| |
476F696E6720746F20707269736F6E206973206C696B65206479696E67207769746820796F75722065796573206F70656E2E20284B6572696B29
Autonomous Updates...
Running update on 038.380
Interpreting archival data...
Extract: Notes from Philip Zimbardo on his Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
“...the twenty-four participants were chosen according to psychological profiles that suggested average intelligence and a sound moral disposition. Of the twenty-four that were chosen, half were assigned the role of prisoners and the other half prison guards. To help with creating an authentic environment, on August 14, 1971, the Palo Alto Police Department arrested the twelve participants, charging them with armed robbery. The police department took mugshots and fingerprints of each participant. The PAPD then took the group to the mock prison, strip searched them, gave them outfits, and brought the prisoners to their cells.
While the prisoners were being processed, the guards held an initial meeting with me. It was the only meeting that I had with participants during the experiment itself. I laid out the rules for the guards, which were simple: they all had to agree on how the prison should be run, but they could not physically abuse the prisoners.
Once their decisions were made, the guards went out to meet the inmates. Within the first few hours, the guards began showing signs of abuse towards the prisoners. The abuse was in the form of insults during the first day. By day two, however, the guards began punishing prisoners by removing cots from their cells, forcing inmates to sleep on the cement floor. From here, inmates were sometimes forced to strip naked as a form of humiliation. Soon after, they were forced to clean toilets with their bare hands.
Keeping in mind that inmates were merely performing an experiment and that all guards had to unanimously agree on any form of punishment, it was quite surprisingly that a) the inmates never refused any punishment, falling into their roles with relative ease and b) the guards’ sadistic tendencies came to light very quickly, which leads me to ask questions about human nature and the corruptibility of power.
On day four, one inmate showed severe signs of emotional distress and had to be pulled from the experiment. A replacement was quickly found. During his briefing, he was given the instruction to start a hunger strike in order to improve conditions for the inmates. The guards viewed him as a troublemaker for going on a hunger strike and was assigned to solitary confinement for the duration of the experiment. While in confinement, other prisoners shouted taunts at the newcomer, viewing him as someone trying to make things even worse for them.
By day six, the guards engaged in bursts of physical abuse, while all inmates showed signs of serious psychological distress. Forms of abuse included, but was not limited to, withholding meals and beating inmates with their batons. A graduate student, Christina Maslach, came to interview other students that were helping with the experiment. She noted how poor the conditions were for the inmates and strongly suggested that the experiment be terminated immediately. Upon closer inspection, I had to agree with her analysis. At this, I was surprised that I, and the other graduate students, did not see how critical the situation had become. The experiment, which was supposed to be two weeks, ended on day six.
Furthermore, the experiment failed to prove the initial premise that people will fall into prescribed roles, despite their personal moral compass. Instead, we are left with more questions about this darker side of human nature.
Creating new parameters...
Purpose: To determine what role defective individuals will assume if they are placed in a mental institution. Also, data will be gathered from orderlies, as they are left with very little instruction about how to do their job. The orderlies, however, will have optimally working Micoms.
Method: Approximately fifty-five subjects will be used to fill the role of patients, while optimized individuals assume the position of orderlies. Subjects will be chosen from three different pools: those with defective Micoms, those with Micoms that are shut off for experimentation, and those that have ‘rolling’ Micoms (Micoms that are turned off and on at random intervals).
Patients will be given vague hints about what has happened to them. In these messages, it will be suggested to forty-seven percent that they could be rehabilitated. Forty-eight percent will be told that rehabilitation is unlikely. The remaining five percent will be led to believe that their death is imminent.
All subjects will be allowed time to mingle with each other. Close observations will be made during this communal time. Furthermore, each subject will meet with me once.
All subjects will be held at their respective Bedlam Institute for observation. When the subject no longer proves useful for gathering new data, the subject will be reassigned.
Desired outcomes: There are no targeted outcomes for this experiment. While seeing subjects respond in a consistent manner is preferred, there is no expectation of this. One point of interest will be to see if the Micoms are effective in this situation, or if the orderlies will take on the role of prison guard, similar to the Stanford model.
