Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA00444 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 27 May 2002 14:24:07 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 22:06:59 +0100 Subject: The Expt From: Steve Drew <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-ID: <B91702C5.email@example.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Lawrence and Kenneth,
Interesting. Do you think any of them had read Animal Farm? I felt like I
was watching a humanised version at times.
As was noticed when the commune was set up they were all uncertain in the
absence of authority, but were unwilling to enforce the rules, as force in
the literal sense could not be used. Non seemed to pick up on the guards
initial ploy at the early stage of the breakout of ignoring the prisoners.
In a commune or very basic group with a common set of beliefs including non
violence, there is the idea of 'shunning' as used by the Amish amongst
others. A very powerful method of control, and one that, IMHO is far more
successful than threats that can't be followed up.
Secondly, I would like to know what psychological tests they used as Edwards
seemed to be the least balanced of them all, and was one of the most overt
with physical intimidation, using his mouth and size as tools to try and
dominate. Evangelical Christian my **** (forgot that the meek shall inherit
the earth perhaps?). The bit in the cell in the last episode should have
ended the programme had the Geordie not backed down, as I felt violence was
Petkin seemed to be a thrill seeker out for a laugh, with some dubious
traits towards causing others discomfort.
Bimson's calculation was excellent in a psych sense and as he implied, if
the expt had not been called off he may have succeded with the help of
Edwards and Petkin . He also had a very impressive intellectual and physical
presence, coupled with an 'inner calm' for want of a better description.
And again, as the program and psychologists suggested, Edwards and Petkin,
seemed fine in the role of revolutionaries but were not capable of ideas to
formulate a new system themselves. Latter day James Dean. "What are you
rebelling against?" "What you got?"
What I found slightly surreal was with regards to Edwards being an
evangelical Christian and being incapable of submitting to authority. Was
this some form of escape from a rule bound life of do's and don'ts? (And
before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, I was baptised into
an Evangelical Pentacostal church at the age of 22. They get you when your
down :-) )
Overall, I don't think they did anything that could be compared to
Zimbardo's original experiment. I'm sure there are lots of analyses of the
interactions to be gone over and things will be learned from this.
Finally, although it is impolite to talk about some one behind their back I
have done so on the basis that they became public figuires by agreeing to
participate. That not withstanding, I shall try and send this to the BBC so
that the people mentioned have redress against me. Only fair.
The final question offered by the Expt is that tyranny occurs in the vacuum
of power, as shown in the program. But I think they were being very
simplistic, because this society was small. Even the populists try to accrue
power, such as Tony Blair.
Still, an interesting exercise.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 15:02:18 BST