Posted by ""Jay W. Forrester"" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Philip Zimbardo has been known for several decades in the system dynamics community for his prison experiment with participants divided into two
groups--prisoners and guards. In Memo D-3043, ""Simulating the Zimpardo
Prison Experiment,"" by Gilbert W. Low, December 26, 1978, available in the MIT D-memo DVD from the System Dynamics Society, is found an early modeling that goes from a description of a situation to a simulation model.
In system dynamics, we often assert that the decisions people make are strongly conditioned by the environment in which they work. Many people do not believe such. Our business and social settings are less dramatic than the ones Zimbardo describes in a recent lecture, but the influence of surrounding circumstances on how people react have a similar foundation.
On this website of the Technology & Culture Forum at MIT you can find a full length video of an April 2, 2007 lecture by Zimbardo.
http://web.mit.edu/tac/
You will first download a RealPlayer icon that in turn will call a video stream of the lecture. The broadband version gives an excellent full-quality video. I do know what picture quality goes with the dialup connection that is also available but I assume the audio is good.
Much of the lecture is devoted to his study of the Iraq prison Abu Grav prisoner mistreatment scandal. The lecture title is, ""The Lucifer Effect:
Understanding How Good People Turn Evil."" I recommend watching it.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Posted by ""Jay W. Forrester"" <jforestr@MIT.EDU> posting date Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:09:38 -0400 _______________________________________________
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
-
""Jay W. Forrester"" <jforest
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
Hi All,
I just saw the Zimbardo lecture video, and while I found it informative, interesting and gratuitously disturbing, I also found it to be incomplete in the sense that Zimbardo didn't seem to want to follow through with his own argument as he went up the chain of command. He is essentially making the argument that about 90% of our behavior is situationally determined.
The lecture argues the case that although the guards in Abu Ghraib did horrific things, what they did was due more to the situation they were in rather than any guard's inherent moral failure.
Zimbardo argues that the initial statements about ""bad apples"" are unproductive in light of current understanding of social psychology and counters that this was a ""bad barrel"". He also makes the point that the intent to ""get to the bottom of this"" means we'll never ""get to the top"".
Zimbardo argues that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were inevitable given the situation, and focuses the blame for the situation on George W. Bush, <b>****</b> Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet. He makes a very good case for the situation being directly due to the actions of these men, but it seems to me that he then falls into exactly the same trap that he has just been detailing by pointing the finger at this new set of ""bad apples"".
I find Zimbardo's arguments with respect to the guards compelling, and that brings me to the question of understanding the situation of the four men he singles out as ultimately responsible. What are the characteristics of the situation that cause these four men to act in ways that bring about Abu Ghraib and other tragedies? How could our congress have passed laws that limit some of our fundamental rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by our constitution? What is the structural nature of our society that encourages the creation of ""bad barrels""?
It seems to me that many of our social ills are due to ""the system"" and Zimbardo's research supports this notion. If 90% of what we do is determined by ""the system"", then it is highly likely that our ""leaders"" are similarly influenced by their own situation. If that's the case, then changing leaders without changing ""the system"" is not likely to be very effective. Yet changing ""the system"" without first understanding it is also likely to be ineffective simply because ""the system"" is complex.
This is the obvious moment to introduce an SD model of the situation as a whole, describe the various links with their justifications, demonstrate that the model does reproduce the undesirable behavior, and then provide an analysis of possibly more desirable alternatives. However, I don't have such a model. I do have some ideas, but I haven't yet transfered those ideas from wetware to software. Before I do so, I'd like to know if anyone else feels the same way I do about Zimbardo's arguments.
Do you think Philip Zimbardo is correct in attributing 90% of our
behavior to the situations we are in?
Do you think Philip Zimbardo's arguments could be applied to the
behavior of the four people he identifies as ultimately responsible for
Abu Ghraib?
Do you think SD is an appropriate tool for the analysis of this aspect of
our society?
