REPLY Zimbardo lecture (SD6444)

[SDMAIL John Gunkler]

Posted by  "John Gunkler" <jgunkler at sprintmail.com>

Tom Cavin asks:

  Do you think Philip Zimbardo is correct in attributing 90% of our
  behavior to the situations we are in?

  Do you think Philip Zimbardo's arguments could be applied to the
  behavior of the four people he identifies as ultimately responsible for
  Abu Ghraib?

  Do you think SD is an appropriate tool for the analysis of this aspect of
  our society?

To which I reply:  yes, yes, yes, and yes.

However, I think the answers one would get from applying Zimbardo's
arguments to the behavior of the four people he identifies might be
profoundly disturbing.   Here's an untested hypothesis about that:

	Hyp 1:  Anyone who chooses to run for, and is elected to, high
public office in the U.S.A. is ethically unsuited for the job.
	[I'm not sure how far back this hypothesis might be valid, but it's
possible its validity goes back almost 200 years!]

I know that my short fling with state-level politics 20 years ago soured me
forever on the field; I didn't want to do what it took to be a member of
that club and didn't want to be associated with the kind of people who
prospered in it (and still don't).

I think that what we require so that a person is "electable" makes them
unfit to govern.  

If anyone actually takes on this analysis, I would suggest s/he look at the
requirements our society places on people in order for them to be electable.


John
Posted by  "John Gunkler" <jgunkler at sprintmail.com>
posting date  Thu, 17 May 2007 17:01:15 -0400