ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Danas sam odgledala Das Experiment, nemacki film iz 2000. godine, reditelja Oliver-a Hirschbiegel-a. Meni njegovo ime nista ne govori ali, sa filmom Eksperimet je bio na Festu 2002. ili 2003. mislim i da nikada nije ni bio otkupljen za nase trziste. Glavni glumac nam je poznat, Moritz Bleibtreu, igrao je u filmu Tom-a Tykwer-a Trci Lora Trci.

Radnja? (nema spojlera)
Traze se dobrovoljci koji ce provesti 14 dana u strogo kontrolisanim uslovima radi eksperimenta. Radi se o simulaciji zatvora. Ko izdrzi do kraja dobija 4000 maraka. Grupa ispitanika ce se podeliti na dve grupe, jedni ce biti zatvorenici, drugi strazari.
Uslovi su kao i u regularnim zatvorima.
Doktori koji vrse eksperiment nadgledaju ih putem kamera.
I eksperiment pocinje.

Odavno me neki film nije ovako pogodio, barem ne posle Capturing the Friedmans, sa kojim ima donekle zajednicke teme. Kao sto ni kod porodice Friedman ne moze da se odgonetne sta to coveka tera da se tako ponasa, ovde se dovodi to pitanje do jos viseg nivoa.
U filmu se izucava ponasanje u zatvorskim uslovima gde eksperimen-zatvorenici gube sva civilizovana prava i pocinje nad njima tortura i zavodjenje strahovlade. Gledajuci film, stalno sam se pitala kako je lako izmeniti normalne ljude dajuci im vlast i samo posmatrati sta ce sa tom moci uraditi.
A granice se lako krse i prelaze.

Film svima preporucujem za pogledati.

Jos jedan podatak. Ako vam je cela prica zvucala poznato, sasvim je moguce jer, film je snimljen po istinitom dogadjaju, eksperimentu poznatom kao "Stanford Prison Experiment" u Kaliforniji (Palo Alto) 1971. godine.  
Ovde mozete pronaci sve sto vas zanima sa fotografijama i kratkim filmovima  http://www.prisonexp.org/

Tekst jeste malo duzi ali, mozda nekog zanima. Christina Maslach je bila ukljucena u eksperiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years

I was sick to my stomach. When it's happening to you, it doesn't feel heroic; it feels real scary. It feels like you are a deviant. ­

Professor Christina Maslach, UC-Berkeley, to psychologists
gathered in Toronto, Aug. 12, 1996
The view through the doorway was too familiar ­ like something she had seen in the international news sections of Life or Newsweek.

Several young men ­ dressed in khaki uniforms and wearing reflector sunglasses that hid their eyes ­ were herding a larger group of men down a hallway. The latter were dressed in shapeless smocks that exposed their pale legs and the chains that bound one ankle of each man to another. Paper bag blindfolds covered their heads.

Christina Maslach's stomach reacted first. She felt queasy and instinctively turned her head away. Her peers, other academic psychologists, noticed her flinch. "What's the matter?" they teased.

On that fateful Thursday night a quarter-century ago, Maslach would take actions that made her a heroine in some circles as "the one who stopped the Stanford Prison Experiment." Even her now-husband, Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo, referred to the UC-Berkeley psychologist as a hero when he spoke to a group of undergraduates in his introductory psychology class last spring. But Maslach, her professional and personal lives reshaped by that night, rejects the label.
Speaking at a symposium of the American Psychological Association last summer, she urged other social science researchers to consider the circumstances of her alleged heroics:

She had walked into the experiment late and therefore was more likely to be startled than those who had been planning it for months and observing it for five days, she said.
She was involved in a romantic relationship with Zimbardo, the experiment's principal investigator, and not working for him as a graduate student or colleague.
Yet she had difficulty resisting the group pressure to be enthusiastic about what was going on in the name of science.

"At that point, I felt there was something wrong with me, thinking here I am, I'm supposed to be a psychologist, I'm supposed to understand, and I was having a hard time watching what was happening to these kids."

In the prison-conscious autumn of 1971, when George Jackson was killed at San Quentin and Attica erupted in even more deadly rebellion and retribution, the Stanford Prison Experiment made news in a big way. It offered the world a videotaped demonstration of how ordinary people ­ middle-class college students ­ can do things they would have never believed they were capable of doing. It seemed to say, as Hannah Arendt said of Adolf Eichmann, that normal people can take ghastly actions.
Details of the experiment are well known. They are included in most basic psychology texts and in a public television psychology course, "Discovering Psychology," that Zimbardo wrote and narrates. Movie rights have been optioned, "60 Minutes" has filmed a segment on the experiment, and even a punk rock band in Los Angeles calls itself Stanford Prison Experiment. In summary:

On Sunday morning, Aug., 17, 1971, nine young men were "arrested" in their homes by Palo Alto police. At least one of those arrested vividly remembers the shock of having his neighbors come out to watch the commotion as TV cameras recorded his hand-cuffing for the nightly news.

The arrestees were among about 70 young men, mostly college students eager to earn $15 a day for two weeks, who volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison life that had been advertised in the Palo Alto Times. After interviews and a battery of psychological tests, the two dozen judged to be the most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate, assigned randomly either to be guards or prisoners. Those who would be prisoners were booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and driven to campus where they were led into a makeshift prison in the basement of Jordan Hall.
Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms and instructed that they were not to use violence but that their job was to maintain control of the prison.

From the perspective of the researchers, the experiment became exciting on day two when the prisoners staged a revolt. Once the guards had crushed the rebellion, "they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanization of the prisoners," Zimbardo recalls. "The staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics," he said, and the worst instances of abuse occurred in the middle of the night when the guards thought the staff was not watching. The guards' treatment of the prisoners ­ such things as forcing them to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands and act out degrading scenarios, or urging them to become snitches ­ "resulted in extreme stress reactions that forced us to release five prisoners, one a day, prematurely."

Zimbardo's primary reason for conducting the experiment was to focus on the power of roles, rules, symbols, group identity and situational validation of behavior that generally would repulse ordinary individuals. "I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism and dehumanization that illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects," Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996.

"I wondered, along with my research associates Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Carlo Prescott, what would happen if we aggregated all of these processes, making some subjects feel deindividuated, others dehumanized within an anonymous environment in the same experimental setting, and where we could carefully document the process over time."

Jekyll and Hyde experience

Maslach walked into the mock prison on the evening of the fifth day. Having just received her doctorate from Stanford and starting an assistant professorship at Berkeley, she had agreed to do subject interviews the next day and had come down the night before to familiarize herself with the experiment.

At first, she said, she found it "dull and boring."

"I looked at the prison yard from the point of view of the video camera [that had been set up to monitor it] and there was not much happening. So I went around to the other end of the hall where some guards were waiting to start their next shift."

There, she had a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man waiting to start his guard shift. Other researchers had told her there was a particularly sadistic guard, whom both prisoners and other guards had nicknamed John Wayne. Later, when she looked at the monitor of the prison yard again, she asked someone to point out John Wayne and was shocked to discover it was the young man she had talked with earlier.

"This man had been transformed. He was talking in a different accent ­ a Southern accent, which I hadn't recalled at all. He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners. It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath away."

Several prisoners engaged in a debate with John Wayne, she said, in which they accused him of enjoying his job. He said that he wasn't really like that, he was just playing a role. One prisoner challenged this, Maslach said, noting that the guard had tripped him earlier when he was taking him down the hall to the bathroom. No researchers were around to see the act, the prisoner said, which indicated to him that the act reflected the guard's true disposition. John Wayne disagreed, saying that if he let up, the role wouldn't remain powerful.
Later that evening, Maslach said, she suddenly got sick to her stomach while watching guards taking the prisoners with paper bags over their heads to the bathroom before their bedtime. Her fellow researchers teased her about it.
After leaving the prison with Zimbardo, she said, he asked her what she thought of it. "I think he expected some sort of great intellectual discussion about what was going on. Instead, I started to have this incredible emotional outburst. I started to scream, I started to yell, 'I think it is terrible what you are doing to those boys!' I cried. We had a fight you wouldn't believe, and I was beginning to think, wait a minute, I don't know this guy. I really don't, and I'm getting involved with him?"
Zimbardo was shocked by her reaction and upset, she said, but eventually that night, "he acknowledged what I was saying and realized what had happened to him and to other people in the study. At that point he decided to call the experiment to a halt."

Says Zimbardo: "She challenged us to examine the madness she observed, that we had created and had to take responsibility for."

Lives redirected

Maslach is one of several people whose life was redirected by the experience. Researcher Haney went on to earn a law degree from Stanford after obtaining his doctorate in psychology and became one of the leading legal consultants on prison reform litigation, as well as a teacher at UC-Santa Cruz of psychology and law and the psychology of institutions. Prescott, who was the research team's consultant on real prisons, had spent 17 years behind bars before the experiment. He stayed out of legal trouble afterward, taught at Stanford, hosted his own radio show and does community service.
Maslach married Zimbardo in 1972 and became a full professor at Berkeley, studying the processes of dehumanization. "I started interviewing prison guards, real ones, and also people in emergency medical care. Out of that grew a lot of the research I have done over the years on job burn-out," she said. Her work has looked at "how people who are responsible for the care and treatment of others can come to view those they care for in object-like ways, leading them, in some cases, to behave in ways that are really insensitive, uncaring, brutal and dehumanizing."

The first prisoner to be released from the experiment went on to earn a doctorate in clinical psychology, doing an internship at San Quentin. He became a forensic psychologist for San Francisco's city jail and is now a consultant who advises judges regarding motions for prisoners' release. Respected in his field, he requested that his name not be used for this story because "I don't want my name and face associated with this anymore. The first 10 years it was fun," he said, but now he feels "the media never gives up." Reporters and movie producers keep calling him in conjunction with the experiment, he said, because he became a prison psychologist. "I'm the gimmick that makes it cute, and Phil [Zimbardo] is totally unable to empathize with my position."

Zimbardo and Maslach say they feel an ongoing responsibility to communicate about and apply the research beyond the academic world, which is why they generally agree to do interviews about it.
For Zimbardo, the prison experiment also has led to research on a range of social situations that generate pathological conditions. He has studied the social psychology of madness and cults, shyness as a kind of self-imposed prison, and time perspective ­ the way people come to be controlled by their overuse of past, present or future timeframes.
Zimbardo has testified before legislative bodies, courts and military corrections authorities. He is pleased that testimony about the research influenced Congress to change one law so that juveniles accused of federal crimes cannot be housed before trial with adult prisoners, because of the likelihood of violence against them. "Quiet Rage," a video that he and his Stanford undergraduate students produced from footage of the experiment, continues to be used in college classes and by civil, judicial, military and law enforcement groups to enlighten and arouse concern about prison life.

The experiment has not, however, brought about the changes in prisons or even in guard training programs that he would have liked.

In fact, prisons have been radically transformed in the United States in the last 25 years to make them less humane, Haney told the Toronto symposium audience. Voters have increasingly voted for politicians who take a tough public stance in favor of prisons as places for punishment, rather than for reforming social deviants. Long, determinate sentences are part of the new trend in policy, he said, as are an increasing number of prisons, like California's Pelican Bay, that put prisoners in long-term isolation.

"Psychology and other social science disciplines have been moved out of any kind of meaningful participation in debates over criminal justice policy," he said, urging the academics in his audience to "figure out ways in which we can re-involve ourselves in this debate."

In Zimbardo's view, prisons are "failed social-political experiments" that continue to bring out the worst in relations between people "because the public is indifferent to what takes place in secret there, and politicians use them, fill them up as much as they can, to demonstrate only that they are tough on crime. . . . They are as bad for the guards as the prisoners in terms of their destructive impact on self-esteem, sense of justice and human compassion."
Haney listed a number of lessons from the study that he said are largely ignored in American prisons as well as in other institutions of power today. The study demonstrated, for example, that "good people are not enough" to prevent abusive excess, he said. "Individual differences matter very little in the face of an extreme situation. . . . Institutional settings develop a life of their own independent of the wishes and intentions and purposes of those who run them."

Research ethics

And what about research institutions?

Zimbardo still has mixed emotions about the ethics of his experiment. His experiment has been criticized by some social scientists, as was the obedience experiment of his high school classmate Stanley Milgram, for its treatment of human research subjects.

In Milgram's 1965 experiment, the subjects were led to believe that they were delivering ever more powerful electric shocks to a stranger, on the orders of a white-coated researcher. Most were distressed by the situation, but two-thirds delivered the highest level of shock ­ labeled "danger - severe shock." Like some of Zimbardo's guard subjects, some of Milgram's were anguished afterward by the revelation of their dark potential. When asked about the ethics of such research for a 1976 magazine profile, Zimbardo said that "the ethical point is legitimate insofar as who are you, as an experimenter, to give a person that kind of information about oneself. But my feeling is that that's the most valuable kind of information that you can have ­ and that certainly a society needs it."

He told Stanford Report that he believes the pendulum now has swung too far toward protecting research subjects at the expense of new knowledge that could help society. "Our study went though the human subjects committee then because they didn't know in advance, nor did we, that anything would happen. . . . Now [review committees] assume everybody is so fragile, that if you propose to tell a research subject he failed a test, it will damage his self-esteem forever. So most research now is paper and pencil tests. We ask people things like 'Imagine you were a guard, how would you behave?' "
He would prefer, Zimbardo said, that human subjects review committees at universities "allow some controversial things to be done but in a highly monitored way. Videotapes should be checked every day, and there should be the option of an independent overseer blowing the whistle at any time."

He told the Toronto symposium audience last summer that the prison experiment was both ethical and unethical.

It was ethical, he said, because "it followed the guidelines of the Stanford human subjects ethics committee that approved it. There was no deception; all subjects were told in advance that if prisoners, many of their usual rights would be suspended and they would have only minimally adequate diet and health care during the study," which was planned to last two weeks.

It was also ethical for him to continue, he said, in that more than 50 people came to look at the study in progress and did not register any objections before Maslach registered hers. Among those who did not intervene were parents and friends of the students who came to see them on the prison's visiting nights, a Catholic priest, a public defender, and "professional psychologists, graduate students and staff of the psychology department who watched on-line videos of part of the study unfold or took part in parole board hearings or spoke to [the study subjects] and looked at them."

But it was unethical, he said, "because people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time."

"And yes, although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough."

da.
fascinantno u tom S. experimentu je to shto ni sam experimentator nije uspeo da odrzi distancu, shto je osnovni preduslov za pravilno sprovodjenje experimenta; nepristasnost i objektivnost u meri koju omogucava ljudski karakter.
ok, S. experiment je jedno, ali u filmu osnovni problem je taj shto od pochetka postoji 'distracting factor' taj novinar 'under cover' koji unosi tenziju i razdor i maximalno snizava prag tolerancije chuvara, shto je vodilo eskalaciji dogadjaja u krajnji extrem koji se najverovatnije ne bi ni desio da nije bilo nekoga ko u startu nije omogucio dobijanje validnih podataka experimenta.

inache sama ideja experimenta mi se veoma dopada. ukazuje na izuzetnu plastichnost ljudskog ponashanja bez obzira na genetsko nasledje i karakter. pretpostavljam da su jevrejski kapoi (jebote kako ide mnozina od 'kapo') i njihovo ponashanje u konc logorima bili povod za experiment.

Jel' ovo na srpskom znaci da ti se film svideo?

btw. meni jeste.

dopao mi se film. lepo je prikazana gradacija u oba smera.

Mislim da je prva greska pri biranju ljudi za eksperiment bila sto nisi proveravali preciznije i bolje njihove licnosti. Tako im se desio slucaj osobe za koju se tek kasnije tokom eksperimenta otkrilo da ima sadisticki karakter pri sasvim normalnoj spoljasnosti. To je za ne poverovati. Toliko o njihovim diplomama, znanju, profesionalnosti i ozbiljnosti samog eksperimenta. Pogotovo jer je to period u Americi sa tada svezim dogadjajem u zatvoru Atika.

