View Message

<  >
Subject: Re: *Like
Author: Petra   (Authenticated as curiouslystrong)
Date: January 28, 2013 at 1:56:54 PM
Reply to: Re: *Like by Norah
Ah, okay. I still don't really see Zimbardo's study as a good vehicle for looking at nature/nurture in and of itself, though in the context of the Abu Grhaib torture it does provide evidence for a situational explanation of what happened. At Stanford, though, the roles of "prisoner" and "guard" were randomly selected, and the participants selected were those who Zimbardo and his team considered to be the most psychologically stable. Zimbardo's study was controlled; Abu Grhaib wasn't. That makes it difficult, imo, to compare the two. Plus, it's not as if you had across-the-board sadism from all the "guards" in the Zimbardo experiment (I think Zimbardo said that about 1/3 of the guards displayed genuine sadistic behavior), and not all the Abu Grhaib guards behaved in exactly the same manner, either. So in that sense I guess you can look at that variance and ask - is it due to nature (i.e. disposition) or nurture? But in terms of the big picture, I don't know, it seems kind of like apples and oranges to me. And if anyone's trying to explain that kind of behavior away as the perpetrators just being "bad apples," I think they're really simplifying things.

Has your class also looked at Milgram? Milgram is my favorite

Currently Loving:

G: Athena Laurel, Cyra Lenore, Daphne Cordelia, Junia Margot, Penelope Susanna, Theodora Ivy, Tullia Victorine
B: Arthur Lane, Blaise Prosper, Cormac Ulysses, Desmond Emrys, Ferdinand Atlas, Panos Dimitri, Robin Emeric

Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it.

Messages in this thread: