Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: SealTeam6 on August 13, 2013, 06:40 pm
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
This classic experiment in psychology really reminds me of SR. Specifically striking to me is how anonymity produces trolls and also all the conspiracy theories that pop up, the "us" against "them" mentality that threatens the unifying qualities of SR.
What do you guys think about it?
There's also a documentary that I have not seen, has anyone around here checked it out?
-
Most of the things you think are fairy tales are probably true.
-
Yeah, they made a movie out of this. It was pretty good.
I don't think it has much relation to SR; if anything, SR seems to be the counter-experiment. People seem to get along BETTER with vendors than IRL dealers. The fact that no one is really 'above' anyone else here really helps as well. We're all here because we like drugs, and there's no one that creates a division of "us" and "them".
-
We did a similar experiment when I was in school. Obviously nothing as involved or complicated, but the rationale behind it was identical. It was a simple card game that determined who got snacks and who got extra homework depending on what cards you had, but it was fascinating to look back at it after we knew that it was an experiment.
-
Thread is week old, but topic was so interesting that i watched documentary The Stanford Prison Experiment.
I dont see any relation to SR either, but i could analyze the experiment itself because of my deep passion towards human psyche.
The experiment came mostly controversial because of the guards cruel behavior towards prisoners. But before experiment Zimbardo gave guards limitless power:
"You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."
The physical violation wasn't allowed, but in his speech, he allowed all other violation of human rights. The Zimbardo became the authority figure to participants.
But none of the participants had any control in any point of experiment. Not even Zimbardo himself. All participants who gained "control" position(guards and Zimbardo himself) started to express control behavior because of their need to be in control. Control, that they unconsciously though the real world society never allowed over themselves(im sure all who are here SR know that many societies still limit free will). This unability to control their own life, showed as control of others in experiment. But while in real world the society played as unquestionable authority, Zimbardo gained the same position since participants had already absorbed the rule that something above them decides about their lives. And in the experiment Zimbardo had authority and that way responsibility. This lead guards unconsciously move responsibility of their own actions to Zimbardo who again let them go further. So the experiment actually revealed inner conflicts of individuals in contrast to their conditional environment.
Also the participants themselves chose to take part to experiment, so only certain type of people attended to it.
-
Check out the Milgram experiment. Very disturbing results.
-
I also saw the film. It was called 'The Experiment' - anyone familiar with Zimbardo's study should watch it. Similarly, anybody who's seen it but hasn't read up on the Standford prison experiment should do so. Both very interesting, both from a fictional entertainment and a human psyche point of view.
And I agree about Milgram. Bit of a nutter, bit controversial... but eye-opening study.
-
Time and again humanity has shown that if people given "authority" are told they aren't responsible for committing atrocities and don't see their victims as fellow human beings, the worst acts of horror will follow. The Zimbardo and Milgram experiments proved that in spades. The Zimbardo experiment was ended early because some of the guards became so violent and sadistic that there was no choice. Too bad we can't do that in real life.
-
Along these lines is a game called "Prisoner's Dilemma".
In the problem of the prisoner's dilemma, two prisoners are interrogated in separate rooms. Each prisoner is given the choice of cooperating with their partner in crime (saying that they are innocent), or defecting (implicating their partner in crime).
It is assumed that the base prison sentence that each will receive is five years, and that the payoff that each receives (time off from their prison sentence) is dependent on what decision they make, and what decision their partner makes.
The classic payoffs are:
If they both cooperate, the lack of testimony from the two prisoners weakens the case. There is still enough circumstantial evidence, however, to keep them in prison for two years each (payoff of 3 years off from the base sentence of five). (reward)
If they both defect, the testimony that each provides against the other is quite damning. But their slightly conflicting stories allows the judge to imprison them for only four years each (payoff of 1 year off from the base sentence of five). (punishment)
If one player defects and the other cooperates then there is no case against the defector, but a very strong one against the cooperator.
The defector gets immunity and receives no prison sentence (payoff of 5 years off from the base sentence of five), while the judge throws the book at the cooperator who gets the full five year sentence (payoff of 0 years off from the base sentence of five). (sucker's payoff)
I recommend familiarizing yourself with this, as it is exemplary in demonstrating the human condition.
"Which strategy should you play under these conditions? Let's look at the problem from the point of view of player 1.
If player 2 decides to defect, which is the better (more points) strategy? It is clearly better to defect (1 point versus 0 points). If player 2 decides to cooperate, which is the better strategy? Again, it is clearly better to defect (5 points versus 3 points). Thus, it is always better to defect.
Consider, however, that player 2 will be faced with the same choices, and consequently player 2 should always defect.
Therefore, if each player plays logically they will both always defect and always receive one point. If they could have agreed beforehand to cooperate then instead they could each wind up with three points, a better outcome.
Herein lines the dilemma- logically it pays for each player to defect, yet payoffs would be better if each player cooperated.
