What do you think?
Rate this book
路西法效应
一九七一年，社会心理学家金巴多教授主导「史丹福监狱实验」；该实验有如一发震撼弹，引爆全球心理学界重新审视以往对人性的天真看法。
三十年後，金巴多教授以《路西法效应》（The Lucifer Effect）首度親自撰述、並呼應從「史丹福監獄實驗」到「伊拉克監獄虐囚案」三十多年來觀察到的社會現象，深度剖析複雜的人性，全盤且深入解釋「情境力量」影響個人行為的概念。在實驗中以標準的生理與心理測驗，挑選了自願擔任受試者、身心健康且情緒穩定的大學生，被隨機分派到「守衛」和「犯人」兩組，接著讓他們身處模擬的監獄環境。實驗一開始，受試者便強烈感受到角色規範的影響，努力去扮演被指定的角色。
实验第六天，情况演变得过度逼真，原本单纯的大学生已转变為残暴不仁的守卫或是情绪崩溃的犯人——一套制服、一个身分，就轻易让一个人性情大变——為期两週的实验不得不宣告中止。為什麼握有权力的人，很轻易地為「以控制他人為乐」所诱惑？而置身弱势角色的人，為什麼却常以沉默来面对问题？。
藉由独具开创性的「史丹福监狱实验」研究，金巴多教授将為读者解释「情境力量」和「团体动力」如何能使平凡男女变成残忍的魔鬼。在日常生活中，我们都努力想扮演好自己的角色，例如「男性－女性」、「上司－员工」、「父母－子女」、「老师－学生」、「医生－病人」等关係，在这些社会角色剧本的规范与束缚下，我们是否会像上帝最爱的天使路西法一样不知不觉而对他人做出难以置信的事？
三十年後，金巴多教授以《路西法效应》（The Lucifer Effect）首度親自撰述、並呼應從「史丹福監獄實驗」到「伊拉克監獄虐囚案」三十多年來觀察到的社會現象，深度剖析複雜的人性，全盤且深入解釋「情境力量」影響個人行為的概念。在實驗中以標準的生理與心理測驗，挑選了自願擔任受試者、身心健康且情緒穩定的大學生，被隨機分派到「守衛」和「犯人」兩組，接著讓他們身處模擬的監獄環境。實驗一開始，受試者便強烈感受到角色規範的影響，努力去扮演被指定的角色。
实验第六天，情况演变得过度逼真，原本单纯的大学生已转变為残暴不仁的守卫或是情绪崩溃的犯人——一套制服、一个身分，就轻易让一个人性情大变——為期两週的实验不得不宣告中止。為什麼握有权力的人，很轻易地為「以控制他人為乐」所诱惑？而置身弱势角色的人，為什麼却常以沉默来面对问题？。
藉由独具开创性的「史丹福监狱实验」研究，金巴多教授将為读者解释「情境力量」和「团体动力」如何能使平凡男女变成残忍的魔鬼。在日常生活中，我们都努力想扮演好自己的角色，例如「男性－女性」、「上司－员工」、「父母－子女」、「老师－学生」、「医生－病人」等关係，在这些社会角色剧本的规范与束缚下，我们是否会像上帝最爱的天使路西法一样不知不觉而对他人做出难以置信的事？
601 pages, Paperback
First published April 17, 2007
4,185 people are currently reading
174k people want to read
About the author
Philip G. Zimbardo
128?books894?followersPhilip George Zimbardo was an American psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University. He became known for his 1971 Stanford prison experiment, which was later criticized severely for both ethical and scientific reasons. He authored various introductory psychology textbooks for college students, and other notable works, including The Lucifer Effect, The Time Paradox, and The Time Cure. He was also the initiator and president of the Heroic Imagination Project.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,441 reviews
September 3, 2008
Philip Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect is a difficult read, not because its premise is particularly startling, but because its examination of the psychology of evil shows it to be disturbingly simple. By placing each act of breathtaking cruelty beside a description of its perpetrator--invariably an ordinary, psychologically normal person--Zimbardo makes clear that we are just animals socialized into one behavior, and easily socialized into another. And though he never outright asks it, every page of his book prompts the impossible question: What kind of monster are you?
Zimbardo spends nearly 500 pages supporting an argument that’s convincing by page two: Situations entice people to commit heroic acts and unspeakable atrocities alike. With little provocation, formerly good people will discard their values entirely. Some of the examples were new to me, such as Pauline, a women’s empowerment lecturer in Rwanda who ordered the genocidaires under her charge, “Before you kill the women, you need to rape them.” Other examples are well known--millions of World War II-era Europeans turned on their Jewish neighbors, the horrifying Rape of Nanjing, and many more.
And while the author tries time and again to complicate his argument, to mitigate the bleakness of his premise, those attempts feel insufficient. He assures readers that--although social systems seize control of our ethics, elicit our worst selves, and punish those who refuse to comply--people can still be dissuaded from committing atrocities. We can learn to resist grotesque situational pressures by simply applying Zimbardo's handy maxims: “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,” “I want group acceptance, but value my independence,” “I will assert my unique identity,” etc.
But, in fact, Zimbardo’s sociological studies and historical survey offer ample evidence that people who defy the demands of the societal machine are rare, and that they are mostly punished for their moral courage. American serviceman Hugh Thompson stopped the My Lai massacre by aiming machine guns at his superiors and ordered medical evacuations of wounded Vietnamese civilians--and as “punishment was required to fly the most dangerous helicopter missions again and again. He was shot down five times, breaking his backbone and suffering lasting psychological scars from his nightmare experience. It took thirty years before the military recognized his heroic deeds… Paradoxically, Lieutenant Calley (an orchestrator of the massacre) was treated as a hero.”
Certainly people are to blame for the moral crimes they commit, and yet it seems somehow flippant to assume that all people can avoid the blameworthy road, that all people are capable of risking hardship or death to resist descending into evil--especially when submitting to situational demands is the psychologically normal (and perhaps healthy) thing to do. The stronger and sadder argument, the one that Zimbardo tries to avoid making, is the one his own research supports: Most of us are available for total moral conquest by our bosses, parents, peers, and government, irredeemably adrift on currents much stronger than ourselves.
Zimbardo spends nearly 500 pages supporting an argument that’s convincing by page two: Situations entice people to commit heroic acts and unspeakable atrocities alike. With little provocation, formerly good people will discard their values entirely. Some of the examples were new to me, such as Pauline, a women’s empowerment lecturer in Rwanda who ordered the genocidaires under her charge, “Before you kill the women, you need to rape them.” Other examples are well known--millions of World War II-era Europeans turned on their Jewish neighbors, the horrifying Rape of Nanjing, and many more.
And while the author tries time and again to complicate his argument, to mitigate the bleakness of his premise, those attempts feel insufficient. He assures readers that--although social systems seize control of our ethics, elicit our worst selves, and punish those who refuse to comply--people can still be dissuaded from committing atrocities. We can learn to resist grotesque situational pressures by simply applying Zimbardo's handy maxims: “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,” “I want group acceptance, but value my independence,” “I will assert my unique identity,” etc.
But, in fact, Zimbardo’s sociological studies and historical survey offer ample evidence that people who defy the demands of the societal machine are rare, and that they are mostly punished for their moral courage. American serviceman Hugh Thompson stopped the My Lai massacre by aiming machine guns at his superiors and ordered medical evacuations of wounded Vietnamese civilians--and as “punishment was required to fly the most dangerous helicopter missions again and again. He was shot down five times, breaking his backbone and suffering lasting psychological scars from his nightmare experience. It took thirty years before the military recognized his heroic deeds… Paradoxically, Lieutenant Calley (an orchestrator of the massacre) was treated as a hero.”
Certainly people are to blame for the moral crimes they commit, and yet it seems somehow flippant to assume that all people can avoid the blameworthy road, that all people are capable of risking hardship or death to resist descending into evil--especially when submitting to situational demands is the psychologically normal (and perhaps healthy) thing to do. The stronger and sadder argument, the one that Zimbardo tries to avoid making, is the one his own research supports: Most of us are available for total moral conquest by our bosses, parents, peers, and government, irredeemably adrift on currents much stronger than ourselves.
November 15, 2007
I was excited to read this, since I have a psychology background and had heard that it was a good look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, which I studied in college. I wasn't too impressed with this book though. It is at least 100 pages too long and bogged down by excessive detail, making it read like a numbing textbook. The breakdown is as follows: 200 pages on Zimbardo's Prison Experiment, 100 pages of analysis of the experiment, 75 pages on Abu Ghraib, 75 pages about the Bush administration's culpability, 50 pages on factors for improvement, 25 pages on heroism, and 50 pages of footnotes. The author did not attempt to eliminate his personal biases (even embracing them, calling himself a "bleeding heart liberal" at one point), which really bothered me, since the book was presented as an unbiased view of social behavior as it relates to situational forces. The subject WAS very interesting, but I'd recommend it to a limited audience - those who are schooled in social psychology and/or prison societies, who are comfortable diving into scientific literature, and who won't mind the liberal spin that Zimbardo includes.
October 28, 2017
Zimbardo fucked up, BIG TIME.
During the "Stanford Prison Experiment," an experiment he created, he was part of the actual testing and also became victim to the traps the other participants fell into.
The idea was to separate the participants into two groups, guards and prisoners with Zimbardo taking the role of prison overseer in a monitored environment. But things quickly went from weird to damn right unethical. Instead of simply playing the roles assigned to them, everybody involved actually became the roles. The guards became violent, the prisoners became unhinged and unstable and Zimbardo himself became rather tyrannical and uncaring. The experiment would have continued if his girlfriend, at the time, didn’t break through to him and show him how messed up things were.
It almost erupted
"The most apparent thing that I noticed was how most of the people in this study derive their sense of identity and well-being from their immediate surroundings rather than from within themselves, and that's why they broke down—just couldn't stand the pressure—they had nothing within them to hold up against all of this.”
Zimbardo is rather embarrassed at his own part, understandably. But he still used the findings of the experiment to theorise why it actually happened and considered how normal people can become violent and evil so quickly. It’s all about situational factors and conformity. The men adapted to their roles all too quickly and the power given to the guards was theirs to exploit at their own will. The separation of men into two factions also helped to evoke as dangerous “us” and “them” attitude allowing for an unsympathetic approach to others.
The Lucifer Effect discusses the psychology of roles we take on when forced into power struggles. It’s a strong piece of research, and Zimbardo theorises quite heavily. His assumptions on his own experiments are grounded, though he takes them much further afield and considers many violent prisons. As logical as some of his argument are, at this stage they are only arguments rather than findings. I much preferred the first section of the book, the part about his research, rather than his speculations on situations with seperate cultural and social factors.
