2013 Prose Competition

Originally posted by Very Rusty
You're Sooooo full of yourself....Well full of something for sure! 😛

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
I predict a win for me in this competition. Rarely does such a work of genius find its way onto paper. Y'all might as well go back to watching Glee.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Tell me this one won't involve the clown with no pants on giving a speech to a group of
vertically challenged transvestites. That one creeped me out!! 😉

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Did I ever tell you about that time I got drunk on mai tai's, pissed on the sauna rocks and threw up pineapple chunks into the used towel basket? Good times.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Pre-school contributioin eh! 😛 😉 😉

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Go have a nap, if I want you I'll pull your chains.

BTW: Did you ever lose the tire around your waist? We know that goes more than 10...What is up to now....52?

I'm concerned about your health!

To those in superfluous flow with each other, here's my contribution!

Behaviour in a simulated ‘prison’ condition may be caused by individual’s personalities, singularly or grouped, by the environment itself or by both.

I. THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY:

a. Acting individually.

1. As a warden (WD)

• The only true directions given were with regard to ‘no physical abuse, permit of sexual relations’ and so forth (Craig Haney et al., 1973).
• The individuality soon gelled into collectivist action, I think, through ‘fear’ of the unknown, and not clearly knowing what was expected individually, or where realistic boundaries lay. As a result, I think few of us know our true capabilities of permitting ourselves to work without known boundaries, i.e. what are we really capable of when it comes to others and our abuse of them.
• As a ‘group’ working together in unison it was easier to assert control over the weaker group. “Once the guards had crushed the rebellion, "they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanization of the prisoners,” (Zimbardo, 2012).
• “I was surprised at myself. . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: 'I have to watch out for them in case they try something,'”(Guard M, 2004)

2. As a prisoner (PR)

• Each arriving PR was “systematically humiliated by being searched and stripped naked. He was then deloused with a spray, to convey our belief that he may have germs or lice” (Zimbardo, 2012).
• Participants had been previously informed of what to expect, however.
• They had signed contracts referencing living conditions to be expected, minimal belongings, and had been told to make themselves available on a particular Sunday.

3. As an observer (PO)

• The POs were excited at the proposition of receiving participators, and undertaking what they considered to be a controlled experiment, as it was initially.
• Initially, they acted in the realms of their true roles, but it became apparent that they lost that reality, during the course of events, and soon started to act as prison officials and not observers (Maslach, 1997).

b. Acting in grouped fashion.

1. As a warden

• It didn’t take long for grouped illusory correlations to start to occur within the WD group, once they believed they were not a group under observation. “Although it was clear to all subjects that the experimenters would not permit physical violence to take place, varieties of less direct aggressive behavior were observed frequently (especially on the part of guards)”, where as ‘PRs had adopted a passive approach’ (Haney et al., 1973).
• I believe the fact that the WDs started to act more aggressively suggested two traits. First, they were not culpable for the outcomes of their actions, as it was a known experiment; and second, they started to enjoy the ‘power of control’.

2. As a prisoner

• Having agreed to participant observation, the grounds were set for what was to become, despite emotions or not.
• Few of the prisoners displayed ‘group’ reaction, even though they had attempted it. Indeed, by day 2, five prisoners had to be released due to ‘gross’ reactions (Haney et al. 1973).
• These reactions were ‘individual’ and not grouped. Hence, the fear instilled at the outset certainly took its toll very quickly.
• The WDs certainly had ascertained their grouped power and control quickly, as could be observed by the psycho-somatic bodily reactions which occurred with some PRs.

3. As a psychological observer (PO)

• The grouped behavior of the POs seemed to be lacking in an organized manner, even to the point where I am sure there was not a well defined hypothesis, or set of measurement criteria.
• As ‘controllers’ of the ‘experiment’ it becomes apparent that the POs themselves were overtaken, beyond their initial expected participation roles, “That was what we should have done, of course, if we were acting like experimental social psychologists. Instead, we reacted with concern over the security of our prison” (Zimbardo 2012).


