The Psychology of Evil

[CrazyDiamond]

Something very topical on a forum dedicated to a character many deem to be a villain: A TEDTalk lecture by Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University, and a highschool friend of the more famous Stanley Milgram. If you can, watch this video and then let others know about it the next time they decide to shun our favorite monster.



From a WIKIPEDIA article on prof. Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect:
"The Lucifer Effect was written in response to his findings in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo believes that personality characteristics could play a role in how violent or submissive actions are manifested. In the book, Zimbardo says that humans cannot be defined as "good" or "evil" because we have the ability to act as both especially at the hand of the situation. According to Zimbardo, "Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, self-destructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in 'total situations' that impact human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, of character, and of morality."
He also notes that we as humans wish to believe in unchanging goodness of people and our power to resist situational and external pressures and temptations. In chapter 12, "Investigating Social Dynamics: Power, Conformity, and Obedience", Zimbardo discusses that peer pressure, the desire to be 'cool', the fear of rejection, and simply being a part of a group are the focal points to acting preposterous to your character."

[pitbulllady]

Have you posted this on Tumblr yet? Someone REALLY needs to, seriously. I was already familiar with both studies, the Zimbardo and the Milgram studies, but most people aren't. Most people who hate Randall, for instance, and believe that he was innately evil all along OR that once he made the decision to cooperate with Waternoose and build the Scream Extractor, he became evil, completely and beyond all chance of redemption or of ever being "good" again. No doubt these same people hold a highly inflated view of their own morality and believe that THEY are immune to those same temptation that Randall succumbed to; I have actually had people insist to me that they would willingly have chosen whatever punishment Waternoose could have dealt them, including being murdered, over hurting someone else if ordered to do so, although the Milgram study most certainly does NOT bear out their claim!

pitbulllady

[CrazyDiamond]

Well, I planned to use it as an argument in some future debate rather than a standalone post. However, thank you for posting it yourself! I'm sorry for the argument it started, though... I noticed myself that many people hate psychologists and psychology in general as it crushes their perception of themselves as perfect, unique and forever-innocent individuals. What happened in reaction to your post on Tumblr is a testament to that.

[pitbulllady]

Jun 16, 2013 4:39:13 GMT -5 CrazyDiamond said:

Well, I planned to use it as an argument in some future debate rather than a standalone post. However, thank you for posting it yourself! I'm sorry for the argument it started, though... I noticed myself that many people hate psychologists and psychology in general as it crushes their perception of themselves as perfect, unique and forever-innocent individuals. What happened in reaction to your post on Tumblr is a testament to that.

Yep. Too many people DO see themselves as perfect, incapable of doing anything wrong, which is why it's so easy for them to judge someone else, real or fictional, as evil. They do not believe that THEY, under any circumstances, are capable of doing those kinds of things. The real irony of all this-and it's something we discussed on DA-is that many of those people who believe themselves to be perfect and free of any vices, incapable of evil deeds, of sin in other words, are people who claim to be "Christians", when one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that we are ALL sinners, we have sinned, we WILL sin, or commit evil. The Christian belief is that this is why God sent his Son down here in the first place, and why He had to die horribly in a crucifixion, to serve as a sacrifice to bear away our own evil. If you believe you are already perfect and incapable of committing evil, you don't need that, do you? Jesus himself stated, when asked why he hung out with tax collectors, thieves and other known sinners, that he didn't come to help those who were perfect, just as a doctor does not show up to heal a person who is healthy and well and in no need of medical services.

pitbulllady

[lizardgirl]

As much as I believe that Zimbardo's original Stanford Prison experiment was a highly flawed study (and I don't just mean ethically, I mean in terms of the conclusions he drew from the results and how he garnered those results in the first place) I do agree with the general message that anyone can do 'good' or 'evil' things dependent on their situation.

Where I disagree with Zimbardo is his sheer emphasis on the importance of the situation over everything else in the short-term, specifically. From what I can remember of reading The Lucifer Effect, he does his best to negate the individual differences in reactions of both the prisoners and the guards, whilst the video evidence clearly demonstrated that although some guards did take the role to heart and 'turn evil', others really did not. Plus Zimbardo himself, in his desperation to get the results he wanted, did things that influenced the behaviour of the guards beyond the mere situation.

But as I said, the principle in general is good because it does show that any one of us can do both bad things and good things, and it is very true that we often see ourselves as individuals who would not do bad things even when put in such situations. This seems to be a particularly Western bias, as a lot of studies have shown that this good and evil dichotomy, with emphasis on the person rather than the situation (so saying that the person is inherently good or evil, rather than attributing their actions to the situation) seems much less prominent in Eastern cultures.

Milgram's studies also have their flaws but, again, they should be praised for at least getting the idea out there. I guess my main contention is to do with the emphasis on the short-term that both Milgram and Zimbardo's studies seem to focus on, whereas in reality, the impact of a positive or negative situation on a person's behaviour is much stronger with a longer period of time (as we see with Randall!) And THAT'S why you get people saying "I would never do that!" because, if you put them in that standalone predicament right now, they actually probably wouldn't commit the acts that Randall committed. However, with time and with the same context that Randall was in, they most likely would- and there's the importance difference that Zimbardo and Milgram negate (probably because it's much more exciting and interesting to be able to emphasise the idea of 'turning people evil' in a short amount of time).

