State vs aftermarket exhaust

[kpaske]

I suppose I was unclear, because that was my point. In many, MANY fewer words.

Well, the point of the whole experiment, or at least what I read in the links that WyrreJ posted, was to show that the behavior of the participants was dictated by the situation, and not some predisposition in the individual. If you believe the argument that they were behaving based on some preconceived notion of how they were expected to behave, it sort of invalidates the experiment. Personally I think it was probably a combination of the two effects, but I think there is still some validity to what Zimbardo was trying to prove.

[WyrreJ]

wyrrej: ZIMBARDO! THANK GOD!!! I tore my psyche books to shreds trying to find that. Thank you! Though I do think that is a bit deep for 3rd graders. You must have been a step above theothers for it to have made that big of a lasting impression on you, props!

No, not so deep, just a "formative experience" - it was about shaping the character of a young and impressionable mind, not analytical thinking. It's only in retrospect as an adult that I can describe some of the effects it had on my development.

[kpaske]

No, not so deep, just a "formative experience" - it was about shaping the character of a young and impressionable mind, not analytical thinking. It's only in retrospect as an adult that I can describe some of the effects it had on my development.

I'm not sure you ever really said how the experiment affected your young impressionable mind. Care to share?

[tbigity]

Well, the point of the whole experiment, or at least what I read in the links that WyrreJ posted, was to show that the behavior of the participants was dictated by the situation, and not some predisposition in the individual. If you believe the argument that they were behaving based on some preconceived notion of how they were expected to behave, it sort of invalidates the experiment. Personally I think it was probably a combination of the two effects, but I think there is still some validity to what Zimbardo was trying to prove.

True to an extent. However, if they were simply stuck in a situation and told "you are guards you are inmates", nothing would happen. They would mill about, bumping into each other "oh, hello inmate #2"..."yes, yes, how is every little thing guard #5."

Without preconceived behavioral patterns, they would not have known where to begin. The only thing the situation dictated was their label or class.

This is studied along with the freudian lessons...all about the subsconscious. Point being that even if you want to do something different, humans have an overwhelming tendancy to do what their subconscious tells them to do, IE all it knows to do based on experience either 1st person or 2nd hand. Thus predisposition is the main controlling factor in this case.

[WyrreJ]

I'm not sure you ever really said how the experiment affected your young impressionable mind. Care to share?

Mostly just a visceral version of the effects I described. It was a really surreal day (although I didn't even know that word back then) - if the people in authority (teachers) could arbitrarily define who was "good" and who was "bad" (especially the flip-flop during lunch) then those terms don't mean anything deep, just the likes and dislikes of the people in charge. And since all of us followed along in large part with barely any questioning, that just because "everybody else" thought something was good/right doesn't mean it was, may actually mean it wasn't.

For example, as a kid I never understood all those commercials on tv that would proudly proclaim their product as being the most popular or the highest selling, or most preferred brand of whatever product it was. Seemed to me that would be a prime reason to avoid the brand - or at best neutral.

In retrospect my experience during "blue collar day" was probably a big reason I saw things that way since I had experienced just how easily people (well kids, but they were regular people to me since I was a kid too) could be convinced en masse to believe and do whatever they were told.

I remember from the discussion after the collars came off that the teachers were interested in focusing on prejudice and ethnic discrimination and how arbitrary it was, we might have been talking about south africa in social studies at the time. In Hawaii (where I grew up) ethnic discrimination is a whole different kind of thing than it is here on the mainland - a lot more complex and definitely not "black & white" or even "brown & white" like it has become here on the mainland. So I'd already had enough experience on the short-end of the racial stick that the discrimination focus wasn't anything special - getting the crap beat out of me after school just for being haole had already taught me that particular lesson.

FWIW, I misspoke earlier, it was 4th grade, not 3rd.

[AREA 51]

Let the ex make it go away. You won't lose a work day and pay. If you wanted to go to court, the purpose should be to make the officer look like the dork he is, using a cross examination and line of questioning, but do you really want to do that and possibly cross his path again in the future?

With the ex's way, the officer might just be left wondering... wha happn'd??? and if you cross paths again, you can remind him of this.

[kpaske]

tbigity -

Psychology is a very complex "science", which often can't be studied using black & white "scientific" methods, which leads to many questions about the intention of and conclusions drawn by the experiment. Unfortunately I couldn't find a complete write up of Dr. Zimbardo's original experiment to determine exactly what his hypotheses were, but http://www.prisonexp.org has a pretty decent write up. It states:

What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?

So as I suspected, the experiment was intended to show what happens pyschologically when you put average, healthy, normal males into a typical "prison" scenario. While Zimbardo did give the participants some freedom to decide how to do their jobs, he clearly modeled much of the experiement on typical prison life.

The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. The guards made up their own set of rules, which they then carried into effect under the supervision of Warden David Jaffe, an undergraduate from Stanford University. They were warned, however, of the potential seriousness of their mission and of the possible dangers in the situation they were about to enter, as, of course, are real guards who voluntarily take such a dangerous job.

