Please click on this link to read about one of the most controversial experiments of our time: The Stanford prison experiment. Read meticulously, as some of the most fascinating (and disturbing) elements of this experiment are in the little details.
When you have finished reading, I'd like you to use the blog to respond to what you have read. I'm not going to give you guiding questions this time; instead, I'd like you to ask your own questions and offer your own, authentic responses. Tomorrow in class we will be connecting this experiment to The Crucible.
Remember that the blog is space to have a conversation, so read others' comments, respond to others' questions, and react to others' reactions.
31 comments:
I think this sounds like an awful experiment, although the results were quite fascinating. The circumstances are astonishing...bathrooms as a priveledge??? Then when it mentioned that they signed up for the experience...wow, what a bad idea they probably think it was now. It is just suprising to think about the human reaction to this situation! Wow!
Does this remind anyone of Among the Betrayed? If you've ever read that book. Because he scenario is very much the same (yet this is far worse) and it reminded me of it a lot!
Also of 1984...and how they just see how long it takes Winston to love Big Brother.
I both agree and disagree with what kylie said. This is such a TERRIBLE experience that these poor so-called "prisoners" had to go through and endure. When the "prisoners" signed up to be "prisoners" they had NO IDEA what kind of a surprise they were in for. The students that signed up for the experiment probably thought that it would be a fun way to earn extra money! But when I hear that the "prisoners" were forced to sleep naked, and went through sexual harassment, I was shocked!
Why do you think that the "prison guards" got so into this experiment that they treated their fellow friends and class mates like real "prisoners"
Reading this excerpt made me also think back to the book "1984" When the town was supposed to be a "perfect" society and everyone was supposed to love Big Brother that ended up to be only a big mess! Was 1984's world a real world, or was it a meant to be a psychological experiment????
I thought it was really interesting how the results almost turned out to be worse then the affects you hear about from the actual prison experience, and these people weren't even criminals.
This reminded me alot of the Crucible, and "playing a role". How the girls fell into this false reality and started to think they actually were seeing things. The human brain is facinating in terms of what in can fool you into thinking.
I also found the balance of power interesting. When the experiment came to an early conclusion it said that the guards didn't want it to end. It reminded me once again of the Crucible and the achieving power and maintaining it.
I also wonder how the experiment would have gone if the circumstances would not have been the same. If they had not had the comstumes or the "props" of if they hadn't had simulated such an accurate prison. Becuase in the Crucible, the girls did not have costumes of the background and yet the still managed to get sucked into the acting.
As for the controversy, I thought it was interesting how the public reacted. How would they have felt if the experiment had not turned out the way it had? What information would we have discovered from the completed experiment.
I agree with blair that this really relates to The Crucible in that way but i think the whole idea of it is like the crucible. In the Crucible they started out with a genuine witch hunt when they called in Mr. Hale and he even said they must accept his judgment which they later ignored. He beleived he found at least on witch (Tituba) and wanted to find more. The townspeople seemed to go crazy with power just as the guards did in this experiment. The guards had more guidlines but it brings back the point that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" ( i forget who said that). The experiment (just like the witch hunt) went way too far and caused phycological issues and death in the case of salem.
Hey there ladies who have posted so far!
Oh my gosh, kylie, I know, BATHROOM privileges?! ironically though in spanish we have to "pay" extra credit slips to go to the bathroom...much different there? I have never read Among the Betrayed but I will certainly look it up ;) HOORAY 1984!!! (I was in the play last year. I have some highly personal attachements to that story.)
Erica, dear, I slightly disagree with you. Despite going into the test "blind" so to speak, don't you think it would have been easy to say 'no, there's no way I'm doing this anymore, let me out or I'm calling a lawyer?' Because of the country in which we live, this threat could carry quite a bit of weight.
Blair, hooray for the Crucible connection there! I got that about the girls too. Do you think it also applies to Tituba and Sarah...Good, I think, at the beginning of Act 3 who seemed to believe they were witches?
