.
– (0:31) I love that the video is by weird history
– (1:43) It doesn’t surprise me that all white men were picked. But if they wanted to make this more accurate, the conductors of the experiment should’ve gotten a more diverse sample of men. I understand that this took place in the 1970s, but still.
– (2:25) Where did they get the funding to do this experiment?
– (3:44) It does not surprise me that the “guards” became sadistic and abused their power
– (7:44) I didn’t expect the prisoners in the experiment to internalize their crimes. They literally have forgotten that they were in an experiment.
– (10:14) Even the person that was in charge of the experiment took it too seriously. I think this nonsense too. I think it’s so stupid.
After Class
– The US Navy helped to fund an experiment to see if people had the potential to become evil.
– The purpose of the experiment was to see if people conformed with the the roles that they were given. They also wanted to understand the power dynamic that could was in the jails
– The experiment focused on the guards, mainly to see if they would abuse the power that they were given (which the absolutely did)
– The prisoners were “wrongfully” arrested and they believed that they belonged in the jail.
– One of the “prisoners” forgot that he was a prisoner and when he was reminded that he wasn’t a prisoner, he decided to leave.
Pre-Class Notes on Stanford Prison Experiment Video
From the top at 0:14 the phrasing of “The object of the Stanford prison experiment was to determine if it was the acquisition of power that made guards turn brutal” already sets up a pretense that makes me skeptical. If the experiment was to determine the cause for brutality that implies that brutality is in the minds of the experimenters an inevitability and it is purely a matter of determining the “why”. Regardless of how accurate of an assumption that is, it’s an assumption all the same and it is not a good sign. This could just be me nitpicking the phrasing that the narrator chose, however.
In reference to 0:52 it could be argued that the study being funded by the military with the intention to apply its findings to military prisons makes for a conflict of interest and biased interpretations.
2:52 I understand the importance of random assignment, but this is unethical. The expectations of the prisoners and the guards are vastly different, certainly far too different for people to not have autonomy and the ability to make an informed decision. If nothing else, recruiting subjects for the two groups separately would have been preferable to assigning the volunteers to one of the two groups based on a coin flip. If that was done from the start, selection bias could theoretically have been avoided.
3:13 The usage of sunglasses to protect the anonymity of the guards calls into question what the entire purpose of the experiment is truly meant to be. It seems like the stated goals of the military and the goals of Zimbardo have deviated from one another. The experiment was originally intended to be applied to prison dichotomies, but providing this anonymity signifies that Zimbardo was much more interested in studying power dynamics in their entirety rather than sticking to the established purpose for the experiment.
3:26 Depriving the participants of even the basic right of hygiene is not only unethical but does not accurately reflect the dynamics of a real-world prison and is an act which only further demonstrates Zimbardo’s deviation from the experiment’s supposed purpose.
3:47 There are very few contexts in which the experimenter’s direct participation and influence in an experiment like this one wouldn’t warrant completely dismissing any of its findings. I struggle to think of many scenarios where this alone wouldn’t be enough to discredit what is supposedly meant to be a serious study. Furthermore it is almost painfully ironic that in a study about power dynamics between guards and prisoners an experimenter wouldn’t consider the power dynamics between them and the guards. It is astonishing to me that no mind would be paid to the fact that the guards are under the authority of the same person who hired them, who is conducting the study and who is ultimately responsible for their continued participation in it.
5:20 The guards were told at orientation that physical violence was out of bounds and I would argue that this act in addition to being incredibly dehumanizing does indeed constitute physical violence.
6:37 Since little more need be said at this point about the depravity of this experiment, it seems worthwhile to continue to point out where this experiment fails as a study just as much as where it is unethical given that its academic merits are the only thing which could even approximate a defense for the treatment of the prisoners. The fact that the guards suffered no meaningful consequences shows a fundamental failure on the part of the staff. The guards were not actually hired in the same manner as real prison guards, and from the very beginning they were thrust into a tribal, antagonistic mindset. Despite what Zimbardo said, there are no real consequences for breaking the rules and not doing what they are told. While some might argue this to be the entire point of the experiment, demonstrating that humans are brutal without external consequences, the issue with that conclusion is that the guards were primed to act in this manner from the very beginning.
7:13 Doug’s distress should have immediately been enough for the staff to intervene in a greater capacity or stop the experiment altogether. It is startling to think that this incident was not a cause for alarm.
9:28 Zimbardo’s willingness to abruptly cut off the experiment is almost worse than if he had been slightly stubborn about doing so because it demonstrates profound carelessness.
Stanford Prison Experiment
People assigned roles to play as if in a prison
Students expected to play the role
Prison guards began to play the role in a way that was morally corrupt
Prisoners tried to do something about it and were punished worse
Even with continued unethical treatment it took longer than it should have to put to a stop
“Actors” emotionally and mentally felt in their role and the guards abused the power they were given
Experiment was cut short due to it becoming unethical
– Good notes reshape the narrative to suit the purpose of the summarizer. The remind the student of what was important to the class/the lesson
– Research can lead you down rabbit holes. If you find something that you were expecting then it isn’t all that interesting, but if you find something that someone doesn’t expect, then it’s interesting and worthwhile.
– Bad notes only name topics and they don’t have the information needed. Avoid being generic.
– Good notes aren’t generic. They have a bit of flavor to them, while explaining specifically what was addressed.
– We were introduced to the wayback machine and it has access to the history of the document that is in question (Also part of the Syllabus list)
– We all have prejudice and we all have to acknowlege it in order to reconcile from it. (It ties into the homework
– The 10 Skekels for Lateness backfired on the the experimentors because the if participants were late they had to pay pocket change, and the subjects thought that it wasn’t worth their time, so the lateness skyrocketed and it took forever to come back down.
– We’ve addressed the essay that we will be writing for this semester. It’s 3000 words, it’s an argumentative essay, and it needs to address the stand point that I want to address