The Secford Prison Experiment
- sinfulbliss
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
- Byond Username: SinfulBliss
- Location: prisoner re-education chamber
The Secford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a pivotal moment for
modern psychological research as we know it. For those unfamiliar: the SPE was
a role-play and social simulation conducted by Stanford University. Role-play,
and simulation… Keep this in mind going forward. A group of people were set
(rolled, queued up, if you will) to be the guards or “officers.” Another group
of people were selected to be the prisoners. These volunteer prisoners
were strip searched, given unique identities, uncomfortable prison clothing,
and ankle cuffs. The guards were given mirror sunglasses and wooden batons. This
was all intentional – the sunglasses blocked eye contact and created a sense of
anonymity, combined with the batons to symbolize some higher status. The guards’
instructions were simple – to maintain law and order. But what started as
simple became intense psychological warfare between the guards and prisoners. When
the guards woke up the prisoners with whistles at 3am for their meals, the
prisoners started to insult them. The guards punished them by separating them
into various prison cells, some without beds. The prisoners rioted and guards
used fire extinguishers to dissuade rebellion. In the end it led to some prisoners
breaking down completely psychologically and having to be completely removed
from the experiment. The guards slowly became more and more brutal as the
experiment went on, and the situation quickly flew out of control, forcing lead
scientist Zimbardo to cut the experiment short after the 6th day.
Everyone was left asking: what the hell just happened? The pool of people was
random. The officers were not, in everyday life, power-hungry, abusive
assholes. They transformed and became them due to the environmental conditions they
were placed in.
So, why am I giving a botched account of the Stanford
Prison Experiment? In this essay I will attempt to show that the SPE can help
us better understand security-assistant relations. How and why did “shitsec”
originate? Why are they not good faith officers there to make sure things go smoothly?
Why are assistants “shitters” and not, well, assistants? Why did things
evolve the way they did, and how? I will analyze the following three themes as
they relate to SS13 to help us answer these burning questions: 1) status and
power, 2) the aggressor and the victim, and 3) nihilism. Hopefully this analysis
will explain why sec becomes shitsec, from a psychological perspective, and why
assistants become shitters.
1. Status and power. Being a shiftstart security officer puts
you in a certain roleplaying role that means two concrete things: 1) you cannot
be an antagonist, and 2) you start the shift with some of the best weapons in
the game, with a team of others sharing these weapons. The first is the aspect
of “status,” and the second is the aspect of “power.” In a paranoia-laden space
station, you can’t fully trust anyone. Anyone could be an antagonist,
and you could be their target. However, if you sign up as a security officer, you
are in the unique position where you can be trusted to not be an
antagonist (barring lings and well-disguised traitors). What’s most important
about this is it means that, as an officer, you can only give your full
trust to other security officers. You are a team, and you have to stick
together, because you are the only ones confirmed to be good. But how does this
corrupt, why does it corrupt? It corrupts like all manifestations of power and
status corrupt. Those in the position of power let it get to their heads. “We’re
the chosen few who are here to ensure to safety of this place, we
have all the weapons and all the authority. And it’s our job to use it.”
Inevitably, those who do not have this “special” privileged status, the red
clothes, the shades, the free baton – grow resentful of those who do. Under all
that gear, they’re not different from anyone else, after all, so what right do
they have controlling everything? We see this tension play itself out in
countless ways every single round of the game. A battle of status and power. I’m
going to slip a security officer and take his baton. Why? Because I’m going to
show him his baton doesn’t make him powerful. I can overpower him with my bare
hands!" And the security officer, in turn, will claim he has all the
power. He’s going to beat you half to death for trying to shit on him, so you’ll
remember who has the power around here. It’s a battle of power and
status.
2. The aggressor and the victim. We’ve already been
hinting at it a little bit, but this is perhaps the most complex part of the dynamic
and ought to be addressed separately. Is it the tiders that make shitsec, or
the shitsec that make the tiders? Are the assistants retaliating to
an abuse in power, or are the officers only exerting their power to control and
maintain order? We should represent both sides of the story here, fairly, in
the best-faith scenarios for both the officer and the assistant. We will
now step into the mind of the good-faith assistant player, and into the
mind of the good-faith security player, to understand their psychology. Assistant:
“I’m just trying to have a fun shift. I’m just trying to do a fun little
gimmick with my friends and create a little action. And here comes shitsec, likely
bored out of their minds, here to ruin my fun because they don’t have anything
better to do. They’ll sell it under the guise of ‘maintaining order,’ sure, but
they’re really just being tyrannical megalomaniacs trying to stifle what’s otherwise
harmless fun. What pisses me off is they do it every time, every single
shift - they exist solely to take away from my fun. I’m not even an antag, and
I was causing no harm and posing no threat. So you know what, fuck sec.