I would greatly appreciate knowing the reactions of other SDers to Zimbardo's ideas and how they might apply to our larger social systems.
Best Wishes,
--Tom
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 02:01:39 -0400 _______________________________________________
Hi All,
I just saw the Zimbardo lecture video, and while I found it informative, interesting and gratuitously disturbing, I also found it to be incomplete in the sense that Zimbardo didn't seem to want to follow through with his own argument as he went up the chain of command. He is essentially making the argument that about 90% of our behavior is situationally determined.
The lecture argues the case that although the guards in Abu Ghraib did horrific things, what they did was due more to the situation they were in rather than any guard's inherent moral failure.
Zimbardo argues that the initial statements about ""bad apples"" are unproductive in light of current understanding of social psychology and counters that this was a ""bad barrel"". He also makes the point that the intent to ""get to the bottom of this"" means we'll never ""get to the top"".
Zimbardo argues that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were inevitable given the situation, and focuses the blame for the situation on George W. Bush, <b>****</b> Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet. He makes a very good case for the situation being directly due to the actions of these men, but it seems to me that he then falls into exactly the same trap that he has just been detailing by pointing the finger at this new set of ""bad apples"".
I find Zimbardo's arguments with respect to the guards compelling, and that brings me to the question of understanding the situation of the four men he singles out as ultimately responsible. What are the characteristics of the situation that cause these four men to act in ways that bring about Abu Ghraib and other tragedies? How could our congress have passed laws that limit some of our fundamental rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by our constitution? What is the structural nature of our society that encourages the creation of ""bad barrels""?
It seems to me that many of our social ills are due to ""the system"" and Zimbardo's research supports this notion. If 90% of what we do is determined by ""the system"", then it is highly likely that our ""leaders"" are similarly influenced by their own situation. If that's the case, then changing leaders without changing ""the system"" is not likely to be very effective. Yet changing ""the system"" without first understanding it is also likely to be ineffective simply because ""the system"" is complex.
This is the obvious moment to introduce an SD model of the situation as a whole, describe the various links with their justifications, demonstrate that the model does reproduce the undesirable behavior, and then provide an analysis of possibly more desirable alternatives. However, I don't have such a model. I do have some ideas, but I haven't yet transfered those ideas from wetware to software. Before I do so, I'd like to know if anyone else feels the same way I do about Zimbardo's arguments.
Do you think Philip Zimbardo is correct in attributing 90% of our
behavior to the situations we are in?
Do you think Philip Zimbardo's arguments could be applied to the
behavior of the four people he identifies as ultimately responsible for
Abu Ghraib?
Do you think SD is an appropriate tool for the analysis of this aspect of
our society?
I would greatly appreciate knowing the reactions of other SDers to Zimbardo's ideas and how they might apply to our larger social systems.
Best Wishes,
--Tom
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 02:01:39 -0400 _______________________________________________
-
Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
Hi John,
I'm not quite so sour on politics in general, but I really do think there's something wrong with the system.
My current thinking goes something like this:
1. US elections basically use a plurality vote in which each ballot is
marked for only one of the running candidates, and the person with
the most votes at the end wins. (This isn't what we first had in the
constitution before amendment and it's far from the only possible
ballot method.)
2. In a plurality election, the total number of ballots does not matter.
The only thing that matters is which candidate is ahead of all the
others.
3. As a consequence of (2) any tactic that improves the relative
position of one candidate over any others is effective. In
particular this can include negative campaigns (which tend to reduce
the total number of votes cast) when the campaign hurts an opponent
more than it does the ""mud slinging"" candidate.
4. All candidates start off thinking/hoping they can do a good job in
the office. (This is something I am holding as an axiom, although it
should be noted that any individual's definition of ""good job"" is
highly variable.)
5. Naive candidates may start out stating their position on issues
independent of what the voters want. More sophisticated candidates
will try to avoid stating any positions in order to provide less of a
target for negative campaigns. (A negative campaign can be directed
at any identifiable position. As an example consider John Kerry
vs. George W. Bush on the topic of their respective war records.
