Shouldn't we try to exploit the info of Stanford Prison Exp?

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

I believe it is possible to reap benefits from the knowledge of this experiment. Such as, what if we idealized a type of guard that would not mistreat inmates, and inmates were considered patients instead? People who made a mistake, rather than people who need to be punished and turned away. What if we gave them different titles terms and classifications to help support the idea of it being real.

Normally cultural evolution is a very slow process, we can look at many cultures, they retain their heritage. Probably minor exceptions of course here and there. But, with the knowledge gleaned form this study we could change culture faster, to yield better results in society.

This means there could be a higher risk involved form a quicker change of course. Especially giving new terms out, where bad early publicity could ruin the idea. But the new terms are there to do away with the negative associations that influence our behaviors daily.

What other areas could we work this effect into? The work place, we could reduce tension, which also increases productivity, decreases accidents. Why not experiment with human perspective to see a beneficial result?

The problem I see arising would be this being taken too far, becoming communist and supplied with propaganda. Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

If this is the case, should we go the entirely opposite direction with this idea? Increase tension? That is also unethical. If we simulate utopia or dystopia there are going to be massive detriments.
If, we forget our current standing that is.
If we constantly reinforce the fact that this is an alternate perspective to accompany the normal perspective to increase benefits, then we could get rid of this problem. Its as simple as knowing fiction is false. So this means we wouldn't entirely delve ourselves in to the risk. It is entirely feasible.

Where do you think this could be applied the most?
Problems with this idea that I do not currently see?

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

I chose to put this here because it is similar to cult-like behavior, and there are morals and ethics involved. My mistake however, this could have been better in the sociology and psychology sub-forum. Never the less I would like on topic responses, for those who do reply.

[Bogotanian]

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

A similar situation could happen as a pessmist so it is argueably irrelevant of perspective. However, a pessimist would see the truth at least, they would just assume they couldn't change the world. But positivity leads to health benefits and they would outlast the pessimists probably, as long as the pssimists weren't willing to stand up for what they knew. As well, the positivity here would only be obtaine dafter or during a transition of lifestyle to that, not before, because of this they can also still prevent bad things from occuring. But still.

I know visualizations and such(even superstition can work for or against them, but depending on intensity it could work on anyone) work with pro athletes. This could work similarly.

But how can we make every part of society get those performance and health benefits? Probably a simple idea, media change.

[SylverStar]

I think doing anything similiar is generally frowned upon in Psychology. That experiment is kind of taught as part of the ethics of psychology. The problem with group experiments is people tend to segregate into in-group and out-group members...and when you do that for them and then give one group authority over another I'd be pretty wary. They were not expecting things to turn ugly in that experiment, but they did. Changing terms doesn't change the differences in the two groups. I think more likely the connotations of the turns will change to less positive. I work in healthcare and the p.c. term now is clients instead of patients because patient has a negative connotation. There is something about having authority that is a little disconcerting, even when you are trying to help others.

I also don't think making culture move faster is that easy. Experiments don't have as many things affecting them as the real world does. Part of a good experiment is to get rid of as many confounds as possible. So how something like this would play out in a real world situation would be different.

It's an interesting concept but not one that would fit into psychological experimentation today. Maybe you could do observational studies of places that already have that kind of structure but setting up a similiar experiment as Zimbardo's would be unethical.

Positive reinforcement is already used in different situations. We used it in my last job along with peer pressure to affect change in behavior. Basically it is better morally but usually many you have to use a diverse range of tools for compliance and not everyone is going to act accordingly.

There is a newer field of psychology called positive psychology that is working towards making society happier and healthier mentally, which I think you might enjoy looking into. I think education and focusing on the positive aspects is an important part of creating a better society.

[GunsmithKitten]

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

[Bogotanian]

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

Tolerance is really selective tolerance, or being intolerant towards those who have different views. I was saying that there's a paradox with tolerance and I was using an example with positivity.

