I'm a pretty happy guy, and I love sharing the happiness I find online with whoever might be interested. That's why this blog is filled with what I think is awesome and exciting stuff that I hope inspires people to further educate themselves. I've received some feedback suggesting this has already happened in some modest and not so modest measure a few times already, which is awesome...
Today's entry, however, deals with the darker side of humanity. The videos below are sequences of a documentary entitled Human Behavior Experiments, followed by some lively discussion, which deals with the idea that being situated in specific circumstances has a very significant influence, almost deterministic at times, on the behavior of the people involved.
Through the use of well documented psychological research dating back to the 1960's and 70's, the documentary challenges the conventional wisdom that there is a certain unchanging essence to who we are, and that there are certain things we would never do, no matter what the circumstances. As it turns out, however, it seems that we can't be judges of what we might do without actually having actually been in the situation in question; a very disconcerting and disturbing prospect indeed.
The following is an interview of Dr. Phillip Zimbardo (from the Stanford Prison Experiment) conducted by Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptic's Society, for the Skepticality podcast discussing these issues further, as well as Zimbardo's latest book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
After having watched this, can you honestly say you would never do what many of these people did? How would you know?
.
Zimbardo makes a very distinct point at the end of the interview - he says that the human mind COULD do this, but that there is capacity for heroic behavior. I don't think the question is whether we could do it, it's whether we would act that way. I believe it is a matter of controlled processing. Also, the definition of "good person" should come into play. At any point, if someone feels that they are superior to another - that may not be a good person. Then the act of dehumanization would easily follow. If anyone exerts their authority in a malicious way, maybe that person is not "good". When Dave Eshelman was explaining his thought processes as a prison guard, it was a little frightening for him to remember it so distinctly and to almost rationalize it. I think it takes a great deal more than grades and clean records to determine what is good in people. Maybe society's standard of "what is good" isn't high enough.
ReplyDeleteI think you're probably right. I've long suspected that what we are used to referring as 'good' ought to be more accurately referred to as 'not bad.'
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if I don't go around killing and raping people, that doesn't make me good... it just makes me not bad. I could still be an asshole, right?
This is also a problem I find with 'moral' doctrines like the 10 commandments: they tell you what NOT to do. Thou shall not do this, and thou shall not do that... it's really just a recipe of how to avoid bad behavior, but not an instruction manual of how to actually be morally good and/or praiseworthy.
On the whole 'if someone feels that they are superior to another - that may not be a good person', I think that can cut both ways. I think most people could very well know they are morally superior to Hitler, for instance, and be right about it. Acknowledging moral superiority does not automatically make one morally inferior... but we are used to thinking that because we live in a society that abhors pride and confidence, which are not actually negative traits if one has earned them.
I think you're right about that. Comparing ourselves to others is not only a waste of time but a rather pathetic and reactionary expression of identity co-dependence. I didn't mean to imply that we obtain our moral superiority from any kind of comparison, but that if we do compare our moral standpoint with that of others, we can sometimes confidently and accurately conclude that some are morally superior to others.
ReplyDeleteOn the arrogance question, that's a topic that's bothered me for years. I think we tend to think of arrogance as a bad thing because we have this historical repulsion toward the idea of pride. If someone has earned the right to be arrogant, let him. That we may think that arrogance is somehow bad might be more a reflection of our own insecurities than of the fact arrogance may be an actually bad attitude... Just something to think about.
Honestly, this is something I have been wrestling with as well. Our society finds plenty of faults with people that are proud of themselves. I have found that more often than not it is definitely a reflection of people’s insecurities that allows them to harbor ill-will toward others’ successes and confidence. However, I believe that there is a large difference between arrogance and confidence. To ostentatiously flaunt your successes in a manner that demeans others is not something to be proud of, and I don’t think that because you have earned a certain level of achievement that you have then earned the right to arrogance. The problem with arrogance is that it tends to bleed into other areas of life that perhaps haven’t been proven to outshine others’ achievements, thereby leading to supposed “experts” of life that haven’t proven their worth in that field. I think that a controlled confidence is more apt for a fulfilling moral character. If one can tweak the ability of controlled arrogance, than by all means – wear it well. A slightly arrogant person in the right context is very attractive, as long as it is justly earned and highly monitored.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is the full documentary:
ReplyDeleteThe human behavior experiments