What The Lucifer Effect shows us though is the dangers of conformity and where it can lead us. Social conditioning plays a huge part in our cognitive makeup, a part we’re not always aware of until it’s too late. I really appreciated the author’s honesty; it must have been hard to write a book about one’s own short comings.
During the "Stanford Prison Experiment," an experiment he created, he was part of the actual testing and also became victim to the traps the other participants fell into.
The idea was to separate the participants into two groups, guards and prisoners with Zimbardo taking the role of prison overseer in a monitored environment. But things quickly went from weird to damn right unethical. Instead of simply playing the roles assigned to them, everybody involved actually became the roles. The guards became violent, the prisoners became unhinged and unstable and Zimbardo himself became rather tyrannical and uncaring. The experiment would have continued if his girlfriend, at the time, didn’t break through to him and show him how messed up things were.
It almost erupted
"The most apparent thing that I noticed was how most of the people in this study derive their sense of identity and well-being from their immediate surroundings rather than from within themselves, and that's why they broke down—just couldn't stand the pressure—they had nothing within them to hold up against all of this.”
Zimbardo is rather embarrassed at his own part, understandably. But he still used the findings of the experiment to theorise why it actually happened and considered how normal people can become violent and evil so quickly. It’s all about situational factors and conformity. The men adapted to their roles all too quickly and the power given to the guards was theirs to exploit at their own will. The separation of men into two factions also helped to evoke as dangerous “us” and “them” attitude allowing for an unsympathetic approach to others.
The Lucifer Effect discusses the psychology of roles we take on when forced into power struggles. It’s a strong piece of research, and Zimbardo theorises quite heavily. His assumptions on his own experiments are grounded, though he takes them much further afield and considers many violent prisons. As logical as some of his argument are, at this stage they are only arguments rather than findings. I much preferred the first section of the book, the part about his research, rather than his speculations on situations with seperate cultural and social factors.
What The Lucifer Effect shows us though is the dangers of conformity and where it can lead us. Social conditioning plays a huge part in our cognitive makeup, a part we’re not always aware of until it’s too late. I really appreciated the author’s honesty; it must have been hard to write a book about one’s own short comings.
May 10, 2008
I, after a couple of weeks, have finally finished “The Lucifer Effect.” I normally don’t dog ear books because, well, that’s almost sacrilegious, but there were points that I knew I wanted to come back to. Like this one which really came out there unexpectedly, and had me laughing so hard.
After asking what his parents do, his religious background, and whether he goes to church regularly, Prescott is angered by the prisoner’s statement this his religion is “nondenominational. He retorts, “You haven’t even decided about something as important as that either.”
The guy was so angry that he then had to step out of the room and let the board continue the “parole hearing.” Wow.
Then there was this little tidbit about the lessons learned when a normally powerless person is given power: this is the transformation.
Admire power, detest weakness. Dominate, don’t negotiate. Hit first when they turn the other cheek. The golden rule is for them, not for us. Authority rules, rules are authority.
The sum of the whole: Systems create these Situations that then once submerged into them; ordinary “good” people would do things that are categorically “evil.”
Once a person is put into a set “situation” created by this “system” they emerge from it not able recognize who they are; they are not going to be the same person. This is why surprise, surprise the people, who committed those “you can not believe they did that” acts against prisoners at Abu Ghraib, while responsible for their actions, aren’t solely to blame.
The entire portion of the book accounting the Horrors of Abu Ghraib was unbelievably fascinating. It really gave you a complete view of what happened from the bottom up. Riveting read I must say.
The only down side, obviously this book is a bit wordy. There were times when I put the book down and didn’t bother with it for days on end. I know that some people just skipped to the "good stuff," but I stuck it out, having read the whole thing. I’m glad that I did, because of the social implications and discoveries that you get from these chapters of basic “setup” or “premise,” it really gives you a more in depth understanding of what happens later in the book.
Very interesting read although a bit tough at times.
After asking what his parents do, his religious background, and whether he goes to church regularly, Prescott is angered by the prisoner’s statement this his religion is “nondenominational. He retorts, “You haven’t even decided about something as important as that either.”
The guy was so angry that he then had to step out of the room and let the board continue the “parole hearing.” Wow.
Then there was this little tidbit about the lessons learned when a normally powerless person is given power: this is the transformation.
Admire power, detest weakness. Dominate, don’t negotiate. Hit first when they turn the other cheek. The golden rule is for them, not for us. Authority rules, rules are authority.
The sum of the whole: Systems create these Situations that then once submerged into them; ordinary “good” people would do things that are categorically “evil.”
Once a person is put into a set “situation” created by this “system” they emerge from it not able recognize who they are; they are not going to be the same person. This is why surprise, surprise the people, who committed those “you can not believe they did that” acts against prisoners at Abu Ghraib, while responsible for their actions, aren’t solely to blame.
The entire portion of the book accounting the Horrors of Abu Ghraib was unbelievably fascinating. It really gave you a complete view of what happened from the bottom up. Riveting read I must say.
The only down side, obviously this book is a bit wordy. There were times when I put the book down and didn’t bother with it for days on end. I know that some people just skipped to the "good stuff," but I stuck it out, having read the whole thing. I’m glad that I did, because of the social implications and discoveries that you get from these chapters of basic “setup” or “premise,” it really gives you a more in depth understanding of what happens later in the book.
Very interesting read although a bit tough at times.
December 17, 2007
Well, interesting title and interesting subject, but I highly doubt his hypothesis. This book was borne out of Philip Zimbardo's work with a U.S. army soldier, who was one of the prison guards at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Zimbardo is also the one who ran the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in the 1970s. Basically, his premise in this book is that circumstances shape the individual, and our actions can be molded by the circumstances that we are in. E.g., it was the duress and egregious circumstances suffered by the participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment and at Abu Ghraib that led them to commit such heinous acts. However, he leaves many questions unanswered. What is it within us that CAUSES us to respond to circumstances in that negative fashion, as opposed to the other way around? He attempts to explain evil with the circumstantial and phenomenological--utterly insufficient and unsophisticated at best. It's interesting, but naive. Forgettable really, even as a psychological resource. I heard him speak at the 2007 APA Convention in San Francisco--forgettable as well except for Hollywood-style theatrics to illustrate his point. As one who provides therapy to Iraq veterans myself, there is much more to the roots of human evil than, "My circumstances made me do it." Want a better resource? Read "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. Much more worth your time.
December 26, 2013
This book should be called "The Stanford Prison Experiment and Other Things Regarding How Good People Turn Evil". The first 200 or so pages are about The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971 study involving the psychological effects of prisoners and prison guards). If you took Psychology 101 or 102 in college you more than likely read about it. Anyway, once I reached page 113 I was really wishing for a new topic, but no, it kept going and going--repeating the same subject matter and psychological findings of the Stanford study. Once I saw the light and new subject was finally presented (maybe around page 236) I was pretty burnt out and at that point, I didn't care anymore. I read the rest of the 300 or so pages, however I can't recall anything that I read and I don't care. Pros: Cool title, interesting topic, interesting experiment. Cons: 480 pages too long, not enough about Lucifer.
October 29, 2016
As a huge psych nerd I was really happy to stumble across this book in the local library. For those who don't know and/or have forgotten psyc101 Zimbardo is the professor behind the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. The seminal experiment where (Spoiler alert I guess) where ordinary young men were put in a simulated prison situation (randomly assigned to prisoners and guards, mind) and the whole thing had to be shut down before the week ended due to inhumane abuse and practices.
The Lucifer Effect is the first time Zimbardo has opened up with a first hand account of the whole experiment which is equal parts intriguing and horrifying. The majority of the first part of the book (and the books as a whole) is devoted to the experiment, and while I found it enthralling I suspect anyone looking for more pop psychology would find the section very heavy given its a blow-by-blow analysis of the experiment. The most twisting thing about it is hearing how sucked into the role Zimbardo himself got and how far it all had to go before it stopped.
The central section covers broader literature on conformity, explaining how human beings can be heavily influenced to do evil by their situations, systems and roles. This section was really interesting and well presented, being quite short and sweet comparatively, reviewing studies such as what could be called the Prison study's sister experiment the Milgrim Shock experiments and Asch's original social conformity papers.
The penultimate section deals with Zimbardo's experience with the Abu Gharib prison. This section is by far the most horrifying and challenging to read, as Zimbardo describes and analyzes the military prison run in the heart of Iraq. I suspect many would find this section grueling and difficult to read but ultimately the lessons learned are important ones.
Finally Zimbardo concludes with advice on heroism and resisting systematic and situational pressure to do wrong. I found this section hit and miss. Providing advice for resisting situational pressure was invaluable, the sections theorizing on the make-up of heroes was a little idealistic and theoretical compared to the robustly conceptualized other sections.
In total Lucifer Effect is a scary but valuable read, at around 500 pages with heavy material it is not for the faint of heart, but I am really glad Dr Zimbardo shared his story and knowledge his insights and knowledge cannot be overvalued.
The Lucifer Effect is the first time Zimbardo has opened up with a first hand account of the whole experiment which is equal parts intriguing and horrifying. The majority of the first part of the book (and the books as a whole) is devoted to the experiment, and while I found it enthralling I suspect anyone looking for more pop psychology would find the section very heavy given its a blow-by-blow analysis of the experiment. The most twisting thing about it is hearing how sucked into the role Zimbardo himself got and how far it all had to go before it stopped.
The central section covers broader literature on conformity, explaining how human beings can be heavily influenced to do evil by their situations, systems and roles. This section was really interesting and well presented, being quite short and sweet comparatively, reviewing studies such as what could be called the Prison study's sister experiment the Milgrim Shock experiments and Asch's original social conformity papers.
The penultimate section deals with Zimbardo's experience with the Abu Gharib prison. This section is by far the most horrifying and challenging to read, as Zimbardo describes and analyzes the military prison run in the heart of Iraq. I suspect many would find this section grueling and difficult to read but ultimately the lessons learned are important ones.
Finally Zimbardo concludes with advice on heroism and resisting systematic and situational pressure to do wrong. I found this section hit and miss. Providing advice for resisting situational pressure was invaluable, the sections theorizing on the make-up of heroes was a little idealistic and theoretical compared to the robustly conceptualized other sections.
In total Lucifer Effect is a scary but valuable read, at around 500 pages with heavy material it is not for the faint of heart, but I am really glad Dr Zimbardo shared his story and knowledge his insights and knowledge cannot be overvalued.