Well, now that I've answered or responded to a bit of my lovely collegues responses, I must ask: did anyone read the link about the Milgram experiment? It's on the same page as the link to the Stanford Prison Experiment if you are interested. To summarize: people volunteered for an experiment. The volunteer and the "victim" (a hired actor) went into seperate rooms. The volunteer was told by a strict, imposing-looking teacher to read a list of words. If the victim/actor failed to answer the words correctly, the volunteer was to push a button to administer an electric shock. The actor would not be harmed at all, simply scream or howl as was pre-recorded. Before the experiment, the actor was also to mention he/she had a heart condition. At one point after the highest voltage was administrated, the actor was to pound on the wall and go silent.
In this Miligram experiment,NO PARTICIPANT refused to adminster "shocks" before the 300 volt level. Holy snap!!!!!!
All right. Let's talk about this. Pain. I am bad, bad, bad at the pain thing. If I said something that could even be interpreted as offensive or mean, EVEN IF IT WASN'T TAKEN IN THAT SENSE, I usually cannot stop thinking about it all day. I never kill bugs if I can help it; I had to kill a spider two nights ago because it looked poisonous and I still feel guilty for the poor little guy. So: what would I do in this situation? I like to believe I would stop, perhaps even at the first shock. We all want to believe this about ourselves, I know, but I also know am not brave enough to physically hurt another person in such a way. Because of a fault in my character, I think I could have strength in this situation.
I can connect this to the Crucible a lot. It is either the FAULTS OR THE STRENGTHS of the characters that cause them to act they way they do. Rebecca Nurse cannot tell a lie even to save her life because her fault/strength is faith in God. Abigail condemns people as witches because her fault/strength is self-centeredness/strong passion. We would view Rebecca as being the good person here; who would doubt that faith in God is a good thing? BUT what if a person with strong faith was put into the Stanford prison experiment? Wouldn't that faith help them follow orders? And wouldn't a person with stong passion/desire and self-interest like Abigail be more likely to rebel against unfair treatment? I may not be terribly brave at all, but that also means I couldn't torture another person.
Strengths and faults are the same things, the perception is just different, much like good and evil.
What do you think?
Hope you all have a GREAT evening, all my love to everyone! :)
Note: SORRY JIMMY. I know you are not a lady, I just started typing my response when there were all girls posted.
My apologies.
~Cmeghan
I found this to be very interesting, although disturbing.
It would be very useful information to use when running a prison, to know how the employees will react, and what precautions to take. At the same time, it would be very hard to be part of the experiment as a student, with the emotional and physical strain. To me, it seems good that someone decided to research firsthand the toll that prison takes on people, even innocent ones, so that governmetns will truly know how awful and detrimental the conditions are.
Keep in mind though, the students did volunteer for the experiment, and the fact that they suffered was entirely up to them, but I think it was not good for the students in the long run. This brings up the fact of sacrificing for the furthering of society.
I know this is bad grammar...but that is one of the most wack things I have officially ever heard of in my life.
Anyway, I felt like the prisoners were actually really prisoners to their peers and to their own emotions, thoughts and fears. They fell into the role without a second thought. They did not question their guards, even though they were colleagues, they took the man down position and stopped fighting back. That is so sad to me that people can force that kind of power on one another, without a question from either side.
I also found it interesting how selfish they became for this to be a stimulated experiment. They were not willing to give up blankets to keep a peer out of solitary confinement? That is pretty wack too, sorry once again for the poor terminology.
I would relate this to being "pressed", they just kept adding more weight to these people until they reached a breaking point and fell into servitude and a slave type class.
Why are we so afraid to fight back when we know something is wrong? Is human nature rooted at selfishness or is that something that is forced upon people according to their surroundings and experiences?
That is what I am wondering
My initial reaction to reading about the Stanford prison experiment was that it was very disturbing. How could anyone ever sign themselves up for that?! I agree with everyone that it was so weird that bathrooms were to be used as priveledges. Did anyone else think it was kind of odd that the prison guards wore sunglasses so they wouldn't make eye contact with the prisoners? I agree with Kylie that it was surprising to think about the human reaction to this situation.
I agree with you about the students going into the experiment, Meghan. I think that at first it might have sounded like an easy way to make money, but then it turned into almost a real jail. At that point, I think that I would have gotten out of there. There is no way that I would get beaten and harrassed for $75 a day. I thought that it was interesting when the "prisoners" had the chance to leave and yet all of them stayed. It also seems a bit scary that the "gaurds" were ok with abusing their fellow students.
One question that I have is why would someone come up with an experiment like the Stanford Prison experiment? I disagree with Laurab about this experiment furthering society and raising awareness about the inhumane treatment of prisoners in prisons. I do not see how anyone could apply the findings in the experiment to a situation and improve that situation. Furthermore, while reading this, I did not detect any description of remorse from those who were involved. If I were someone involved in this experiment, I would feel ashamed to have been apart of it after 36 years.
My overall reaction to the experiment is disgust. I don't see why this experiment needed to be tested. I feel like there are other ways of observing and studying the physiological affects of prison life on guards and prisoners. I believe that there is already enough "evil" in our world, and creating it for the sake of science does not seem humane to me. I understand the argument that the prisoners were volunteers and were aware of the situation, but I still don't believe that justifies any part if the experiment.
Also, I don't think it is healthy for people to take pleasure in physically torturing and hurting others. I know some people are aggressive, but there comes a point where certain actions cross a line that separates human morality and inhumane. I believe that the behavior of the guards crossed that line. For example, Cmeghan talked about the Milgram, and I have seen actual footage from those experiments before, and although the "teachers" continued to shock the "learners," they showed signs of distress. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, it sounded as if the guards enjoyed their roles, and were disappointed when the experiment was ended. To me that aspect of the experiment is especially disturbing.
By the way kylieyoum, I have read the books in the series Among the Hidden. I remember Among the Betrayed a little bit, but I can see how you made that connection
Laura- I think that the thing that you are overlooking is that what happened at Stanford WAS NOT like in real prisons. I think that was the intention in the first place, but there was a flaw in their idea. The people who were guards and prisoners were mostly middle class, white males. The fact of the matter is that it did not say whether or not they'd actually been in prison of seen a prison in real life. I'm wondering if they used the stereotypes of what they think guards are supposed to be like in their actions.
One thing that really intrigued me was that the guards would come back in their own time and work volunteer to work. You would think that this would have some affect on the people in their realizations of what they're doing to people. I think that they overlooked this because of the sudden use of power that they had suddenly recieved, and I think that power played a really big part in everything that happened. I think that the possible relationships that these males had with their fathers, bosses and other bigger figures made them feel overwhelmed with the sudden power and they liked it.
This experiment kind of reminds me of the movie "The Island". Like, the people had numbers and were kept in somewhat a prison state, but really not as bad. But they do have these bands around their arms implying that they are being kept at the place where they're at.
This ALSO reminds me of "Anthem", by Ayn Rand. The people in the book kind of have numbers as names, like Equality 7-2352 or something like that. I really think that this, like the numbers given as names in the experiment, take away from someone's individuality. The people also are really controlled by the government by what they do, but it's not as drastic in the experiment like being forced to doing push-ups.
To begin, I guess I don't understand the entire point of the experiment. The article says it was to study the behavioral effects of a prison on both inmates and guards, but wouldn't better test results come from studying actual prisoners in an actual jail? I guess what I am trying to say is I question the motives behind the experiment. I also disagree slightly with Laura B, I don't think the experiment was used to draw attention to prisoner abuse, rather scientifically document the effects of the abuse.
