Sign in, say "hi", ... and be welcomed.

Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:23 am

Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment


From: http://www.prisonexp.org:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT GOOD PEOPLE IN AN EVIL PLACE? DOES HUMANITY WIN OVER EVIL, OR DOES EVIL TRIUMPH? THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE POSED IN THIS DRAMATIC SIMULATION OF PRISON LIFE CONDUCTED IN 1971 AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY.


StanfordPrison.png
StanfordPrison.png (405.4 KiB) Viewed 3532 times


The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in August of 1971. It demonstrated a number of human pathologies that may arise in situations of actual or percieved power. The experiment is described on a number of web sites and in many text books. This post contains quotes from: http://www.prisonexp.org.

The Stanford Prison Experiment (much like the Salem Witch Trials and Nazi Germany) gives us insights into the tactics used by USHPA and other hang gliding organizations to bully and control pilots.

From: http://www.prisonexp.org/setting-up

We wanted to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. To do this, we decided to set up a simulated prison and then carefully note the effects of this institution on the behavior of all those within its walls.


From: http://www.prisonexp.org/guards

As with real prisoners, our prisoners expected some harassment, to have their privacy and some of their other civil rights violated while they were in prison, and to get a minimally adequate diet

We began with nine guards and nine prisoners in our jail. Three guards worked each of three eight-hour shifts, while three prisoners occupied each of the three barren cells around the clock. The remaining guards and prisoners from our sample of 24 were on call in case they were needed.

At 2:30 A.M. the prisoners were rudely awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many "counts." The counts served the purpose of familiarizing the prisoners with their numbers (counts took place several times each shift and often at night). But more importantly, these events provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners. ... This was the beginning of a series of direct confrontations between the guards and prisoners.

Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards to punish infractions of the rules or displays of improper attitudes toward the guards or institution ... push-ups were often used as a form of punishment in Nazi concentration camps


From: http://www.prisonexp.org/rebellion

Because the first day passed without incident, we were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on the morning of the second day. The prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

Sure, nine guards with clubs could put down a rebellion by nine prisoners, but you couldn't have nine guards on duty at all times. It's obvious that our prison budget could not support such a ratio of staff to inmates. So what were they going to do? One of the guards came up with a solution. "Let's use psychological tactics instead of physical ones." Psychological tactics amounted to setting up a privilege cell.

One of the three cells was designated as a "privilege cell." The three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges. They got their uniforms back, got their beds back, and were allowed to wash and brush their teeth. The others were not. Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating. The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.


From: http://www.prisonexp.org/conclusion

The only prisoner who did not want to speak to the priest was Prisoner #819, who was feeling sick, had refused to eat, and wanted to see a doctor rather than a priest. ... I said that I would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor.

While I was doing this, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud: "Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer." They shouted this statement in unison a dozen times.

By the end of the study, the prisoners were disintegrated, both as a group and as individuals. There was no longer any group unity; just a bunch of isolated individuals hanging on, much like prisoners of war or hospitalized mental patients. The guards had won total control of the prison, and they commanded the blind obedience of each prisoner.

Prisoners coped with their feelings of frustration and powerlessness in a variety of ways. At first, some prisoners rebelled or fought with the guards. Four prisoners reacted by breaking down emotionally as a way to escape the situation. ... Others tried to cope by being good prisoners, doing everything the guards wanted them to do. One of them was even nicknamed "Sarge," because he was so military-like in executing all commands.

We did see one final act of rebellion. Prisoner #416 was newly admitted as one of our stand-by prisoners. Unlike the other prisoners, who had experienced a gradual escalation of harassment, this prisoner's horror was full-blown when he arrived. The "old timer" prisoners told him that quitting was impossible, that it was a real prison.

Prisoner #416 coped by going on a hunger strike to force his release. After several unsuccessful attempts to get #416 to eat, the guards threw him into solitary confinement for three hours, even though their own rules stated that one hour was the limit. Still, #416 refused.

At this point #416 should have been a hero to the other prisoners. But instead, the others saw him as a troublemaker. The head guard then exploited this feeling by giving prisoners a choice. They could have #416 come out of solitary if they were willing to give up their blanket, or they could leave #416 in solitary all night.

What do you think they chose? Most elected to keep their blanket and let their fellow prisoner suffer in solitary all night. (We intervened later and returned #416 to his cell.)


Read the full 8 page report at: http://www.prisonexp.org.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8396
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby magentabluesky » Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:37 pm

Along those lines of thoughts is the series on PBS The Brain with David Eagleman in particularly Part 5 “Why Do I Need You” of the six part series.

magentabluesky
Michael Grisham
magentabluesky
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:39 am

Super video Mike!

Science is beginning to find the low level mechanisms behind man's inhumanity to man. Dehumanization, propaganda, and people's need to belong to the "in group" have all played a role in the most horrific chapters in human history. You can see it all being played out in the microcosm of hang gliding. You can see Jack's propaganda (the "Bob and Scott" rule) and USHPA's propaganda (mass mailing of my expulsion letter). You can see people cowering and afraid to speak up. It's all there on ugly display for anyone who takes the time to look.

Thanks for the video.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8396
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby KaiMartin » Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:25 pm

The Stanford prison experiment has been criticized for various reasons. IMHO, the most serious being that the experimenters actively encouraged the guards to act it out. With the result so relevant there is a whole scientific debate on the validity of conclusions. Since cameras and even audio tape were much more expensive back when the Stanford was done, the debate involved quite a bit of he-said-she-said.