They shouldn’t be security if they’re going to be shit. So why not take
their baton? Why not fuck with them? Why not give them a taste of
their own medicine? If they’re going to make a round out of fucking me over, I’ll
make a round out of fucking them over, too.” Security: “I’m just here
trying to have a fun shift too. I want to keep this place operational and safe,
but these motherfucking assistants keep slipping me and shoving me while I’m
trying to do my job. They don’t even have the context, they just shove me
because I’m security. I’m just trying to do my job, how is that fair? The
entire round I just get stunlocked on a wall, my shoes stolen, my baton stolen,
my disabler stolen, and I waddle back to brig like a little incompetent baby
for replacements from the warden. I’m supposed to be enforcing the law,
not being a punching bag for whatever little assistant wants free goods. So yeah,
I’ll harmbaton them, I’ll give them 7 minutes for a shove, I’ll confiscate
their insuls and toolbelt. Otherwise they’ll just walk all over us.”
Both of these perspectives are completely understandable and justified. The
aggressor and the victim. Both sides feel like the victim. But what
happens after tens of thousands of shifts of this same dynamic playing out, is
it no longer becomes about one person’s individual experience. It becomes the
culture. Once it becomes the culture, who is the aggressor and who is the
victim is irrelevant – it’s no longer about one assistant versus one security
officer, it’s about the archetypal battle between security and the tide. A
battle which is deeply entrenched in the culture. Some rounds, this may manifest
to be mild. Other rounds, a non-antag revolution takes place and sec is
completely overthrown. And we should keep in mind that these two perspectives,
that of the officer and that of the assistant, were examples of two people who
both just wanted to have a fun shift. Not unlike the SPE, where
both groups of people just wanted to roleplay as their role in good faith, and
for things to go well.
3. Nihilism. After this us vs. them dynamic has been
entrenched into the culture, the actions of any one individual are greatly
diminished. You can be the world’s holiest security officer, and still get shit
on for existing. You can be the nicest, most helpful assistant in the station,
and still get brigged for no reason for existing. What happens now is people
give up hope of being good faith. They might say it makes no difference either
way, right? Once this sentiment anchors itself, the effort to be good is then
thrown out the can, and with that, any hope of relations being repaired. But if
we’re being honest, there was no hope of relations being repaired anyway once
the dynamic became entrenched in the culture. Examples of the consequential
nihilistic outlook manifest in both security and assistant players. Extremely
experienced and jaded security officers will be serial shitsec, staying within
the rules, but shitsec nonetheless, because they have abandoned any hope of trying
to be goodsec. They’re treated the same anyway, so who can blame them? And it
is the rare assistant that will dedicate their round to assisting,
because they, too, have abandoned hope of being good in a place where they are
treated so poorly. It is also worth noting that your actions as security and
assistant alike reflect on the whole of security and assistants. It is quite
common for sec to be called shitsec because of the wrong actions of a single
bad officer, thus cursing the whole department with the label. And it is also
quite common for sec to abuse their power on undeserving assistants, because of
some other assistant’s acts against security.
The conclusion we must reach is that it is not necessarily sec who is shit, or
assistants who are shitters; but a good player cast into what is an imbalanced
and hostile environment, will acclimate to the environment accordingly. That is
not to free all players of their responsibility to play in a way that is fun
for everybody. Similarly, although the murderer may only be a murderer because
of the environment he was raised in, he is still responsible for his actions. I
also should point out some flaws in this comparison. It goes without saying
that, although the SEP was roleplay and a simulation, it was not a “game.” SS13
is a game, and everyone plays it for enjoyment. Indeed, many players play LRP solely
to enjoy this internal dynamic of sec vs the tide, because this conflict and
chaos is fun for them. If it were even possible in theory to amend
sec-assistant relations via policy, or codebase changes, I would say it would
be to the overall detriment of the LRP landscape. It certainly has its
miserable components about it, and people can have absolutely terrible shifts
(I’ve seen both long-time sec players and long-time assistant players quit the
game entirely due to some particularly bad ones), but at the end of the day it
is part of the tradeoff for the freedom we enjoy on LRP. I would encourage
anyone who finds themselves on the receiving end of this inter-departmental
conflict, of either one side or the other, to take a step back and realize that
it was fated to happen this way. It is something of a necessary evil to enjoy
the fun of freedom overall. Everyone is simply doing what the chain of events
led them to do – what they were destined to do long before you showed up in
their round - through some unknown series of events, and through some unknown
mindset.