Truth is one of the first casualties in a negative campaign.)
6. Also as a result of the effectiveness of negative campaigns, the only
candidates who can survive in a plurality election tend to be those
with enough of a war chest to counter negative ads.
7. The defense against negative campaigns is to limit the information
about a candidate to ""the message"", which is as amorphous as possible
to avoid offending any group. Thus very little of substance is
discussed during a campaign.
8. A long term effect of repeated negative campaigns is depressed voter
turn-out. This increases the relative strength of sub-groups with
clearly identified and articulated interests, and increase the
importance of otherwise relatively minor issues.
9. One of the reasons to start a ""third-party"" candidacy is to bring in
information or raise awareness of issues that are not being
addressed. However in a plurality election, any votes cast for the
third party candidate will come from the two major parties, and will
most likely come from the major party that is most sympathetic to the
third party position. This is the ""spoiler"" effect, and is a strong
deterrent of third parties.
The net effect of all this over several campaign cycles is low voter turn out, vacuous campaign messages, distrust of elected officials, and a reduction of discourse in the general population. Moreover:
10. Since there is little chance for a third party to get a message out
about an unaddressed issue, candidates quite rationally think they
need to be elected in order to make a difference. If they are
elected, they can ""clean things up"", ""make things better"", ""fix the
system from within"", etc. This sets up a situation where a candidate
might be willing to compromise on less critical issues in order to
win the election and make progress on their major goals.
11. When a candidate is focused on their main objectives, but is not
aware of all the complex ramifications of the larger system, they can
get caught in the situation where they have promised something minor
in order to gain support (votes, funds or endorsements) and only
later realize (or never realize) this minor point is in conflict with
their main goals.
12. The need for campaign funds makes candidates particularly susceptible
to the influence of big business or wealthy individuals and groups.
(When Bill Gates was called to testify before a congressional
committee, he was flanked by both senators from Washington; one
Democrat, one Republican.) The wealthy don't even have to articulate
their needs. They can support all candidates equally, and then each
candidate will need to avoid offending the wealthy because if they
ever do, they'll lose a good chunk of their campaign funds.
The net effect here is big money in campaigns and elected officials who need to start fund-raising for the next campaign the moment they take office. This leads not only to vacuous campaigns but also vacuous government, because officials are too busy raising money to actually do their jobs.
(To some extent, this later point may not be a bad thing if you assume the elected officials are inherently unqualified for their positions. However I think there is a real need for government in order to address issues that transcend individuals and sub-groups. It's often better for a government to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, but it's sometimes necessary for it to do the right thing.)
With low voter turn-out, vacuous or negative campaigns, and lots of money in politics, there are a few other things that come into play.
13. There still needs to be someone to vote for the candidates, so who is
left after all these effects are taken into account? Clearly it will
be people who will respond to simple, sound-bite messages, or people
who have an agenda that the candidates are addressing. Another group
will be those who are fearful of ""the greater evil"" and will
therefore vote for ""the lesser evil"".
14. Candidates needs to have core support, and this is particularly
critical if they are going to run a negative campaign. One of the
basic strategies in negative campaigning is to divide the supporters
of your opponent. Over time, this means the core support groups will
tend to be ones that are considered indivisible. Examples in US
politics are the fundamentalist Christians on the right and gay
rights or abortion activists on the left.
15. The need to maintain core support prevents candidates from addressing
issues that might divide their support, even if those issues are
important. Re-thinking a potentially divisive issue can not be done
unless there is a major venue for substantive debate and discussion.
Now all that is a quick and rough summary of the current system. I don't recall if it goes back 200 years, but it does go back to the amendments passed after a particular election. In our original voting system, the states would vote for two candidates, each candidate's votes would be tallied and the candidate with the most votes would become president. The candidate who came in second in the presidential election would become vice-president. The constitution explicitly stated that if more than one candidate got more than half the votes, the one with the most votes over all would become president.
