Random quote
Sometimes I think and sometimes I am.

Paul Valéry (1871-1945)

Philip Zimbardo (1933-1924)

Philip Zimbardo talking with a prisoner during the Stanford Prison Experiment.
 Source: prisonexp.org/gallery 

Two weeks ago, on 14 October, Philip George Zimbardo died, 91 years old. If you are an avid reader of my blogs and when you are reading them already since many years (and I hope that you do), you’ll certainly know his name, for I have dedicated several blogs to him and his theories. Zimbardo was an American psychologist and he has become famous by his “Stanford Prison Experiment”. For this experiment, he had selected 24 test subjects  with the same background characteristics. Zimbardo assigned them at random to two groups: the prisoners and the prison warders. Although there was no initial fundamental difference between the test subjects in both groups, after one-two days both the prisoners and the prison warders acted very differently in a way that went beyond their particular roles. Already after such a short time the warders began to torture the prisoners, psychologically as well as physically (within limits, for outright physical violence was not allowed). Therefore Zimbardo terminated the experiment after six days, although it had been planned to last two weeks. Since the differences between the test subjects were negligible and since all of them were psychologically healthy, Zimbardo concluded after a thorough analysis that it is not their psychological dispositions that make people behave in an evil way but that it is the situation that brings them that far. Only very few people can resist the pressure of the situation that pushes them into a certain direction, and also only very few display evil behaviour because of a disposition.
Zimbardo was heavily criticized for this conclusion. One point of criticism was that he himself acted also in the experiment (he was the prison director). Moreover, so it was said, had the instructions that the students had received for the roles they had to play as prison warders or as prisoners been different, their behaviour would also have been different and more friendly towards each other. But I think that such criticisms just affirm Zimbardo’s conclusion that “situations can have a more powerful influence over our behaviour than most people appreciate, and few people recognize [that].” For had the instructions for the test persons been different, also their situation would have been different, and then probably the prison warders would have behaved in a less cruel way just because they were in a different situation. (By the way, there were also good prison warders among the test persons; not everybody was “evil”.)
For illustrating the practical meaning of his experiment and for substantiating the truth of the results Zimbardo referred to the similarities between his experiment and the prisoner abuse by American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004. He didn’t accept the claim put forward by General Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) that the events were due to a few rogue soldiers and that they were not typical of the American soldier. Instead, as I want to summarize Zimbardo’s words, the soldiers were placed in an impossible situation. The cruel behaviour of the soldiers was, at least for a part, a consequence of the situation in which they had to act. Basically, the soldiers were okay, and the responsibility lay with the military staff and with the American president in the first place. Zimbardo called the effect that good people can turn into evil people in the “right” – so not so right – situation the “Lucifer Effect”. (Lucifer was an angel who fell into disgrace of God and assumed the role of Satan)
Other experiments support Zimbardo’s conclusions. Take for example the famous experiment by Stanley Milgram who investigated how willing people were to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their ethical views. It appeared that many test persons were willing to do so and even were prepared to hurt people physically when instructed to do so. Also in this case, it is possible to interpret the behaviour of the “evil” test persons as guided by the situation they were in. Anyway, though I agree with Zimbardo and Milgram, the question remains why some people refuse to become evil. Apparently, not all behaviour depends on the situation and not for all people the way they act is dependent on the situation they are in. Humans are not situational dopes and apparently there is still room for a moral compass, albeit so that in modern society its role has increasingly given way to situational behaviour, if David Riesman is right with his idea of the other-directness of modern man (while before the present age people were mainly inner-directed, i.e. guided by their moral compasses).
However, if it is so that the situation people are in can make them evil, as Zimbardo states, then it must also be possible that situations can make them behave well. The right situation can stimulate people to behave in the right way, even when by nature they are not apt to do so; a conclusion also drawn by Zimbardo himself, though. Situations can make people devils, but they can make them also heroes or saints. People are not inherently, genetically, bad or good. Most people can do well and can do bad, and what they’ll do depends on the situations they are in and on the pressure exerted there on them. However, as just said, it is not only the circumstances that make who you are and what you do, and Zimbardo doesn’t say that. Also your personality, your moral compass, your views, etc. play a part in what you do. Nevertheless, circumstances have an important influence on what you do. They can make you both a devil and a hero, or something in between.

