| BookTalk.org News |
| • Only 4 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
Dan Barker
author of "Godless"
talks about his deconversion
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: decentralized
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
| seeker wrote: |
| So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior. |
I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Pessimistic 
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role. |
I did not pick up that the prisoners trusted the guards. After the first day there was a rebellion. Where did they trust the guards. Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
| Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation? |
It was a volunteer experiment, right? I doubt many of them would have volunteered if they hadn't assumed beforehand that the situation would be at least marginally safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
| Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation? |
It was a volunteer experiment, right? I doubt many of them would have volunteered if they hadn't assumed beforehand that the situation would be at least marginally safe. |
hmm...not sure about that. I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.
I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| I'm not reading the book just yet, so my interpretation could be way off base, but I really don't see how any of it could taken place without some trust, at least in the early stages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1646
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 9 in 9 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| seeker: So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior. |
I think all three are operative. Leaders provide direction and meaning through immediate dictate or personal example. The leader's audience is seeking leadership out of a combination of fear and hope and a desire for acceptance: they are influenced when a leader increases hope, decreases fear, and provides a meaningful role for the follower in whatever the project may be...thus, they trust the leader and submit to her direction.
Leaders offer a narrative that brings an audience into something meaningful and hopeful: their leadership is a matter of creating an identity for an audience that creates solidarity around particular values that lead to prescribed actions.
The leader's narrative is suited to the task at hand: mobilizing a crew to unload a truck, motivating a political party to endorse a divisive platform, energizing a classroom of students to complete a difficult task, or getting a group of volunteers to participate in a provocative experiment.
Leaders will encourage sacrifice for the greater cause, often using themselves as personal examples, or by threat of punishment: the punishment can be dismissal from the team, stigma and peer pressure, or physical assault.
So what is the greater cause to which these volunteers are working towards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JulianTheApostate
Junior
Usergroups: None
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 320
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.
I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards. |
As Mr. P says, trust wasn't much of factor once the experiment was underway. In fact, a strong mutual distrust emerged between the prisoners and the guards.
While the prisoners did fear the guards, conformance to the social role of prisoner was also a major influence.
Besides, the guard's actions, and the reasons for their cruelty, were the most prominent aspect of the SPE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
