"The Lucifer Effect": on the capacity of normal people to become evil

[shereads]

How Good People Turn Evil, From Stanford to Abu Ghraib
(Wired.com, 02.28.08)

MONTEREY, California -- Psychologist Philip Zimbardo has seen good people turn evil, and he thinks he knows why.

Zimbardo will speak Thursday afternoon at the TED conference {Theories of Everything} where he plans to illustrate his points by showing a three-minute video, obtained by Wired.com, that features many previously unseen photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (disturbing content).In March 2006, Salon.com published 279 photos and 19 videos from Abu Ghraib, one of the most extensive documentations to date of abuse in the notorious prison. Zimbardo claims, however, that many images in his video -- which he obtained while serving as an expert witness for an Abu Ghraib defendant -- have never before been published.

The Abu Ghraib prison made international headlines in 2004 when photographs of military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners were published around the world. Seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial and two, including Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to prison.

Zimbardo conducted a now-famous experiment at Stanford University in 1971, involving students who posed as prisoners and guards. Five days into the experiment, Zimbardo halted the study when the student guards began abusing the prisoners, forcing them to strip naked and simulate sex acts.

His book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, explores how a "perfect storm" of conditions can make ordinary people commit horrendous acts.

He spoke with Wired.com about what Abu Ghraib and his prison study can teach us about evil and why heroes are, by nature, social deviants. (my bold - sr)

[Quotation of copyrighted material reduced per our forum guidelines.]

 

[Lee Chambers]

I like this guy. He has some good thoughts. When something bad happens, we always ask the question "How could this have happened?" Maybe this guy has some of the answers. I especially liked this last part.

Most heroes are more effective when they're social heroes rather than isolated heroes. A single person or even two can get dismissed by the system. But once you have three people, then it's the start of an opposition.

So what I'm trying to promote is not only the importance of each individual thinking "I'm a hero" and waiting for the right situation to come along in which I will act on behalf of some people or some principle, but also, "I'm going to learn the skills to influence other people to join me in that heroic action."

Thanks for the story.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not sure I'm all that fond of the idea of every one becoming a 'hero'. Hero doesn't have entirely positive connotations for me.

It goes back to Napoleon, the original 'man of the white horse come to save us.' He's the prototype for all modern leaders. Alone, aloof, needed. With a hero such as him in power we become great.

And he sets the tone for just such actions as Abu Ghraib. "Our Heroic Leader tells us we must do this in order for the day to be saved."

I'll just settle for good rather than being heroic.

 

[Lee Chambers]

I'm not sure I'm all that fond of the idea of every one becoming a 'hero'. Hero doesn't have entirely positive connotations for me.

It goes back to Napoleon, the original 'man of the white horse come to save us.' He's the prototype for all modern leaders. Alone, aloof, needed. With a hero such as him in power we become great.

And he sets the tone for just such actions as Abu Ghraib. "Our Heroic Leader tells us we must do this in order for the day to be saved."

I'll just settle for good rather than being heroic.

Isn't that just kind of arguing semantics, though? I think it depends on what you define as "heroic" or "being a hero" and we could certainly spiral into that endless debate of death. But I think what this guy means when he says "hero" is a person who isn't afraid to take the risk of pointing out something they know to be wrong. He isn't talking about the hero who stands up and leads others to glory bur rather the hero who will step into a situation that they know is wrong.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I concur with all that Lee has said in this thread.

 

[lisa123414]

This is Psyc 101. The experiment where the volunteers were told they were in charge of the other volunteers. They were able to administer electric shock and would not be held accountable. For those unfamiliar, the shockers rather than the shockees were the test subjects. Most shockers were encouraged to where they administered a lethal, or nearly lethal dose (no one was actually hurt.) I don’t think the people tested were in a position of social hierarchy, they were just put in a position of authority, then absolved of responsibility.

Nope, sorry but I am not buying this in the case of Abu Ghraib. No chance in hell did the people who stripped the prisoners naked, then had them “pose” were doing it for the greater good. They did it because they could, or at least thought they could at the time. Look at the pictures, darn it. These people, the jailors, were having a bit of “sport.”

Even if I could stomach the use of torture as a tool for national security, there are precious few people who could use it without damning themselves. No thank you.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Nope, sorry but I am not buying this in the case of Abu Ghraib. No chance in hell did the people who stripped the prisoners naked, then had them “pose” were doing it for the greater good. They did it because they could, or at least thought they could at the time. Look at the pictures, darn it. These people, the jailors, were having a bit of “sport.”

