Prison Architect

[keith.lamothe]

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

And you know that for a fact?

Nope. It's probably not true!

Oh, alright then!

[Wingflier]

More often than not, both people are wrong.

That's a sweeping generalization that I'm not sure you can apply to every (or any) situation.

In Politics for example, it seems that most the time people are wrong, but I'd think it a little silly to say that in all forms of discourse (especially among Academia), everybody is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0

Here is an interesting video we were shown in Sociology Class about how the famous Prison Experiment of 1979 in the basement of Stanford University.  In this experiment, completely healthy people (who underwent a battery of Psychological Exams beforehand) were randomly selected to be either a guard or a "prisoner" in the Stanford University Basement.  The guards knew the prisoners had done nothing "wrong", and that the whole thing was just an experiment; no explicit instructions were given.

Within 2 days, the guards had resorted to physical abuse, within 4 days it became sexual abuse and even worse. 

These are ordinary people, who knew the "prisoners" were ordinary people just like them, but through their position of power and perceived superiority became brutal and violent towards innocent people.

So tell me again how prisons are such a great place. 

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

Then you're wasting my and everybody else's time even having a discussion.  If there's no truth to be found, then why does it matter what anybody thinks?

[zebramatt]

What anybody thinks is all that really matters!

[Wingflier]

So to you, that's a truth isn't it?

Also sorry if I appear to be coming off as cruel or cold-hearted.  I don't mean to be insulting you personally, I'm just trying to point out that if there is no objective truth, discussion is somewhat pointless.

[keith.lamothe]

What anybody thinks is all that really matters!

But why does it, in your view?

[keith.lamothe]

Within 2 days, the guards had resorted to physical abuse, within 4 days it became sexual abuse and even worse.

Two questions:
1) When the experiment was over and this information became known, were there no legal penalties for the guards?  I'm not aware of any way in which an experiment waiver can make that kind of treatment legal.

2) Has any similar experiment been done analogous to a rehabilitation environment, with the "guards" (or "staff", whatever term fits) in a similar position of impunity?

[zebramatt]

@Wingflier: I'm refuting your claim that discussion exists solely for the pursuit of objective truth. I believe discussion is useful for many other reasons, including for the establishing of commonality amongst divided perspectives. I do believe there are limits to that particular objective, however.

@Kieth: Honestly? It strikes me as obvious. If two people can exist in almost identical circumstances and yet differ in their very perception of the reality around them, accords must be based on overlapping elements to those perspectives. We're tightly communal animals, homo sapiens, and thus thrive on cooperative enviroments; but we also possess a fierce sense of individuality born of our complex sentience. Contradictions abound between our own synaptic clusters - let alone across the vacuums which separate us from one another. We believe in our own existence because it is self-evident, a cyclical argument. We know we exist because others can affirm it, a subjective truth. What is real but what we perceive? How then might we cooperate?

[zebramatt]

Also, the Stanford Prison Expirement? Do me a favour! Professor Zimbardo was a crank!


EDIT
And just to demonstrate that I'm genuinely not simply a contrary so-and-so, here's a paper I first read on the subject about six years ago: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/pdfs/BJSP(2006)Tyrannny.pdf

[keith.lamothe]

@Kieth: Honestly? It strikes me as obvious. If two people can exist in almost identical circumstances and yet differ in their very perception of the reality around them, accords must be based on overlapping elements to those perspectives.

"must"?  As in, we must make accords?  Why?  I'm guessing that the answer is self-preservation and/or self-gratification (which isn't necessarily selfish, just oriented towards what you find pleasant), and that in turn is simply assumed-without-proof to be an acceptable motivation.  But my guess may be wrong, hence my asking.

Or do you mean merely that if accords are to be made, they must be made on those overlapping elements?

Or, perhaps, both?

What is real but what we perceive? How then might we cooperate?

If there is nothing real outside your perceptions, do you know that the other homo sapiens you see are actually there?  Actually beings like yourself, with feelings, hopes, dreams, fears, etc?  If not, why does cooperation matter?  If so, how?