February 16, 2010
Well, I need to state my prejudices upfront. I'm kind of a secret fan of Doctor Zimbardo. See, I guess at some point he put together some kind of massive 26-episode series of half-hour lectures on how the mind works for public TV. They would come on at some ungodly hour of the morning so that I used to catch them while scarfing down my nutritious Lucky Charms and locally squozen OJ before leaving for work. Doctor Z would introduce each episode with a kind of geekish seriousness of purpose that one totally had to respect. Plus he would always be wearing some seriously appalling fashion atrocity - most commonly a truly regrettable sports jacket or shirt. But some episodes he'd get those down only to spoil the effect with some kind of hypnotically iridescent tie whose width was at least a decade off the prevailing norm.
But the programs were not actually an insult to the intelligence, for the most part - the material was decently organized, lucidly presented, with a minimum of pomposity. If I'm not mistaken, in recent months Doctor Z has resurfaced on my public TV dial with a fresh, updated, completely revamped version of the lectures. One imagines lots of snazzy functional mRI s**t.
But of course that's not Doctor Z's only claim to fame. It's a safe bet the first few sentences of his obituary will define him in terms of the (infamous) "Stanford Prison study". In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram had shocked the scientific community with his series of "obedience experiments" that showed how an apparently strongly hardwired obedience to authority could lead people to commit barbaric acts of cruelty (). A decade later Zimbardo eliminated any possible doubt when a simulated "prison experiment" he was conducting on the Stanford campus had to be discontinued early for ethical reasons because the behavior of the participating students had degenerated into "Lord of the Flies" savagery within a period of only 4 days.
The first 200 pages of this book are given over to a description of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). The middle third covers lessons learned from SPE and summarizes other experimental work related to the problem of people behaving badly. The final 200 pages discusses events at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, as well as other excesses of the Bush administration in terms of what has been learned about human behavior from the SPE and similar experiments.
To me, it's this final part of the book that is the most interesting. The initial material is readable enough, but seems way over-extended. I suspect that very few people (or the kind of people reading this book) are unaware of the SPE, so summarizing the main findings in 20-30 pages should have been possible, instead of the 200-page account which helps inflate "The Lucifer Effect" to a bloated 550 pages.
That said, I remain a fan of Doctor Zimbardo. Even if the book is a little too long, he is always clear. And though what he has to say can be depressing, it's clearly not wrong. Understanding our own weaknesses and the factors that can allow cruelty and evil to flourish seems more important than ever these days. This is a good book.
But the programs were not actually an insult to the intelligence, for the most part - the material was decently organized, lucidly presented, with a minimum of pomposity. If I'm not mistaken, in recent months Doctor Z has resurfaced on my public TV dial with a fresh, updated, completely revamped version of the lectures. One imagines lots of snazzy functional mRI s**t.
But of course that's not Doctor Z's only claim to fame. It's a safe bet the first few sentences of his obituary will define him in terms of the (infamous) "Stanford Prison study". In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram had shocked the scientific community with his series of "obedience experiments" that showed how an apparently strongly hardwired obedience to authority could lead people to commit barbaric acts of cruelty (). A decade later Zimbardo eliminated any possible doubt when a simulated "prison experiment" he was conducting on the Stanford campus had to be discontinued early for ethical reasons because the behavior of the participating students had degenerated into "Lord of the Flies" savagery within a period of only 4 days.
The first 200 pages of this book are given over to a description of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). The middle third covers lessons learned from SPE and summarizes other experimental work related to the problem of people behaving badly. The final 200 pages discusses events at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, as well as other excesses of the Bush administration in terms of what has been learned about human behavior from the SPE and similar experiments.
To me, it's this final part of the book that is the most interesting. The initial material is readable enough, but seems way over-extended. I suspect that very few people (or the kind of people reading this book) are unaware of the SPE, so summarizing the main findings in 20-30 pages should have been possible, instead of the 200-page account which helps inflate "The Lucifer Effect" to a bloated 550 pages.
That said, I remain a fan of Doctor Zimbardo. Even if the book is a little too long, he is always clear. And though what he has to say can be depressing, it's clearly not wrong. Understanding our own weaknesses and the factors that can allow cruelty and evil to flourish seems more important than ever these days. This is a good book.
March 23, 2025
( ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ????? )
????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? " The Lucifer effect " ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????:
■ ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????
????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ????.
????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????.
??? ????? ?????? ????????? - ????? ????? - ?????? ??????? .. ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????.
????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???????.
■ ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????
??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? - ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? - ???????? - ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? - ????????? -????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? - ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????????.
》????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????.
????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? " The Lucifer effect " ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????:
■ ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????
????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ????.
????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????.
??? ????? ?????? ????????? - ????? ????? - ?????? ??????? .. ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????.
????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???????.
■ ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????
??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? - ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? - ???????? - ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? - ????????? -????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? - ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????????.
》????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????.
July 5, 2019
“I would rather die than to accept being treaded as less
than a human being.” ~~an ex prisoner from a real penitentiary
I have heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment for years, and even just hearing about it was disheartening. Reading the book wass more than disheartening, it was depressing.
It is that I have always tried to understand evil, but I don’t think we really can in any meaningful way. Perhaps, it is just that it is part of our nature, and yet unlike animals, we appear to be the most vicious of all in the animal kingdom, but also the most loving.
I once thought that religion was the way to compassion, to goodness, but then I saw what it has done to others, how cruel it could be. I thought perhaps Buddhism, with its profession of compassion, was the way, and that meditation developed gooid traits. I was sadly mistaken. I gave up on all religion.
I began reading this book for answers. I found none. I tried reading the book “Behave.” It became boring and I couldn’t see reading more than 800 pages. Evil, it taught, was due to faulty wiring in the brain. Well, yes, for some it is. That has been proven. But what about perfectly good, decent people who are kind towards others until being put in a situation where you are told to be a guard over others? Well, all hell breaks loose. In this Stanford study even a Buddhist who tried to keep his cool, so to speak, broke down. At least he tried, and perhaps that is all we can do.
This study went on in the 70s at Stanford University. One of the psychology professors wanted to do this study and received permission. He found around 20 men who passed his mental health test as well as criminal background tests.
Then he divided them up as guards and prisoners and put them in a prison for the test. All he told the guards was to make the prisoners behave, but at the same time, do not physically harm them.
The experiment lasted 6 days, but it should have been stopped much earlier.
As the days went on the guards became more sadistic, and while there were those who didn’t wish to harm others, as they days went by, they were slwly giving in in, but in smaller ways.
As a result, the prisoners were dehumanized. Some were breaking down mentally and wanted out, but by then some had forgotten that they could leave anytime, just as those guards had forgotten how to treat others with dignity.
It was almost the same as what is happening at our borders with the men, women, and children in cages. The difference is, the camps at the border are far crueler, the dehumanizing is much worse. If prisoners in the Stanford study broke down after a few days, what is happening to those in the border camps? I have that answer in my mind’s eye: I see them being raped, beaten, and murdered.
What is happening at the border should be policed, stopped, but by a different group than those who are over them. But the harm is coming from our present government, from a president who says, “If they don’t like how they are being treated, then they should quit coming here.” Yet, the Hispanics have no where else to go. Five countries have been taking them in; they are swamped.
I think Ben Ference who was the prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials said it best, maybe:
“War makes murderers out of otherwise decent people.” Well, perhaps, it is more than that. Perhaps, putting a man over another human being while saying that that person is evil, makes murders out of anymore who has the power to kill, and it doesn’t have to be in a war situation.
This book is acquired reading in psychology classes, but it should be required reading in high school because it should be read by everyone.
March 12, 2019
“?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????“
?????? ???????? ????? ???? ?1987? ?? ????? ???????
??
“?? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????“
??????? ???????? ????? ?????
???
?? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? “????? ???????” ????:
??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ????? ????????
??? ???? ???? ??????????/??????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? “?????” ??? ????? “?????”? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? (???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????)? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????????. ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? “?????????”? ?????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? (?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? “?????? ????????? Hebephilia” ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????).
?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??????? –??? ???? ?????? ????? ???????- ?? ???? ??”?????/?????” ???????? ?? ????? ????? “?????? ???????”? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???????. ???? ???????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? (????? ???????? ???????) ?? ?? ???? “?????” ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?”??????” ????????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????????? ????????.
?????? ???????? ???? ????????? -???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??????????- ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????:
“??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????… ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???????“.
???? ?? ???????????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????. ?? ?????? ????? -?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????- ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????!
?????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????/???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????/?????. ?? ?????? (?????? ?? ?????) ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????:
?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? “???? ?????”? “???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????”? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? “???????? ?? ????????“?.
??? ??????? ?????? “????? ??????” ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????????: ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????.
?????? ??????:
??? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????.
????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? “??????? ???????” ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?.????:
????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? … ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????… ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????. ????? ????? ????? ??????. ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? 1960? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????. ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????. ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????. ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? “???? ????” ????? ????” ? “????? ????”. ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????. ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????. ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????. ???? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? “????????” ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????. ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??? -?? ????? ?????- ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ??? ??: ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???. ???? ??? ??? ????. ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????. ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?.???? –???? ?????? ??????- ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????????.
* * *
???? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ????? “????? ???????“. ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????” ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???”? ????? ??? ?????????:
1- ?????? ????????? (??? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????)? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ..???. ????? ??????? “????????” ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????. ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????.
2- ?????? ???????/????????: ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??????????? (???? ????? ??????) ??? ?????? “?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????”.
??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ????????:
“???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????/??????? ???? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??????? -???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????- ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????. ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ???????. ??? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????????”.
????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? (?????? ??????/?????? ??????/???????) ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????????. ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??”???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????”.
????? ???? ???????? -??????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????- ??? ????? “??? ????????” ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????. ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????. ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???????. ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?????????. ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????. ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? (???????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????) ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? -??? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???????- ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????.
??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??????????. ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????.
??? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????????.
??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? -?? ???? ???- ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? -??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????- ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???.
?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????????:
“????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????????. ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ????????. ?????? ??? ???? “??????? ???????” ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????.
?? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????. ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???:
????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????.
?? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????/?????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????????.
* * *
???? ?? “????” ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????:
?????: ?????? ???????: ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? “???????? ????? ?????????* ????????????? ?????????? ????????????“? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? “???????? ????????”? ???? ????? (???? ???????????? ?????? ???????? * ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? * ??????? ??????? ????????? ????????)? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????: “??????? ????? ?????? ????”? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??”??? ???? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????????”? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????. ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? “??????? ???????” ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????.
??????: ?????? ??????: ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????: “??? ???? ????????” ????:
“?? ???? ????: ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? –?? ????- ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????”? ??? ????? “?????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ????????? ???????“.
????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????: “???? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????”? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????: “????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????“? ????? ????: “???? ??????” ?? “?????? ???????” ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? “????? ????? ?????? [???????] ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????” ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????: “????? ??????? ?? ?????”.
???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????: ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????. ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???????:“??? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????“.
?? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? (???????? ??????) ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????????. ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??: ????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? “?????” ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????.