In the face of such a dilemma, how can cooperation evolve?"
-
Yeah, they made a movie out of this. It was pretty good.
I don't think it has much relation to SR; if anything, SR seems to be the counter-experiment. People seem to get along BETTER with vendors than IRL dealers. The fact that no one is really 'above' anyone else here really helps as well. We're all here because we like drugs, and there's no one that creates a division of "us" and "them".
Very true and well said. I have many great business relationships on SR, the clients for the most part are easy to talk to. I much rather come home and do several deals on SR then sell to some of the demanding slimeballs I sometimes have to deal with IRL.
Give a little respect around here and it goes a long way.
-
Along these lines is a game called "Prisoner's Dilemma".
In the problem of the prisoner's dilemma, two prisoners are interrogated in separate rooms. Each prisoner is given the choice of cooperating with their partner in crime (saying that they are innocent), or defecting (implicating their partner in crime).
It is assumed that the base prison sentence that each will receive is five years, and that the payoff that each receives (time off from their prison sentence) is dependent on what decision they make, and what decision their partner makes.
The classic payoffs are:
If they both cooperate, the lack of testimony from the two prisoners weakens the case. There is still enough circumstantial evidence, however, to keep them in prison for two years each (payoff of 3 years off from the base sentence of five). (reward)
If they both defect, the testimony that each provides against the other is quite damning. But their slightly conflicting stories allows the judge to imprison them for only four years each (payoff of 1 year off from the base sentence of five). (punishment)
If one player defects and the other cooperates then there is no case against the defector, but a very strong one against the cooperator.
The defector gets immunity and receives no prison sentence (payoff of 5 years off from the base sentence of five), while the judge throws the book at the cooperator who gets the full five year sentence (payoff of 0 years off from the base sentence of five). (sucker's payoff)
I recommend familiarizing yourself with this, as it is exemplary in demonstrating the human condition.
"Which strategy should you play under these conditions? Let's look at the problem from the point of view of player 1.
If player 2 decides to defect, which is the better (more points) strategy? It is clearly better to defect (1 point versus 0 points). If player 2 decides to cooperate, which is the better strategy? Again, it is clearly better to defect (5 points versus 3 points). Thus, it is always better to defect.
Consider, however, that player 2 will be faced with the same choices, and consequently player 2 should always defect.
Therefore, if each player plays logically they will both always defect and always receive one point. If they could have agreed beforehand to cooperate then instead they could each wind up with three points, a better outcome.
Herein lines the dilemma- logically it pays for each player to defect, yet payoffs would be better if each player cooperated.
In the face of such a dilemma, how can cooperation evolve?"
There's a UK gameshow that plays on a similar concept for the final round. The show is called Goldenballs:
In the final round, the 2 remaining players are fighting for the cash prize, and are given the option to 'split' or 'steal'.
If both players 'split', they share the prize.
If one 'splits' and the other 'steals', the 'stealer' gets the prize.
If both 'steal', nobody gets it.
It's a little different to 'Prisoner's Dilemma', but it's a similar situation in that each player has to attempt to get the best outcome without knowing what the other player will do.
-
I don't think it has much relation to SR; if anything, SR seems to be the counter-experiment. People seem to get along BETTER with vendors than IRL dealers. The fact that no one is really 'above' anyone else here really helps as well. We're all here because we like drugs, and there's no one that creates a division of "us" and "them".
+1 - pretty much what I was gonna say!
IMO, SR forums are some of the least troll-y on the internet. I think this come down to the OP confusing 'anonymity' with 'authoritarianism' - the Stanford study looked at the effects of authority on people's behaviour, but says nothing about the effects of anonymity on behaviour... and I think that in the Stanford study it was clearly 'us' vs 'them', whereas anonymity [usually] sets up a 'me' vs 'everyone else'.
I think there are several differences when it comes to SR. As mentioned, we're all here for roughly the same reason; buying contraband. But where most forums (eg, atheist forums) are easily accessible and non-controversial, they attract people of an opposing viewpoint to discuss/argue/troll. However, getting on the SR forum is tricky, usually involves joining SR first, and could be seen as suspect, which I guess discourages the 'opposition' from hanging around. Also, we are a specific self-selected set; we are a) people who are willing to step outside social-norms in order to get high and, b) people cleaver enough to get on here. In my experience, while there are ALOT of dumb people who get high and are arseholes, intelligent people who also get high tend to be thoughtful and insightful, and while generalisations are always limited I think SR 'proves' this so some extent....
-
I took place in a similar (copycat) study whilst in grad school. The docs ended up getting mad at me and throwing out my participation as that of a severe outlier. For those that don't know, tossing out outlier results is common. My ethics are entirely inward dictated and as such are unaffected by being in a position of authority.
I was aware of the studies beforehand of course. And certainly new that I was "different". Even so, the degree to which all the other participants turned bad was an eye opener.