The Jefferson/Burr ticket changed all that. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were part of the same party and ran a joint campaign with the idea that Jefferson would win the presidency and Burr would come in second, thus helping to stabilize government in the event of a death in office. The problem was their campaign was uniformly successful and they both got the same number of electoral votes. It had been the intent of the campaign that Jefferson would be president, but there was no way under the constitution to break the tie. This crisis triggered the changes in how we vote and formalized the party system.
Elections before that time weren't necessarily clean or positive, but they did seem to have a bit more substance to them.
This has gotten much longer than I intended, but the main thing I'd like to introduce after laying out the current structure is the idea of approval voting as a replacement for our current plurality voting.
The idea of approval voting is rather simple. We take the same ballot we have now and simply vote for as many candidates as we like. In essence, we have a plebiscite on each candidate. The winner is the candidate with the most votes. The major difference between this and plurality voting is that a vote any candidate has no effect whatsoever on the vote totals of the other candidates. In theory, we could have an election where each of a dozen candidates received 100% of the vote.
What is key here is how this would change the structure of the surrounding
system:
1. Since each candidate is running individually, they would need to
earn votes by providing reasons for the voters to vote for them.
2. More fringe candidates would remain in the race because they would
not be taking votes away from ""major"" candidates.
3. Negative campaigns would be less effective because they would have
to attack more than one target and the voters won't necessarily
reward the ""mud slingers"".
4. Third party or fringe candidates can articulate new issues that
major parties would otherwise avoid. If they play well, one or both
of the major parties could adopt positions on that issue, leading to
more gradual / less catastrophic changes in party positions.
5. Candidates would no longer need to be elected in order to have an
effect on policy, thus promoting positive and informative campaigns.
6. Less negative campaigning would reduce the necessity of a large war
chest, and thus reduce the effect of money in politics.
7. Candidates would not have to compromise to get elected. If their
position is strong, it can be adopted.
8. Pre-election polls would be more informative, allowing candidates
(and parties) to get direct feedback from the voters about their
real concerns.
9. Positive campaigns would need to unite people instead of divide
them, leading to exploration of ""win-win"" or ""multi-win"" strategies,
and more systemic thinking.
10. Clone candidates (those with very similar or identical positions)
would be encouraged, causing there to be more candidates agreeing on
major issues and possibly only incremental differences.
11. A candidate that had 51% of the vote could be beaten by a candidate
with 70% of the vote. We could even have a candidate with 90% of
the vote lose because there was a candidate with 95% of the vote.
This would only happen if we had an informed voting population that
was able to understand and agree on what was right for everyone.
Part of my thinking in this is that it may not matter who the elected official is. According to Zimbardo, 90% of the time our actions are situationally determined. If the rosy scenario I painted for approval voting is actually possible, we might have a government that is more amenable to reason and that does not ignore ""inconvenient truths"" or other important issues.
There's a bunch of other stuff that I haven't clearly articulated regarding the role of the press and how this ""minor adjustment"" to the system might bring about dramatic social change, but I'm now well over the length of a reasonable email.
For those of you who have read all the way to here, my thanks for sticking with me for so long. Please let me know what you think and where you see any flaws, inconsistencies, or lack of clarity. My hope is that I'm either on the right track in my thinking or that together we can find the right track. My big hope for SD is to find the key leverage point (or points) that will let us turn our system around and get it moving in a more sustainable fashion. I think this might be one of the points, but I'd really like to know what other, more experienced SDers think about this.
Best Wishes,
--Tom
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 22:56:26 -0400 _______________________________________________
Hi John,
I'm not quite so sour on politics in general, but I really do think there's something wrong with the system.
My current thinking goes something like this:
1. US elections basically use a plurality vote in which each ballot is
marked for only one of the running candidates, and the person with
the most votes at the end wins. (This isn't what we first had in the
constitution before amendment and it's far from the only possible
ballot method.)