I believe this experiment digs down to the very core of human nature with the philosophy that power corrupts. The experiment (I'm sorry I can't come up with a better word for that) took ordinary male college students and turned them into monsters. I think this also interacts interestingly with the philosophy statement, technically question "can people who do cruel things still be good people?". What are people's thoughts about this? I personally believe it points to the fact that there is a little bit of evil in everyone, and even though it can take astonishing circumstances to draw it out, it is still there.
Jordan, you made a note about the mirrored sunglasses, and i want to go more into that. I think that part of the reason why the gaurds were able to be so sadistic is because of the sunglasses. the glasses were something to hide behind, something to seperate them from the prisoners and themselves. there is a saying that the eyes are the windows to the soul, and i think that is very true, so if the gaurds didn't make eye contact with the prisoner, then it was easier to inflict pain. The glasses were like a mask, which is something we talked alot about when reading Lord of the Flies (shudder). how the boys could be so barbaric, but it's because they had a mask to hide behind.
i also feel like the gaurds having glasses helped the prisoners to feel like prisoners, because they couldn't see the person behind the glasses, they couldn't identify with them, because they were just gaurds, not people.
i don't know if any of that makes sense, but that's what is most interesting to me about this.
I agree with karib in this situation, what was the point of this experiment? It would seem that if you wanted accurate results of behavioral effects a prison has on both inmates and guards, you would need to research at an actual prison with actual guards and inmates. It seems that Zimbardo didn't think this experiment entirely through. It would be interesting to see what the behavioral effects of a prison has on guards and inmates, I just believe that there were better ways to investigate this.
I was particularly shocked at how the guards reacted in this situation. They made their fellow classmates perform the most outrageous things and seemed to enjoy their humiliation. Why else would they work volunteer hours without pay? I also thought it interesting how they had to wear the reflecting glasses, I wonder if that alone could have had any effect on the "prisoners" minds. In my definition of evil I said that evil is in everyone, but something needs to catalyze it. I think that the role as guards in this experiment brought out their inner evil.
I also want to comment on Blair’s connection with power. I think people in general have some sort of desire for power. When the guards got this power, and saw what they could do with it, they didn't want it to end. I won't go into my connections to The Crucible because we are discussing it in class, but I will say that I see the same effect the guards illustrate STRONGLY in Danforth and Abigail and I'm sure everyone else does too.
I also connect this experiment to 1984, and anyone from my class last year knows how far in depth we went into how their society brainwashed the people. However, Big Brother in 1984 achieved this through fear, while the guards in this experiment did so through humiliation.
These are just a couple questions that I was left with after reading about the experiment.
Why did he only select boys? Would it have been the same if it were girls? Is it accurate even to only use boys?
Why would the other inmates not give up their blankets for prisoner 416 so he would stay out of solitary confinement? What does that say about people?
And I agree with blair, what would have happened if the experiment was complete? I was amazed that all this happened in only 6 days, not even half the original set time.
I guess overall, what does this experiment tell us about human beings?
Oh, and just fyi for everyone in the class, I've taken the responsibility of making our new class rival for this year 6th hour, and based upon our deep thoughts and reflections in this blog, I would say we beat them.
WAHOO!
I agree with what pretty much everyone is saying, this experiment, while it may be a valid one, it seems unfair and disturbing. I really don't understand how the 24 men that were a part of the experiment adapted so quickly to the situation. It was like the experiment was exactly the same as the normal life they had been living before hand. I know that it would take me some time to adjust, and all of the men dove right into it and took it to all extremes. I also agree with what everyone said about the bathrooms. Its just hard for me to comprehend how these men took it so seriously and didn't just give up and quit the experiment. I guess this is the topic that is most astonishing to me.
But Jordan, I think part of the reason the prison guards wore the mirrored sunglasses was to add effect, since the real life police officers wear them. Also just to make the prisoners feel more alone and secluded. I know it would make me feel very uncomfortable if I could see myself when I talked, instead of the person I was talking to. Also, I bet it made the guards come off as even more apathetic and inhumane, which is what they were trying to get.