Sto se tice samog filma, tu postoji faktor glavnog junaka koji ima zelju pored svoje licne zarade, na samom eksperimentu, zaradi i za novinarsku reportazu pa se rukovodi provokacijom radi sto boljeg senzacionalistickog rezultata i omalovazavanja strazara. Mogu da razumem njegov stav, igrac za sebe. Meni samo smeta sto sam pocetak eksperimenta i njihovo budjenje nasilja deluje zbrzano. Film traje sat i 50' i dodatnih 5-10' ne bi nikome pravio problem. Tako dolaze u situaciju da prosecnom gledaocu zaostravanje odnosa izmedju njih deluje kao grom iz vedra neba. Oni samo prikazuju u filmu kako se cuvar ne snalazi najbolje u jednoj situaciji sa zatvorenicima i kako mu se nakon toga tresu ruke. Meni, kao osobi koja ipak uci ljudsko ponasanje, to moze da ukaze da vec tu osoba pokazuje elemente "pucanja" ali, koliko to moze da ukaze na buduce dogadjaje prosecnom gledaocu? Da su tu ubacili jos neki dogadjaj koji tera na razmisljanje sta je sa tom licnoscu mislim da bi sve znatno bolje ispalo. Ovako sam malo razocarana. Ipak, film mi se jako dopao.  

By the way, Dunadan, fino si se setila slucaja sa jevrejskim kapoima (nadam se da sam ja sada pogodila oblik). Svi ti dogadjaji i eksperimenti teraju na razmisljanje kako se menja osoba, licnost, kada joj se da moc i mislim da koliko god eksperimenata bude sprovodjeno nikada nece moci da se odgonetne sta to tera coveka u odredjenim situacijama da se ponasa na odredjeni nacin, a pogotovo ne u njihovom slucaju gde se maltene na samom pocetku izgubila kontrola i nepristrasnost.

Meni se cini da u eksperimentu nema mnogo materijala na koji se treba  sa potpunim poverenjem oslanjati ako se izvode generalni zakljucci. I meni je prvo palo na um da selekcija strazar-zatvorenik ni u kom slucaju nije random, da su negde strasno omanuli u testovima, merili sta nije bitno, a ono sto jeste, prosto im nije bilo u vidokrugu.

Ovako kako je u filmu, ja imam problema da povezem ikoga sa Jevrejskim kapoima u logorima, mislim, ne vidim vezu. Dunadan?

Morticia, ako ne zelis da mi dugujes mnogo kapucina, pls iduci put stavi jasno za blese poput mete da film nije gledljiv uz klopu

Quote from: "S."Morticia, ako ne zelis da mi dugujes mnogo kapucina, pls iduci put stavi jasno za blese poput mete da film nije gledljiv uz klopu

Cuj, bleso , nisam znala da treba to upozorenje... ispricavam se ako sam pokvarila obrok. A mogu da ti dugujem kapucina koliko hoces, samo ti dodji ponovo.  

To su bili Jevreji, cuvari po jevrejskim koncentracionim logorima. Nacisti su im dali tu "ulogu", obicno su bili birani zatvorenici inace bliski Nemcima ili oni koji su vec pokazivali neku vrstu saradnje sa njima. Oni su zatim sprovodili red po logorima, ponasajuci se jako slicno nacistima u tome.
Ima dokumentarnih filmova gde se na snimcima vide Jevreji-cuvari kako udaraju Jevreje-zatvorenike jer oni od iznemoglosti padaju na zemlju ili ispadaju iz reda za hranu, voz i slicno. Uzasno.  
Mislim i da takvih scena ima i kod Polanskog u njegovom Pijansti, gde jednu od ulogu "cuvara" dobija i njegov najbolji prijatelj. Polanski je za snimanje logora i prikaza zivota unutar zidina koristio prave, autenticne snimke. Taj film je kod nas na televiziji prikazan pred premijeru Pijaniste. Neki kadrovi su preslikani iz tog dokumentarnog filma (ne mogu se na zalost setiti naslova) u Pijanistu.

Nema da brines

Ne desava mi se cesto, ali ovaj film sam gledala iz dva puta, kad se zeludac vratio na mesto. Nego, film (DVD) je imao doobrih 2 sata, ne fali mu nista, cak ima i previse, ne verujem da ima vise izdanja?

Ma, znam ko/sta su bili Jevrejski kapoi, samo ne mogu da povezem sa filmom/eksperimentom. Mislim, oni su bili birani namenski i nimalo random, ohrabrivani na zverstva, verujem, svakodnevno. Pa sam malo  

pa jevrejski kapo do rata nije bio nishta drugo do obichan chinovnik, komshija, drugar, poznanik, neko ko se ni po chemu nije razlikovao od tadashnjeg prosechnog Jevreja, da bi u logoru gro njih postajao gori chak i od Shvaba.
koliko su birani namenski ne znam. pretpostavljam da se u normalnim okolnostima kapo ne bi razlikovao od ostalih, a u neku ruku, njihovo ponashanje koje je prethodilo 'imenovanju' nije nishta drugo do survival of the fittest koje se u normalnim okolnostima gde gola egzistencija nije ugrozena, ne bi nikad okinulo.
i nije to usamljen sluchaj takve plastichnosti.
koliko je samo sluchaja gde je ponashanje jedinke katalizovano okolinom bez obzira na nacionalnu pripadnost.
pa tako imash primera da srbin postane veci hrvat od hrvata i vice versa, poturica gori od turka itede.