Going back to that whole "I'd never do that!" thing, that's just one example of so many cognitive biases that will all fall prey to to some extent. Another example is "that'll never happen to me!" in reference to some negative situation, for example being in a car crash. These are actually pretty adaptive biases, but it can get pretty frustrating when some people don't recognise the flaws in their own thinking. As for such people calling themselves Christians whilst apparently being unable to commit sin, I agree that it's pretty ironic. However, part of me does find the whole claim troubling- it's almost like an invitation to sin, since if, theoretically, no-one sinned, then Jesus died in vain. But I'm going off on a religious debate tangent here and that's not what this discussion is about (although I do find the concept interesting!)

And finally, as for the relationship of all of this to the perception of psychology, well, yeah, it does suck that people make these assumptions. I guess what irritates me most is that there are so, SO many misconceptions or 'popular lies' about psychology ("you only use 30% of your brain capacity! If you used 100% you could read people's minds!" for example. Or the ever-popular "the brain and the mind are two different things!") and it's all because we, as humans, are inherently egotistical. It's why we don't like accepting our cognitive biases (and why we struggle to change them even when aware of them), it's why we spend so much time constructing personality tests and figuring out 'who we are' (because "everyone's special", right? Nope!), and it's why only psychological findings that adhere to our expectations (or, in some cases, go so wildly against our expectations that it's deemed more interesting than other stuff) get any real exposure.

Note that I said 'perception of psychology', and not 'perception of psychology AND psychologists'; I am not a fan of practitioners, as although they obviously provide a very valuable service, their reluctance to adapt to cutting-edge findings in the field of psychology really holds back the discipline. So people's wariness of them is understandable (though probably for entirely the wrong reasons).

Anyway, I'll stop blabbering now. In short, yes, anyone can do good and evil things dependent on the situation they're in, but I personally don't think Zimbardo and Milgram are necessarily the most accurate or reliable examples of this (even if they are the most dramatic and appealing). In addition, the average person sucks because they don't realise how biased their cognition is, and for every person who gets that Randall did the stuff he did predominantly due to his difficult situation, there will be 100 who will label him the villain and be glad that he was banished (even with his cuter appearance in MU).

[CrazyDiamond]

That sure is some interesting insight! I have to say that the video did make it look more balanced to me, as he also pointed out the importance of education and values imposed onto a child by the environment it grows up in, as opposed to mentioning only the clearly short-term effects. I have to wonder, though: do the studies also factor in the effects of, say, sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption? I might read some literature on the topic eventually (including that in question), but not at this point, so I'd really appreciate an answer

What you raised in regards to people being happy with Randall's punishment is, in my opinion, one of the most ironic things about the MI fandom. While the movie's message is all about love, compassion and understanding, the fans of the "villain" are those who actually get it, while the fans of the protagonists celebrate that someone's got hit in the head with a shovel...

[lizardgirl]

Jun 16, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5 CrazyDiamond said:

That sure is some interesting insight! I have to say that the video did make it look more balanced to me, as he also pointed out the importance of education and values imposed onto a child by the environment it grows up in, as opposed to mentioning only the clearly short-term effects. I have to wonder, though: do the studies also factor in the effects of, say, sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption? I might read some literature on the topic eventually (including that in question), but not at this point, so I'd really appreciate an answer

What you raised in regards to people being happy with Randall's punishment is, in my opinion, one of the most ironic things about the MI fandom. While the movie's message is all about love, compassion and understanding, the fans of the "villain" are those who actually get it, while the fans of the protagonists celebrate that someone's got hit in the head with a shovel...

Thanks! I begrudgingly had to take a course in first year all about this sort of stuff and as much as I loathed it, a lot of it stuck with me, haha. If you're interested in reading more, check out stuff about the person versus situation debate. It's the main idea that encompasses what Zimbardo and Milgram were trying to demonstrate, and arguably there's better research out there that is perhaps less dramatic but more reliable and exact in its findings.

I forgot to mention, I didn't watch the video as I moved back home yesterday and the internet here is absolutely rubbish, so watching videos is out of the question unfortunately! I will try and watch it at some point though, since I'm curious as to whether Zimbardo has mediated his more extreme original views (and it sounds as if he has- I'm glad to hear it!).