Overall, it just seems like a really uncomfortable, life changing experience, that I would not sign myself up for.
Shout out to Brian: 4th hour rules!!!!
I was just checking out 6th hour's blog and like Bryan they brought up the idea of if there were some girls/mainly girls involved in this experiment.
Well, things could be a lot worse. Girls can be a cruel backstabbing lot when we have a mind to.
But you know, women are also traditionally pack creatures (how many times have you seen a LONE girl in the hall? the bathroom? in a movie theater? in a....you get the idea.) I think that because girls tend to be so "pack-oriented" the prison situation could be a lot better.
If the backstabbing doesn't get in the way.
As I said on my previous blog (see above) faults and strengths can be much the same thing, depending on the perception, just as good and evil. What are some other faults/strengths of seperate genders that will help the prison situation be better or make it worse?
And my pal ty! hooray hooray, some support on my escape theory! Let's get outta that prison!
Love and pointy reckonings. laughlaugh.
I agree with most of these comments so far, but i really want to focus in on Brian's question, why they did only select boys. One, being a girl, i presonally dont think i would have even volenteered to be in this experiment, so maybe that was the case. I think that tey chose boys because the idea was to test a prision, and prisions are gender seperated. Also, boys tend to be more physically strong, so maybe they thought that they could handle the harsh situations. Also, all of the prision guards were white males, and that might have been a variable that they didn't want to change. It would have been harder to preform this experiment with girls and boys, because tephysical and emotional requirements from the guards most likely would have varied by gender, and that vcould have ruined the "experiment." Also, i have the question, along with many others, what was this for? I understand the shock experiment up to a point, but i really have no idea how this helps better our understanding of the brain and science. Honestly. Also, did this remind anyone of The Wave? I read it during CSAP because i had to have a book, but i highly reccommend it because it kind of reminds me of this experiment, but you wll have to decide for yourself!
I thought it was interesting that Wikipedia connected this experiment to Lord of the Flies where the boys eventually end up creating a dictatorship.
I guess I didn't fully understand how the mock prison would be a dictatorship though. And I also agree with what Blair said. It's odd that the effects this had on people were more severe than those of people who are actual criminals in prison.
Wow I can't believe something like this experiment was allowed and that the police coroporated at first. It really hit me the results of it when it talked about how afterwards the prisoners didn't leave at first because they had actually come to believe that they were prisoners or criminals. It kinda brought me to the reality of humanity. The way that the gaurds treated the prisoners and the way even the prisoners treated each other. Humanity is evil at its core; selfish, desiring power, and evil. I can see for sure how this can relate to the Crucible.
Why did the gaurds want to stay and even volunteered extra hours without pay?
Do you think it was the circumstances, environment, or treatment that caused the prisoners to really internalize their position and become mentally affected?
Why didn't the head professor or surperintendant man stop it?
After it all sub sided do you think that the people who played the gaurds realized what they did and were regretful?
My first reaction to this was shock. I couldn't believe a professor would put his own students though this. It was really intense. Especillay for them to be charged and taken to a jail for finger prints and everything. It seems to me that that the guards in this situation couldn't control the power given to them in a reasonable manner. After the professor set up the rules, it seemed as thought they abused their power, but they still didn't break the rules. How can you turn your back on your friends when gain control of a situation? I don't see how a person could do that. Power seems to bring out the worst, or even the evil in people. Does this challenge a personal philosophy for some of us? This abuse in power does seem like Abigail's role in the book. She manipulates the power that see recieves by lying. THis experiment is just horrible. To put people in a situation for this is ridiculous.
Also, does this remind you of the prisonor mistreatment that happened in Iraq a couple years ago? Because when I was reading about this I couldn't help but connectg it to that. Especially when it talked about the nudity and the embarassment the prisonors had to endure. This is a good example to what human behavior is like when it is exposed to different enviorments and situations.
