4 Answers

  1. For me, the main one is another confirmation of a fundamental attribution error. That is, the fallacy of the opinion that a person behaves one way or another, because he is “like that”.�

    And how much influence the situation of which the person is a part has.

    Not absolutely, it is possible to resist it.

    But… Humans adapt to the situation; we are a fairly conformal species. The process there was total: not only the “guards” became violent, but simultaneously the” prisoners ” developed apathy and submission.

    However, we, the soldiers of the Soviet Army and the sailors of the Navy, were given some kind of Winter Boots with their “Lucifer Effects”. Oh, to whom, to whom, about what, about what…

    However, if someone is interested, write, I'll throw off the text of Zimbardo, but the book is really thick, there are details about how everything was.

  2. The conclusion is that there are no good or bad people. There are conditions in which a person is very likely to behave like a bastard. Hence the question arises – can we then judge criminals, thinking, “here, scoundrels”, naturally, most often contrasting ourselves with them. And how would you behave in the same conditions? And it's not just about domestic crimes, remember about Dovlatov's “We constantly scold Comrade Stalin, and, of course, for the cause. And yet I want to ask – who wrote the four million denunciations? ” or the support of the German population for the actions of the NSDAP. What, are they all bastards? No, these were social networks. conditions.

    Or the Milgram experiment. Read about it at least on the wiki. How many percent of the subjects there pressed 450v, allegedly life-threatening? 65%. And they were motivated by the fact that they were ordered, their personal responsibility is removed. What, all these people were bastards? No, these are the consequences of hierarchical subordination, we got it from animals.

    In addition to these experiments, there are many other similar ones that raise questions of free will and determinism, and in general, the possibility of the existence of good and evil in society as a manifestation of free will or social behavior. conditions – you can read about all this in the books of E. Aronson, about 5 books have been translated into Russian, I recommend starting with the “Social Animal” of the latest edition.

  3. This is a complex topic.

    The fact that repressed aggression is permanently dormant in the average person, whose output in everyday life is controlled by neuroses and complexes – or the so – called “inner supervisor” – is a well-known and obvious fact that became generally recognized long before this experiment.

    The problem is why this experiment was commissioned and how its results were used. Unfortunately, most of these experiments are funded and covered for one purpose: to show the crowd that: 1) man is a beast, 2) his behavior depends entirely on what is allowed and what is not allowed 3) expand the carte blanche of those who run society to introduce additional prohibitions and restrictions.

    The logic is simple: “You see, guys, what will you get to if we don't manage you?”

    And, tellingly, the guys obediently nod their heads and agree: “Yes, boss, you'd better do this…that…be strict with us!” This psychological phenomenon – when the crowd itself asks to be strictly restricted – is, in particular, the basis of fascism.

    In fact, a person is not a beast, and a stick is not the only way to motivate him. But the education and awakening of humanity in a person requires much more resources and sophisticated technologies than the organization of its suppression and pacification.

  4. This experiment has shown that under conditions of almost unlimited power, people can awaken bad, sadistic tendencies.

    As for me, this is nothing new. We already knew that humans can be brutes.

Leave a Reply