In conclusion, the tension between guards and prisoners
in the roleplaying simulation of the Stanford Prison Experiment mimics very
well the tension between security and assistants in the roleplaying game of
SS13. The status and power differential leads to both sides being framed in a victim
vs. aggressor narrative, and the continued repetition of this interplay creates
a systemic cultural shift that persists through all SS13 rounds. This leads
some players to a nihilistic outlook, but it also allows for a great amount of conflict
and fun that can be enjoyed by everyone. Perhaps this piece will inspire a
greater sense of empathy for each other, whether you wear red or grey.
modern psychological research as we know it. For those unfamiliar: the SPE was
a role-play and social simulation conducted by Stanford University. Role-play,
and simulation… Keep this in mind going forward. A group of people were set
(rolled, queued up, if you will) to be the guards or “officers.” Another group
of people were selected to be the prisoners. These volunteer prisoners
were strip searched, given unique identities, uncomfortable prison clothing,
and ankle cuffs. The guards were given mirror sunglasses and wooden batons. This
was all intentional – the sunglasses blocked eye contact and created a sense of
anonymity, combined with the batons to symbolize some higher status. The guards’
instructions were simple – to maintain law and order. But what started as
simple became intense psychological warfare between the guards and prisoners. When
the guards woke up the prisoners with whistles at 3am for their meals, the
prisoners started to insult them. The guards punished them by separating them
into various prison cells, some without beds. The prisoners rioted and guards
used fire extinguishers to dissuade rebellion. In the end it led to some prisoners
breaking down completely psychologically and having to be completely removed
from the experiment. The guards slowly became more and more brutal as the
experiment went on, and the situation quickly flew out of control, forcing lead
scientist Zimbardo to cut the experiment short after the 6th day.
Everyone was left asking: what the hell just happened? The pool of people was
random. The officers were not, in everyday life, power-hungry, abusive
assholes. They transformed and became them due to the environmental conditions they
were placed in.
So, why am I giving a botched account of the Stanford
Prison Experiment? In this essay I will attempt to show that the SPE can help
us better understand security-assistant relations. How and why did “shitsec”
originate? Why are they not good faith officers there to make sure things go smoothly?
Why are assistants “shitters” and not, well, assistants? Why did things
evolve the way they did, and how? I will analyze the following three themes as
they relate to SS13 to help us answer these burning questions: 1) status and
power, 2) the aggressor and the victim, and 3) nihilism. Hopefully this analysis
will explain why sec becomes shitsec, from a psychological perspective, and why
assistants become shitters.
1. Status and power. Being a shiftstart security officer puts
you in a certain roleplaying role that means two concrete things: 1) you cannot
be an antagonist, and 2) you start the shift with some of the best weapons in
the game, with a team of others sharing these weapons. The first is the aspect
of “status,” and the second is the aspect of “power.” In a paranoia-laden space
station, you can’t fully trust anyone. Anyone could be an antagonist,
and you could be their target. However, if you sign up as a security officer, you
are in the unique position where you can be trusted to not be an
antagonist (barring lings and well-disguised traitors). What’s most important
about this is it means that, as an officer, you can only give your full
trust to other security officers. You are a team, and you have to stick
together, because you are the only ones confirmed to be good. But how does this
corrupt, why does it corrupt? It corrupts like all manifestations of power and
status corrupt. Those in the position of power let it get to their heads. “We’re
the chosen few who are here to ensure to safety of this place, we
have all the weapons and all the authority. And it’s our job to use it.”
Inevitably, those who do not have this “special” privileged status, the red
clothes, the shades, the free baton – grow resentful of those who do. Under all
that gear, they’re not different from anyone else, after all, so what right do
they have controlling everything? We see this tension play itself out in
countless ways every single round of the game. A battle of status and power. I’m
going to slip a security officer and take his baton. Why? Because I’m going to
show him his baton doesn’t make him powerful. I can overpower him with my bare
hands!" And the security officer, in turn, will claim he has all the
power. He’s going to beat you half to death for trying to shit on him, so you’ll
remember who has the power around here. It’s a battle of power and
status.