??????: ?????? ????????: ?????? ??? “????” ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? “???????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????”? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? :”??????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????”. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ??????.
??????: ?????? ???????: ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? “???????” ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????.
* * *
??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? 570 ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? 2007?. ??? ???? ????????.
?????? ???????? ????? ???? ?1987? ?? ????? ???????
??
“?? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????“
??????? ???????? ????? ?????
???
?? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? “????? ???????” ????:
??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ????? ????????
??? ???? ???? ??????????/??????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? “?????” ??? ????? “?????”? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? (???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????)? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????????. ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? “?????????”? ?????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? (?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? “?????? ????????? Hebephilia” ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????).
?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??????? –??? ???? ?????? ????? ???????- ?? ???? ??”?????/?????” ???????? ?? ????? ????? “?????? ???????”? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???????. ???? ???????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? (????? ???????? ???????) ?? ?? ???? “?????” ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?”??????” ????????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????????? ????????.
?????? ???????? ???? ????????? -???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??????????- ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????:
“??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????… ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???????“.
???? ?? ???????????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????. ?? ?????? ????? -?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????- ???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????!
?????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????/???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????/?????. ?? ?????? (?????? ?? ?????) ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????:
?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? “???? ?????”? “???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????”? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? “???????? ?? ????????“?.
??? ??????? ?????? “????? ??????” ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????????: ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????.
?????? ??????:
??? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????.
????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? “??????? ???????” ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?.????:
????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? … ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????… ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????. ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????. ????? ????? ????? ??????. ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? 1960? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????. ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????. ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????. ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? “???? ????” ????? ????” ? “????? ????”. ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????. ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????. ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????. ???? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? “????????” ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????. ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??? -?? ????? ?????- ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ??? ??: ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???. ???? ??? ??? ????. ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????. ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?.???? –???? ?????? ??????- ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????????.
* * *
???? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ????? “????? ???????“. ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????” ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???”? ????? ??? ?????????:
1- ?????? ????????? (??? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????)? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ..???. ????? ??????? “????????” ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????. ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????.
2- ?????? ???????/????????: ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??????????? (???? ????? ??????) ??? ?????? “?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????”.
??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ????????:
“???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????/??????? ???? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??????? -???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????- ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????. ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ???????. ??? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????????”.
????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? (?????? ??????/?????? ??????/???????) ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????????. ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??”???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????”.
????? ???? ???????? -??????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????- ??? ????? “??? ????????” ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????. ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????. ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???????. ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?????????. ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????. ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? (???????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????) ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? -??? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???????- ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????.
??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??????????. ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????.
??? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????????.
??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? -?? ???? ???- ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? -??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????- ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???.
?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????????:
“????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????????. ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ????????. ?????? ??? ???? “??????? ???????” ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????.
?? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????. ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???:
????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????.
?? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????/?????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????????.
* * *
???? ?? “????” ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????:
?????: ?????? ???????: ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? “???????? ????? ?????????* ????????????? ?????????? ????????????“? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ???? “???????? ????????”? ???? ????? (???? ???????????? ?????? ???????? * ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? * ??????? ??????? ????????? ????????)? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????: “??????? ????? ?????? ????”? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??”??? ???? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????????”? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????. ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? “??????? ???????” ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????.
??????: ?????? ??????: ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????: “??? ???? ????????” ????:
“?? ???? ????: ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? –?? ????- ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????”? ??? ????? “?????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ????????? ???????“.
????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????: “???? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????”? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????: “????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????“? ????? ????: “???? ??????” ?? “?????? ???????” ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? “????? ????? ?????? [???????] ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????” ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????: “????? ??????? ?? ?????”.
???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????: ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????. ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???????:“??? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????“.
?? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? (???????? ??????) ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????????. ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??: ????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? “?????” ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ????.
??????: ?????? ????????: ?????? ??? “????” ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? “???????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????”? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? :”??????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????”. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ??????.
??????: ?????? ???????: ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? “???????” ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????.
* * *
??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? 570 ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? 2007?. ??? ???? ????????.
June 1, 2019
Philip Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil was a stimulating read. A lot of psychology books tend to be a bit dry or scientifically wordy, becoming tedious and stodgy. It’s refreshing to be able to retain knowledge that can later be reflected on.
The Lucifer Effect delves into the psychology of roles we assume when forced into power struggles. It’s a facet of research that reveals the power of social situations and the social construction of reality.
Starting off with a short overview on crimes against humanity, the history of the degradation in Rwanda and Nanking, the horrors and abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison, and the atrocity of Nazi Germany.
The first half of the book is a written reenactment of his Stanford Prison Experiment organized in 1971 in which he selected a group of college students to assume the role of prisoners and another group to assume the role of guards, set up in a mock prison, they were to endure a set of prison rules for two weeks. The experiment proved interesting insight into the psychology of sadism, humiliation, and dehumanization, of prisoners surrendering their humanity and compassion to social power.
These chapters are, indeed, monotonous and are lagging in interest; however I found them to have a reasonably significant share in revealing the pattern of thought that we undergo when put in these situations.
His aspiration with this study was to differentiate between dispositional behaviors and situational, in which we overemphasize personality in explaining any behavior while concurrently underemphasizing situational influences. The imagined threat of being cast outside the “in-group” coupled with the threat of rejection. This hits home, living in a society that encourages individualism. Typically, roles are tied to specific situations; they are enacted when one is in that situation. Yet some roles are sinister, and can become who we are most of the time.
Most interesting are the chapters following the review of the SPE in which Zimbardo analyses the psychological transformation of the human mind under pressure.
The other half of the book breaks down the psychology of social dynamics in power, conformity, obedience, deindividuation, dehumanization, and the evil of inaction finishing with a very intense chapter on Abu Ghraib’s abuses of power, interrogations and tortures which is wrapped up by putting our government’s perverse, and conspiratorial system on trial as an influence for these war crimes and crimes against humanity and what can be done to prevent future abuses.
At last the book ends with a chapter on resisting situational influences and celebrating heroism which brings to our attention that, although heroes seem to be few and far between just as the “bad apples” seem to be, the banality of evil shares much with the banality of heroism. We are just as capable of doing good as we are of doing evil. Just as evil is unconsciously learned, so we can learn strategies of resistance towards evil deeds.
This was a liberating read for me as it raised my consciousness to underlying psychological evil in the human condition. As an ordinary person, I can be seduced into behaving in evil ways under the sway of powerful systematic and situational forces. Only by being made aware of my influential limitations, can I then make the ethical choice between the permeable line between good and evil as we are not slaves to the power of situational forces, and we can learn to resist and oppose them. Such knowledge can release us all from subjugation to the mighty grasp of conformity, compliance, persuasion, and other forms of social influence and coercion. After all, we are only human. Complex, yet very far from perfect.
I highly recommend this book if you’re willing to learn more about how you subconsciously tick.
“Each of us is the end product of the complex development and specialization that have grown out of millions of years of evolution, growth, adaptation, and coping. Our species has reached its special place on Earth because of our remarkable capacity for learning, for language, for reasoning, for inventing, and for imagining new and better futures. Every human being has the potential to perfect the skills, talents, and attributes we need to go beyond surviving to thrive and enhance our human condition.”
The Lucifer Effect delves into the psychology of roles we assume when forced into power struggles. It’s a facet of research that reveals the power of social situations and the social construction of reality.
Starting off with a short overview on crimes against humanity, the history of the degradation in Rwanda and Nanking, the horrors and abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison, and the atrocity of Nazi Germany.
The first half of the book is a written reenactment of his Stanford Prison Experiment organized in 1971 in which he selected a group of college students to assume the role of prisoners and another group to assume the role of guards, set up in a mock prison, they were to endure a set of prison rules for two weeks. The experiment proved interesting insight into the psychology of sadism, humiliation, and dehumanization, of prisoners surrendering their humanity and compassion to social power.
These chapters are, indeed, monotonous and are lagging in interest; however I found them to have a reasonably significant share in revealing the pattern of thought that we undergo when put in these situations.
His aspiration with this study was to differentiate between dispositional behaviors and situational, in which we overemphasize personality in explaining any behavior while concurrently underemphasizing situational influences. The imagined threat of being cast outside the “in-group” coupled with the threat of rejection. This hits home, living in a society that encourages individualism. Typically, roles are tied to specific situations; they are enacted when one is in that situation. Yet some roles are sinister, and can become who we are most of the time.
Most interesting are the chapters following the review of the SPE in which Zimbardo analyses the psychological transformation of the human mind under pressure.
The other half of the book breaks down the psychology of social dynamics in power, conformity, obedience, deindividuation, dehumanization, and the evil of inaction finishing with a very intense chapter on Abu Ghraib’s abuses of power, interrogations and tortures which is wrapped up by putting our government’s perverse, and conspiratorial system on trial as an influence for these war crimes and crimes against humanity and what can be done to prevent future abuses.
At last the book ends with a chapter on resisting situational influences and celebrating heroism which brings to our attention that, although heroes seem to be few and far between just as the “bad apples” seem to be, the banality of evil shares much with the banality of heroism. We are just as capable of doing good as we are of doing evil. Just as evil is unconsciously learned, so we can learn strategies of resistance towards evil deeds.
This was a liberating read for me as it raised my consciousness to underlying psychological evil in the human condition. As an ordinary person, I can be seduced into behaving in evil ways under the sway of powerful systematic and situational forces. Only by being made aware of my influential limitations, can I then make the ethical choice between the permeable line between good and evil as we are not slaves to the power of situational forces, and we can learn to resist and oppose them. Such knowledge can release us all from subjugation to the mighty grasp of conformity, compliance, persuasion, and other forms of social influence and coercion. After all, we are only human. Complex, yet very far from perfect.
I highly recommend this book if you’re willing to learn more about how you subconsciously tick.
“Each of us is the end product of the complex development and specialization that have grown out of millions of years of evolution, growth, adaptation, and coping. Our species has reached its special place on Earth because of our remarkable capacity for learning, for language, for reasoning, for inventing, and for imagining new and better futures. Every human being has the potential to perfect the skills, talents, and attributes we need to go beyond surviving to thrive and enhance our human condition.”
February 27, 2020
Ако не сте чували за Станфордският затворнически експеримент - марш да си наваксате. Това е един от най-известните експерименти в съвременната наука, където един психолог взема няколко студенти (доброволци), разделя ги на случаен принцип на надзиратели и затворници и ги заключва в едно просторно мазе, където от талашит са направени "килии" и е накачил камери, за да ги гледа какво правят.
Младежите всичките са избрани предварително да са нормални, без психични и поведенчески отклонения, всичките са студенти в университета, без криминални прояви и т.н. За 1 седмица мазето се превръща с тъмница на ужасите с непрестанни обиди, побои, бунт на "затворниците", издевателства и т.н. Налага се да прекратят експеримента, но той остава един от еталоните в психологията на човешкото поведение в стресови условия.