QuoteMislim da je prva greska pri biranju ljudi za eksperiment bila sto nisi proveravali preciznije i bolje njihove licnosti. Tako im se desio slucaj osobe za koju se tek kasnije tokom eksperimenta otkrilo da ima sadisticki karakter pri sasvim normalnoj spoljasnosti. To je za ne poverovati. Toliko o njihovim diplomama, znanju, profesionalnosti i ozbiljnosti samog eksperimenta. Pogotovo jer je to period u Americi sa tada svezim dogadjajem u zatvoru Atika.

daj bre, si ti josh jedna koja olako shvata psihologiju?
nikakve veze nema spoljashnjost i ponashanje. pa psihopata moze da bude najkul tip kog si ikad upoznala, a da se na Rorshahu iskristalishe da je organac vec na prvoj slici.
poenta je da na psiholoshkim testovima ne mozesh da varash. ne postoje odgovori koje mozes da nauchish. pa ne shkoluju se ti ljudi dzabe.

davno sam chitala o stanfordskom experimentu, ali test nije odradjen toliko davno te ne moze da se pricha o ne znam kako zastarelim metodama testiranja, tako da sumnjam da pre toga nisu izvrshili eliminaciju extrema. kontam da su morali, radi validnosti podataka, napraviti koliko je to moguce, homogenu grupu. ako je grupa homogena tada je sasvim jasno da ce bilo koja nasumichna podela na zatvorenike i chuvare rezultovati na isti nachin.

Quote from: "DUNADAN"

QuoteMislim da je prva greska pri biranju ljudi za eksperiment bila sto nisi proveravali preciznije i bolje njihove licnosti. Tako im se desio slucaj osobe za koju se tek kasnije tokom eksperimenta otkrilo da ima sadisticki karakter pri sasvim normalnoj spoljasnosti.

daj bre, si ti josh jedna koja olako shvata psihologiju?
nikakve veze nema spoljashnjost i ponashanje. pa psihopata moze da bude najkul tip kog si ikad upoznala, a da se na Rorshahu iskristalishe da je organac vec na prvoj slici.

Olako shvatam? Ne bih rekla. To mi je struka. Pre sam u grupaciji onih drugih, koji i jednostavne stvari znaju da posmatraju kroz nekakvu psiholosku prizmu.

Sad si i mene zbunila na koju spoljasnjost mislis...

Mozda sam trebala odmah napisati da pri koriscenju izraza "spoljasnost" mislim na pojam "spoljasnje licnosti", na ponasanje osobe prema drugim ljudima u okviru pojma socijalizacije, u medjuljudskim odnosima; na fenomen u ljudskom ponasanju kada se ljudi npr. uzasno trude da izgledaju smireno u napetim situacijama (da im cak i polazi za rukom i pruzaju utisak smirene osobe) dok im srce radi 200 na sat. Tu je razlika izmedju spoljasnjosti - spoljasnje licnosti (ponasanje kakvo zelimo drugim ljudima da serviramo) i unutrasnjosti - unutrasnje licnosti (onoga sto jeste, kako jeste, ono sto smo mi zapravo). Kao i sto sam napisala, smatram da je velika greska kako nije uoceno na samom uvodnom testiranju licnost nesto sto bi moglo ukazati na potencijalno rizicno ponasanje. Smatracu i ubuduce.

Ako smo mislile na isto koriscenje pojma spoljasnosti - mogu da ocekujem od osobe koja psihologiji ne pristupa profesionalno, pogotovo ako se ne sprema da pravi eksperiment o ljudskom ponasanju i da joj promakne tako nesto, kao sto je pogresno procenjena licnost, pa da kazem jebi ga, debili, od njih nisam nista bolje ni ocekivala jer, prosto i jednostavno, ti ljudi nisu strucni. Od strucnih, obrazovanih, ucenih ljudi u tom polju jesam. Ocekivala sam i uvek cu ocekivati.

Quotepoenta je da na psiholoshkim testovima ne mozesh da varash. ne postoje odgovori koje mozes da nauchish. pa ne shkoluju se ti ljudi dzabe.

Za ovo ti moram reci da, moze, iz ugla osobe koja se nije skolovala dzabe. Ja znam kljuc, ja znam simbole. Rorsah je cak najgori u tome. Ali, napomenucu, ovo pricam iz ugla osobe kojoj su te stvari poznate. Prosecna osoba, podrazumeva se, ne bi trebala sve to da zna, no, da li ces reci da na slici vidis jelku okrenutu na dole ili coveka kako pada je vec stav te osobe koliko zeli da se "otvori"; i nije to samo slucaj sa njegovim slikama vec bilo kojim drugim testom projektivnog tipa (dovrsavanje recenica, sledeca rec u nizu, prva misao na neki pojam, slaganje razlicitih slika u pricu itd.).

Sa poslednje recenim se i ja kao laik slazem. Na psiholoskom testovima i te kako mozes da varas, cak i ne moras da budes strucno lice a da znas kako. Mislim da je samo pitanje motiva i neke opste inteligencije i opsteg obrazovanja.

Quote from: "DUNADAN"pa jevrejski kapo do rata nije bio nishta drugo do obichan chinovnik, komshija, drugar, poznanik, neko ko se ni po chemu nije razlikovao od tadashnjeg prosechnog Jevreja, da bi u logoru gro njih postajao gori chak i od Shvaba.
koliko su birani namenski ne znam. pretpostavljam da se u normalnim okolnostima kapo ne bi razlikovao od ostalih, a u neku ruku, njihovo ponashanje koje je prethodilo 'imenovanju' nije nishta drugo do survival of the fittest koje se u normalnim okolnostima gde gola egzistencija nije ugrozena, ne bi nikad okinulo.