2. In a plurality election, the total number of ballots does not matter.
The only thing that matters is which candidate is ahead of all the
others.
3. As a consequence of (2) any tactic that improves the relative
position of one candidate over any others is effective. In
particular this can include negative campaigns (which tend to reduce
the total number of votes cast) when the campaign hurts an opponent
more than it does the ""mud slinging"" candidate.
4. All candidates start off thinking/hoping they can do a good job in
the office. (This is something I am holding as an axiom, although it
should be noted that any individual's definition of ""good job"" is
highly variable.)
5. Naive candidates may start out stating their position on issues
independent of what the voters want. More sophisticated candidates
will try to avoid stating any positions in order to provide less of a
target for negative campaigns. (A negative campaign can be directed
at any identifiable position. As an example consider John Kerry
vs. George W. Bush on the topic of their respective war records.
Truth is one of the first casualties in a negative campaign.)
6. Also as a result of the effectiveness of negative campaigns, the only
candidates who can survive in a plurality election tend to be those
with enough of a war chest to counter negative ads.
7. The defense against negative campaigns is to limit the information
about a candidate to ""the message"", which is as amorphous as possible
to avoid offending any group. Thus very little of substance is
discussed during a campaign.
8. A long term effect of repeated negative campaigns is depressed voter
turn-out. This increases the relative strength of sub-groups with
clearly identified and articulated interests, and increase the
importance of otherwise relatively minor issues.
9. One of the reasons to start a ""third-party"" candidacy is to bring in
information or raise awareness of issues that are not being
addressed. However in a plurality election, any votes cast for the
third party candidate will come from the two major parties, and will
most likely come from the major party that is most sympathetic to the
third party position. This is the ""spoiler"" effect, and is a strong
deterrent of third parties.
The net effect of all this over several campaign cycles is low voter turn out, vacuous campaign messages, distrust of elected officials, and a reduction of discourse in the general population. Moreover:
10. Since there is little chance for a third party to get a message out
about an unaddressed issue, candidates quite rationally think they
need to be elected in order to make a difference. If they are
elected, they can ""clean things up"", ""make things better"", ""fix the
system from within"", etc. This sets up a situation where a candidate
might be willing to compromise on less critical issues in order to
win the election and make progress on their major goals.
11. When a candidate is focused on their main objectives, but is not
aware of all the complex ramifications of the larger system, they can
get caught in the situation where they have promised something minor
in order to gain support (votes, funds or endorsements) and only
later realize (or never realize) this minor point is in conflict with
their main goals.
12. The need for campaign funds makes candidates particularly susceptible
to the influence of big business or wealthy individuals and groups.
(When Bill Gates was called to testify before a congressional
committee, he was flanked by both senators from Washington; one
Democrat, one Republican.) The wealthy don't even have to articulate
their needs. They can support all candidates equally, and then each
candidate will need to avoid offending the wealthy because if they
ever do, they'll lose a good chunk of their campaign funds.
The net effect here is big money in campaigns and elected officials who need to start fund-raising for the next campaign the moment they take office. This leads not only to vacuous campaigns but also vacuous government, because officials are too busy raising money to actually do their jobs.
(To some extent, this later point may not be a bad thing if you assume the elected officials are inherently unqualified for their positions. However I think there is a real need for government in order to address issues that transcend individuals and sub-groups. It's often better for a government to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, but it's sometimes necessary for it to do the right thing.)
With low voter turn-out, vacuous or negative campaigns, and lots of money in politics, there are a few other things that come into play.
13. There still needs to be someone to vote for the candidates, so who is
left after all these effects are taken into account? Clearly it will
be people who will respond to simple, sound-bite messages, or people
who have an agenda that the candidates are addressing. Another group
will be those who are fearful of ""the greater evil"" and will
therefore vote for ""the lesser evil"".
14. Candidates needs to have core support, and this is particularly
critical if they are going to run a negative campaign. One of the
basic strategies in negative campaigning is to divide the supporters
of your opponent. Over time, this means the core support groups will
tend to be ones that are considered indivisible. Examples in US
politics are the fundamentalist Christians on the right and gay
rights or abortion activists on the left.
