The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: ttibby on May 26, 2009, 10:11:27 AM
-
Listening to a podcast of the show again today, As I am a new listener I am trying to catch up here the best I can. And I came to ponder this thought. Ian and Mark were having a discussion about one of the wardens working at the jail being an ex-pot smoker, apparenty who doesn't do it anymore and is oblivious to her kids have the opportunity to even being exposed to pot. Now Ian got riled up and I think it's understandable position but if you take a second to reflect maybe it's not such a bad thing at all. Ians take was more about how this woman had the nerve to go and work in a system tht she is only lucky to not have been caught and thrown into herself.
Ian was saying that it was quite hypocritical to do that and it's not a fair situation. The Jailer in question defended herself in saying that she didn't think that she was wrong as she didn't put those people in the jail, she's just working at the jail. And to a certain point I agree with her. Unfortunately, the job exists and it will be filled. Jobs are few and far between these days so people will take what they can get. Also, the laws that put rec drug users behind bars exist and people will be put in jail. Now I've never been to jail but in all honesty if I had to be incarcerated, I'd much rather my jailer be sympathetic to rec drug users. And her being an ex-user should make her understand that there is nothing wrong with smoking a bit of weed now and then. (She probably doesn't smoke anymore for a fear of random drug testing). And I think that type of jailer would make my time more comfortable instead of the stereotype that you get slapped with by jailers that are not sympathetic to personal use/rec drug users.
Now I do support legalisaton and appreciate Canada for it's steps in decrim, but there is a long way to go and like I said If I ever got caught, please oh please let my guard be a stoner!
Cheers,
Eric...
-
There is no such thing as a decent, kind jailer. Their power corrupts them. It only took me ten days in jail to figure that out. From watching them kick heads to keep people awake, for no fucking reason, in the intake room where they took their sweet-ass time booking people in (like 8-10 hours average), to organizing games between convicts for their amusement, to random and harsh punishment for minor or non-existent infractions, to waking sleepers or sick people for no reason but to "clear" the bunks for day-room, to tossing a whole dormitory to look for "contraband," which amounted to food not stored in lockers. CO's suck balls. Fuck 'em!
-
It took you 10 days to figure that out?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)
The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.
After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.
A false rumor spread that one of the prisoners, who asked to leave the experiment, would lead companions to free the rest of the prisoners. The guards dismantled the prison and moved the inmates to another secure location. When no breakout attempt occurred, the guards were angry about having to rebuild the prison, so they took it out on the prisoners.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)
Bad science.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)
Bad science.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102
Thats one of the worst rebuttals I've ever seen.
Firstly, the issue of "selection bias" making the study unreliable is completely dud.
The idea that the kind of people who would volunteer for an experiment are any more likely to be sadistic than the kind of people who would actually volunteer for being an actual prison guard.
Of course a small and narrow sample will not yield as accurate results as an experiment with a larger sample. Due to modern legal issues its hard to recreate this experiment, but in the times I have seen it replicated it has generally supported the original results.
The Milgram study only used 40 people. Hardly enough people to make any strong conclusion on the general populace, they could have easily got 30 complete psychopaths by chance. but its still a very important study, and it being performed on a small scale led to many reproductions that reinforced the original studies findings.
The objection that most of the prison guards didn't engage in sadistic behavior is also dud. Its made quite clear in the study that only 1/3rd exhibited sadistic tendencies.
Also the objection that one guard was acting what he saw from a movie is benign, it was real people, and real sadism, so whatever motives it still supports that a significant amount of people will abuse power in a prison type situation.
Does Stanford Prison experiment prove all people are evil bastards waiting to happen? No. The results don't support that.
Does the Stanford Prison experiment provide concrete proof that X percent of people will act in a certain way X percent of the time in situation X?
No. Neither does the Milgram study, but they're both important studies in providing limited, but important indications on how the nature of authority positions can effect human action.