Why Zimbardo set a prison, not a hospital or a nursery? What were the reasons behind his choice? Was Philip himself a subject of a specific role in a larger "experiment" that required research in this specific type of relationship context?
Have you ever seen someone act drunk because they thought they ought to be drunk, rather than because they've actually had enough alcohol? I know I have.
Too bad Professor Harvey Molotch did not read the seminal chapter 6 in Durkheim's "Suicide, 1894! He would have given a completely different explanation of suicide and divorce. Durkheim did emphasize the Catholic-Protestant difference in suicide rates, but he also noticed that this difference was irrelevant when the suicides involved divorced people. He claimed that the local laws privileging or disfavoring one or the other of the divorced couple caused higher suicide rates with no relation to religion. The relation to the laws mattered. We see this today in the highest suicidal group in the US - middle aged men who are divorced!
Humphries was a graduate student of Alvin Gouldner at St. Louis University. When Humphries told Gouldner, Gouldner punched him in the mouth. This led to an uproar among the administrators and Gouldner resigned.
Great lecture overall, but I'm surprised that he speaks earnestly about the Stanford prison experiment. Zimbardo took on the role of warden in the prison, and encouraged authoritarian behavior through his assistants. Prisons were a political focus in the late 60s and early 70s, a researcher had reasons to publish dramatic findings on them.
it was also mexican immigrants that they were concerned with, that is why the banned pot, but before that it used to grow wild along the banks of the Potomac river... well didn't ban it, but required a special stamp to have it but you couldn't have it with out the stamp and you couldn't get a stamp unless you already had it.
Also if someone gives you a pot brownie and you don't know its a pot brownie you will be stoned... I mean clearly this guy hasn't ever done it... I've seen people given pot brownies and they didn't know it get 'stoned'. Problem with academics, and I should know, I am one, is that they often don't have any kind of experience other than theory.
yeah honestly most of this guys ideas/thoughts are very off however are presented by him like thats how it works when he himself is completely lost- the whole idea of "being a marijuana" user and how it works in the way that he presented it is scientifically incorrect. A simple MRI would show that there is huge diffirience in regular activity and said activity causes certain effects on the human, causing them to be "stoned"
There is a serious issue with how you guys tend to view this. He didnt say that marijuana users are not stoned if they dont learn how to use marijuana. He is making a difference between the socially accepted ways of doing marijuana in an otherwise deviant society (marijuana users) and how it does not pertain to the biological effects of marijuana. Basically, 2 levels : 1. "Non-deviant" society 2. "Deviant" society. And he is saying "deviant societies can have deviant societies within themselves and they do"
Yeah. What's wrong with someone who stops eating until they are dead... "What's wrong with someone who steals frech fries from another persons plate?" is a really weak example. I would have liked some stronger evidence after you have just told us that "mental illness is not a thing"
I find this incredibly offensive...he's implying that being gay/engaging in 'gay' acts is some how deviant/wrong/inappropriate/bad, it may not be the 'norm' but it is normal to be gay. Even if it was considered deviant in the past and still by some people, that in now way at all means that it is deviant or has EVER been deviant. So it's wrong to lump it in with other 'deviant' acts and say that everyone is deviant.
FJF1085 his whole class is about sociology. Although now accepted, homosexual acts was considered deviant. His point is no matter how normal the act is, if it is socially frowned upon in a given context, the act is considered deviant.
@@dannydk6 I think his point is more along the lines, there is nothing that is aboslute "normal" but that we have to understand that "normal" is something a group of humans together form rules/views on whether something is accepted or not, normal or not etc.
Thank you for posting this video. The professor is really entertaining and made the material I already knew that much more cohesive.
great lectures man its so awesome that these are on youtube. I cant wait to watch the rest of your videos
Harvey Molotch! My professor let us read a lot of paper written by him,
His lectures are great!!!!
Why Zimbardo set a prison, not a hospital or a nursery? What were the reasons behind his choice? Was Philip himself a subject of a specific role in a larger "experiment" that required research in this specific type of relationship context?
Have you ever seen someone act drunk because they thought they ought to be drunk, rather than because they've actually had enough alcohol? I know I have.