15. The need to maintain core support prevents candidates from addressing
issues that might divide their support, even if those issues are
important. Re-thinking a potentially divisive issue can not be done
unless there is a major venue for substantive debate and discussion.
Now all that is a quick and rough summary of the current system. I don't recall if it goes back 200 years, but it does go back to the amendments passed after a particular election. In our original voting system, the states would vote for two candidates, each candidate's votes would be tallied and the candidate with the most votes would become president. The candidate who came in second in the presidential election would become vice-president. The constitution explicitly stated that if more than one candidate got more than half the votes, the one with the most votes over all would become president.
The Jefferson/Burr ticket changed all that. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were part of the same party and ran a joint campaign with the idea that Jefferson would win the presidency and Burr would come in second, thus helping to stabilize government in the event of a death in office. The problem was their campaign was uniformly successful and they both got the same number of electoral votes. It had been the intent of the campaign that Jefferson would be president, but there was no way under the constitution to break the tie. This crisis triggered the changes in how we vote and formalized the party system.
Elections before that time weren't necessarily clean or positive, but they did seem to have a bit more substance to them.
This has gotten much longer than I intended, but the main thing I'd like to introduce after laying out the current structure is the idea of approval voting as a replacement for our current plurality voting.
The idea of approval voting is rather simple. We take the same ballot we have now and simply vote for as many candidates as we like. In essence, we have a plebiscite on each candidate. The winner is the candidate with the most votes. The major difference between this and plurality voting is that a vote any candidate has no effect whatsoever on the vote totals of the other candidates. In theory, we could have an election where each of a dozen candidates received 100% of the vote.
What is key here is how this would change the structure of the surrounding
system:
1. Since each candidate is running individually, they would need to
earn votes by providing reasons for the voters to vote for them.
2. More fringe candidates would remain in the race because they would
not be taking votes away from ""major"" candidates.
3. Negative campaigns would be less effective because they would have
to attack more than one target and the voters won't necessarily
reward the ""mud slingers"".
4. Third party or fringe candidates can articulate new issues that
major parties would otherwise avoid. If they play well, one or both
of the major parties could adopt positions on that issue, leading to
more gradual / less catastrophic changes in party positions.
5. Candidates would no longer need to be elected in order to have an
effect on policy, thus promoting positive and informative campaigns.
6. Less negative campaigning would reduce the necessity of a large war
chest, and thus reduce the effect of money in politics.
7. Candidates would not have to compromise to get elected. If their
position is strong, it can be adopted.
8. Pre-election polls would be more informative, allowing candidates
(and parties) to get direct feedback from the voters about their
real concerns.
9. Positive campaigns would need to unite people instead of divide
them, leading to exploration of ""win-win"" or ""multi-win"" strategies,
and more systemic thinking.
10. Clone candidates (those with very similar or identical positions)
would be encouraged, causing there to be more candidates agreeing on
major issues and possibly only incremental differences.
11. A candidate that had 51% of the vote could be beaten by a candidate
with 70% of the vote. We could even have a candidate with 90% of
the vote lose because there was a candidate with 95% of the vote.
This would only happen if we had an informed voting population that
was able to understand and agree on what was right for everyone.
Part of my thinking in this is that it may not matter who the elected official is. According to Zimbardo, 90% of the time our actions are situationally determined. If the rosy scenario I painted for approval voting is actually possible, we might have a government that is more amenable to reason and that does not ignore ""inconvenient truths"" or other important issues.
There's a bunch of other stuff that I haven't clearly articulated regarding the role of the press and how this ""minor adjustment"" to the system might bring about dramatic social change, but I'm now well over the length of a reasonable email.
