It's that time again: getting ready for summer. I'll be leaving to teach in Mexico June 1 and would like tipsters recommendations of the best books they read this year.
I have an overly disproportionate amount of books already of light reading. I could use one or more on the 'thinking' side. I was wondering if any tipsters have read Mind Hacks? Anyone have an opinion on it? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 02:34:22 -0400 >From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [tips] Re: [Fwd: What sort of person volunteers for a prison >experiment?] >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > >On 5 May 2007 Chris Green wrote in relation to the discussion on >http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/05/what_sort_of_person_.html > >> This might be reassuring to people who don't want to believe that >> anyone can be influenced by the environment to become sadistic. > >Thanks, Chris, for drawing attention to this material. The following seem >to offer a wider perspective than that usually seen from Zimbardo's work >and articles (though I don't profess to have followed this closely). > >Quote from S.A. Haslam and S. Reicher (p.621): > >"Arendt, Milgram, and Zimbardo played a critical part in taking us beyond >reductionist explanations of tyranny as a simple product of pathological >individuals. But now, their reductionist explanations of tyranny as a >simple product of pathological situations—the banality-of-evil >hypothesis—seem equally untenable. Instead, the case is emerging for an >interactionist understanding that sees the social psychology of individual >tyrants and collective tyranny as interdependent and mutually reinforcing. > >"[...] it is true that evil can become normal and indeed normative in >groups and hence can end up appearing banal. However, the development of >these norms and of their appeal is a long and intricate process. This >process—the normalization of evil—is far from banal. Our theories of it >should no longer be either." > >http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=1493 > >Reference : >Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the Banality of Evil: Three >Dynamics of an Interactionist Social Psychology of Tyranny. Personality >and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(5):615-622 >http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/615 > >Carnahan and McFarland critique the situationist account of the Stanford >prison experiment by arguing that understanding extreme action requires >consideration of individual characteristics and the interaction between >person and situation. Haslam and Reicher develop this argument in two >ways. First, they reappraise historical and psychological evidence that >supports the broader "banality of evil" thesis—the idea that ordinary >people commit atrocities without awareness, care, or choice. Counter to >this thesis, they show that perpetrators act thoughtfully, creatively, and >with conviction. Second, drawing from this evidence and the BBC [British >Broadcasting Corporation] Prison Study, they make the case for an >interactionist approach to tyranny that explains how people are (a) >initially drawn to extreme and oppressive groups, (b) transformed by >membership in those groups, and (c) able to gain influence over others and >hence normalize oppression. These dynamics can make evil appear banal but >are far from banal themselves. > >See also: > >Carnahan, T. & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison >Experiment: Could Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Cruelty? >Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(5):603-614 >http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/603 > >The authors investigated whether students who selectively volunteer for a >study of prison life possess dispositions associated with behaving >abusively. Students were recruited for a psychological study of prison >life using a virtually identical newspaper ad as used in the Stanford >Prison Experiment (SPE; Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973) or for a >psychological study, an identical ad minus the words of prison life. >Volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on measures of >the abuse-related dispositions of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, >Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance and lower on empathy >and altruism, two qualities inversely related to aggressive abuse. >Although implications for the SPE remain a matter of conjecture, an >interpretation in terms of person-situation interactionism rather than a >strict situationist account is indicated by these findings. Implications >for interpreting the abusiveness of American military guards at Abu Ghraib >Prison also are discussed. > >Allen Esterson >Former lecturer, Science Department >Southwark College, London >http://www.esterson.org/ > >------------------------------------------------ >Sat, 05 May 2007 20:19:04 -0400 >Author: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [Fwd: What sort of person volunteers for a prison experiment?] > >> This might be reassuring to people who don't want to believe that anyone >> can be influenced by the environment to become sadistic. >> http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/05/what_sort_of_person_.html >> On the other hand, it won't be of any comfort who want to believe that >> the Stanford Prison Study has nothing to do with what happened at Abu >> Graib. After all, if people who volunteer for prison studies score >> higher on "aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, >> narcissism, and social dominance and lower on empathy and altruism," >> imagine what people who volunteer for the army are like on these traits. >> >> Regards, >> Chris > >--- >To make changes to your subscription go to: >http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english >