I pretty much agree with everything that’s been said so far. As far as the "only boys" question goes, I think that it was just a precaution, because the organizers did not know how the guards would react. Obviously, things got pretty out of hand, and if there had been both genders present, it could have been more uncomfortable. One thing that I did notice was that the guards mainly used nudity as a main method of degrading the prisoners. Had there been both genders there, that might have gotten a little out of hand for a college campus.
I was also wondering, what does this say about our prison system? If we are hiring thousands of prison guards, and being in such a position of power did this to them, wouldn’t that turn many of them into criminals? Also, the prisoners displayed signs of selfishness and had serious mental issues after 6 days of mock prison. If we are taking the people that really do things wrong, such as drug dealers and lesser criminals, and putting them in jail for 10 years, couldn’t we be making them more likely not only to come back to prison, but for more serious crimes, such as serial murder?
As far as what Meghan was saying about the social habits of girls, I think it would be very interesting to repeat this experiment with girls, and seeing how the results varied. Was it just the violent nature of males that caused the demeanors of the guards to change?
Also, this experiment reminded me of the Holocaust. Most of us have heard about the effects of the prisoners, but how did it affect the Nazis that were in charge of the camps?
And Brian, I think that I, for one, will have to accept your challenge. We are definitely better than sixth hour.
This is a VERY fascinating study. Kylie, Among the Betrayed was one of the first things I thought of, the second being V for Vendetta. Both involved simulated prison situations with one very large and important difference; the prisoners thought it was totally real. To go along with this, however, I find one of the most interesting things to be the fact that the prisoners essencially forgot that they could pull out at any time. This holds the biggest connection to The Crucible because the girls, who could have ended it at any time (and Mary Warren tried) forgot that they were pretending and became wholely convinced that it was all true. In both cases "internalized roles" to the point where they forgot that it was merely a role. Odd that those who know something to be farse, and those who "know" something to be real (V for Vendetta and Among the Betrayed) end up in the same state of mind.
Another interesting idea; if the "guards" didn't know that the goal was to see how "prisoners" reacted psychologically? Say the guards were merely told to be guards. Would the same things have occured? I believe that when the director of the study informed them of the goals of the study, it was compromised. That's sort of a statistics student thing also. It would be interesting, with some new guidelines obviously, to perform the "experiment" again where neither guard nor prisoners know what the goal of this act is. I hope I don't sick and sadistic for even suggesting repeating such a thing but I won't deny that it fascinates me.
Kjerstin nailed on the head my next idea. All of the role play was based off of stereotypes. I am curious though, that if people who actually knew how the real deal worked would compromise the idea of the study. Maybe what this study actually shows is how the white middle class views prison and essencially how incredibly wrong they are. Were such things occuring in an American prison...well if the US government didn't get involved and it was a wide spread problem, we'd have a problem with UN bill of human rights. (I'm also an international relations student. Haha.) What I'm attempting to decide for myself through this long drawn out paragraph that a few of you and Ms. Leclair might read is whether or not this experiment is necessary to prove their hypothesis; would observations of a real prison work just as well or better?
Aside from some of the obvious problems with the study I would love to be on either end of the study merely to see how I psychologically would react. Now I would be able to, and oh I would too, cite my rights as a US citizen and refuse to do some of the things those prisoners gave into. I would merely refuse to comply and perhaps even prompt the idea of a mock "lawyer" situation for a prisoner standing up for their rights and accusing guards of direct abuse. Interesting idea no?
I have more to say but I've written too much, it's late, and hopefully we'll discuss this in class tomorrow. See everyone there!!
the first one wasn't my finished one!!!but I don't know how to delete it.
I would agree that this experiment is terrible and I would say it is extremely unethical. I can not seem to understand why someone would sign up for this, or at least stay with it. I am surprised that no one dropped out, since I read that you had the option to quit the experiment.