Hm, moze biti da je problem u tome sto ja imam grdnih problema sa survival of the fittest tezom. Ja smatram da je drustvenost prevagnula u izgradnji onoga sto ce potonje postati civilizacija. Ali, dobro, to na stranu. Mislim da stvarno imamo malo mogucnosti da proverimo kako su birani kapoi, meni neka logika nalaze da ni u kom slucaju nisu random. Moze biti da jesu, ali onda neizostavno u pocetnoj grupi imas i ljude, koji se vrlo brzo odstrane iz uzorka i ti ostanes sa cistim, destilisanim, hm, zlom?

Neverovatno kojom ste to uspeli da povežete mentalno stanje grupe ljudi koje ulaze u eksperiment sproveden po sasvim preciziranim pravilima ( i to za pare)  sa mentalnim stanjem ljudi u konc logoru! Ako ništa drugo onda zato što je ona potonja grupa znala, bez trunke sumnje i dileme, da će svi oni, do jednoga, eventualno skončati u gasnim komorama. To nije bio prosto definisan princip 'kazne' kao takve; jevreji su znali da će biti ubijeni za najmanji prestup ali su isto tako znali da će biti ubijeni čak i ako nikakvog prestupa ne naprave, prosto zato što su jevreji i za njih nema mesta među arijevcima. Takvo stanje svesti ne može se uporedi niti sa jednim artificijelno definisanim psihološkim modelom, pogotovo ne survival of the fittest  modelu.

Drugim rečima, jedno je bilo 'za istinski' a drugo nije; svako poređenje je besmisleno.

...ima rezona. Tvoj komentar, mislim. Mozda je bila u pitanju ekstrapolacija, onako stvarno povelika?

Sa mnogim psiholoskim eksperimentima ja imam sledeci probelm: gro ih se radi na slucajnom uzorku dostupnih/raspolozenih studenata, i onda se zakljucci uopste za celu populaciju. Film je studente pretvorio u ljude sa ulice, moje i tvoje komsije. Nesto su hteli sa tim, valjda

Na zaista dobro konstruisanim psiholoskim testovima nije moguce varati tek tako, samo na osnovu pameti i zdravog razuma. Moguce je davati lazne odgovore ali to se provali onda posto ti odgovori nemaju smisla u jednom sirem kljucu kad se povezu zajedno, iako osobi koja odgovara na pitanja moze da deluje kako je "zajebao/la" test. Neko ko ima uvida kako se testovi konstruisu/primenjuju/tumace moze da prevari test bez problema, naravo. Ali sve ovo vazi samo u slucaju da su testovi dobro konstruisani i da su ti sto ih tumace strucni, i da im je stalo uopste. Ne znam kako kod nas stoji stvar po tom pitanju, nisam u toku s praksom, jos uvek sam, avaj, poprilicno zaglibljen u teoriju.

A to za uopstavanje rezultata, pa nas prva stvar koju nauce je da dobro razlikujemo razlicite uzorke/populacije/metode izbora. pa da ne bude posle takvih olakih zakljucaka. Mada, nesto cisto sumnjam da se u praksi svi ponasaju tako ortodoksno. Pogledajte samo razna "istrazivanja" javnog mnjenja, a posebno nacine kako se ti rezultati prezentuju. To je stvarno smesno...

Quote from: "Milosh"Na zaista dobro konstruisanim psiholoskim testovima nije moguce varati tek tako, samo na osnovu pameti i zdravog razuma. Moguce je davati lazne odgovore ali to se provali onda posto ti odgovori nemaju smisla u jednom sirem kljucu kad se povezu zajedno, iako osobi koja odgovara na pitanja moze da deluje kako je "zajebao/la" test. Neko ko ima uvida kako se testovi konstruisu/primenjuju/tumace moze da prevari test bez problema, naravo. Ali sve ovo vazi samo u slucaju da su testovi dobro konstruisani i da su ti sto ih tumace strucni, i da im je stalo uopste. Ne znam kako kod nas stoji stvar po tom pitanju, nisam u toku s praksom, jos uvek sam, avaj, poprilicno zaglibljen u teoriju.

kad sam rekla da ne moze da se vara na testu, mislila sam na ljude koji pre toga nisu imali nikakvog dodira sa takvim tipom testiranja. razumem da moze da se vara na Rorshahu; da mogu da se nauche 'odgovarajuci' odgovori, da se zna da ne smesh na karti toj i toj da vidish iskidane organe itede.
dva puta sam radila MMPI, jednom u okviru kompletnog testiranja lichnosti, i nekoliko godina posle toga iz zajebancije, kad sam svnula kod drugarice na kliniku.
taj drugi put sam na nekih 30% pitanja sam varala i ne da se videlo na konachnom skoru, vec je taj aspekt bio najizrazeniji. i nema to veze sa nivoom inteligencije. ili sa opshtim obrazovanjem. jedini deo testiranja koji ima veze sa opshtim obrazovanjem su 20 pitanja u VITI-ju.
da bi varao kako treba morash prvo biti upoznat sa testom, sa adekvatnim odgovorom (pitam se ko ce na MMPI da uchi 'odgovore' za svaku karticu). hell, chak i na crtezu ljudske figure mozesh da saznash loads of stuff.