[zebramatt]

@Kieth: Honestly? It strikes me as obvious. If two people can exist in almost identical circumstances and yet differ in their very perception of the reality around them, accords must be based on overlapping elements to those perspectives.

"must"?  As in, we must make accords?  Why?  I'm guessing that the answer is self-preservation and/or self-gratification (which isn't necessarily selfish, just oriented towards what you find pleasant), and that in turn is simply assumed-without-proof to be an acceptable motivation.  But my guess may be wrong, hence my asking.

Or do you mean merely that if accords are to be made, they must be made on those overlapping elements?

Or, perhaps, both?

In those ramblings right there? I meant the second - that accords rely on the overlaps, if accords matter.

What do I actually believe? Cooperation is both fundamental - primary - and derived. Primary because our very universe is defined by the way we collectively categorise it - through communication, language, creed, mathmatics, science and so on. Derived because we rely on one another to survive, and to prosper.

What is real but what we perceive? How then might we cooperate?

If there is nothing real outside your perceptions, do you know that the other homo sapiens you see are actually there?  Actually beings like yourself, with feelings, hopes, dreams, fears, etc?  If not, why does cooperation matter?  If so, how?

I think I've spoken to this point somewhat above, but to elaborate a little: you define yourself based on your interactions with others. For human beings, other human beings are intrinsic to your own perception. When that ceases to be true, you cease to be much of what we consider human.

[Wingflier]

The problem with you stance that there is no objective truth is that without it, nothing would get accomplished.

Science operates on the assumption that objective truth exists.  That computer you're using right now to type these messages operates under the assumption that objective truth exists, and the complex processes used to build that personal computer only came about through hundreds of years of searching for objective truth.

Medicine and Experimentation only operates under the assumption of objective truth.  If it's not objectively true that this shot is going to cure your measles, then why bother giving it to you?

I guess what I'm saying is that I find it very ironic for truth-deniers to use the gifts of Science, when Science, which operates on the assumption of objective truth, has given us so much.  If you want to reject objective truth, and therefore Science, I think you would do better to shout your message from the streets.

[zebramatt]

As long as you define a contextual environment, a context-relevant objective 'truth' can be established. I've no problem with that. My point extended into that arena would simply be that on a much more fundamental level, all science does is explain the membrane of reality within which it operates.

As evidenced, no less, by that most modern of sciences: particle physics.

[Wingflier]

The point is that progress was established under the assumption that objective truth existed yes?
 
By the same token, progress in terms of human behavior can be established through the restructure or elimination of the prison system, by assuming there is an objective truth to be reached yes?

[keith.lamothe]

I think I've spoken to this point somewhat above, but to elaborate a little: you define yourself based on your interactions with others. For human beings, other human beings are intrinsic to your own perception. When that ceases to be true, you cease to be much of what we consider human.

But, within your own view, how do you determine whether ceasing "to be much of what we consider human" is desirable or not desirable?  What claim does that definition have upon you?

[zebramatt]

I think I've spoken to this point somewhat above, but to elaborate a little: you define yourself based on your interactions with others. For human beings, other human beings are intrinsic to your own perception. When that ceases to be true, you cease to be much of what we consider human.

But, within your own view, how do you determine whether ceasing "to be much of what we consider human" is desirable or not desirable?  What claim does that definition have upon you?

I've no particular view on its desirability, to be honest. It's empirically true within the socio-psychological context, though!

Think of it this way: if we all look at a tree and agree that it is, indeed, a tree, then it sprouts wings and flies off, we would immediately question our perception or our definition, or both. We might well then discuss the situation, as we are wont to do, and define the reality of the situation together. We might decide it was the punch we'd been drinking, or perhaps re-define it a bird.

So to with ourselves. We grow up around humans, being human. If we do not, then perhaps we are not?

I think it was Descartes who said, "I am what I am."