По-късно Дейвид Зимбардо (въпросния психолог) става един от най-известните академични психолози в света, със стотици публикации и е експерт-свидетел в делото срещу американските войници, които бяха се гаврили със затворници в Ирак преди няколко години.
Книгата е детайлно описание на експеримента, с коментари на случващото се и изводи за това какво то ни казва за човешката психика.
Младежите всичките са избрани предварително да са нормални, без психични и поведенчески отклонения, всичките са студенти в университета, без криминални прояви и т.н. За 1 седмица мазето се превръща с тъмница на ужасите с непрестанни обиди, побои, бунт на "затворниците", издевателства и т.н. Налага се да прекратят експеримента, но той остава един от еталоните в психологията на човешкото поведение в стресови условия.
По-късно Дейвид Зимбардо (въпросния психолог) става един от най-известните академични психолози в света, със стотици публикации и е експерт-свидетел в делото срещу американските войници, които бяха се гаврили със затворници в Ирак преди няколко години.
Книгата е детайлно описание на експеримента, с коментари на случващото се и изводи за това какво то ни казва за човешката психика.
March 27, 2024
Едно от нещата, които човек научава от книгата на Зимбардо, е колко опасни могат да бъдат слънчевите очила. Те ни отделят не само от слънцето, но и от околните, и отчуждават на свой ред другите от нас. Превръщат се в дребно наглед, но изключително ефикасно средство за анонимност. А кого го е грижа за каквото и когото и да е в среда на анонимност?
Почти толкова безобидно като слагането на чифт слънчеви очила започва и самият Станфордски Затворнически Експеримент (СЗЕ). Няколко учени и доброволци симулират затворнически условия в университетско мазе и се разпределят на случаен принцип на затворници и надзиратели, с цел изследване на поведението. Експериментът е планиран да продължи 14 дни. Всички участници са преминали прецизен подбор и са млади, здрави и нормални хора. В началото бутафорията преобладава. Но още на шестия ден експериментът е прекратен предсрочно. Животът на нито един участник няма да е същият, и то не непременно за по-добро - себепознанието рядко носи радост. Шест дни са напълно достатъчни, за да се изявят агресия от страна на надзирателите и пречупване от страна на затворниците в непредвидени мащаби.
СЗЕ не ни казва нещо ново. Всички сме затворници на умовете си, но докато средата около нас стимулира реда и взаимопомощта, повечето неща са наред. Когато обаче човек дръпне дявола за опашката и се озове в лоша ситуация, старите навици не помагат. Във въртопа на заплашителна и стресираща ситуация изплуват онези екстремни стойности, които в ежедневието си дремят кротко у всеки. А ако тази ситуация не е изолирана, а е правило с вече утвърдена комбинация от ограничен брой ролеви модели, и с нея е щракнал заложеният капан на мракобесна или просто по-авторитарна система, злото изплува почти във всеки. И ето я на - цялата човешка история, пълна с насилие, геноцид и разруха - на хора и цели народи. История, където човек е сам, анонимен, подчинен, безразличен и затова по-лесно жесток, заобиколен от други анонимни врагове. Става лесно. И като средство за психическо оцеляване ценностите започват да се напасват към отровната среда, вместо да се търсят човешките връзки и промяната.
Историята, разбира се, познава и положителни примери и герои. Героите обаче никога не са сами, те стават герои, защото успяват да увлекат достатъчно други хора, за да повлияят успешно на обществото. Героизмът, казва Зимбардо, е винаги социален феномен. Само така оградите, вдигнати с цел манипулация и контрол, падат.
Доброто и злото живеят у всеки, но кое ще надделее, зависи от силата на вътрешното убеждение и ценностите, както и от интензитета на ситуациите и породилите ги системи.
Извращенията в Абу Граиб, и във всяко нещастно кътче по света, са плод на арогантни и мачкащи системи, пораждащи зловещи ситуации, където конформизмът, изолацията и страхът у палачи и жертви е много сходен. Други роли за участниците в ужаса липсват. И не трябва да се допускат, но веднъж допуснати - трябва да бъдат наказвани.
Стори ми се, че - дори след толкова десетилетия - Зимбардо все още се бори да осмисли каква точно кутия на Пандора е отворил в ограничения мащаб на СЗЕ. Втората част на книгата, напускаща пределите на СЗЕ, е на места доста объркана и пълна с общи приказки. Извращенията в Абу Граиб (които сa само тъничкият връх на необятен мръсен айсберг) са разгледани в леко стеснените рамки на сируационния анализ и наложените на участниците ролеви модели, макар да са представени с порядъчни количество ужасяващи и технически детайли. Системата е обвинена поименно - Буш, Чейни, Ръмсфелд - но обвинението звучи някак уморено и безсилно.
Краят на книгата...бедни ми Зимбардо! Погалване по главицата с няколко успокоителни общи фрази (да не се отчае съвсем клетият читател) не е достатъчно! Но благодаря, че ни даде храна за размисъл и за - както и ти се надяваш - ефикасна съпротива срещу злото и ползотворно противодействие.
***
“Най-видимото нещо, което забелязах, беше как повечето хора в това изследване извличат чувството си за идентичност и благополучие от непосредствената си среда, а не от себе си, и затова те се провалиха - просто не можаха да устоят на натиска: те нямаха нищо в себе си, което да изправят срещу всичко това.”
“Героизмът често изисква социална подкрепа.”
March 13, 2017
A classic on the subject, Zimbardo tackles in this book the longest description and explanation of his Stanford Prison Experiment, along with two other main themes: the Abu Ghraib abuses and, in the last chapter, heroism and altruism. Now, of course I am a little biased (at the moment I am using his study as a building block for an essay on obedience and my Social Psychology paper was on Abu Ghraib), but I loved this book. I love the subject, I love the writing, I find the entire theme endlessly fascinating and also - don't tell anyone - I really like Zimbardo. I think he is a great psychologist who happened to conduct the right experiment at the right time, and his work on heroism and altruism could truly change the way we raise our children and the way our societies respond to human rights violations and other morally unjustifiable things.
For anyone interested in the "psychology of evil", situational vs dispositional factors, oppressive systems - or for anyone who comes with a historical interest from the side of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th and 21st Century - this is truly a book for you. I would argue, one of the best works on a branch of psychology, ever.
For anyone interested in the "psychology of evil", situational vs dispositional factors, oppressive systems - or for anyone who comes with a historical interest from the side of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th and 21st Century - this is truly a book for you. I would argue, one of the best works on a branch of psychology, ever.
Read
August 15, 2019"Всички сме морски свинчета в Божията лаборатория…
Човечеството е просто в процес на създаване."
—?Тенеси Уилямс, ?Camino Real“ (1953)
"Ефектът Луцифер" всъщност е потресаващо- плашещ социално--психологически експеримент, проведен през 1971г. Целта му е да изс??едва реакциите на човека в състояние на ограничена свобода, в условията на затворнически живот и на влиянието на наложената социална роля върху поведението.? Първоначалната идея на Зимбардо е била експериментът да продължи 14 дена, но той го прекъсва на половината, защото голяма част от участниците вече са били получили нервни сривове.
Надали някой може да предположи в какво може да се превърне, ако попадне в условия, твърде различни от тези, с които е свикнал или му се даде прекомерна власт?! Този експеримент е провеждан със студенти, при които не са забелязани никакви отклонения от поведението в тяхната нормална среда, нито пък проява на садизъм. И именно тези благонравни на пръв поглед хора се превръщат в зверове. Защо, как, къде, както и всички останали подробности може да намерите в книгата. Включително и това как става трансформацията от едно проявление в друго. Всичко това е нагледно доказателство, че съзнанието и битието са взаимосвързани и взаимодействащи си, а фактите са просто потресаващи.
Експериментът е представен в много достъпна форма, не като някакъв суховат научен труд, а като история със съответните факти и анализи.
След експериментът, Зимбардо прави следните основни изводи:
- човешката природа невинаги е под контрола на това, което сме приели да наричаме свободно волеизявление
- повечето от нас могат да бъдат тласнати към такова поведение, което съвършено противоречи на личната ни представа за самите нас
Е, и ако все още някой си мисли, че познава себе си и хората около себе си толкова добре, да си припомни още веднъж този експеримент.
March 20, 2023
???? ????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ????.
March 16, 2019
перша частина – там, де йдеться про стендфордський експеримент ? загальн? висновки з нього – тягне на хорошу четв?рку. воно справд? ц?каве ? страшне, хоча м?сцями трохи затягнуте (але то й зрозум?ло: хочеться детально розпов?сти, як усе було, звернути увагу на нюанси, п?дкреслити важливе, ще раз п?дкреслити важливе).
дуже ц?каво, як трансформуються погляди п?ддосл?дних: якщо на стор. 67 з?мбардо каже операторов?, що в п?дготовц? до експерименту "н?хто не захот?в бути охоронцем, ус?х б?льше приваблювала роль ув'язненого" (в принцип?, то зовс?м не дивно, н? в америц? станом на серпень 1971 року, н? десь тут ? тепер – так би мовити, моральна п?дготовка соц?ально активних студент?в), то на стор. 99 наведене з?знання одного ув'язненого про те, що вже в нед?лю, в перший день експерименту, йому захот?лося стати охоронцем – ? н?хто з охоронц?в, зрозум?ло, б?льше не висловлював бажаня стати в'язнем. найб?льше вража? швидк?сть адаптац?? до нових ролей. коли кар?на коростел?на п?д час курсу з ?дентичност? говорила, що за к?лька годин можна перетворити випадкових людей на дв? ворож? соц?альн? групи, в це в?рилося на якомусь вкрай абстрактному р?вн? (може, бракувало переконливих ?люстрац?й) – але коли з?мбардо опису?, як нормальн? студенти, як? ще недавно хот?ли спробувати себе в амплуа в'язн?в, до вечора першого дня стають виразно садистичними наглядачами, ста? справд? страшно.
ц?каво, що я сама в процес? читання теж трохи по-?ншому почала сприймати ситуац?ю, незважаючи на те, що ран?ше чула ? про експеримент, ? про тотал?таризм, ? про соц?альну ?дентичн?сть, тобто п?дходила не з нульовою базою. у передмов? з?мбардо розпов?да?, як був експертом на суд? проти наглядача в'язниц? абу-грейб, ? мен? з тим було не дуже комфортно – окей, в адвокат?в робота така, але чого експерт-психолог виправдову? ката? коли почався розд?л власне про ситуац?ю в абу-грейб, я вже трохи розум?ла, про що йдеться з?мбардо: значно б?льше за безпосередн?х учасник?в винн? т?, хто створю? ситуац?ю, яка таке уможливлю?, нав?ть якщо сам? вони н?кому н?г не ламали. вт?м, в?н н?кого не виправдову?, оск?льки безпосередн? учасники могли б послати систему до б?са, якби мали достатньо внутр?шн?х сил чи бажання (останн?й, маленький розд?л якраз про тих, хто послав, ? про те, як це можна зробити), – але змушу? трошки критичн?ше оц?нити самих себе, демонструючи силу системи й ситуац??. все-таки умовний спос?б – дуже нетривка штука.