2. The aggressor and the victim. We’ve already been
hinting at it a little bit, but this is perhaps the most complex part of the dynamic
and ought to be addressed separately. Is it the tiders that make shitsec, or
the shitsec that make the tiders? Are the assistants retaliating to
an abuse in power, or are the officers only exerting their power to control and
maintain order? We should represent both sides of the story here, fairly, in
the best-faith scenarios for both the officer and the assistant. We will
now step into the mind of the good-faith assistant player, and into the
mind of the good-faith security player, to understand their psychology. Assistant:
“I’m just trying to have a fun shift. I’m just trying to do a fun little
gimmick with my friends and create a little action. And here comes shitsec, likely
bored out of their minds, here to ruin my fun because they don’t have anything
better to do. They’ll sell it under the guise of ‘maintaining order,’ sure, but
they’re really just being tyrannical megalomaniacs trying to stifle what’s otherwise
harmless fun. What pisses me off is they do it every time, every single
shift - they exist solely to take away from my fun. I’m not even an antag, and
I was causing no harm and posing no threat. So you know what, fuck sec.
They shouldn’t be security if they’re going to be shit. So why not take
their baton? Why not fuck with them? Why not give them a taste of
their own medicine? If they’re going to make a round out of fucking me over, I’ll
make a round out of fucking them over, too.” Security: “I’m just here
trying to have a fun shift too. I want to keep this place operational and safe,
but these motherfucking assistants keep slipping me and shoving me while I’m
trying to do my job. They don’t even have the context, they just shove me
because I’m security. I’m just trying to do my job, how is that fair? The
entire round I just get stunlocked on a wall, my shoes stolen, my baton stolen,
my disabler stolen, and I waddle back to brig like a little incompetent baby
for replacements from the warden. I’m supposed to be enforcing the law,
not being a punching bag for whatever little assistant wants free goods. So yeah,
I’ll harmbaton them, I’ll give them 7 minutes for a shove, I’ll confiscate
their insuls and toolbelt. Otherwise they’ll just walk all over us.”
Both of these perspectives are completely understandable and justified. The
aggressor and the victim. Both sides feel like the victim. But what
happens after tens of thousands of shifts of this same dynamic playing out, is
it no longer becomes about one person’s individual experience. It becomes the
culture. Once it becomes the culture, who is the aggressor and who is the
victim is irrelevant – it’s no longer about one assistant versus one security
officer, it’s about the archetypal battle between security and the tide. A
battle which is deeply entrenched in the culture. Some rounds, this may manifest
to be mild. Other rounds, a non-antag revolution takes place and sec is
completely overthrown. And we should keep in mind that these two perspectives,
that of the officer and that of the assistant, were examples of two people who
both just wanted to have a fun shift. Not unlike the SPE, where
both groups of people just wanted to roleplay as their role in good faith, and
for things to go well.
3. Nihilism. After this us vs. them dynamic has been
entrenched into the culture, the actions of any one individual are greatly
diminished. You can be the world’s holiest security officer, and still get shit
on for existing. You can be the nicest, most helpful assistant in the station,
and still get brigged for no reason for existing. What happens now is people
give up hope of being good faith. They might say it makes no difference either
way, right? Once this sentiment anchors itself, the effort to be good is then
thrown out the can, and with that, any hope of relations being repaired. But if
we’re being honest, there was no hope of relations being repaired anyway once
the dynamic became entrenched in the culture. Examples of the consequential
nihilistic outlook manifest in both security and assistant players. Extremely
experienced and jaded security officers will be serial shitsec, staying within
the rules, but shitsec nonetheless, because they have abandoned any hope of trying
to be goodsec. They’re treated the same anyway, so who can blame them? And it
is the rare assistant that will dedicate their round to assisting,
because they, too, have abandoned hope of being good in a place where they are
treated so poorly. It is also worth noting that your actions as security and
assistant alike reflect on the whole of security and assistants. It is quite
common for sec to be called shitsec because of the wrong actions of a single
bad officer, thus cursing the whole department with the label. And it is also
quite common for sec to abuse their power on undeserving assistants, because of
some other assistant’s acts against security.
The conclusion we must reach is that it is not necessarily sec who is shit, or
assistants who are shitters; but a good player cast into what is an imbalanced
and hostile environment, will acclimate to the environment accordingly. That is
not to free all players of their responsibility to play in a way that is fun
for everybody. Similarly, although the murderer may only be a murderer because
of the environment he was raised in, he is still responsible for his actions. I
also should point out some flaws in this comparison. It goes without saying
that, although the SEP was roleplay and a simulation, it was not a “game.” SS13
is a game, and everyone plays it for enjoyment. Indeed, many players play LRP solely
to enjoy this internal dynamic of sec vs the tide, because this conflict and
chaos is fun for them. If it were even possible in theory to amend
sec-assistant relations via policy, or codebase changes, I would say it would
be to the overall detriment of the LRP landscape. It certainly has its
miserable components about it, and people can have absolutely terrible shifts
(I’ve seen both long-time sec players and long-time assistant players quit the
game entirely due to some particularly bad ones), but at the end of the day it
is part of the tradeoff for the freedom we enjoy on LRP. I would encourage
anyone who finds themselves on the receiving end of this inter-departmental
conflict, of either one side or the other, to take a step back and realize that
it was fated to happen this way. It is something of a necessary evil to enjoy
the fun of freedom overall. Everyone is simply doing what the chain of events
led them to do – what they were destined to do long before you showed up in
their round - through some unknown series of events, and through some unknown
mindset.