So do you feel as if they were just a bunch of twisted bastards to begin with?

 

[trysail]

Isn't that just kind of arguing semantics, though? I think it depends on what you define as "heroic" or "being a hero" and we could certainly spiral into that endless debate of death. But I think what this guy means when he says "hero" is a person who isn't afraid to take the risk of pointing out something they know to be wrong. He isn't talking about the hero who stands up and leads others to glory bur rather the hero who will step into a situation that they know is wrong.

"It takes a hero to be a merely decent human being."
-May Sarton

 

[Lalah]

Interesting. I'd like to think if I was in a situation of power and unaccountable for I would still do the good thing, but in really I think from the start I'd only be 50% likely to do so. I don't want to know what would happen with time and the slow moral corruption that come with such a position.

Nope, sorry but I am not buying this in the case of Abu Ghraib. No chance in hell did the people who stripped the prisoners naked, then had them “pose” were doing it for the greater good. They did it because they could, or at least thought they could at the time. Look at the pictures, darn it. These people, the jailors, were having a bit of “sport.”

Lisa I think you need to re-read the article. He didn't claim these guys were heroes, he claimed they were the bad guys.

 

[sweetness6280]

This is Psyc 101. The experiment where the volunteers were told they were in charge of the other volunteers. They were able to administer electric shock and would not be held accountable. For those unfamiliar, the shockers rather than the shockees were the test subjects. Most shockers were encouraged to where they administered a lethal, or nearly lethal dose (no one was actually hurt.) I don’t think the people tested were in a position of social hierarchy, they were just put in a position of authority, then absolved of responsibility.

Nope, sorry but I am not buying this in the case of Abu Ghraib. No chance in hell did the people who stripped the prisoners naked, then had them “pose” were doing it for the greater good. They did it because they could, or at least thought they could at the time. Look at the pictures, darn it. These people, the jailors, were having a bit of “sport.”

Even if I could stomach the use of torture as a tool for national security, there are precious few people who could use it without damning themselves. No thank you.

The Milgram experiment actually studies how people respond to authority. The subjects were ordered to administer the shocks for incorrect answers, and the study evaluated their level of obedience, even while hearing what they believed were the screams of the person receiving the electric shock. Very few people defied the authority.

We all have a "dark side", or if your Jungian, a shadow. We would like to think we would not behave in certain ways, but in reality, it is only by embracing that darkness and trying to understand it that we can fight it. No one knows the depths to which one will sink until placed in a situation that requires a choice.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Having watched Stanford Prison I can kinda see where he's coming from.

 

[Lalah]

The Milgram experiment actually studies how people respond to authority. The subjects were ordered to administer the shocks for incorrect answers, and the study evaluated their level of obedience, even while hearing what they believed were the screams of the person receiving the electric shock. Very few people defied the authority.

We all have a "dark side", or if your Jungian, a shadow. We would like to think we would not behave in certain ways, but in reality, it is only by embracing that darkness and trying to understand it that we can fight it. No one knows the depths to which one will sink until placed in a situation that requires a choice.

How did that work? They must have known it wasn't real; people don't just ask university student to electrocute people. It's illegal for one thing and would hardly have been done in a university context.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

How did that work? They must have known it wasn't real; people don't just ask university student to electrocute people. It's illegal for one thing and would hardly have been done in a university context.

It was legal at the time. The participants had no idea they weren't killing the other person. IIRC the last three jolts had no noise at all come from the other side.

 

[sweetness6280]

How did that work? They must have known it wasn't real; people don't just ask university student to electrocute people. It's illegal for one thing and would hardly have been done in a university context.

It would never pass the IRB now, but this was in the 1970's. There was no actual electrocution. There was a "teacher", a "learner", and the experimenter. When the learner gave an incorrect answer, the experimenter would order the teacher to administer a shock to the learner. The voltage was increased after each incorrect answer. The screams were prerecorded. The learner was in a separate booth, and was in on the "lie".

They thought it was real. You should see some of the experiments done in the 70s.

 

[sweetness6280]

It was legal at the time. The participants had no idea they weren't killing the other person. IIRC the last three jolts had no noise at all come from the other side.

Oh I had forgotten that. I think you are right.

Amazing what humans will do.

 

[Lalah]

Yeah I'm reading about it in wikipedia. I would never have gone along with it, but then it's been 40 years and culture change.

I think the experiment about the prisoners and the jailors is more up do date and one I could actually fail. What was the name of that one does anyone know?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Yeah I'm reading about it in wikipedia. I would never have gone along with it, but then it's been 40 years and culture change.