Sources: Old blogs; Wikipedia, especially here (about Zimbardo), here (about the Stanford prison experiment), here (about Abu Ghraib), and here (about Stanley Milgram).

Random quote
Everyday man tends to respect power more than knowledge; when knowledge opposes power, it loses all prestige in this opposition that was once prestigious.

Henri Lefebvre (1901-1991)

Eternal glory

Heraclitus wrote:
αἱρεῦνται γὰρ ἒν ἀντὶ ἀπάντων οἱ ἄριστοι, κλέος ἀέναον θνητῶν· οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ κεκόρηνται ὄκωσπερ κτήνεα (Fragments B29).
Again, like in my last blog, I give different translations of this Greek text:

- For even the best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like beasts. (Source)
- The best of men choose one thing in preference to all else, immortal glory in preference to mortal good; whereas the masses simply glut themselves like cattle. (Source)
- The best of men refrain from everything for one thing, so that they continuously get respect from mortals, but most people glut like cattle in the yard. (This is the re-translation into English of the text in my Dutch edition of the Fragments, ed. by Ben Schomakers (Source))

Again we see here, like in my last blog, some striking differences in the translations. However, I think that the essence of Heraclitus’ text is this:
- The best of men look for eternal glory from the mortals, while most people glut themselves like cattle.

How should we interpret this? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Heraclitus “recommends” here “the conventional Greek goal of seeking fame: ‘The best choose one thing above all, the everlasting fame of mortals; the many gorge themselves like cattle’ ” This should be in line with other texts by Heraclitus like “Gods and men honour those who are slain by Ares.” and “Greater deaths win greater portions.” (B24 and B25) On the other hand, Heraclitus speaks about glory given by the mortals (κλέος θνητῶν), and that he speaks of mortals, and not, for instance, of men, or that he doesn’t simply say “eternal glory” without any specification, may have a reason. According to Schomakers (Source, p. 70) the word “mortals” puts the text into another perspective: Glory given by mortals is transitory. It doesn’t last forever and will fade away. Actually, there is not much difference between the “external” satisfaction of glory given by mortals and the “external” satisfaction given by stuffing your stomach. (the word “eternal” is used by Schomakers) Implicitly, the text may suggest that it is better to follow your internal morality, your internal values and norms, than to keep yourself busy with this external satisfaction. Don’t be fascinated by the superficial.

This makes me think of what Montaigne tells us in his essay “Not to communicate one’s glory” (Essays, Book I-41; discussed by me in a blog two years ago): “Of all the follies of the world, that which is most universally received is the solicitude of reputation and glory”. Although I think that there is much truth in Montaigne’s view that glory is a folly, nevertheless, I think that to strive for some glory or fame can be practical. For a small amount of glory or fame, can help to open doors. Often people cannot reach their goals because nobody knows them and because just for this reason they are not taken seriously. Once people know you, or rather have heard of you, they tend to listen better to you and are more disposed to help (and maybe they even think that they can profit by helping you). And this can make realizing your personal values and norms easier.

A heap of waste

Heraclitus wrote:
σάρμα εἰκῇ κεχυμένον ὁ κάλλιστος, φησὶν Ἡράκλειτος, [ὁ] κόσμος.
The website “The fragments of Heraclitus”, where I copied this quotation, translates this text this way (see here):

“The most beautiful universe is (a) pouring out (of) sweepings at random.”

In a note it says that “The text for this fragment is very doubtful and should be handled extremely carefully”, and it explains why. Therefore, “with the text being such a problem to start with, any significant information pulled from this fragment will have to be conjecture.”