In conclusion, the tension between guards and prisoners
in the roleplaying simulation of the Stanford Prison Experiment mimics very
well the tension between security and assistants in the roleplaying game of
SS13. The status and power differential leads to both sides being framed in a victim
vs. aggressor narrative, and the continued repetition of this interplay creates
a systemic cultural shift that persists through all SS13 rounds. This leads
some players to a nihilistic outlook, but it also allows for a great amount of conflict
and fun that can be enjoyed by everyone. Perhaps this piece will inspire a
greater sense of empathy for each other, whether you wear red or grey.
Last edited by sinfulbliss on Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
Spoiler:
- Onpine
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:26 am
- Byond Username: Onpine
- bastardblaster
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:57 am
- Byond Username: BastardBlaster
- Location: The Cursed Apple, New York
- Pandarsenic
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
- Byond Username: Pandarsenic
- Location: AI Upload
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
I ain't reading all that.
I'm happy for u tho.
Or sorry that happened.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
- Jackraxxus
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 pm
- Byond Username: Jackraxxus
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
Holy shit new pasta just dropped.
May the lord forgive me for what I must do.
PS I read like half of it and it''s a pretty good essay though you need to include citations in APA 7th next time.
May the lord forgive me for what I must do.
Spoiler:
iamgoofball wrote:Vekter and MrMelbert are more likely to enforce the roleplay rules Manuel is supposed to be abiding by than Wesoda or Jackraxxus are.
- Farquaar
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
- Byond Username: Farquaar
- Location: Delta Quadrant
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
Tl:dr?
Also why on Earth did you format this with so many mid-sentence line breaks?
Also why on Earth did you format this with so many mid-sentence line breaks?
► Show Spoiler
- Armhulen
- Global Moderator
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:30 pm
- Byond Username: Armhulenn
- Github Username: bazelart
- Location: The Grand Tournament
-
- Forum Soft Banned
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:27 am
- Byond Username: Cacogen
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
the stanford prison experiment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
- sinfulbliss
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
- Byond Username: SinfulBliss
- Location: prisoner re-education chamber
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
anyway i won the bet and now chloe has to play catgirl for 1 month so i'd say this was a dub
1v1 toolbox tourney holodeck, you get twice the health if you win I get a week ban if I win you have to write a thread titled "Headmin Election 2021: What Went Wrong."Armhulen wrote:op needs a break
Spoiler:
- Qbmax32
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:05 am
- Byond Username: Qbmax32
- Github Username: qbmax32
- Location: in your walls
- Rohen_Tahir
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:00 pm
- Byond Username: Rohen Tahir
- Location: Primary fool storage
- Contact:
- Itseasytosee2me
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:14 am
- Byond Username: Rectification
- Location: Space Station 13
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
Solid essay that outlines facts and goes into in-depth speculation, but there isn't really other than "maybe be more empathetic." Passive and informative, but ultimately unmotivational.
B+ [Good effort!]
B+ [Good effort!]
- Sincerely itseasytosee
See you later
See you later
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
- Atlanta-Ned
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:11 pm
- Byond Username: Atlanta-ned
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
Statbus! | Admin Feedback
OOC: Pizzatiger: God damn Atlanta, how are you so fucking smart and charming. It fucking pisses me off how perfect you are
OOC: Pizzatiger: God damn Atlanta, how are you so fucking smart and charming. It fucking pisses me off how perfect you are
- Jonathan Gupta
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:16 pm
- Byond Username: BallastMonsterGnarGnar
- Location: The Corner
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
ResidentSleeper
- stairmaster
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:13 am
- Byond Username: Stairmaster
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
whatever this shit's boring who cares
-
- Forum Soft Banned
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:27 am
- Byond Username: Cacogen
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
a cupcake and a candy bar
- Stickymayhem
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Stickymayhem
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
it was a bad study zimbardo was a hack read a book poppsych retards
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
- stairmaster
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:13 am
- Byond Username: Stairmaster
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
Fava beans?
-
- Forum Soft Banned
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:27 am
- Byond Username: Cacogen
Re: The Secford Prison Experiment
mmm and a nice chianti
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users