QuoteAko smo mislile na isto koriscenje pojma spoljasnosti - mogu da ocekujem od osobe koja psihologiji ne pristupa profesionalno, pogotovo ako se ne sprema da pravi eksperiment o ljudskom ponasanju i da joj promakne tako nesto, kao sto je pogresno procenjena licnost, pa da kazem jebi ga, debili, od njih nisam nista bolje ni ocekivala jer, prosto i jednostavno, ti ljudi nisu strucni. Od strucnih, obrazovanih, ucenih ljudi u tom polju jesam. Ocekivala sam i uvek cu ocekivati.

naravno da smo mislile na tu 'spoljashnjost', i sumnjam da su osobe koje su sprovodile testiranje bile potpuni laici i da su prevideli devijantnost.
nemoguce je da su svi uchesnici experimenta bili devijantni u jednom obliku ili drugom, a josh manje je moguce da su tako podeljeni da su u grupu chuvara ushli svi sa sadistichkom crtom, a u grupu zatvorenika svi sa, recimo, 'buntovnom' crtom.

QuoteZa ovo ti moram reci da, moze, iz ugla osobe koja se nije skolovala dzabe. Ja znam kljuc, ja znam simbole.

da, ali jedno je shkolovan psiholog, a drugo laik i da, mozda taj neko ne zeli da se otvori, ali ovde prichamo o dobrovoljcima, ljudima koji su prihvatili da uchestvuju u experimentu, a ne o ljudima koji moraju da prodju testiranje zbog vojske, personalne evaluacije za posao ili bilo shta slichno tome gde bi imali razloga da varaju, modifikuju svoje odgovore itede.

QuoteMislim da stvarno imamo malo mogucnosti da proverimo kako su birani kapoi, meni neka logika nalaze da ni u kom slucaju nisu random. Moze biti da jesu, ali onda neizostavno u pocetnoj grupi imas i ljude, koji se vrlo brzo odstrane iz uzorka i ti ostanes sa cistim, destilisanim, hm, zlom?

evo glupog primera iz Shindlera, secam se dok su bili u getu, vec tamo je postojalo nekoliko osoba koje su hm, saradjivale sa shvabama, da bi te iste osobe na kraju u logoru postale kapoi ili neshto slichno tome. znachi, diferencijacija je odradjena josh u getu.

QuoteMozda je bila u pitanju ekstrapolacija, onako stvarno povelika?

pa i jeste extrapolacija. Isto tako, naspram Jevreja u logorima, njihovog ponashanja kao grupe, bunta, taktika za beg itede mogu da se stave i Shvabe, chuvari u logorima, "dzelati", isto ljudi koji su pre rata i zadojenosti ideologijom ziveli jedan normalan zivot.

QuoteAko ništa drugo onda zato što je ona potonja grupa znala, bez trunke sumnje i dileme, da će svi oni, do jednoga, eventualno skončati u gasnim komorama.

pa ako smo neshto nauchili iz Holokausta to je koliko daleko moze da ode ljudska samoobmana, pa makar bili okruzeni krematorijima. boze, pa gro njih je ulazilo u 'kupatila' ubedjeni da idu na tushiranje.

QuoteDrugim rečima, jedno je bilo 'za istinski' a drugo nije; svako poređenje je besmisleno.

pa prochitaj S. experiment. Obuhvatao je sve, od upada policije u kucu, stavljanja lisica na ruke, transport do zatvora sa sve komshijama koji se okupe da gledaju, sirenama i svim shto ide uz to.
Mislim da su i jedni i drugi jako brzo zaboravili da je u pitanju experiment. Hell, chak je i experimentator zaboravio i potpuno se uziveo u ulogu upravnika zatvora.

QuoteSa mnogim psiholoskim eksperimentima ja imam sledeci probelm: gro ih se radi na slucajnom uzorku dostupnih/raspolozenih studenata, i onda se zakljucci uopste za celu populaciju. Film je studente pretvorio u ljude sa ulice, moje i tvoje komsije. Nesto su hteli sa tim, valjda

u psihologiji ne postoji dobar standard za uporedjivanje, kao shto postoji u egzaktvnim naukama, nema standarda za normalno, postoji samo uopshtavanje da je normalno ono shto je odlika vecine, a da je manjinsko ponashanje devijantno. E sad, ne znam istorijat nijednog od danas korishcenih testova, ali sumnjam da je standard pravljen samo na konto testiranja studentske populacije.
E da, josh jedan razlog zashto je experiment trebalo da bude uspeshniji je taj shto su u experimentu uchestvovali studenti, znachi svi redom ljudi prosechne ili natprosechne inteligencije i znanja. Takav uzorak, bez obzira kako ljudi u okviru njega bili podeljeni, bi trebalo da ublazi delovanje veshtachkih uslova experimenta, ali ochito nije. Sumnjam da bi uzimanje sluchajnog uzorka iz normalne populacije rezultovao drugachije.

Shto se tiche survival of the fittest, ne vidim shta je tu nejasno. Mozda na svima nama postoje slojevi i slojevi civilizacije i usadjenih moralnih normi, ali u stani-pani situacijama pitanje je shta cemo od svega toga zadrzati, a sta ce prosto biti posledica instinkta.

Predvodnice u mojoj bivšoj osnovnoj školi bi možda bile dobar primer stražara iz eksperimenta. Ili klinac koji treba da drži čas umesto nastavnika i onda u trenutku u kome ne uspeva da uspostavi autoritet, traži ovlašćenje da daje jedinice.