For those of you who have read all the way to here, my thanks for sticking with me for so long. Please let me know what you think and where you see any flaws, inconsistencies, or lack of clarity. My hope is that I'm either on the right track in my thinking or that together we can find the right track. My big hope for SD is to find the key leverage point (or points) that will let us turn our system around and get it moving in a more sustainable fashion. I think this might be one of the points, but I'd really like to know what other, more experienced SDers think about this.
Best Wishes,
--Tom
Posted by Tom Cavin <cavin@MIT.EDU>
posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 22:56:26 -0400 _______________________________________________
-
""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sp
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Tom Cavin asks:
Do you think Philip Zimbardo is correct in attributing 90% of our
behavior to the situations we are in?
Do you think Philip Zimbardo's arguments could be applied to the
behavior of the four people he identifies as ultimately responsible for
Abu Ghraib?
Do you think SD is an appropriate tool for the analysis of this aspect of
our society?
To which I reply: yes, yes, yes, and yes.
However, I think the answers one would get from applying Zimbardo's arguments to the behavior of the four people he identifies might be
profoundly disturbing. Here's an untested hypothesis about that:
Hyp 1: Anyone who chooses to run for, and is elected to, high public office in the U.S.A. is ethically unsuited for the job.
[I'm not sure how far back this hypothesis might be valid, but it's possible its validity goes back almost 200 years!]
I know that my short fling with state-level politics 20 years ago soured me forever on the field; I didn't want to do what it took to be a member of that club and didn't want to be associated with the kind of people who prospered in it (and still don't).
I think that what we require so that a person is ""electable"" makes them unfit to govern.
If anyone actually takes on this analysis, I would suggest s/he look at the requirements our society places on people in order for them to be electable.
John
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 17:01:15 -0400 _______________________________________________
Tom Cavin asks:
Do you think Philip Zimbardo is correct in attributing 90% of our
behavior to the situations we are in?
Do you think Philip Zimbardo's arguments could be applied to the
behavior of the four people he identifies as ultimately responsible for
Abu Ghraib?
Do you think SD is an appropriate tool for the analysis of this aspect of
our society?
To which I reply: yes, yes, yes, and yes.
However, I think the answers one would get from applying Zimbardo's arguments to the behavior of the four people he identifies might be
profoundly disturbing. Here's an untested hypothesis about that:
Hyp 1: Anyone who chooses to run for, and is elected to, high public office in the U.S.A. is ethically unsuited for the job.
[I'm not sure how far back this hypothesis might be valid, but it's possible its validity goes back almost 200 years!]
I know that my short fling with state-level politics 20 years ago soured me forever on the field; I didn't want to do what it took to be a member of that club and didn't want to be associated with the kind of people who prospered in it (and still don't).
I think that what we require so that a person is ""electable"" makes them unfit to govern.
If anyone actually takes on this analysis, I would suggest s/he look at the requirements our society places on people in order for them to be electable.
John
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> posting date Thu, 17 May 2007 17:01:15 -0400 _______________________________________________
-
""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@att
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by ""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@att.net>
John Gunkler assets that anyone who runs for high public office and is elected is ethically unsuited for the job.
Clearly that's a provocative statement (but I kind of like it). It also seems to me that there are a couple of stocks and some as yet unidentified flows lurking in there.
One stock might be called ""electability"" and other might be called ""fitness to govern."" Also lurking in there is an inverse relationship between the two.
I wonder, John, what might the flows look like? Have you done a stocks-and-flows analysis of your hypothesis? I'd love to see it.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Posted by ""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@att.net> posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 11:23:29 -0400 _______________________________________________
John Gunkler assets that anyone who runs for high public office and is elected is ethically unsuited for the job.
Clearly that's a provocative statement (but I kind of like it). It also seems to me that there are a couple of stocks and some as yet unidentified flows lurking in there.
One stock might be called ""electability"" and other might be called ""fitness to govern."" Also lurking in there is an inverse relationship between the two.
