Evil can be a difficult thing to speak on, as it makes people uncomfortable. There is inherent evil in everyone, and Philip Zimbardo presents a compelling and frighteningly true case showing this. Zimbardo is the psychologist who headed the controversial Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971, and was also an expert witness at Abu Ghraib. He has a book out called The Lucifer Effect, which explores the evil’s of the human mind, and how people will change when put into the right (or wrong) situations. Needless to say, Zimbardo is more than qualified to seriously explain the evils of the human mind. Zimbardo opens his talk with a question to engage his audience: what makes people go wrong? This piques his audience’s interest. He then moves on to a personal story about his childhood, personalizing himself and drawing people in. He talks about his childhood growing up in the inner-city of New York, and his personal experience with a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario within his friends and classmates. This plays into Pathos by making his audience maybe relate to his story, or feel certain emotions that …show more content…
He finishes his talk with talking about heroism and how it is the cure for evil. He tugs on people's heart strings by relating this back to their kids, and the prosperity/education of their kids. The closing comment is a joke about how his soon to be wife was the one that stopped the Prison experiment, and how he married her the next year. Philip Zimbardo creates an engaging a talk that will draw many people in. He does this by personalizing himself, using facts and figures, as well as real life situations to support his opinions and is qualified because of his degree and
Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, a senior writer at U.S. News and World, published her article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," in 2004. She uses the article to briefly overview the scandal as a whole before diving into what can trigger sadistic behavior. The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal took place in 2004, wherein American troops humiliated and tortured Iraqi detainees (Szegedy-Maszak 75). The main objective of Szegedy-Maszak’s article is to investigate the causation behind sadistic behavior, exclusively in the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. She effectively does so by gathering information and research from professional psychologists and professors of psychology, specifically Herbert Kelman and Robert Okin (Szegedy-Maszak 76). She finds
In “Frivolity of Evil” psychiatrist Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, recap his 14 years of experience in a prison hospital. Theodore states that man is inherently immoral, and the rest of society is not. Man will act normally until a new evil is raised and problems are nonstop. The more a person does well and is distinguished as being good, the less evil they are. Also, the confusion behind evil bring attentions of determining the true meaning, identifying immoral behavior, and discovering the origins of evil. Although persecution of the wicked has been based upon unreliability, I claim that environmental, biological, and humanistic factors also structure an individual to be manifest evil.
Milgram and Zimbardo are classified in the same category as behaviorists. Although they are locked in the same category, they are famously known for very different experiments that have somewhat of the same idea. Zimbardo is widely known for his Stanford prison experiment, while Milgram is known for obedience to authority. The goal of both experiments was to prove like Haney has said that evil is most generally generated through evil situations. Zimbardo and Milgram’s experiments are examples of Psychological situationism, which is pretty important in the work of social psychology. Salamucha finds that Milgram and Zimbardo’s work demonstrates that, sometimes, the power of situations can be overpowering.
Zimbardo acts like an eye in the sky knowing what happens to everyone and the outside voice is neutral. Zimbardo does not have limit on what he saying, so this makes him the expert. The voice is more like to fill in the blanks and therefore it reverts the attention to Zimbardo as the voice of knowledge. The guard and the prisoner seem to have a lot to say but in reality they do not, Zimbardo does most of the speaking. They are both included for the emotional aspect of the experiment and make it seem more interesting. Zimbardo also expresses emotions but a lot less than the two emotional appeals and tries to keep a curiosity tone towards the part he explains how he should have not been playing a role in the prison. That’s where we have another logos attempt. He “should have of had a collage looking overseeing the experiment”. Someone who could have ended the experiment or if he was main researcher he should not have had role in
help get to his point. He also uses beautiful language to show his points, making his speech memorable.
In the book “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil” allows readers to join the author, Phil Zimbardo, on a journey. Zimbardo compares his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment to the prison abuses in Abu Ghraib in 2003. In the first chapter, Zimbardo poses the question, “Am I capable of being evil?” This question presents opportunity for experimentation in which Zimbardo takes full initiative. To better dissect the experiment, Zimbardo created three tiered analytical categories: The Person, The Situation, and The System. These categories break down the main components of the experiment, and individualize the factors that contributed to the “evilness” of the subjects. The title of the book and name of the theory, The Lucifer Effect, refers to the story from the Bible of the extreme transformation of Lucifer from God’s favorite angel to what is now know as the Devil. The book is a presentation of the transformation from a good person to a bad person; the journey
Throughout American history, important, credible individuals have given persuasive speeches on various issues to diverse audiences.
Speeches functioned as great tools for inspiring and motivating people. A passionate and charismatic speaker could often change a group of people’s view of the world with just a short speech. A perfect example of this phenomenon can be seen in the leaders of religious groups such as Matthias and Joseph Smith. These two men both possessed the ability to make people pi...
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
Two forms of evils came from the Inquisition. At this time “witches” roamed the Earth and a global witch hunts began. To see if someone was a witch they would be tortured and eventually killed, which is one of the evils. The second evil is the creation of violence towards women. The witches that were tortured were mostly women. After the Inquisition, the action of abusing women continued, but the abuse was just seen as the new cultural norm.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Over the recent four months in Communication 1402 class, I have addressed three formal speechs and completed a number of chapters in the corresponding textbook “Communication Works”. This course of Communication aims to provide general information what public speaking is and how to address a public speaking. Recalling back the experience during the processes of completing the Speech to Imform, Speech to Persuade, and Group Presentation, I will draw a conclusion about this course and these three presentations in five aspects, comprising my previous perception of public speaking before this course; learning from the Speech to Inform; the goal and evaluation of Speech to Persuade; learning from the Group Presentation; the most important thing learned from this course.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perptrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp.21-50). New York: Guilford press.
His conversation seems to be that of a farewell, "We'll end a pleasant chapter here tonight, and after tonight start afresh.
I have also learned about different types of audiences and speeches including persuasive, informative, entertaining and delivering special occasion speeches. It came to my attention that whenever I was making these presentations or speeches, I needed to do so with confidence, consistence and practice before the actual presentation and completely eliminate the element of panic. It was also clear that capturing the attention of the audience and engaging them in the whole process, it was necessary to have a very strong introduction and also try and use visuals to deliver the message. It was therefore vital to respect each person’s diversity and cultural values (Lucas, 2011).