Ali sad ozbiljno, jevrejski kapoi (tek ja neću dati odgovor da li je dobar oblik za množinu) mi jesu dobar primer preobražaja identiteta. Ljudi koji su izdvojeni iz gomile činili sve da bi preživeli, jer ja verujem da je u većini slučajeva to bio glavni motiv a ne neka pritajena želja za nasiljem. Sumnjam da su pre stavljanja u tu situaciju ikada pomislili da su u stanju činiti tako nešto. Tišmina knjiga Kapo je tako prokleto dobar primer za tu priču.
Ne ponašaju se svi isto u nekoj situaciji ali iznenađuje tako veliki broj onih koji će pokazati nečovečnost ako pritom ne snose posledice. Da li samo glumimo svoje društvene uloge a sva socijalizacija činjena vekovima nam daje samo bolji scenario za trenutnu uobičajenu situaciju? (gnušam se ovog 1. lica množine ali pokušavam biti objektivna)
I šta je sa onim drugim eksperimentom koji se spominje u tekstu? Milgramov opit izveden 1965. u kome je 65 procenata nasumično odabranih ljudi pristajalo da nepoznatim osobama zadaje elektrošokove. Na prvi mah deluje kao nešto napisano u Politikinom Zabavniku (heh, a i jeste, u prošlom broju... kao jedan od deset čuvenih svetskih eksperimenata) ali, istinit je, zar ne?

Sema Dema, svi komentari na ovom topiku su ženski.
Ima li to neku skrivenu poruku?
Ili muškarci hororičari ne gledaju nemačke filmove...

svi komentari su zenski??  

PS. Mislim da ima neke veze sa palamuđenjem. Proveri ti to sa Lurdijem, on sigurno zna...

Quote from: "DUNADAN"

QuoteZa ovo ti moram reci da, moze, iz ugla osobe koja se nije skolovala dzabe. Ja znam kljuc, ja znam simbole.

da, ali jedno je shkolovan psiholog, a drugo laik i da, mozda taj neko ne zeli da se otvori, ali ovde prichamo o dobrovoljcima, ljudima koji su prihvatili da uchestvuju u experimentu, a ne o ljudima koji moraju da prodju testiranje zbog vojske, personalne evaluacije za posao ili bilo shta slichno tome gde bi imali razloga da varaju, modifikuju svoje odgovore itede.

Razlog za varanje? Pare koje ce dobiti kao ucesnici eksperimenta.

gledo sam ja experiment još na festu, neznajući da je kupljen za bioskope (da, morticia, igrao je kod nas), ali me nimalo nije dojmio, bio mi je suviše predvidiv, suviše očigledan, sa dobrom premisom se bavio sa vrlo malo dubine, i na kraju sve sveo na malo akcije ne verujući idejnim potencijalima drame; žanrovski nekoherentan, experiment je od mene dobio 3- a na ovom topiku me mrzelo da pričam o njemu, tim pre što vidim da se ženska momčad daleko više razduševila filmom, pa ajde, da ne ispadne opet 'ghoul nam kvari zabavu'...

Osim Dema i Milosha, morao je i Boban da dodje da kvari svojim komentarima. A evo sad i ja!

Nosimo se, bre, sa ove teme i pustimo žene da diskutuju. To je tako...nekako...

P.S.

Dobro došla, angel!  

P.P.S.

Dobro došla i ti Ano Max, iako se ne znamo, ali nije u redu da te se sada ignorišem.

Evo ga sad i ovaj...Čibe bre! Prvi ja!

Quote from: "Lurd"
Nosimo se, bre, sa ove teme i pustimo žene da diskutuju. To je tako...nekako...

Kako, sta? Zucni ako smes...

As angel011 said, pare su sasvim dobra motiv za varanje. I po onome sto je i Milosh napisao vidim da se psiholozi pretvaraju da zive u idelanom svetu, i sve je ok dokle god se zakljucci eksperimenata jasno ogranicavaju. Pitanje motiva - ne vidim kako je to kvantifikovano uopste, a ako jednu od bitnih stavki nije moguce izmeriti, o cemu se onda uopste prica.

Ghoule, a sto si se onda sad javio?

QuoteP.S.

Dobro došla, angel!  

hvala, hvala  

@ S.

isprovocirao me boban sa 'Ili muškarci hororičari ne gledaju nemačke filmove...'

neće bre niko meni ovde da spočitava negledanje nemačkih filmova (čak i kad ovi nisu horori)

rođendane, dobrodošlice i testove ličnosti ne bih nikome iskazivao ovom prilikom, samo zato da ne bi pretvarali ZS u S.Planet 2, if U no what I mean

Bobane, ne preteruj.

Mnogi ozbilji ljudi sa ovoga sajta su gledali filmove Jorga Butgerita.

Quote from: "Lurd"
P.P.S.
Dobro došla i ti Ano Max, iako se ne znamo, ali nije u redu da te se sada ignorišem.

Ma fenks.  

Mala, pazi se Lurda, opasan je on zavodnik.

Vau! Novi član pod imenom Angel!

Nadam se da je u pitanju ANGEL LONG!

Quote from: "angel011"
Razlog za varanje? Pare koje ce dobiti kao ucesnici eksperimenta.

210 dolara?
Ne potcenjujem i takav motiv ali da li su oni pre samog eksperimenta mogli znati kakav tip učesnika njima treba? Kako bi znali da im trebaju baš normalni, uravnoteženi ljudi?! To je mogao biti eksperiment gde se ispituje ponašanje ljudi sa blagim sadističkim crtama u sebi.
Samo testiranje je verovatno prethodilo priči o tome šta će se zbivati s njima kasnije.

Pa najlogicnija pretpostavka - i ona koja prva padne na pamet - je da su za testiranje potrebni normalni, uravnotezeni ljudi.

210 dolara nisu velike pare, mada su pocetkom sedamdesetih verovatno bile nesto vece nego danas. A 210 dolara za nesto sto moze biti shvaceno kao zezanje (ma, to je samo neko testiranje) i nije tako lose.