I Was a Guard in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment
reddit.com
reddit.com
My thinking was along his lines. Now I think that I was in denial. In The Banality of Evil book, the main clerk of the genocide had "the personality of a mailman." He had "winged words." He fuggedaboudit. He forgot what his mind wanted to.
The Nazis were not sorry for their genocide victims. They were only sorry for themselves that they had to be the bad guys. De Nile runs deep.
Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing (Sargant, 1957) says that you need total neurological collapse to convert someone. I guess this is why the book of Nash the mentally ill math genius has better information than the misleading movie that people take seriously. He never got better until he was in a cheap state hospital and they broke out old fashioned insulin comas and such techniques on him. Total brain shock.
There is a debate now about whether torture works. It is all wishful thinking. People are innately convertable. There was a k5 essay about this. Slavery from raids used to be common. The adaptive behavior is Stockholm Syndrome -- you break down and reintegrate to the new tribe. Like Blue Jacket play (no longer being shown since it is ahistorical like the Simpsons play).
There are plenty of other explanations, given that it is such a political issue. By that argument, the "War on Terror" and the TSA must be unarguably effective, despite all evidence to the contrary, or otherwise we would have abandoned them.
The torture report released in December, as well as the information we already had about waterboarding even a decade ago, show that most torture is by and large not effective at extracting information[0].
Which raises the question: what is the real goal of practices like "rectal feeding", or allowing these abuses to continue[1]?
[0] Though even if it had been, this wouldn't be an acceptable defense of the practice.
[1] http://mic.com/articles/106006/16-horrifying-excerpts-from-t...
Well, I don't know. It made a liar out of Obama, and I think that if he thought he could close it he would.
I believe it is the US military's best interest- for the well being of any US soldiers that might be caught by the enemy- that the world be assured that torture doesn't work.
But I really suspect that the numbers are different from what we hear, and somebody showed Obama an estimate of lives saved from the practice, and he decided that he couldn't be the one to pull the plug.
TSA is another case in point. They are expensive and people complain. But if they has techniques that worked they would probably keep them quiet.
I saw this kind of deception decades ago. The DIA assured us that certain techniques of getting information (spying) didn't work. It later famously came out that they indeed did, and quite well at that.
I hope I'm wrong about this. And I have no inside information. Just a hunch.
EDIT: More reading on the subject, for those interested. http://justsecurity.org/20553/new-torture-files-declassified...
Taking the Nazis as a whole is another big mistake. Some were sorry, some tried to mitigate the violence, at different levels. Primo Levi (also very critical of Arendt) remembered a young woman that became a guardian: at first she was horrified, she couldn't stand the violence and felt ill the first days, she tried to resign. A few weeks later, she was accustomed and hit prisoners. It's a pity his "grey zone" concept is despised by our Manichean world.
Apart from this, I totally agree with the denial aspect. The Standford experiment was very probably a trauma for this former guard, and his denegating discourse seems strongly biased by this. His main claims are:
- This experiment is a fraud, it claims to prove that we, the guards, became "evil" (his term), but that's wrong. - The experiment was biased because the main experimenter made some important decisions along the way. - We, the guards, did not loose our humanity, the material settings were inhumane and made us behave like this. For instance, we were sleep deprived. - If a guard became violent, it's not because he was violent, it's because he was an amateur actor that had endorsed a violent role just for fun. - The experiment author manipulated the students into saying things they didn't thought, and he kept their identities secret to give him "more control of the narrative".
Sure, this experiment is morally questionable and it's hard to build strong conclusions upon it, but if it was a fraud, why wasn't it debunked long ago? Why didn't most of the students protest they were wronged? Why caricature it with notions of good/evil? And would actors play a "violent cop" role for many days just on an impulse, with graduating violence? And, most of all: if an inhumane setting made them behave with less empathy, less humanity, isn't that a very interesting experimental result?
> Looking at the prisoners, they were all just like me. Unlike in real prisoners, there wasn't social or racial disparity. There was no animosity. They looked just like me, or people I knew.
This is an odd comment to make; I'm not sure what he'd be trying to get at here. The most charitable interpretation I could give it is that abuse is more expected if there are racial or social differences between prisoners and guards.