[Ask Jappleack]

After thinking about the last two comments I think tolerance actually has a negative connotation. It leaves the idea of you having to tolerate something which inherently deems it inferior from something 'acceptable' as opposed to 'tolerable'. It sort of reminds me of a superiority complex.

[GunsmithKitten]

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

Tolerance is really selective tolerance, or being intolerant towards those who have different views. I was saying that there's a paradox with tolerance and I was using an example with positivity.

So what's the alternative?

[Bogotanian]

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

Tolerance is really selective tolerance, or being intolerant towards those who have different views. I was saying that there's a paradox with tolerance and I was using an example with positivity.

So what's the alternative?

I don't know, being up front with what you like or dislike? I'm not sure how the government can help there, but for sure something's got to be better than being tolerant towards some, and calling other people bigots.

[GunsmithKitten]

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

Dizzy_Solace

Another problem, excess positivity can cause acceptance of more adverse conditions for longer duration. This means our rights could be stripped away, or quality of life could be decreased, and we would put up with it from thinking positive.

That's an interesting point. What you're describing from the Stanford experiment is people doing things from peer pressure (everyone else is doing it) and from being ordered to, similar to how many Nazis did things that may have been against their morals, but they were acting as part of a group and were ordered to. A sort of brain-washing to get people to do things. But the positivity part.

The positivity part is interesting, because as soon as people are coerced into only thinking positively, than anything that coincides with that view would be "wrong." Check out the Tolerance Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Rights could be stripped away from people, because everyone who would not conform to the standards of "positivity" or "tolerance" (I think there's a relation) would be labeled as intolerant. But even though people adhere to a mindset of tolerance, they are actually being intolerant towards others who don't agree with them (not tolerating them), thus if this was implemented at a national level it could have some dangerous results.

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

Tolerance is really selective tolerance, or being intolerant towards those who have different views. I was saying that there's a paradox with tolerance and I was using an example with positivity.

So what's the alternative?

I don't know, being up front with what you like or dislike? I'm not sure how the government can help there, but for sure something's got to be better than being tolerant towards some, and calling other people bigots.

Didn't we try this already? It got a lot of people killed and wasn't terribly pleasant.

[Bogotanian]

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

So intolerance is the only way period? It's MORE civil to indulge in wanton bigotry?

Tolerance is really selective tolerance, or being intolerant towards those who have different views. I was saying that there's a paradox with tolerance and I was using an example with positivity.

So what's the alternative?

I don't know, being up front with what you like or dislike? I'm not sure how the government can help there, but for sure something's got to be better than being tolerant towards some, and calling other people bigots.

Didn't we try this already? It got a lot of people killed and wasn't terribly pleasant.

What are you referring to specifically? I'm just pointing out that a policy of tolerance is hypocritical because it labels some as tolerant, but others as intolerant.

[GunsmithKitten]

Bogotanian

What are you referring to specifically? I'm just pointing out that a policy of tolerance is hypocritical because it labels some as tolerant, but others as intolerant.

Where to start.

This is a pretty good one.

Having a policy of no tolerance didn't exactly help here.

[Bogotanian]

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

What are you referring to specifically? I'm just pointing out that a policy of tolerance is hypocritical because it labels some as tolerant, but others as intolerant.

Where to start.

This is a pretty good one.

Having a policy of no tolerance didn't exactly help here.

So having a policy of tolerance would have prevented the Rwandan Genocide?

[GunsmithKitten]

Bogotanian

GunsmithKitten

Bogotanian

What are you referring to specifically? I'm just pointing out that a policy of tolerance is hypocritical because it labels some as tolerant, but others as intolerant.

Where to start.

This is a pretty good one.

Having a policy of no tolerance didn't exactly help here.

So having a policy of tolerance would have prevented the Rwandan Genocide?

Yes. If they were actually prosecuted for their initial actions against the Tutsi and Hutu moderates.

But as there was no tolerance, it was allowed to continue.

If ther eis no tolerance, there is nothing to stop me or you from destroying that which we are intolerant of. If I'm intolerant of blacks, tough s**t for them if I decide to kill them, and you can't fault me for it as I was never required to tolerate them.