на цьому фон? особливо сумна б?да з частиною про абу-грейб у тому, що, по-перше, ?? занадто багато й одноман?тно, а по-друге, з?мбардо знаходить влучну метафору ? експлуату? ?? ad nauseam. я не рахувала, ск?льки раз?в в?н вжива? "ложка дьогтю", але то було щонайменше дохол?риська.
незважаючи на те, що з?мбардо назива? себе оптим?стом, книжка звучить дещо песим?стично, нав?ть той останн?й розд?л, де в?н пише, що люди так само легко можуть перетворитися на геро?в, як вони перетворюються на монстр?в. проблема ц??? св?тло? думки в тому, що ?нш? ц?кав? досл?ди показують, як у "чистих" умовах (типу реального стендфордського тюремного експерименту чи уявного "повелителя мух") люди все-таки схиляються до зла. воно просто виходить, а бути добрим доводиться св?домо, та й тут ? значно б?льш? шанси померти ран?ше, н?ж тв?й прекрасний чин пом?тять. "геро?зм, – пише з?мбардо, – часто потребу? соц?ально? п?дтримки. зазвичай ми прославля?мо геро?чн? вчинки окремих см?ливц?в, але не схвалю?мо ?х, якщо ц? вчинки створюють серйозн? незручност? для ?нших ? якщо нам незрозум?л? мотиви. нас?ння геро?чного спротиву найкраще сходить, коли вс? члени сп?льноти готов? чимось пожертвувати заради сп?льних ц?нностей ? ц?лей" (265).
особливо ц?нн? маленьк? п?дказки – ?ндикатори того, що ми кудись не туди зайшли. наприклад, чудова ситуац?я: представники "ком?тету в'язн?в" приходять у в?второк до орган?затор?в експерименту жал?тися на умови утримання, вносячи сво? пропозиц?? (вони так ? наголошують, що це не скарги, а пропозиц??), щодо покращення умов у в'язниц?. "керт [асп?рант з?мбардо] вв?чливо дяку? ?м за вс? ц? пропозиц?? й об?ця? передати ?х на розгляд начальству. ц?каво, думаю я, чи пом?тили вони, що в?н не робив н?яких нотаток, а вони не передали йому свого списка. найважлив?ше для нашо? системи було створити ?люз?ю демократ?? в авторитарн?й атмосфер?" (156). ? не те щоб у мене в?д цього аж мороз по шк?р?, але таке р?дне ? знайоме... ну, ви в курс?.
? ще: незважаючи на безмежну красив?сть книжки, рос?йське видання виклика? у мене страшну тугу. у них бувають проблеми не т?льки з пунктуац??ю, а й нав?ть ?з узгодженням частин складного речення (чи то були однор?дн? члени? не пам'ятаю; в кожному раз?, печаль). ? я знайшла одне м?сце, де переклад пояснення соц?олог?чно? процедури не просто приблизний, а виссатий з пальця, але, боюся, таких м?сць було б?льше.
дуже ц?каво, як трансформуються погляди п?ддосл?дних: якщо на стор. 67 з?мбардо каже операторов?, що в п?дготовц? до експерименту "н?хто не захот?в бути охоронцем, ус?х б?льше приваблювала роль ув'язненого" (в принцип?, то зовс?м не дивно, н? в америц? станом на серпень 1971 року, н? десь тут ? тепер – так би мовити, моральна п?дготовка соц?ально активних студент?в), то на стор. 99 наведене з?знання одного ув'язненого про те, що вже в нед?лю, в перший день експерименту, йому захот?лося стати охоронцем – ? н?хто з охоронц?в, зрозум?ло, б?льше не висловлював бажаня стати в'язнем. найб?льше вража? швидк?сть адаптац?? до нових ролей. коли кар?на коростел?на п?д час курсу з ?дентичност? говорила, що за к?лька годин можна перетворити випадкових людей на дв? ворож? соц?альн? групи, в це в?рилося на якомусь вкрай абстрактному р?вн? (може, бракувало переконливих ?люстрац?й) – але коли з?мбардо опису?, як нормальн? студенти, як? ще недавно хот?ли спробувати себе в амплуа в'язн?в, до вечора першого дня стають виразно садистичними наглядачами, ста? справд? страшно.
ц?каво, що я сама в процес? читання теж трохи по-?ншому почала сприймати ситуац?ю, незважаючи на те, що ран?ше чула ? про експеримент, ? про тотал?таризм, ? про соц?альну ?дентичн?сть, тобто п?дходила не з нульовою базою. у передмов? з?мбардо розпов?да?, як був експертом на суд? проти наглядача в'язниц? абу-грейб, ? мен? з тим було не дуже комфортно – окей, в адвокат?в робота така, але чого експерт-психолог виправдову? ката? коли почався розд?л власне про ситуац?ю в абу-грейб, я вже трохи розум?ла, про що йдеться з?мбардо: значно б?льше за безпосередн?х учасник?в винн? т?, хто створю? ситуац?ю, яка таке уможливлю?, нав?ть якщо сам? вони н?кому н?г не ламали. вт?м, в?н н?кого не виправдову?, оск?льки безпосередн? учасники могли б послати систему до б?са, якби мали достатньо внутр?шн?х сил чи бажання (останн?й, маленький розд?л якраз про тих, хто послав, ? про те, як це можна зробити), – але змушу? трошки критичн?ше оц?нити самих себе, демонструючи силу системи й ситуац??. все-таки умовний спос?б – дуже нетривка штука.
на цьому фон? особливо сумна б?да з частиною про абу-грейб у тому, що, по-перше, ?? занадто багато й одноман?тно, а по-друге, з?мбардо знаходить влучну метафору ? експлуату? ?? ad nauseam. я не рахувала, ск?льки раз?в в?н вжива? "ложка дьогтю", але то було щонайменше дохол?риська.
незважаючи на те, що з?мбардо назива? себе оптим?стом, книжка звучить дещо песим?стично, нав?ть той останн?й розд?л, де в?н пише, що люди так само легко можуть перетворитися на геро?в, як вони перетворюються на монстр?в. проблема ц??? св?тло? думки в тому, що ?нш? ц?кав? досл?ди показують, як у "чистих" умовах (типу реального стендфордського тюремного експерименту чи уявного "повелителя мух") люди все-таки схиляються до зла. воно просто виходить, а бути добрим доводиться св?домо, та й тут ? значно б?льш? шанси померти ран?ше, н?ж тв?й прекрасний чин пом?тять. "геро?зм, – пише з?мбардо, – часто потребу? соц?ально? п?дтримки. зазвичай ми прославля?мо геро?чн? вчинки окремих см?ливц?в, але не схвалю?мо ?х, якщо ц? вчинки створюють серйозн? незручност? для ?нших ? якщо нам незрозум?л? мотиви. нас?ння геро?чного спротиву найкраще сходить, коли вс? члени сп?льноти готов? чимось пожертвувати заради сп?льних ц?нностей ? ц?лей" (265).
особливо ц?нн? маленьк? п?дказки – ?ндикатори того, що ми кудись не туди зайшли. наприклад, чудова ситуац?я: представники "ком?тету в'язн?в" приходять у в?второк до орган?затор?в експерименту жал?тися на умови утримання, вносячи сво? пропозиц?? (вони так ? наголошують, що це не скарги, а пропозиц??), щодо покращення умов у в'язниц?. "керт [асп?рант з?мбардо] вв?чливо дяку? ?м за вс? ц? пропозиц?? й об?ця? передати ?х на розгляд начальству. ц?каво, думаю я, чи пом?тили вони, що в?н не робив н?яких нотаток, а вони не передали йому свого списка. найважлив?ше для нашо? системи було створити ?люз?ю демократ?? в авторитарн?й атмосфер?" (156). ? не те щоб у мене в?д цього аж мороз по шк?р?, але таке р?дне ? знайоме... ну, ви в курс?.
? ще: незважаючи на безмежну красив?сть книжки, рос?йське видання виклика? у мене страшну тугу. у них бувають проблеми не т?льки з пунктуац??ю, а й нав?ть ?з узгодженням частин складного речення (чи то були однор?дн? члени? не пам'ятаю; в кожному раз?, печаль). ? я знайшла одне м?сце, де переклад пояснення соц?олог?чно? процедури не просто приблизний, а виссатий з пальця, але, боюся, таких м?сць було б?льше.
September 19, 2015
This is a horribly difficult book to read, not because Zimbardo’s writing is bad or the subject is uninteresting, but because it exposes how easily people can be manipulated into a role — and I don’t just mean the guards, but also the prisoners. It’s important because it examines, in minute detail, the events of a now infamous experiment: the Stanford Prison Experiment. This was run, not by Stanley Milgram, as people often think, but by Philip Zimbardo, and even he became caught up in the act of it. It wasn’t even a very convincing prison, and yet it quickly made both guards and prisoners act their roles. And not even them, but people outside it who should have seen through the illusion, like the chaplain.
Both this experiment and Stanley Milgram’s experiments are kind of horrifying, because we don’t want to think it’s that easy. If you read Behind the Shock Machine, by Gina Perry (the title links to my review), she shows that it’s not that easy — Milgram’s experiments were honed to a fine point, and only the results which supported his conclusions most spectacularly were published. But still, the fact remains that you don’t have to scratch far below the surface to find something unsavoury about the way humans seem to act.
As Dar Williams says in ‘Buzzer’: I get it now, I’m the face, I’m the cause of war; we don’t have to blame white-coated men anymore.
This book, this experiment, isn’t all there is to be said about human nature, of course. But it’s an important account of something which revolutionised our understanding of human psychology, and shone a light on things we need to examine — even if they turn out not to hold as true as we fear. Kudos to Zimbardo for his unflinching discussion of everything that went on in the experiment, and every time he failed to safeguard the interests of the participants.
Both this experiment and Stanley Milgram’s experiments are kind of horrifying, because we don’t want to think it’s that easy. If you read Behind the Shock Machine, by Gina Perry (the title links to my review), she shows that it’s not that easy — Milgram’s experiments were honed to a fine point, and only the results which supported his conclusions most spectacularly were published. But still, the fact remains that you don’t have to scratch far below the surface to find something unsavoury about the way humans seem to act.