As far as I know, the effect of sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption was not measured specifically in neither Zimbardo nor Milgram's original studies, which itself could be considered a flaw; they were studies that were able to demonstrate the impact of the situation, without actually pinpointing the exact cause of the person's behavioural malleability- probably because there are so, so many factors to consider that it's difficult to know what to focus on. Some of these factors have been considered, mainly high level ones (i.e. looking at the brain at a whole-person, sociological level) such as, in the case of Milgram's studies (which are more easily controlled and hence can be empirically manipulated, unlike Zimbardo's more flimsy design) proximity to the victim. So, for example, they found that someone is less likely to electrocute another person if they can hear them, even less likely if they can see them, and so on. But when it comes to lower-level factors, particularly biological ones such as circadian cycle disruption as likely seen in Zimbardo's study, there doesn't seem to be lots of empirical research. Even a quick look on Google Scholar or PsychInfo doesn't seem to come up with much. I'm sure there's stuff out there and it's a pretty intuitive idea that these factors might have an effect, but like much of the stuff related to Zimbardo's work, the finer details are missing, mainly because no-one's been able to replicate his study due to ethical issues. But again, there may be more stuff out there- I've only done a very preliminary search and I can imagine there must be SOME research in the area. I guess the association with torture means that any research in the area could be misused, another problem the field has to deal with often. Anyway, sorry I don't know much, but hope that helps a little.

Yeah, I totally agree. It happens so often, too, that the 'villain' gets some nasty punishment and everyone rejoices when the message of the story is about compassion. Again, people don't recognise the flaws in their own thinking, they don't follow the logic through. I guess when you see it happen enough times, and when you grow up watching the stuff in Disney films, it's easy not to question it. Still sucks, though.

[pitbulllady]

Jun 16, 2013 16:36:44 GMT -5 lizardgirl said:

Jun 16, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5 CrazyDiamond said:

That sure is some interesting insight! I have to say that the video did make it look more balanced to me, as he also pointed out the importance of education and values imposed onto a child by the environment it grows up in, as opposed to mentioning only the clearly short-term effects. I have to wonder, though: do the studies also factor in the effects of, say, sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption? I might read some literature on the topic eventually (including that in question), but not at this point, so I'd really appreciate an answer

What you raised in regards to people being happy with Randall's punishment is, in my opinion, one of the most ironic things about the MI fandom. While the movie's message is all about love, compassion and understanding, the fans of the "villain" are those who actually get it, while the fans of the protagonists celebrate that someone's got hit in the head with a shovel...

Thanks! I begrudgingly had to take a course in first year all about this sort of stuff and as much as I loathed it, a lot of it stuck with me, haha. If you're interested in reading more, check out stuff about the person versus situation debate. It's the main idea that encompasses what Zimbardo and Milgram were trying to demonstrate, and arguably there's better research out there that is perhaps less dramatic but more reliable and exact in its findings.

I forgot to mention, I didn't watch the video as I moved back home yesterday and the internet here is absolutely rubbish, so watching videos is out of the question unfortunately! I will try and watch it at some point though, since I'm curious as to whether Zimbardo has mediated his more extreme original views (and it sounds as if he has- I'm glad to hear it!).

As far as I know, the effect of sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption was not measured specifically in neither Zimbardo nor Milgram's original studies, which itself could be considered a flaw; they were studies that were able to demonstrate the impact of the situation, without actually pinpointing the exact cause of the person's behavioural malleability- probably because there are so, so many factors to consider that it's difficult to know what to focus on. Some of these factors have been considered, mainly high level ones (i.e. looking at the brain at a whole-person, sociological level) such as, in the case of Milgram's studies (which are more easily controlled and hence can be empirically manipulated, unlike Zimbardo's more flimsy design) proximity to the victim. So, for example, they found that someone is less likely to electrocute another person if they can hear them, even less likely if they can see them, and so on. But when it comes to lower-level factors, particularly biological ones such as circadian cycle disruption as likely seen in Zimbardo's study, there doesn't seem to be lots of empirical research. Even a quick look on Google Scholar or PsychInfo doesn't seem to come up with much. I'm sure there's stuff out there and it's a pretty intuitive idea that these factors might have an effect, but like much of the stuff related to Zimbardo's work, the finer details are missing, mainly because no-one's been able to replicate his study due to ethical issues. But again, there may be more stuff out there- I've only done a very preliminary search and I can imagine there must be SOME research in the area. I guess the association with torture means that any research in the area could be misused, another problem the field has to deal with often. Anyway, sorry I don't know much, but hope that helps a little.

Yeah, I totally agree. It happens so often, too, that the 'villain' gets some nasty punishment and everyone rejoices when the message of the story is about compassion. Again, people don't recognise the flaws in their own thinking, they don't follow the logic through. I guess when you see it happen enough times, and when you grow up watching the stuff in Disney films, it's easy not to question it. Still sucks, though.

The effects of prolonged and/or repeated interruptions in Randall's circadian sleep cycle is something I've long believed was in no small part responsible for his erratic behavior in MI. Most people are so focused on the whole notion of the Scream Extractor being evil in and of itself, given that it was meant to force even children who were not afraid of monsters to scream, that they simply don't take into account what would have been involved in designing and building it, including the lack of patience of the part of the one who wanted it built: Waternoose. It would be one thing had Randall been given all the time in the world, but I'm sure that was NOT the case, nor could he simply take time off from his work routine. He's not only sleep-deprived, but largely deprived of sunlight, too, since he's down there in that basement, and the effects of lack of sunlight on a person's behavior have also been well-documented.

pitbulllady