II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES:

a. As wardens

• "This man had been transformed. He was talking in a different accent ¬ a Southern accent, which I hadn't recalled at all. He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners. It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . It really took my breath away” (Maslach, 1997). It becomes apparent that for the wardens it was much more of an ‘acting’ role, than a fundamentally, serious experiment, and the environmental factors of being hidden permitted this change of character, especially regarding ‘John Wayne’.
• “Several prisoners engaged in a debate with John Wayne,” she said, “in which they accused him of enjoying his job.” Of course, he denied this, and yet there was never a warden absent or late for work! It seems that self-denial became a trait of many of the WDs, as was displayed in the psychological team until Maslach exposed their own depth of self-involvement. It seems the POs had started to lose their own understanding of what they had intended, and again I believe that is because of an ill-defined set of criteria.
• Maslach’s work has looked at "how people who are responsible for the care and treatment of others can come to view those they care for in object-like ways, leading them, in some cases, to behave in ways that are really insensitive, uncaring, brutal and dehumanizing,” (Maslach, 1997).

b. As prisoners

• Hence, it is clear that the environmental persuasions of the WDs had profound effects upon their actions upon the PRs.
• It is also clear that the PRs acted individually throughout most of the experiment, dealing, or trying to cope at least, on an individual basis with their ‘dehumanizing and insensitive’ treatment.
• As a result of the experiment becoming seemingly very one sided, coined to the WDs, it is hardly surprising that the PRs broke down and had multi-reactions to abusive treatment.

c. As observers

• It’s plain to see that the experiment got totally out of hand, uncontrolled and there was little retention left by the observers from professional psychologist’s points, as they became obsessed with the idea of ‘the prison itself.’
• The environment had led to fixations of control and power by the observation team when, in all rights, they were now not seeing the rights of the ‘participators’, but merely seeing them as real prisoners.

d. Final depletion of experiment.

• I believe the breakdown of the experiment was due both to the environmental influences and the individual manipulation.
• It is my perception that ‘John Wayne’ would have increasingly become more brutal and sadistic, and the controlled treatment of the PRs would have rapidly diminished, as the POs lost more insight into what it was they were intending to measure, especially Zimbardo himself. "He acknowledged what I was saying and realized what had happened to him and to other people in the study. At that point he decided to call the experiment to a halt," (Maslach, 1997).

References

Banks, Curtis; Haney, Craig; and Zimbardo, Philip.

“A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison”.

Glassman, W. E. and Hadad, M.

“Approaches to Psychology”, 5th Edition (2008).
Maslach, C.

“The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years” (Stanford News, 1997). http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html

O’Toole, K.

Stanford News, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, (1997).

Zimbardo, P. et al.

http://www.prisonexp.org

“The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison.” The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, pp. 38, ff. Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (1999).

“A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding How Good People Are Transformed into Perpetrators.”

“The Social Psychology of Good And Evil: Understanding our Capacity for Kindness and Cruelty” New York, 2004.

----------------------------

I don't need to copyright it - it's already recorded.

Now, for once, can you stop bickering??

-m. 😉

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

Originally posted by mikelom
52 was the correct answer in the choice between 1 and 100 for HoH.

Well done! Most people normal people say 57. 😉

-m.

Originally posted by tomtom232
If you have a glass jaw you better watch your mouth because I'll break your face.

Originally posted by mikelom
To those in superfluous flow with each other, here's my contribution!

Behaviour in a simulated ‘prison’ condition may be caused by individual’s personalities, singularly or grouped, by the environment itself or by both.

I. THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY:

a. Acting individually.

1. As a warden (WD)

• The only true directions given were with regard ...[text shortened]... ight it - it's already recorded.

Now, for once, can you stop bickering??

-m. 😉

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Who do you think is going to read through all that crap? 😛 😉 😉

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Certainly not any old idiot that happens across it.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I didn't actually mean you, but if you want to put on your idiot hat then be my guest. 😛

Originally posted by Very Rusty
LOL....Another interwebz tough guy... Open invite to my Fitness center! 😛 Unfortunately probably don't live close enough or even visit for that matter. 😞