I think the experiment about the prisoners and the jailors is more up do date and one I could actually fail. What was the name of that one does anyone know?

It was tried again in 2000 (give or take) but the experiment was designed to stop after eight shocks in order to pass the ethics board. 70% of women and 85% of men went to the stopping point.

The other experiment is Stanford Prison. It's rather frightening.

 

[shereads]

I'm not sure I'm all that fond of the idea of every one becoming a 'hero'. Hero doesn't have entirely positive connotations for me.

It goes back to Napoleon, the original 'man of the white horse come to save us.' He's the prototype for all modern leaders. Alone, aloof, needed. With a hero such as him in power we become great.

And he sets the tone for just such actions as Abu Ghraib. "Our Heroic Leader tells us we must do this in order for the day to be saved."

I'll just settle for good rather than being heroic.

I don't think he's defining 'hero' in that sense at all. The kind of hero you're talking about is seeking glory. The real heroes, this author is suggesting, are the people who risk the opposite of glory: social condemnation and alienation from their community.

 

[shereads]

Look at the pictures, darn it. These people, the jailors, were having a bit of “sport.”

Exactly. Isn't that what makes them evil - their evident enjoyment of what they were doing?

I feel as you do about torture. I don't think the article is attempting to justify it, but to warn us that not all of the monsters in the world are abnormal or 'other.' They are us, and our friends and relatives, under the right circumstances.

I'm reminded of a film clip from Nazi Germany, where some children were watching a train loaded with Jews passing through their neighborhood. These normal-looking, rosy-cheeked little boys were witnessing the horror of people crammed into a cattle car, heading to some awful fate - and one of the boys was grinning and making a slash-mark across his throat with his finger.

Was that boy evil? In that moment, yes he was. He was adding to the torment of a helpless "enemy" that had somehow become less than human in his eyes, and undeserving of any pity or compassion. He was celebrating their fear and pain, feeling empowered by it.

That's what interests me about this article: not that people can be compelled to do terrible things, but that they - we - can learn to ENJOY doing them.

I think the value of the presentation is that it asks us to accept that we may each have a capacity for evil, and to guard against it.

 

[Lee Chambers]

I'm reminded of a film clip from Nazi Germany, where some children were watching a train loaded with Jews passing through their neighborhood. These normal-looking, rosy-cheeked little boys were witnessing the horror of people crammed into a cattle car, heading to some awful fate - and one of the boys was grinning and making a slash-mark across his throat with his finger.

Also reminiscent of the two minute hate from Orwell's 1984, where one minute people watching a propaganda video are normal (or as normal as a person could be living in that world) and the next minute they're screaming like animals and throwing things at the television.

 

[sweetness6280]

That's what interests me about this article: not that people can be compelled to do terrible things, but that they - we - can learn to ENJOY doing them.

I think the value of the presentation is that it asks us to accept that we may each have a capacity for evil, and to guard against it.

That was basically Jung's Shadow Theory in a nutshell. If we refuse to accept that we have that capacity, it can more easily enslave us.

 

[shereads]

That was basically Jung's Shadow Theory in a nutshell. If we refuse to accept that we have that capacity, it can more easily enslave us.

We see evidence of pointless cruelty in school children, when they target an unpopular child for torment and bullying. I can remember participating in some of that, and enjoying it because I was glad that for once I wasn't the new kid in school - I was part of the group, and not the one singled out. Part of me knew that what we were doing was cruel - and another part craved being one of the gang.

Cruelty seems to come naturally to the very young. We outgrow it, most of us - or do we just learn to rein it in as it becomes less socially acceptable? Maybe the spark is still there, just waiting for the right stimulus.

 

[The_Fool]

Thought 1 - "Lord of the Flies"

Thought 2 - "Hero" is (or was) a derogatory term in the Infantry. As in doing something stupidly heroic and getting killed. Better to do something smart and keep yourself and your buddies alive.

 

[shereads]

Thought 1 - "Lord of the Flies"

Thought 2 - "Hero" is (or was) a derogatory term in the Infantry. As in doing something stupidly heroic and getting killed. Better to do something smart and keep yourself and your buddies alive.

In the author's Arthur Andersen example, the 'something stupid' would be blowing the whistle.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thought 2 - "Hero" is (or was) a derogatory term in the Infantry. As in doing something stupidly heroic and getting killed. Better to do something smart and keep yourself and your buddies alive.

Perhaps sometimes the "heros" are the guys (or gals) who frag atrociously bad ossifers?