Part of coursework. It came across as somewhat rationalizing what really is unacceptable behavior whether by groups or the individuals within. The theory seems to rest largely on the phenomena of groupthink or mob mentality as a possible cause of abusive/inhumane acts within structured environments; in my opinion. The Stanford Prison Experiment seems to further develop upon what was demonstrated in Asch Conformity Exp. and Milgram experiments. The nature/nurture argument continues to be up for debate in society as a whole, I think it may help explore that topic with some objectivity. The Stanford Prison Experiment does shed some light on what may possibly influence people to commit possibly unthinkable acts outside generally acceptable cultural and social norms (cruelty). There is a point as in Pavlov, Milgram, and Stanford Prison experiment(s) where ethical boundaries are blurred in the name of greater understanding of human behavior and that may be open for debate in this case as well as it was stopped. I bought this one used, and was from a 2007 printing, there were references and a few chapters updated to reflect and analyze current events. I assume the newest edition may be edited and updated beyond as well.

A book everyone must read. Let me rephrase- a study every educated person should know about in some detail .Of all the things that have been written about this study, the one I find the most intriguing is that the vast majority of the volunteers hoped to be assigned the "prisoner role". The guard and the prisoner roles were randomly assigned, during an era when many young people had lifestyles and ideals for which they could conceivably be arrested. As such, a number of volunteers voiced the opinion that "the experiment" would be good practice for them, if they were ever incarcerated, to learn to be strong and conduct themselves with integrity.
What really happened, and how quickly the veneer of civilization wore off as soon as "guard" roles were designated is chilling, but well worth reading.

Here's how to attempt to avoid going along for the ride. Far reaching, motivating and well worth more than one read. I'm taking this one slowly because while the writing is great the subject matter is challenging and thought provoking. I'll be going back to this one again and again. Thanks Dr.Zimbardo for your lifetime of work and thought on this theme.

Excellent exploration of good and evil, especially for those who cannot imagine they could ever do something generally seen as "evil." This book provides historical and multicultural evidence that that masses can generally be persuaded with ideology, language, and crisis to join in unbelievable crimes against humanity.

Perhaps more importantly though, this book explores the structures, attitudes, mechanisms, and loci of power which encourage people to forget their higher selves and commit a wide range of atrocities. By utilizing that knowledge you can begin to disarm systems such as schools, law enforcement, and corporate mentalities that lead to the abuse abd murder of other human begins in the name of what is "right."

This book serves as an excellent jumping board to explore our own mental colonization.

The basic argument here is that the problem occurs as a consequence of the situation and a power imbalance. Though, indeed a negative situation is not conducive to "goodness" and power imbalances can lead to abuses, Zimbardo, like other psychologists are as delusional as the Dalai Lama. They are arguing on the surface and not accounting for differences in the population. Who is more likely to take advantage of the situation? Who is more likely to abuse their power? Who is the target?

All of these experiments are also done using "prototypes". I would like to see Zimbardo and other psychologists make the Bloods and the Crips get along. Maybe they can bring together some psychopaths to gather around a campfire with a teenage girl. Regardless of the situation, "evil minds" will find creative ways to commit acts that are made to seem innocuous of any crime. Recently, NYC has been running ads that "It's Not Just A Joke, It's Sexual Harassment". That which is inconvenient becomes subverted.

In my opinion, psychologists should be advocates for a systematic "branding and branding" of people, yet their optimism allows psychopaths, sadists, masochists, and sociopaths to move about freely and hide behind statuses. Psychologists have no idea about what they are talking about because everything they speak is a generalization or some "peer reviewed" nonsense that means nothing.

The problem with this field is that it has no overarching theory to make sense of anything. You have many divisions and all at war with each other. What psychologists don't understand is that our "psychology" is a result of an evolution against "human predators". We are evolving away from "mental illness". "Mental illness" is a result of the conflicts between persons, groups, and the struggle for existence. "Mental illness" appears on a decline, and regardless of the "diagnoses", the problem is not the "diagnoses", which is only a "symptom" caused by the "actual problem".

Though, Zimbardo's work may be of significance, his approach is wrong because his outlook is absurd as a consequence of him not having any direction. Psychology operates on a false paradigm. I would even go so far as to say that psychologists think that the mind is detached from the body, even if they say the opposite, their work may reveal otherwise because they would be bend to the consensus to avoid alienating anyone. Psychology is a very dangerous science which should reveal that the world is actually an "insane asylum", hence why psychiatrists need to take into account "cultural and historical relativism" when making a diagnoses.

I suspect that regardless of the situation, people who feel connected to each other will not cause the situation to devolve. Regardless of power imbalances, people who feel connected with each other will work together. If you add a Milgram experiment on top of the Standford Prison experiment, people who feel connected with each other should find ways to outsmart Milgram and escape the Standford Prison. "Connection" can be social, and situational, but at it's core, it needs to be "existential".

Does anyone else think that Zimbardo looks like "Lucifer"? Why did his girlfriend have to intervene to stop the experiment. The "objective psychologist" became delusional about his own experiment and was facilitating a situation that would have otherwise caused harm. He was a bystander, enjoying abuses by 1 group against another. As he has aged, he has become numb to empathizing with the suffering of others. His girlfriend proves that women would be more cued into empathize, but the qualifier is that I cannot generalize about all women.

I suspect that Zimbardo's girlfriend was of a certain type, as some people would enjoy the suffering of others as it would de-emphasize their own distaste for themselves. Here's an example of why generalizing cannot work: in times of tragedy, you may value your life more, or you could be thankful that tragedy did not befell you. This creates a dichotomy of perception. People on the positive side of the scale would value their life more, but people on the negative would be thankful that it was not them. The latter is lacks empathy for the subjects tragedy and should reveal a sinister psychology. Regardless, you can make a scale that can rate people as to what degree they adhere to either, and figure out if it is "conditional or situational; long-term or short-term".

I just demonstrated how you can "brand and grade" people. This however would be thought of as inhumane, so the "great and wise" Dalai Lama should be deferred to. Regardless, of psychologists denying this, their work is bending toward the ideals of designated "wise men" of the world. In psych wards, the population is not divided and individuals quarantined, and just like in society, all the crazies are moving toward you. The Dalai Lama wants us to have "compassion" and the psychologists can't systematically "distinguish" anyone because that would be "discrimination".

Give the crazies freedom, and have tolerance because "we all make mistakes". It's the situation that causes "bad things". When the news reports on the latest rape victim, don't say that I didn't warn you.