But they certainly weren't given a clean slate. The experimental prison was designed, by Zimbardo, to have many of the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of a real prison.

At 2:30 A.M. the prisoners were rudely awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many "counts." The counts served the purpose of familiarizing the prisoners with their numbers (counts took place several times each shift and often at night). But more importantly, these events provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners. At first, the prisoners were not completely into their roles and did not take the counts too seriously. They were still trying to assert their independence. The guards, too, were feeling out their new roles and were not yet sure how to assert authority over their prisoners. This was the beginning of a series of direct confrontations between the guards and prisoners.

Note that the guards were told that they must "assert authority" and "command respect" of the prisoners. How does one impose rules on those who are known to have previously broken the rules? I think that is a key question in this whole experiment. How ELSE could the guards and prisoners have behaved, given the situation that Zimbardo created?

After half a day of this treatment, the guards then took some of these "good" prisoners and put them into the "bad" cells, and took some of the "bad" prisoners and put them into the "good" cell, thoroughly confusing all the prisoners. Some of the prisoners who were the ringleaders now thought that the prisoners from the privileged cell must be informers, and suddenly, the prisoners became distrustful of each other. Our ex-convict consultants later informed us that a similar tactic is used by real guards in real prisons to break prisoner alliances. For example, racism is used to pit Blacks, Chicanos, and Anglos against each other. In fact, in a real prison the greatest threat to any prisoner's life comes from fellow prisoners. By dividing and conquering in this way, guards promote aggression among inmates, thereby deflecting it from themselves.

Which brings me back to my original point. Their behavior was dictated by the situation they were put in. They weren't told exactly how to do their role, but the roles were fairly clearly defined for them by Dr. Zimbardo (and not so much by preconceived ideas like I suggested previously and you seem to be supporting).

WyrreJ -

I think the experiment you participated in was actually much more telling than Zimbardo's. When you take a bunch of 4th graders who are still developing their own sense of "right and wrong", and tell them someone is "bad", they have much less of an ability to analyze the situation and will tend to react in the same way they would to other "bad" people without thinking about it. Unfortunately, I think even 4th graders have already started to develop some prejudices about who is "good" and "bad" (though notably less than the college students in the Zimbardo experiment). What is great about your experience is that the lesson was taught before the prejudices had become too "engrained", allowing the more thoughtful students to reflect on the situation and come to the same conclusions that you did.

I too had the good fortune of growing up as a discriminated minority for part of my formative years which has had a tremendous effect on how I view other people, especially those very different from myself. While the "discrimination" isn't necessarily a good thing, it's very healthy to be able to see a situation from multiple points of view.

[tbigity]

Which brings me back to my original point. Their behavior was dictated by the situation they were put in. They weren't told exactly how to do their role, but the roles were fairly clearly defined for them by Dr. Zimbardo (and not so much by preconceived ideas like I suggested previously and you seem to be supporting).

Well, I suppose then we are ill-equipped for the discussion at hand. Non of us being authorities on the matter. We took an in-depth study of this in one of my psychology classes and I am realting what the findings where in the "zimbardo kit". It was something my professor got her hands on...not sure of where, could have been zimbardo's group. In any event, the point made then, is the point that still makes the most sense to me: behavior is dictated by how you think it should be executed.

It was an experiment. Like any experiment, it had its controls and its variables. Being 4 years out of psychology, I suppose I forgot some of the finer points of their instruction from Zimbardo. But never were they told how to brutalize the inmates. As you read it no doubt you read how they got down right violent with them iirc.


My point is, I changed my major from psych and you are getting your information from an internet writeup...neither is really equipped to debate one of the most major psychological studies of our day. Especially when we are approaching the information no doubt trying to find evidence that supports our theories.

Like I said, I am not saying this is what it shows to me...I am saying this is what the professors said it was highlighting and all the evidence at the time pointed to the same conclusion.

[Ldub]

The exhaust system with zimbardo mufflers ??? is legal in which states again?

[tbigity]

DUDE! You havent heard the Zimbardo mufflers? NOOB! They cause much dissention and their loudness is largely dictated by the loudness that they think they should be based on previous muffler experience...or based on the loudness they are told to be, I suppose. In an event...

wormgod, you want your thread back? :

[JAFO]

Here is an example of a very subjective law:

Oregon Revised Statute:

815.025 Causing unreasonable noise with vehicle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of causing unreasonable noise with a vehicle if the person operates upon any highway any motor vehicle so as to cause any greater noise or sound than is reasonably necessary for the proper operation of the vehicle.

(2) The offense described in this section, causing unreasonable noise with a vehicle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §438; 1987 c.158 §171; 1995 c.383 §22]
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/815.html

[WormGod]

Passing gas in a public place is fairly unreasonable as well. Lock us all up.