Anyway, in 2002 the BBC cooperated with British scientists to try and sort the matter with a similar experiment: 14 men were chosen to be representative of the general population. These volunteers were tasked to run a "prison" for two weeks. They were randomly divided into a group of nine "prisoners" and five "guards". The prison facility was built with all bells and whistles, cells and keys inside a large Lucas Film studio (its the BBC, after all). The facility was peppered with cameras and the volunteers wore microphones all day. As for the setting, the guards were given nice uniforms and real general prison regulations as a guideline but no training whatsoever. The "prisoners" entered the experiment totally oblivious of what to expect. To add to the realism, the prisoners got a mandatory total hair cut, had to wear orange suits and were locked into their cells at night. Everybody including the guards was required to fill a questionnaire daily and give a sample saliva to be tested for stress markers.

Of course, this being the 21st century everybody signed agreements and was guaranteed to not suffer physical damage or excessive psychological hardship. With the Stanford precedent in mind the scientists took a provision to not let the situation escalate uninhibitedly in favour of the guards. On day four they introduced an additional "prisoner". This volunteer was carefully picked for his particular skill set -- he was a retired unionist. He was not given any special instructions, though.

To call the result "interesting" would be a major understatement. In a way the experiment worked as planned and at the same time did not go as planned. Prisoners and guards quickly adapted their body language to their roles. On the surface the "prison ran smoothly for a few days. Rules were obeyed, infringements noted and punished. However, the guards felt much more uneasy in their respective role than the prisoners. Consequently, they felt more stressed out. This did not only show in the questionnaires but also in their biochemistry as measured from saliva samples. Some of the prisoners actively poked at the guards to undermine their confidence. One of them even managed to grab and hide a ring of keys.

One aspect that worked even better than planned was the introduction of the unionist. Less than 24 days after he entered the prison he was the elected spokesman for the prisoners. He mediated a restitution of the keys in exchange for goodies like cigarrettes at regular intervals and longer times outside the cells. All previous "infringements" were declared void. But most importantly a daily meeting of all prisoners and guards is agreed upon. At this point the scientists felt the presence of the unionist made the position of the prisoners unrealistically strong and democratic at the same time. So they pulled him out on the next day under the pretense of health problems.

The next days saw the guards trying to run the "prison" smoothly and get along with the prisoners. The prisoners who had engaged in mocking before decided to put the mockery to a new level in what they called "operation mayhem". They manage to sabotage the lock of their cell door so they were able to leave at night when they were supposed to be locked in. The prisoners invade the guards "mess". With the guards unable to physically force them back into the cells the prison system effectively broke down in the morning. A big meeting is heald. The volunteers decided to try and go on running the "prison" for the rest of the experiment as a commune. Tow of the former guards chose to leave the experiment, though.

The scientists agreed to the master plan of the volunteers. The commune started of successfully. But the same "prisoners" who had been most active bringing down the original prison system distanced themselves from the way it works. They planned to take over in a "coup d'etat". Just as the confrontation and power struggle was about to happen, the scientists pulled the plug and end the experiment.

There are certainly a bunch of lessons to be learned from the two prison experiments. To me, number one is that human behaviour is complex and cannot be reliably derailed as easily as the Stanford experiment seemed to suggest.

---<)kaimartin(>---
KaiMartin
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby KaiMartin » Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:37 pm

PS: For an even longer read on the BBC experiment see http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/bbc-prison-study.php
There are videos on youtube, too. Prepare for a three hour session...
KaiMartin
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:40 pm

This topic was started on July 27th, 2018. That was just over a month before Jack Axaopoulos banned Joe Faust from hanggliding.org. We all got to watch the Stanford Prison Experiment unfold again right in front of our eyes.

Zimbardo's results were sustained. The social cowardice that unfortunately pervades our species was put on full display. Yes, a few spoke up, but they were quickly backed down by explicit or implicit threats of being banned themselves. Oh no, they didn't want what Joe got.

And just as with the fellow prisoners in Zimbardo's cast, many otherwise "brave" hang glider pilots turned against Joe to save themselves. They must now and forever hold Joe as being somehow responsible so they can justify their own social cowardice. That's the ultimate and ongoing manipulation carried out by Jack against his so called "members".

But this case is not as damning of all humanity as it might appear. It's important to remember that Jack's "prisoner" population was pre-selected over a decade to weed out people with courage like Rick and Warren and Scott and Al and Joe and Ben and Bill and Sam and myself. Those are the people who would have had a much higher probability of speaking up, but they had already been pulled out of the experiment before it was even started.

I guess that last paragraph is the most important because it reminds us that the solvers of hang gliding's problems are not likely to be found in organizations like HG.org or Oz or USHPA itself. The people with a passion and a backbone have been mostly already filtered out of those organizations. The people with the courage to really make hang gliding great again are the people that Jack and Davis and USHPA fear the most. They are the people who have been gathering .... at the U.S. Hawks. :salute:
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8396
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Hang Gliding and the Stanford Prison Experiment

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:31 pm

A gift from Craig's wisdom:

The Need for
Acceptance
Will Make You
Invisible


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDAiFrWNP0



This is a great and inspirational video. My only disappointment was that it didn't quite fulfill its title:

    "The Need for Acceptance Will Make You Invisible"

The video is correct in what it presented, but it didn't seem to address how strongly the need for acceptance can make people invisible. As I see it, the need for acceptance has been at the root of many problems in this sport. USHPA Directors don't want to stand up for causes that might make them unpopular with their peers on the Board. Pilots on public forums are afraid to stand up for their friends for fear of being banned. The fear of not being accepted is powerful and it is used by those who want to control people. That's the only thing that seemed missing to me, and it might have been left out for a younger audience who might not appreciate how evil people can manipulate the needs of others for their own gain.

Other than that, it was a truly delightful film. Thanks Craig!!    :salute:
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8396
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests

Options

Return to Hang Gliding General