As Dar Williams says in ‘Buzzer’: I get it now, I’m the face, I’m the cause of war; we don’t have to blame white-coated men anymore.
This book, this experiment, isn’t all there is to be said about human nature, of course. But it’s an important account of something which revolutionised our understanding of human psychology, and shone a light on things we need to examine — even if they turn out not to hold as true as we fear. Kudos to Zimbardo for his unflinching discussion of everything that went on in the experiment, and every time he failed to safeguard the interests of the participants.
February 17, 2008
um, so i decided to stop reading this book because it's not suprising to me (in the LEAST!) that a bunch of college educated, middle-class white kids would act all brutish and prison-guardesque if they didn't have to be responsibile for any of their actions, and stuff. hello, blackwater? hello, um, the u.s. army? hello, fox news network? screw situational ethics when white boys have the whole world as their prison den!
also, i stopped reading this book because zimbardo (google his picture! eerie!) almost ran my sister over in his SUV back in her stanford days.
also, i stopped reading this book because zimbardo (google his picture! eerie!) almost ran my sister over in his SUV back in her stanford days.
March 21, 2013
This book represents Philip Zimbardos life's work. Over thirty years in the making. It's brilliant. its important. But be warned, this book is way too fuckin long! The book weighs in at a tubby 575 pages. I believe it could have been more effective at half the length. One thing you should know before reading this book is that an enormously large portion of it is an account of the authors infamous Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). If you (like me) are tiered of hearing Zimbardo talk (on and on) about this (over 30 year old) finding (from a poorly designed experiment that was aborted half way through), than really think twice before picking this one up. I'm currently teaching a social psychology course, so I (reluctantly) decided to read it, and I'm really glad I did. It's exhaustingly exhaustive at times, but truly brilliant when all's said and done. The central theses of the book is that; human behavior is very influenced by situational and social factors, but due to strong innate cognitive as well as cultural biases, we (particularly in the west) disproportionally explain human behavior in terms of dispositional (personality-based) factors. The central metaphor of the book is that; we often blame a few bad apples, when it's the rotten barrel that is to blame. For instance; prosecutors and spin doctors blamed the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib on "a few bad apples". Zimbardo makes the claim (convincingly in my opinion) that problems such as these, largely originate at the institutional level (a bad barrel), and a vast majority of otherwise healthy, normal people, If put in the same situation, would have behaved similarly. Furthermore, the same could be said for the mass scale atrocities of WWII and Rwanda etc. If we as a society, wish to curtail future institutional failures and mass scale atrocities (and we do), than we must focus our analysis and interventions on the systems level as well as the on the level of the individual. Zimbardo is not saying that bad acting individuals bare no responsibility for their behavior, he is however making the point that bad (corrupting) situations can influence good people to bad things, and we may want to hold institutions and policy makers more accountable when those in their employ do bad things while following orders.
August 9, 2015
A while ago, i found the book title really interesting and decided at once to add the book to my "to-read" list. I was, unfortunately, very disappointed with it, as it turned out to be not quite what i expected. I thought the book was about "Understanding How Good People Turn Evil", when it was just simply "Examples of How Good People Turn Evil". Dr. Zimbardo was excessively thorough regarding the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib incident, only to the point that proves that ordinary "good" people can "turn bad" when faced with certain situations, but not why or how it can be avoided, as the title of the book claims! I just thought a successful psychologist as himself would actually deliver what he promised.
September 6, 2017
?Ефектът Луцифер“ (изд. ?Изток-Запад“, 2017; превод: Людмила Андреева) от поведенческия психолог Филип Зимбардо е безкомпромисна аутопсия на жестокостта в най-човешката ? форма и ?твърде мрачно пътуване в сърцето и съзнанието на тъмнината”.
...6 дни и прекратяване предсрочно на драматичния ?театър“, който доброволците на Станфордския експеримент стартират. 6 дни, в които цветята на злото избуяват до задушаване. Зимбардо проследява час по час своята machina malum.
Прочетете повече:
...6 дни и прекратяване предсрочно на драматичния ?театър“, който доброволците на Станфордския експеримент стартират. 6 дни, в които цветята на злото избуяват до задушаване. Зимбардо проследява час по час своята machina malum.
Прочетете повече:
August 6, 2012
Be forewarned -- this is not a relaxing book on any level.
Having said that, it's pretty fantastic. How good people turn evil is a huge question, more ambitious than most authors would undertake and probably a set-up for disappointment as who can possibly answer that? And I admit, Zimbardo's answers are incomplete but still pretty impressive.
According to Zimbardo, when we try to explain good people committing evil deeds we tend to rely on what's called dispositional explanations -- it's about THEM, their personality, their character, the fact that they are one of those few "bad apples" that spoils the barrel. Zimbardo, a prominent social psychologist, strongly advocates replacing this thinking with a situational explanation -- the idea that the situation is a set-up for bringing out evil qualities in any normal person, or that we should blame the "bad barrel" for creating the "bad apples" rather than the other way around.
Zimbardo makes his case convincingly with a level of detail that feels overwhelming at times but is necessary in order to help the reader truly appreciate his position (his writing style also balances a scholarly and academic tone with highly personal insights, which serve to make the book more engaging). He first explores his famous experiment, the Zimbardo prison experiment of 1971, where he randomly assigned college students to the roles of "prisoner" and "guard," staged the "prisoners'" arrests, and brought the prisoners to a mock prison he set up in a basement at Stanford University. Although the experiment was meant to last two weeks, it was disbanded after five days because everyone got way too carried away. The guards became completely absorbed in their roles and psychologically abused the prisoners; the prisoners, for their part, quickly displayed signs of learned helplessness and mostly broke rather than successfully resisting their guards. Note -- every participant in the experiment was prescreened for signs of preexisting psychopathology and all were found to be completely normal.
After describing this experiment in much detail, Zimbardo goes on to discuss the ethics of the experiment and to apply it to a variety of prisoner-guard situations. He then describes other social psychology experiments which further support his situational theory of normal people turning evil, culminating in a detailed discussion of the events at Abu Ghraib and making convincing arguments for the idea that the situation, and the system, carried more of the blame than did the individual guards (although of course he does not completely absolve them of personal responsibility).
Zimbardo's book is well-written, intelligent, and ultimately convincing. It did not address one question I had: what about people who you think are good who surprise you by doing evil things in an apparently normal context? Was I simply wrong about them, or is there a more complicated explanation? But with that said, this was as complete an answer as you're probably going to get to why the Nazis, the Abu Ghraib prison guards, and others can seem like normal people through and through and then turn around and engage in cruelty.
The book's style as well as its content make it a difficult read at times but it is ultimately very rewarding. Highly recommended.
Having said that, it's pretty fantastic. How good people turn evil is a huge question, more ambitious than most authors would undertake and probably a set-up for disappointment as who can possibly answer that? And I admit, Zimbardo's answers are incomplete but still pretty impressive.
According to Zimbardo, when we try to explain good people committing evil deeds we tend to rely on what's called dispositional explanations -- it's about THEM, their personality, their character, the fact that they are one of those few "bad apples" that spoils the barrel. Zimbardo, a prominent social psychologist, strongly advocates replacing this thinking with a situational explanation -- the idea that the situation is a set-up for bringing out evil qualities in any normal person, or that we should blame the "bad barrel" for creating the "bad apples" rather than the other way around.
Zimbardo makes his case convincingly with a level of detail that feels overwhelming at times but is necessary in order to help the reader truly appreciate his position (his writing style also balances a scholarly and academic tone with highly personal insights, which serve to make the book more engaging). He first explores his famous experiment, the Zimbardo prison experiment of 1971, where he randomly assigned college students to the roles of "prisoner" and "guard," staged the "prisoners'" arrests, and brought the prisoners to a mock prison he set up in a basement at Stanford University. Although the experiment was meant to last two weeks, it was disbanded after five days because everyone got way too carried away. The guards became completely absorbed in their roles and psychologically abused the prisoners; the prisoners, for their part, quickly displayed signs of learned helplessness and mostly broke rather than successfully resisting their guards. Note -- every participant in the experiment was prescreened for signs of preexisting psychopathology and all were found to be completely normal.
After describing this experiment in much detail, Zimbardo goes on to discuss the ethics of the experiment and to apply it to a variety of prisoner-guard situations. He then describes other social psychology experiments which further support his situational theory of normal people turning evil, culminating in a detailed discussion of the events at Abu Ghraib and making convincing arguments for the idea that the situation, and the system, carried more of the blame than did the individual guards (although of course he does not completely absolve them of personal responsibility).
Zimbardo's book is well-written, intelligent, and ultimately convincing. It did not address one question I had: what about people who you think are good who surprise you by doing evil things in an apparently normal context? Was I simply wrong about them, or is there a more complicated explanation? But with that said, this was as complete an answer as you're probably going to get to why the Nazis, the Abu Ghraib prison guards, and others can seem like normal people through and through and then turn around and engage in cruelty.
The book's style as well as its content make it a difficult read at times but it is ultimately very rewarding. Highly recommended.
April 6, 2025
A disturbing, but good book.
Basically, it's an analysis of how ordinary individuals, under the influence of powerful situational forces, can commit horrible acts. Based on the Stanford prison experiment and other historical events, Zimbardo argues that the line between good and evil is not fixed, but highly contextual.
It's unsettling, because it makes you think about how many times you've felt like you've crossed the line between right and wrong without even realizing it. I've definitely had moments where I've done things that I wouldn't normally do, because of the situation or the people around me. No one is safe from making the wrong choice.
But... Of course the environment shapes behavior, but people aren't just pawns. I do believe that we still have the option to make different choices, to resist, to act with integrity, to stand out from the pack. So, I'm not completely with the author, but the book's great for getting your thinking caps on about good and evil and the choice between the two.
If you're interested in the topic, The Stanford Prison Experiment, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, could be a good movie.
Basically, it's an analysis of how ordinary individuals, under the influence of powerful situational forces, can commit horrible acts. Based on the Stanford prison experiment and other historical events, Zimbardo argues that the line between good and evil is not fixed, but highly contextual.
It's unsettling, because it makes you think about how many times you've felt like you've crossed the line between right and wrong without even realizing it. I've definitely had moments where I've done things that I wouldn't normally do, because of the situation or the people around me. No one is safe from making the wrong choice.
But... Of course the environment shapes behavior, but people aren't just pawns. I do believe that we still have the option to make different choices, to resist, to act with integrity, to stand out from the pack. So, I'm not completely with the author, but the book's great for getting your thinking caps on about good and evil and the choice between the two.
If you're interested in the topic, The Stanford Prison Experiment, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, could be a good movie.
November 27, 2014
I hated this book on all levels. It is such a a chore to even skim through it!