Too bad Professor Harvey Molotch did not read the seminal chapter 6 in Durkheim's "Suicide, 1894! He would have given a completely different explanation of suicide and divorce. Durkheim did emphasize the Catholic-Protestant difference in suicide rates, but he also noticed that this difference was irrelevant when the suicides involved divorced people. He claimed that the local laws privileging or disfavoring one or the other of the divorced couple caused higher suicide rates with no relation to religion. The relation to the laws mattered. We see this today in the highest suicidal group in the US - middle aged men who are divorced!
Humphries was a graduate student of Alvin Gouldner at St. Louis University. When Humphries told Gouldner, Gouldner punched him in the mouth. This led to an uproar among the administrators and Gouldner resigned.
Any body help me out !!! I finished 99 credits out side of USA and i am new in NYC. What can i do now to continue my education
I just luv him
Should we have a standard and our own mind since 5?
Great lecture overall, but I'm surprised that he speaks earnestly about the Stanford prison experiment. Zimbardo took on the role of warden in the prison, and encouraged authoritarian behavior through his assistants. Prisons were a political focus in the late 60s and early 70s, a researcher had reasons to publish dramatic findings on them.
it was also mexican immigrants that they were concerned with, that is why the banned pot, but before that it used to grow wild along the banks of the Potomac river... well didn't ban it, but required a special stamp to have it but you couldn't have it with out the stamp and you couldn't get a stamp unless you already had it.
As long as no harm done a bit of deception can be tolerated
marijuana use often leads to donut eating
The munchies overall
Heroin is actually a great antitussive... just saying.
Also if someone gives you a pot brownie and you don't know its a pot brownie you will be stoned... I mean clearly this guy hasn't ever done it... I've seen people given pot brownies and they didn't know it get 'stoned'. Problem with academics, and I should know, I am one, is that they often don't have any kind of experience other than theory.
yeah honestly most of this guys ideas/thoughts are very off however are presented by him like thats how it works when he himself is completely lost- the whole idea of "being a marijuana" user and how it works in the way that he presented it is scientifically incorrect. A simple MRI would show that there is huge diffirience in regular activity and said activity causes certain effects on the human, causing them to be "stoned"
There is a serious issue with how you guys tend to view this. He didnt say that marijuana users are not stoned if they dont learn how to use marijuana. He is making a difference between the socially accepted ways of doing marijuana in an otherwise deviant society (marijuana users) and how it does not pertain to the biological effects of marijuana.
Basically, 2 levels :
1. "Non-deviant" society
2. "Deviant" society.
And he is saying "deviant societies can have deviant societies within themselves and they do"
‘I am going to talk to you about the sin of masturbation’ and then prof proceeds to say ‘i have in my hand’ :D
i want some original coca-cola
Yeah. What's wrong with someone who stops eating until they are dead... "What's wrong with someone who steals frech fries from another persons plate?" is a really weak example. I would have liked some stronger evidence after you have just told us that "mental illness is not a thing"
I find this incredibly offensive...he's implying that being gay/engaging in 'gay' acts is some how deviant/wrong/inappropriate/bad, it may not be the 'norm' but it is normal to be gay. Even if it was considered deviant in the past and still by some people, that in now way at all means that it is deviant or has EVER been deviant. So it's wrong to lump it in with other 'deviant' acts and say that everyone is deviant.
FJF1085 his whole class is about sociology. Although now accepted, homosexual acts was considered deviant. His point is no matter how normal the act is, if it is socially frowned upon in a given context, the act is considered deviant.
@@dannydk6 I think his point is more along the lines, there is nothing that is aboslute "normal" but that we have to understand that "normal" is something a group of humans together form rules/views on whether something is accepted or not, normal or not etc.
Accepted behaviors in a certain society are not deviant.
Non accepted behaviors are deviant.
Simple, straightforward
What I find troubling with all of this is how do you classify a certain society in a certain point in time?
he is like looking but never pointing the subject directly.He always slightly misses the essence of the topics.Sad.
I think he is doing that on purpose. He makes students to find the subject or "The essence of the topic" as you say, by themselves.