Nevertheless, I want to give it an interpretation. For this, I’ll use my Dutch edition of Heraclitus’ words (see Sources below). Here, the text quoted has been translated by Ben Schomakers in a somewhat different way (in which, just like in the translation above “φησὶν Ἡράκλειτος”, i.e. “Heraclitos says” has been ignored). Re-translated into English it reads:

“a heap of waste arbitrarily swept together
the most beautiful order”

Although translations by different translators are often different, in this case the difference is remarkable. However, I am not in the position to judge which translation or interpretation of Heraclitus’ words is best. My Greek has become rusty through the years and I am not a Heraclitus specialist. Anyway, Schomakers’ translation is in keeping with other translations I found elsewhere on the internet (for instance here (see #40), here (see #124) and a few more), so I’ll follow Schomakers’ version.
In a first interpretation, I think, one can take the text as it is: simple, banal things or events of everyday life are beautiful. Or: simple, banal things or events of everyday life are also beautiful. It is one reason (though not the main reason) why I take pictures of ordinary objects found on the street. See for example here on my photo website: Left or lost.
But let me look at the interpretation of Ben Schomakers’ of Heraclitus’ words. Following Schomakers, one interpretation of this text could say that the Greek philosopher wants to tell us that the cosmos has no order or structure. The cosmos is not more than a hotchpotch of things swept together. According to Schomakers, this interpretation of what Heraclitus says is unlikely. It is not in line with the other remaining fragments of what Heraclitus has said and with the little we know about him. More likely is, so Schomakers, that Heraclitus wants to ridicule this view. He wants to say: Isn’t is ridiculous that the cosmos is like a heap of things if not of waste simply swept together? There must be at least some order in the world. It is impossible that the cosmic order is like a heap of stuff swept together. Rather, we should see the cosmos as an orderly unity steered by a god.
Maybe this is so, but I think that an interpretation of the text depends also on which level the cosmos is considered. When one considers the physical cosmos, the idea that there is order in the world is inescapable. However, when one considers the human cosmos or even more the political cosmos, isn’t then the first idea that pops up in the mind that it is a mess? That there is no order? How else should we judge the present situation in the world?

Sources
- The fragments of Heraclitus, https://heraclitusfragments.com/files/e.html  
- Heraclitus, Alle woorden. Amsterdam: Boom, 2024.

Random quote
You're insane until you're a genius.

Johan Cruijff (1947-2016)

Fine-tuning the moral compass

I think that everybody has it (or so I hope): An internalized set of values and objectives that helps to navigate through life and to act ethically and to take moral decisions. In short: I think that everybody has a moral compass. However, how you fill it in, so what your individual moral compass is, is a personal affair. Fundamentally, each person has personal values and objectives, and they may be different from those of other persons, though broadly for groups of persons they more or less agree. But it is one thing to have a moral compass, it is another thing to act on the basis of it. For personal affairs and decisions that have only consequences for yourself, it’s an individual matter and you owe responsibility only to yourself. But much individual behaviour has social consequences. Then it is important that people act in the right way and sometimes that they act anyway, even if they have no personal interest in doing so. How can we make that people do so; so how can we influence their moral compasses?
In the Dutch daily De Volkskrant, I read an interesting article about investigations at the Utrecht University about this problem. Do people help others they don’t know, if it is not in their own interest? How to make car drivers adhere to the speed limit, which is useful for the group of drivers as a whole, but not for the individual drivers? How to make streets safer? In such situations, the moral compasses of individuals are relevant, and it is important to know how to change them in the right way, if necessary, or at least how to influence them so that people behave in the socially appropriate way.
Rewarding and punishing are important instruments for guiding behaviour, although they are not the only ones. What the investigators at the Utrecht University want to find out is how we can reward people best. Of course, during the years much research has been done already in this field, and what the investigators want to do is to fine-tune the rewarding approach for the problem at hand, namely public behaviour. Because the investigations just started, results are not yet known, but on the basis of a literature study something can already be said about it. In order to stimulate social behaviour, you can appeal to someone’s ideals or to his or her obligations. What is most effective? Although public campaigns often set out the obligations people have towards each other, investigations have shown that it is better to point to their ideals. For instance, in a recent campaign in the city of Utrecht street harassment is dismissed as loser’s behaviour, but maybe it should be better to stress that a harassment free city will make it safer for everybody and isn’t this what everybody wants? Or a charity campaign should not stress that you have an obligation to contribute to a better society, but it should point to the ideal that everybody wants a society free of misery. In my words, in order to stimulate socially desirable behaviour one should not point to the bad side of human beings or say that some things just have to be done, but one must point to the good side; to what people wish that will happen and to what they strive for. Be positive, not negative, but hasn’t this always been so?

Random quote
I find first, then I seek.

Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)