In a closed environment, the subjects reorganized a world, the prison world, where there are rules that are different from the rules in reality, and different rules for prison guards and prisoners. Maybe at first, they were still making fun of the absurdity of the experiment, but soon enough, they started to fit into the characters. In this new world, they have reorganized the morality in line with the new world; here, they are divided into two groups: prison guards and prisoners, and in their respective groups, they have their own moral conduct. They obey the experimenters, obey the rewards, and believe in their authority; they have rules and act according to the rules, because this is an order and is the need of the role, so that the prison guards bullying the prisoners is also the order and the role needs; it is also the case of the prisoners rebelling against the prison guards Forced, of course.
The "prisoner" may have been a teacher, a believer, filial piety, and friendly with the male protagonist, but when his role changes and the environment changes, he is no longer him, just a prisoner who disciplines prisoners, bullying or deterring Either way, it's all reasonable, because he's the warden. Act according to the rules and decentralize your responsibilities. After the experiment is over, he will still be him, in a suit and leather shoes, holding a Bible in hand, and will still return to the original "good" him. Maybe he won't be sorry for his actions, but he will doubt his own nature. When the prison door opened, they all returned to their original selves, returned to their roles, and re-examined their lives. In sociology, we learned, role-playing. Everyone is acting, changing their behavior as the scene changes, because that's what best fits the context. In psychology, obedience is interpreted as authoritative compliance, the dispersion of responsibilities and the making of objects that are no longer individuals, which are also evil motives. Like Zimbabwe's Lucifer Effect, everyone is a potential Nazi. The influence of the environment on a person is enormous. Thinking back to the Nazi era, if you were in Germany, in that kind of environment, and under that kind of edification, maybe you would destroy your original moral values and gradually become a member of the Nazis. Don't say you are kind, absolutely not, who can say? Nazis are also kind, but when they are in a Nazi group, with Nazi regulations, accepting orders to kill, and seeing everyone around them act, your whole world is like that, and you will still strengthen your moral values. ?
Perhaps, human nature is inherently evil, the environment stimulates the potential of evil, and the social system makes people unfamiliar. Perhaps, the internal cause is not so important, and the external cause will make people different. When we question why a person is evil, instead of blindly blaming how distorted his psychology is and how weird his character is, we should look at his environment and his role. Sometimes, the social system is the driving force of the problem, as in the critical essays often written by scholars in the past. "Do humans really evolve better than monkeys?" "I think yes, at least we can figure out a way." Humans evolved to the top of the biological chain, perhaps not because of intelligence, but because of "evil", only "Evil" will allow our ancestors to grab food from other creatures, reproduce, and then become the most powerful group; only then is wisdom. Humans think better than animals and come up with solutions, but is this really good? Animals have no minds, so they live simply, following the rules of the biological chain. And human beings are always "knowing yourself", but when can you really analyze yourself? It can never be.
Sometimes I feel that psychology is just helping us understand the world, just helping, it doesn't really allow you to understand the world naked; and sometimes it's just an excuse for ourselves, an excuse to do something , an excuse not to do something, to make yourself feel at ease. Just like a prison experiment, the social system is dictated by human beings, or human nature is inherently evil. It can be concluded that the subjects are kind with a few tests. Who can say this accurately? Learning is an invention of human beings, serving human beings, whether objective or subjective, is caused by human consciousness. Nothing is inevitable, everything is accidental; nothing is absolutely objective, everything is relative. 1+1=2, it is also what humans say, and material objectivity is also prescribed by humans. Who is the smartest person?
So, have humans really evolved better than monkeys, that is the question.
View more about The Experiment reviews