I hated how long it is! Over 500 dreadful pages! With more than half discussing the Stanford prison experiments in excruciating detail. I thought the experiment was mundane, and that Zimbardo is really overestimating the results of this 6 day experiment. I didn't not enjoy neither Zimbardo's hypothesis, his research process, or his conclusion. Our situations do not make us evil. Yes situations can change a lot in us and can even make us act in ways we never thought we would, especially strenuous ones, but my brain simply refuses to believe that a situation alone can turn a "good" person into an "evil" one.
The second part of the book discusses the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and how Zimbardo drew parallels with his earlier prison experiment. He concluded that culpability should not be put solely on the guards that tortured and humiliated prisoners both physically and sexually, but instead we need to look closely (too damn closely) to the situation they were operating in. The conditions in the prison, the shortage of food, the ongoing war, the foreign environment and the overly sexualized atmosphere in then prison, are all situations we need to look at closely to understand why the guards acted the way they did.
With all due respect, such situations don't make you sexually torture other human beings, enjoy it, and take trophy pictures of it.
I was looking forward to this book. The title was everything I looked forward to unravel; how did good people turned evil? Yet I could not be more disappointed. I've always had my discomfort with evolutionary biology when it blames almost anything, and now add to it Zimbardo's thesis that we can blame situations we are put in on the evil we commit. I don't know but I find it very difficult to swallow.
I hated how long it is! Over 500 dreadful pages! With more than half discussing the Stanford prison experiments in excruciating detail. I thought the experiment was mundane, and that Zimbardo is really overestimating the results of this 6 day experiment. I didn't not enjoy neither Zimbardo's hypothesis, his research process, or his conclusion. Our situations do not make us evil. Yes situations can change a lot in us and can even make us act in ways we never thought we would, especially strenuous ones, but my brain simply refuses to believe that a situation alone can turn a "good" person into an "evil" one.
The second part of the book discusses the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and how Zimbardo drew parallels with his earlier prison experiment. He concluded that culpability should not be put solely on the guards that tortured and humiliated prisoners both physically and sexually, but instead we need to look closely (too damn closely) to the situation they were operating in. The conditions in the prison, the shortage of food, the ongoing war, the foreign environment and the overly sexualized atmosphere in then prison, are all situations we need to look at closely to understand why the guards acted the way they did.
With all due respect, such situations don't make you sexually torture other human beings, enjoy it, and take trophy pictures of it.
I was looking forward to this book. The title was everything I looked forward to unravel; how did good people turned evil? Yet I could not be more disappointed. I've always had my discomfort with evolutionary biology when it blames almost anything, and now add to it Zimbardo's thesis that we can blame situations we are put in on the evil we commit. I don't know but I find it very difficult to swallow.
February 18, 2021
???? ???? ???? ??:
.
.
?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ( ?? ???? ???? ?????? ) ??? 1971 ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????: ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? .
?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???.
???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? #???_???????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ????! ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ??????! ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???! ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??????.
?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? .
?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ????????.
???? ??????? ( ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ).
???? ??? ????????
?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????.
???
#??????_??? 5/5 ??
?#candleflame23bookreviews
#?????_??????? ?? #?????_????????
???? ?? #????_?????_????????_????????
.
.
?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ( ?? ???? ???? ?????? ) ??? 1971 ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????: ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? .
?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???.
???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? #???_???????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ????! ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ??????! ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???! ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??????.
?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? .
?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ????????.
???? ??????? ( ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ).
???? ??? ????????
?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????.
???
#??????_??? 5/5 ??
?#candleflame23bookreviews
#?????_??????? ?? #?????_????????
???? ?? #????_?????_????????_????????
June 13, 2018
I read this book years and years ago, and at the time I thought it was amazing. The Stanford Prison experiment was especially striking; totally changed how I thought about human behaviour. But if anyone thinks the same then I'd encourage you to read the accounts that cast doubt on it.
The medium blog:
And this Twitter thread:
The medium blog:
And this Twitter thread:
October 4, 2024
The start of this book was an absolute banger. I was in awe, and the shift in my mood was so evident that my friend jokingly said she would track my emotions throughout the reading process. Unfortunately, it all went downhill from there. I dreaded picking it up due to the author’s prolixity. A staggering 50% of the book was dedicated to one of his experiments, which felt painfully boring, redundant, and seemingly unnecessary for the book’s title.
Honestly, I started brainstorming alternative titles:
The Stanford Prison Experiment: How Ordinary People Turn Evil
The Stanford Experiment: Descent into Darkness
The Birth of Evil: The Stanford Prison Experiment's Unintended Lessons
It was frustrating to wade through such a lengthy account of the experiment when the core theory could easily be driven from a summarized version. To make matters worse, each chapter ended with pages previewing the next, but when you got there, there was nothing new or substantial. Instead, you’d read about why prisoner number whatever wasn’t eating sausages for the millionth time.
The author also kept reminding us of his academic achievements, trying to convince us why we should read his book; But sir, I’m 64% in and already struggling! Maybe he sensed my impending suffering...
On the bright side, I’ve picked up my favorite phrase: “self-serving bias.” I’ve been using it every time someone (including me) says, "That could never be me!" and surprisingly, it happens a lot more often than I thought!
I also discovered my favorite experiment by Darley and Batson: "From Jerusalem to Jericho," also known as the Good Samaritan experiment.
To be fair, the book was informative, and its applications are vast. I saw its relevance in dormitory administration, mental health institutes, and even in charities for the homeless. But it could’ve easily been trimmed down to 200 pages. I genuinely enjoyed about 25% of it and learned things I had no clue about.
I should probably learn to DNF books, but this one had a hidden gem at its core, so I pushed through.
I’m glad it’s over.
Honestly, I started brainstorming alternative titles:
The Stanford Prison Experiment: How Ordinary People Turn Evil
The Stanford Experiment: Descent into Darkness
The Birth of Evil: The Stanford Prison Experiment's Unintended Lessons
It was frustrating to wade through such a lengthy account of the experiment when the core theory could easily be driven from a summarized version. To make matters worse, each chapter ended with pages previewing the next, but when you got there, there was nothing new or substantial. Instead, you’d read about why prisoner number whatever wasn’t eating sausages for the millionth time.
The author also kept reminding us of his academic achievements, trying to convince us why we should read his book; But sir, I’m 64% in and already struggling! Maybe he sensed my impending suffering...
On the bright side, I’ve picked up my favorite phrase: “self-serving bias.” I’ve been using it every time someone (including me) says, "That could never be me!" and surprisingly, it happens a lot more often than I thought!
I also discovered my favorite experiment by Darley and Batson: "From Jerusalem to Jericho," also known as the Good Samaritan experiment.
To be fair, the book was informative, and its applications are vast. I saw its relevance in dormitory administration, mental health institutes, and even in charities for the homeless. But it could’ve easily been trimmed down to 200 pages. I genuinely enjoyed about 25% of it and learned things I had no clue about.
I should probably learn to DNF books, but this one had a hidden gem at its core, so I pushed through.
I’m glad it’s over.
May 7, 2021
Update 05/07/2021: SPE was a staged production. The acting guards were drilled on the behavior to exhibit; they were displaying the demand characteristics as exposed in . Losing 2 stars.
***
I took an instant interest in this book years back when I came upon a for a private company citing this book as reference. The line 'How Good People Turn Evil' raises a compelling query that stirs one to look for the answer. It is tempting to take on an objective view of the workings of the minds that committed or allowed vicious acts against a few, against society, against humankind. What is it about their inner wiring?
This exhaustive documentation that is more than three decades in the making examines from a social psychology perspective the intriguing human behavior of how people transform from good to evil. 'Evil' as stated by Irving Sarnoff is "knowing better but doing worse." The author, Dr. Philip Zimbardo calls it the Lucifer Effect after God's once "favorite angel who fell from grace and ultimately became Satan." A significant chunk of the book elaborates his team's conduct of Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), a mock prison set up in Stanford University, Palo Alto, California in 1971. This later became a mirror that aided in analyzing the scandalous tortures of prisoners of war in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq by US military personnel in 2003. It served as impetus for improving the conditions of prisons governed by the US, the overall prison system.
The book was written in a manner that is comprehensible to laymen. The reader neither has to be a psychology student nor practitioner to extract the heart of it. The answer to the How? was given outright in the introductory chapters succeeded by the legwork of the SPE itself, added with innumerable real-life accounts of committed evils around the globe, and behavioral experiments to support the conclusion. After consuming roughly a third of the book 'journeying through darkness', the final chapter closes with uplifting reminders on how to resist situational influences, and celebrating heroism.
My willingness to delve deeper into this behavior study, I realized, roots from the subconscious that that line between good and evil —which I am more aware by now is permeable— is never improbable from being crossed by us, ordinary people.
Ask yourself if you are capable of both good and evil. That is a reason to pick up this book.
Book copy courtesy of where review is originally posted.
***
"Are we born good and then corrupted by an evil society or born evil and redeemed by a good society?"
I took an instant interest in this book years back when I came upon a for a private company citing this book as reference. The line 'How Good People Turn Evil' raises a compelling query that stirs one to look for the answer. It is tempting to take on an objective view of the workings of the minds that committed or allowed vicious acts against a few, against society, against humankind. What is it about their inner wiring?
This exhaustive documentation that is more than three decades in the making examines from a social psychology perspective the intriguing human behavior of how people transform from good to evil. 'Evil' as stated by Irving Sarnoff is "knowing better but doing worse." The author, Dr. Philip Zimbardo calls it the Lucifer Effect after God's once "favorite angel who fell from grace and ultimately became Satan." A significant chunk of the book elaborates his team's conduct of Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), a mock prison set up in Stanford University, Palo Alto, California in 1971. This later became a mirror that aided in analyzing the scandalous tortures of prisoners of war in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq by US military personnel in 2003. It served as impetus for improving the conditions of prisons governed by the US, the overall prison system.
The book was written in a manner that is comprehensible to laymen. The reader neither has to be a psychology student nor practitioner to extract the heart of it. The answer to the How? was given outright in the introductory chapters succeeded by the legwork of the SPE itself, added with innumerable real-life accounts of committed evils around the globe, and behavioral experiments to support the conclusion. After consuming roughly a third of the book 'journeying through darkness', the final chapter closes with uplifting reminders on how to resist situational influences, and celebrating heroism.
My willingness to delve deeper into this behavior study, I realized, roots from the subconscious that that line between good and evil —which I am more aware by now is permeable— is never improbable from being crossed by us, ordinary people.
Ask yourself if you are capable of both good and evil. That is a reason to pick up this book.
"Most people who become perpetrators of evil deeds are directly comparable to those who become perpetrators of heroic deeds, alike in being just ordinary, average people.
...We are all heroes in waiting."
Book copy courtesy of where review is originally posted.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,441 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.