Having just watched the end of 'The Experiment' which was on the BBC (intro above; 4 one hour ep's - Conflict, Order, Rebellion and Tyranny) and read a fair bit about the Stanford Prison experiment a few months ago, when I became interested in natural law & human nature, I'd like to offer a critique, or get opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experiment
http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/
Publications
"The BBC Prison Study explores the social and psychological consequences of putting people in groups of unequal power. It examines when people accept inequality and when they challenge it.
Findings from the study were first broadcast by the BBC in 2002. They have since been published in leading scientific journals and textbooks and have also entered the core student syllabus. They have changed our basic understanding of how groups and power work."
I guess it is also some what a play on the prisoner's dilemma.
Results:"The findings of the study can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the guards failed to identify with each other as a group and to cohere collectively. By contrast, after the promotion on Day 3, the prisoners did increasingly identify as a group and work collectively to challenge the guards. This led to a shift of power and ultimately to the collapse of the prisoner–guard system. In the second phase, participants decided to continue as a single self-governing ‘commune’. However, they were unable to deal with internal dissent and lost confidence in the communal system. By the end of the study, they were increasingly disposed to tolerate a new and much more draconian system of inequality that some participants now wished to impose."
I am still reading one of the publications on it, but I am wondering if this kind of confirms, in an indirect way - that socialism, (obviously) fails?
One of the "flaws" I guess you could say, although I don't think from our viewpoint it negatively affects the study - just interpretations on it depending on your ideology / method... but all the problems are a complete tragedy of the commons.
The system is essentially the State, can't really own any private property / homestead anything. They had to go to the overlords to request changes, it wasn't within their own power to change the environment, they tried to change the structure within the system, (re-organize the deck chairs on the titanic), but the overall apparatus was still left in tact. (The State).
As the situation got worse (chaos) caused by the non-ownership of property, tragedy of the commons - having realised the origional order failed (guards and non guards -imposed inequality), they negotiated a new system of (equality), this then failed - and what was then about to take place, was a greater mode of tyranny, apparently a revert back to Guards vs non guards, except some of the prisoners now becoming guards, because they wanted to see power and instead re-impose it, but being harsher and using violence to maintain it.
I guess you could analyse it, that whilst the State 'system' exists, there is no way to remould it - (it was voluntarily supported - anyone could walk out of it anytime they wanted too), the way to achieve freedom was to simply walk out. (withdraw consent)
Obviously this isn't anything new to anyone here lol, I just thought it intriguing.
Discussion"The BBC prison study was designed to examine the factors that determine how people respond when a system of inequality is imposed upon them by others. At the start, almost all the participants rejected this system. However, by the end, they were close to instituting a new and more tyrannical social system. In addition to our original questions concerning the way in which people respond to a system of inequality that has been imposed upon them – do they accept it or do they resist it? – this raises a new and unexpected issue. What are the conditions under which people create a system of inequality for themselves?"
I guess one differing factor is that violence was outlawed in this experiment, compared to the Standford one. Although the guards still had the option of displinary measures. There is not much for the guards to 'fight' for. And within the real world, generally you don't deal face to face with the scum in washington.
"Therefore, in contrast to those who explain tyranny and other extreme social phenomena in terms of the psychological dysfunctionality of groups, we interpret them in terms of the dysfunctionality of group failure."
Group failure, not individual?
Conclusion: Rethinking the relationship between groups, power and tyranny
"However, based on the present data, we would argue that failing groups almost inevitably create a host of problems for their own members and for others. These problems have a deleterious impact on organization, on individuals’ clinical state, and – most relevant here – on society. For it is when people cannot create a social system for themselves that they will more readily accept extreme solutions proposed by others. It is when groups lack the power to exercise choice that an authoritarian ideology that promises to create order for them appears more seductive. In short, it is the breakdown of groups and powerlessness that creates the conditions under which tyranny can triumph."
Overall, do you think this is true? Any comments, discussion would be cool. Is all of this basically psychobabble and at odds with methodological individualism or not? I haven't done psychology and would be interested to get an opinion from maybe someone who has and anyone elses thoughts. Cheers!
Conza88: Is all of this basically psychobabble and at odds with methodological individualism or not? I haven't done psychology and would be interested to get an opinion from maybe someone who has and anyone elses thoughts. Cheers!
Is all of this basically psychobabble and at odds with methodological individualism or not? I haven't done psychology and would be interested to get an opinion from maybe someone who has and anyone elses thoughts. Cheers!
In my opinion it just reaffirms it [methodological individualism] .
However [thankfully] controlled , artificial environment, "scientific" pseudo social experiments like this, to satisfy the tastes and fantasies of those who continue to seek ways to control others "effectively", as well as real world experiments [ e.g the US constitution was supposed to be the "last " desperate experiment to prove that governments could actually work] , will continue ad infinitum, as the results, no matter how obscene, will continue to be ignored as proof that "the system " does not work; instead such results will be conveniently viewed as the result of some "control" within the experiment as having been "wrong", "inefficient".... or some such excuse....[not enough controls, too many controls, etc etc. blah blah blah.]. Never that the underlying premise of the whole experiment was contrary to fundamental human nature. Good heavens, no!
It is the same principle that applies with government programs- when sooner or later they fail[as they all must], to the true believers it only means that not enough laws were in place, or that not enough money was spent- never that the fundamental concept [ basically taking by force money from Peter, taking a "cut" for yourself {aka, the government} then giving what is left over to Paul] , actually does not work.
Lesson: dreamers will continue to dream, regardless of negative results.
People never seem to get tired of beating their collective head against the brick wall of reality- a good source for much amusement, in my opinion, and the more sober and "scientific" their efforts [the B.B. C. indeed!], the more humorous and Quixotic it all seems. Thats entertainment for ya!
An afterthought: I wonder who paid for this study?[and I think I already know the answer.]
Let me see, a government funded "study" that proves that government does not work, and so the "study" must have been set up/administered "wrongly" /"badly"- and so......obviously we need another government funded study to prove the same thing. Yawn.
On the other hand.. if you need a guaranteed source of income via a good scam, and can keep a straight face, a government funded , pseudo-scientific study a la BBC, to investigate whatever you can convince it/them "needs" studying, and which always produces results that will be denied regardless of how many times the "experiment", whatever it may be, is tried, is a great way to go. Just don't get sucked into believing that you are actually doing anything worthwhile, apart from making money, that is.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfree:However [thankfully] controlled , artificial environment, "scientific" pseudo social experiments like this, to satisfy the tastes and fantasies of those who continue to seek ways to control others "effectively", as well as real world experiments [ e.g the US constitution was supposed to be the "last " desperate experiment to prove that governments could actually work] , will continue ad infinitum, as the results, no matter how obscene, will continue to be ignored as proof that "the system " does not work; instead such results will be conveniently viewed as the result of some "control" within the experiment as having been "wrong", "inefficient".... or some such excuse....[not enough controls, too many controls, etc etc. blah blah blah.]. Never that the underlying premise of the whole experiment was contrary to fundamental human nature. Good heavens, no!
Good points. Thanks OBF.
This experiment seems similar to the situation in Afghanistan, with the locals willing to submit to the Taliban's draconian laws, just because they value stability and an environment to conduct daily affairs over personal freedom. As stability becomes more firm and "plentiful", it seems to me that people will begin to take it for granted and value it less when compared to liberty.
Of course, by then they probably have gotten all of their guns taken away from them. Oh well, there's always getting gunned down in protests.