Anonymity in Stanford Prison Experiment

The guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment did things that got worse and worse as the experiment went on, but I cannot determine if the cause for all of these terrible things is mainly due to the fact that they could remain completely anonymous when doing these crimes by wearing their sunglasses, or just because what they were doing they perceived as being right, because they had no reference point for how prison guards were supposed to act. I think it is mainly due to the fact that this is an isolated experiment, and the guards thought they were doing the right thing, much like the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking. Thoughts?

Serial Killers

I found it interesting that while studying serial killers and psychopaths, they all blamed someone else. Not a single one of them ever managed to take responsibility for their crimes. I found this odd, because I remember learning about how they feel good when killing people, so it surprises me that they would not take the credit when offered, even when they knew they would be in prison for the rest of their life. Was it a spur of the moment thing for them to take credit? Or did they actually believe that being taunted by a girl in the 4th grade was the reason they had murdered and raped 50 women?

Suicide

After reading about the suicide clusters at Palo Alto, it got me thinking. Did the positive response by the students at Palo Alto make people realize that having all those students focused on them would finally provide them with the attention they needed? Do you think some students may have ended their lives AFTER the initial suicides because they wanted the same attention? I think it would make sense for lonely kids who seek attention to take their own lives in the face of such a positive response. Thoughts?

The Lucifer Effect: Dehumanization

While reading about dehumanization in “The Lucifer Effect,” I began questioning why history always seems to repeat itself. In the dehumanization section there were various examples of how people severely mistreated others and saw them as objects rather than people. Time and time again humans have seen the effects of dehumanization, however it seems like there is always some form of it existing in society. Nations criticize other nations for their history, but the truth is that every society has either been dehumanized or has dehumanized another group. It is hard for me to grasp why dehumanization keeps occurring; I’d like to believe that people are generally good, however it is hard to believe that when there is always a group of people who feel superior, which is exactly what fuels discrimination, prejudice and inequality in all societies. I do not think there is a viable solution to prevent dehumanization from reappearing, however I think that reflecting about our own prejudices and biases can contribute to a better future for humanity.  

Good People Still Commit Crimes

In class Mr. Stewart was saying how people who believe that they are good are more susceptible to doing bad things, because ultimately they believe they have good values and good judgement, making them feel less guilt or culpability when committing an action that is considered wrong. This idea really intrigued me, because well I do believe I am a good person and I would never expect to do something I morally disagree with, so consequently I began questioning how that could be possible. Throughout history, humanity has experienced the malice of people, most of the time people who seem normal. Psychopaths make up only 1% of society, however there have been multiple times in history where countless groups of people have committed atrocious acts, therefore there is something else that drives what are seemingly ordinary people to commit acts of low moral standards. I think this idea has a lot to do with the theory of obedience to authority; through Milgrim’s experiment this theory is proven. People who have an overall morally correct judgement still commit crimes, especially when under pressure from an authority, this is because it is human nature, or instinct, to be obedient to those who are superior or those who are considered of higher power.

Being Valedictorian Doesn’t Always Equal Happiness

A few weeks ago when we were reading through the “The Silicon Valley Suicides” article, there was a particular idea in the article that left me confused and in disbelief; the article stated that a lot of these parents which pressured their children into being the top of their class, compromised the happiness of their children. Immediately what came to my mind was that that was ridiculous, I could not believe that parents would not value their child’s happiness enough to even begin empathizing for them. It makes me really sad to know that numerous parents exist who are like that, especially in this area. Personally, I do feel pressure from my parents to do well in school, but nothing overwhelming, they’ve always told me to put my happiness first. These parents do not understand that the pressure they put on their kids has a huge impact on how they view themselves and their goals. I would think that as a parent you would want the best for your child, however that does not only mean having your child be the best in school, but that also comes with emotional health. I do not see much point in life when you are unhappy. I understand that these parents worry for the future of their children, however they really need to step back and reflect how their actions affect their kids’ decisions, because most of the time these students are trying to conform to their parents standards, despite feeling completely overwhelmed.

Throwback to Cognitive Dissonance Theory

1959 experiment, psychologist Leon Festinger asked participants to preform a series of dull tasks, like turning pegs in a wooden knob, for an hour. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a "waiting participant" (aka a researcher) that the task was very interesting. Those who were paid $1 to lie rated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. Those who were paid more felt that they had sufficient justification for having preformed the rate task for an hour, but those who were only paid $1 felt the need to justify the time spent (and reduce the level of dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior) by saying that the activity was fun. We commonly tell ourselves lies to make the world appear a more reasonable place.

For example, when my friends and I were talking about work and how much we get pain an hour, I didn't feel the need to contribute as much input or information because I was making the most an hour out of all my friends (not to sound snobby). Almost all of my friends make $10 an hour, but since I get paid $13 an hour (bare with me) I felt justified for all the work I had to do for that one hour. While my friends explain how laid back and chill it is to not have to do much for $10 an hour.

Examples / experiences? Thought?

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html