I wonder, John, what might the flows look like? Have you done a stocks-and-flows analysis of your hypothesis? I'd love to see it.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Posted by ""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@att.net> posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 11:23:29 -0400 _______________________________________________
-
Khalid Saeed <saeed@wpi.edu&g
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by Khalid Saeed <saeed@WPI.EDU>
Barry Richmond built a simple and elegant model of Zimbardo's experiment and programmed it also as a story. I suggest contacting isee systems for a copy.
Khalid
Posted by Khalid Saeed <saeed@WPI.EDU>
posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 12:00:08 -0400 _______________________________________________
Barry Richmond built a simple and elegant model of Zimbardo's experiment and programmed it also as a story. I suggest contacting isee systems for a copy.
Khalid
Posted by Khalid Saeed <saeed@WPI.EDU>
posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 12:00:08 -0400 _______________________________________________
-
Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
ANNOUNCE Zimbardo lecture
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu>
Tom Cavin's lengthy missive was interesting, but also disappointing that the description could not be provided without promoting a specific partisan view, i.e., ""... we might have a government that is more amenable to reason and that does not ignore ""inconvenient truths"" or other important issues."" The reference to Gore's global warming ""inconvenient truth"" is obvious, and our government, were it more ""amenable to reason"" would not ignore this ""important issue.""
The USA has a great but certainly not perfect system. Negative campaigns have by no means deterred me or my family and friends from voting and otherwise participating in the process. The electorate generally get the candidates and elected representatives they deserve. People just have to wise up and get active if they want different results. The leverage point is active involvement by citizens (all of us!).
Point 13 is appallingly cynical, if I understand it. Because I vote, I am one of those ""... who is left after all these effects are taken into account."" So I am one who will respond to simple, sound-bite messages, or I have an agenda that the candidates are addressing. Or I am one of those who are fearful of ""the greater evil"" and will therefore vote for ""the lesser evil"".
I personally do not believe approval voting will ever become our practice, but if it did, I expect that change would induce politicians to figure out ways to game that system just as much as they do with the present system. Politicians are people, with all the imperfection and faults of people. To suggest that we need to ""turn our system around and get it moving in a more sustainable fashion"" is a lamentable characterization of our political system. Having traveled all over the world and watched the politics in many nations I would paraphrase an aphorism, that our Republican form of government represents the worst in the world, except for all the rest.
Best regards,
Carl
Carl E. Betterton, Ph.D., P.E
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu> posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 21:00:34 -0400 _______________________________________________
Tom Cavin's lengthy missive was interesting, but also disappointing that the description could not be provided without promoting a specific partisan view, i.e., ""... we might have a government that is more amenable to reason and that does not ignore ""inconvenient truths"" or other important issues."" The reference to Gore's global warming ""inconvenient truth"" is obvious, and our government, were it more ""amenable to reason"" would not ignore this ""important issue.""
The USA has a great but certainly not perfect system. Negative campaigns have by no means deterred me or my family and friends from voting and otherwise participating in the process. The electorate generally get the candidates and elected representatives they deserve. People just have to wise up and get active if they want different results. The leverage point is active involvement by citizens (all of us!).
Point 13 is appallingly cynical, if I understand it. Because I vote, I am one of those ""... who is left after all these effects are taken into account."" So I am one who will respond to simple, sound-bite messages, or I have an agenda that the candidates are addressing. Or I am one of those who are fearful of ""the greater evil"" and will therefore vote for ""the lesser evil"".
I personally do not believe approval voting will ever become our practice, but if it did, I expect that change would induce politicians to figure out ways to game that system just as much as they do with the present system. Politicians are people, with all the imperfection and faults of people. To suggest that we need to ""turn our system around and get it moving in a more sustainable fashion"" is a lamentable characterization of our political system. Having traveled all over the world and watched the politics in many nations I would paraphrase an aphorism, that our Republican form of government represents the worst in the world, except for all the rest.
Best regards,
Carl
Carl E. Betterton, Ph.D., P.E
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu> posting date Fri, 18 May 2007 21:00:34 -0400 _______________________________________________