I was also astonished at the fact that the guards signed up to stay overtime for no pay. It is almost like they enjoyed the power and domination they obtained and didn't want to loose it or miss any action.
When it actually comes to the prison life, i didn't really understand the reason for not having underwear. It just seems like it would be really unsanitary and it that is not how prison is. They don't provide underwear but they do delouse them. It seems strange to me.
When I read about the delousing it reminded me of the holocaust for some reason. I think that is interesting because this seemed like just as much torture as the the holocaust, and it was an experiment. Which I guess shows the sickening ability of humans to abuse others.
Also, another part of the experiment that I thought was interesting was the part about the escape. I would assume that they would let the escapee plan to escape because it would allow them to create an added element to the whole experiment.
When I finished reading the whole experiment i guess i was most surprised that this much emotional pain could be inflicted in 6 days. At the beginning i assumed that the experiment lasted at least a month if not longer, so it was very surprising to me that it was such a short period of time.
Hello, all.
First of all, sorry this took me so long to reply to; I didnt get home until 1030 from school last night.
Anyways, I thought I would reply to everyones thoughts on 'how could someone conduct an experiment like this'.
I dont think it is as far fetched, as many, I suppose. I think that the man conducting the experiment thought it would never reached the extemity that it eventually did. Just as in most pyschological experiments, I would infer, the person conducting the experiment was probably just trying to learn more about how humans function in different sittuations in order to help other people, pyschologically. However, I am not entirely sure if this experiment helped anyone in results of the outcomes. All that I really understood to come out of this is that we learn how people really can trick themselves into believing the most outrageous things are reality and that when people are stipped of everything they have, we can really see the foundations of their motives and actions.
Just as Blair first stated, I think the fact that the volunteers convinced themselves that what they were doing was real, could be connected to how the some of the girls in The Crucible fully devoted themselves to their act. They may have genuinely believed that they had been bewitched, just like the prisioners and guards really believed they were their roles.
I also found this quote from the article interesting:
"You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy… We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none. — The Stanford Prison Study video, quoted in Haslam & Reicher, 2003."
I found this interesting because I think it sounds like he is sort looking lightheartedly at the sittuation; like everything he is saying is hypothetical and nothing severe. I do agree with the fact that the experiment stipped all the power from the prisioners and that it lead to a sense of powerlessness.
What other things could this quote really be saying?
The quote Madison used is exactly the one I was thinking of when I said that the study was compromised by the guards knowing the goals. He basically encouraged their actions with that one statement.
i agree with brian and kari on this one. what was the point of this experiment? it doesn't really apply to anything. it did kind of show what happens when people get too much power. the guards went way too far. like that one prisoner that refused to eat. they locked him up and made him do all that stuff. seems like a bit too much. just my opinion...
So I had an idea. If this is called an experiment it technically has to have a variable. Would the experiment work better if there was one prisoner who had real jail experience and one guard who's real job is actually a prison guard. Then there would actually be something to compare.
After reading this I have a few questions:
It says the participants were predominantly white and middle-class, how would it be different if they were minorities, lower-class, upper-class?
After reading about the mirrored glasses I wondered what is so important about eye contact? I think eye contact gives someone a sense of equality whereas no eye contact makes someone inferior. Anyone feel the same way?
How would this experiment differ with females?
Another relation to 1984, when prisoner 416 sleeps with the sausages it reminded of how Winston had to endure time with rats.
How easily can humans be manipulated?
I agree with you EmilyH. I have never actually read this story yet, but I understand what you're saying about the glasses. When I read "Lord of the Flies" I realized that the paint on the boys' faces did make them look barbaric. So from what I've read on here, I can relate that to the wardens in this experiment. They want to look serious and cover their eyes because they want to seem scary and barbaric. When I was looking through these posts, yours really stood out to me and the point you were trying to make.
Post a Comment