I'm really disappointed that nobody thought to ask him directly why he didn't object to anything that he observed. He says a couple of times that there were parts of the experiment he didn't agree with, but that he didn't want to taint or harm the experiment. So, he seemed to be willing to at least passively accept the abuse of other people -- his own schoolmates -- for the sake of a purpose.
He wasn't apparently aware of how the experiment is taught in modern Psych classes, and it's funny, some of his comments reinforce what those classes teach:
> We used the Stanford experiment to talk about prison mentalities actually and how prison effects people and changes them. How people become what the situation calls for. Like you said above that Lombardo set up that experiment and you did what you were told as a kid
and
> While the popular idea from this may be the inherent evil, I hope you at least know that those who learn about this in college/university do not learn it that way, it's more along the topics of conformity, and diffusion of responsibility.
...in response to his saying,
> In that prison experiment, leaving would have been an option, but I didn't for several reasons: first off, from my perspective, I didn't see that much happening that was bad. People looking back now ... can see it in black-and-white, two-dimensionally. At the time, it went on pretty much as advertised. ... Also, I felt a commitment when I agreed to participate in the experiment. For all I knew, if I left, the whole experiment could have unraveled. Also, I felt like this was a unique experience and I enjoyed getting paid for doing something unusual.
Honestly, if it weren't unethical, I'd be curious as to the results of a re-run of the SPE except that you spend the first day out-of-character doing icebreakers before role assignment. I suspect that it'd make things better on the whole, but you'd have the occasional case where a guard uses it as an occasion to fish for ways to get under a prisoner's skin much more quickly and effectively.
I believe he meant that the feeling of "us vs them" on either side was not reinforced by this.
Also, isn't it a well know fact that empathy is weaker if one can identify the other as "different" ?
Other than common sense, I recall it has been put to test in some variations of the milgram experiment.
I.e. the experiment was influenced by the author of the research by his own admission, and the results were never replicated.
I definitely was not implying that a statement like that was (let alone ever could be) proven; only that for the subjects that participated in the experiment, who were exposed to that perhaps popular interpretation of the results - could be expected have a significantly different perception of the experiment on account of this.
This is also just one person's opinion and memory from 40 years ago.
For better or worse, I think the Stanford Prison Experiment is a very interesting piece of research, and if it wasn't, we still wouldn't be discussing it and what it means.
I'm also somewhat certain that his view was mentioned in Zimbardo's 2007 book; I loaned out my copy, so I can't check.
It's not to say the point was wrong, they were made fanciful to popularise a point the researchers believed in.
But if you want to believe they were right please at least quote valid research.
For me that proves that people could be inherently Evil while not realizing about what they are really doing(until they suffer from it).
For example, at the start of the WWII killing and abusing for the Germans and Japanese was so easy because there was such a power imbalance, like in the experiment with guards weapons,horses against tanks in Poland in WWII, that they actually abused and killed without actually thinking about it. They were Evil, but most of them did not really knew at the time, because all the propaganda they heard and so on(radio told them they were being heroes).
It was only when they started to loose that they understood what they had done to others, because they started being on the Evil receiving side.
Today you see this power imbalance in Iraq, any American soldier could kill 100-200 people from the other side before one American dies. So they don't really think about this until a terrorist attack kills 10-20 people in the West. Control on the media means the thousands of people dying in Iraq is not displayed on TV, so it does not exit.
I am talking about power imbalance that made Poland completely obliterated by Germany and URSS within four weeks.
That Poland was "eaten or breakfast" because it was not prepared was a fact. Poland had not the industry to face Germany in a different type of war.
Once of the most interesting things you discover when you read the archives is that lost of things we consider obvious today, was not at the time.
One of those is the usefulness of airplanes at the start of WWI, proven at the end, and the usefulness of tanks at the start of WWII.
The fact tanks were bad weapons at fist, bulky, difficult to operate, slow,low range(compared with big cannons) easy targets, and no ability to cross difficult terrain.
This was improved in an incredible way, for example tank suspension improvements rendered the Maginot Line obsolete when finished.
Lots of people in the army were against change. Making tanks were very expensive, they needed fuel, and they genuinely considered money was better spent on other things.