Punishment, Fear of Parents, & Stanford Prison Experiment

[jackfaire]

So I disagree with the conclusions reached by the Stanford Prison Experiment that "everyone will abuse power and become corrupt"

For one the experimenter often glosses over the fact that one of the "Guards" didn't like the treatment of the prisoners didn't participate in it and in fact requested he be switched to a prisoner because he felt bad at how they were being treated and didn't want to be a guard anymore.

I recently got into an argument with a friend that a child should fear their parents and the consequences (to themselves) of violating the rules.

My stance was that rather than teach the child "Break this rule and I will punish you"

teach the child how their breaking that rule can and does hurt others. "If you shoplift the prices go up for everyone and then your friend Billy won't be able to afford candy" Appeal to a child's developing sense of compassion and empathy.

I use myself as an example. When my parents punished me for shoplifting I just got better at not getting caught. If I wasn't caught I couldn't be punished and thus I was doing nothing wrong.

However when I found out that a local store was closing I innocently asked why. It turned out that shoplifting at that store was so rampant that they just couldn't afford to stay in business so cut their losses. This was the first time I had been exposed to the idea that my actions were actively hurting others.

I had friends that would never touch drugs and alcohol...until they moved out then they would go way overboard no longer having that fear of parents to keep them from indulging to excess.

I think that Guard should be the true findings of the experiment. It's not that power corrupts. It's that we don't raise our children to understand how their actions affect others. We just raise them to know "I'll hurt you if I catch you"

My daughter has never had fear used to teach her rules and proper behavior. Instead she was taught why to follow the rules. She internalized this so well that at times over the years she's pointed out when I was doing the wrong thing.

See I didn't have a reason to not do the wrong thing. I had fear. Remove the fear and it's easy to do the wrong thing because why shouldn't I.

Knowing something will negatively affect other people though? Stops me every time.

[Canarr]

I agree with you on the point that it is better to teach how actions have consequences than rely on the fear of punishment - as soon as the culprit believes he isn't going to get caught, there is no fear anymore.

However, my interpretation of the Standford experiment isn't that "every single human with power will abuse it", but rather, "whereever people have power over other people, there will be abuse".

[jackfaire]

Originally Posted by Canarr

However, my interpretation of the Standford experiment isn't that "every single human with power will abuse it", but rather, "whereever people have power over other people, there will be abuse".

Fair but again I point to that guard as my reasoning that it's not actually true if the person with power understands compassion and empathy.

The experimenter himself stated that he feels "it's not that a bad apple spoils the bunch it's that deep down we're all bad apples" paraphrasing. Basically he was saying that any one of us in that position with little to no oversight would absolutely abuse our power.

[Canarr]

You are right; there certainly are people in power with compassion and empathy... but didn't the guard that you are citing as an example relinquish the power he was given, and ask to be switched to the prisoners? Why would he do that, if he were certain that he would *not* abuse his power?

[jackfaire]

Originally Posted by Canarr

Why would he do that, if he were certain that he would *not* abuse his power?

Because during the time he was a guard he was ashamed of himself for not actively stopping those that did. Psychologically he was punishing himself for the failings of others that he accepted blame for. It's not that he was sure he wouldn't. It's simply that he didn't. During the time he was a guard the other guards abused their power. Per the notes of the study he did not. Not that he thought he wouldn't but that he didn't.

The conclusion that what kept him from it is compassion and empathy are my conclusions based on the presentation of the case study. I read a book published by the researcher and he presented that part as it happened. I reached the conclusion that the only difference between the guard that regretted not stopping the abuse and those that abused is that he expressed concern for others.

This due to his continually referring to them in humanizing terms. Meanwhile his fellow guards ignored the well being of others.

[Canarr]

Well... yeah. De-humanizing other people is one of the classic precursors to most kinds of abuse. "Yes, we should treat other people the way we want to be treated; but THEY aren't really people!"

Any kind of oppression, exploitation or genocide in histroy has had some kind of dehumanization go before it. The treatment of Native or Black people in the US, Jews in Nazi Germany, Armenians in Turkey... the concept behind it is the same. You claim someone is bad, or worthless, or trash, or the enemy because reason X - and then you can excuse anything you do to them, because they deserve it.