How willing are humans to fill a role they are given? This is the question that the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philp Zimbardo, professor of psychology, answers, even if it may not have been the original goal of the experiment. When people are pushed to the extremes, by internal or external factors, they are willing to do nearly anything. Zimbardo says that we “create, populate, and perpetuate” “prisons of the mind.” I agree with his statement, as many of the problems we have in a day wouldn’t even occur our own minds didn’t get in the way and plant seeds of doubt to stop us. He does have some logical fallacies in his article, but they do not weaken his argument.
In paragraph 8 of the article, Zimbardo uses the term “normal average” …show more content…
One of those examples was the conversations the prisoners had with each other. The article states that “their concerns were almost exclusively riveted to prison topics. Their monitored conversations revealed that only 10 percent of the time was devoted to “outside” topics, while 90 percent of the time they discussed escape plans, the awful food, grievances or ingratiation tactics to use with specific guards in order to get a cigarette, permission to go to the toilet, or some other favor. Their obsession with these immediate survival concerns made talk about the past and future an idle luxury.” He then goes on to say that “So long the prisoners did not get to know each other as people, they only extended the oppressiveness and reality of their life as prisoners.” This could be considered a non-sequitur because Zimbardo and his students couldn’t tell that this is what the conversation was doing to the prisoners. Some of them may not share details of their lives with anyone and some were just shocked at the situation. Talking about the situation wouldn’t necessarily cement the fact that this is the situation. It is very similar to water cooler talk, if you are there you talk about the projects you are put on, what you have to do today, and maybe your boss. It doesn’t necessarliy force the reality that you are at work, it is just a result of showing up at …show more content…
These trials were run to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. Twenty-one men sat on trial for their crimes, eighteen were found guilty, eleven were hanged, and the other seven served ten years to life for their crimes. The one man I am going to focus on is Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann. He was ruthless when describing his role in the killing of Jews in Europe. Hannah Arednt, who was a witness to the trial, described him as a “thoughtless, self-serving bureaucrat who just wanted to please his Nazi masters” (Alkadry, Witt, p.1). He was thought to be even more evil in Hannah’s eyes because he didn’t even kill to keep a belief in anti-Semitism, he killed to move up in the ranks. The fact that “[h]is moral compass was disabled by an overwhelming administrative and social law of the land that “Thou Shalt Kill Jews.”” (Alkadry, Witt, p.1), makes him seem like a cold-hearted killer, which is true in this case. Although still wrong, killing for beliefs is above killing in cold blood. This is an example where the person doesn’t act out of fear for repercussions, but for the reason that they know their acts aren’t wholly blamed on themselves. Moving up in the ranks for completing the tasks was just a bonus for
In paragraph 8 of the article, Zimbardo uses the term “normal average” …show more content…
One of those examples was the conversations the prisoners had with each other. The article states that “their concerns were almost exclusively riveted to prison topics. Their monitored conversations revealed that only 10 percent of the time was devoted to “outside” topics, while 90 percent of the time they discussed escape plans, the awful food, grievances or ingratiation tactics to use with specific guards in order to get a cigarette, permission to go to the toilet, or some other favor. Their obsession with these immediate survival concerns made talk about the past and future an idle luxury.” He then goes on to say that “So long the prisoners did not get to know each other as people, they only extended the oppressiveness and reality of their life as prisoners.” This could be considered a non-sequitur because Zimbardo and his students couldn’t tell that this is what the conversation was doing to the prisoners. Some of them may not share details of their lives with anyone and some were just shocked at the situation. Talking about the situation wouldn’t necessarily cement the fact that this is the situation. It is very similar to water cooler talk, if you are there you talk about the projects you are put on, what you have to do today, and maybe your boss. It doesn’t necessarliy force the reality that you are at work, it is just a result of showing up at …show more content…
These trials were run to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. Twenty-one men sat on trial for their crimes, eighteen were found guilty, eleven were hanged, and the other seven served ten years to life for their crimes. The one man I am going to focus on is Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann. He was ruthless when describing his role in the killing of Jews in Europe. Hannah Arednt, who was a witness to the trial, described him as a “thoughtless, self-serving bureaucrat who just wanted to please his Nazi masters” (Alkadry, Witt, p.1). He was thought to be even more evil in Hannah’s eyes because he didn’t even kill to keep a belief in anti-Semitism, he killed to move up in the ranks. The fact that “[h]is moral compass was disabled by an overwhelming administrative and social law of the land that “Thou Shalt Kill Jews.”” (Alkadry, Witt, p.1), makes him seem like a cold-hearted killer, which is true in this case. Although still wrong, killing for beliefs is above killing in cold blood. This is an example where the person doesn’t act out of fear for repercussions, but for the reason that they know their acts aren’t wholly blamed on themselves. Moving up in the ranks for completing the tasks was just a bonus for