How the world views Americans

Uncultured. That's how most of the world sees us. And many Americans see ourselves this way, too.

Keep in mind that we're such newcomers that we haven't had nearly as much time to develop a culture as many other places. Add to that our "melting pot" mentality of accepting and adopting other cultures' traditions, and "American Culture" is somewhere between non-existant and hard to define.

I know some who would argue that america is a new imperialist regime, trying to impose their world view through dominance (both military and the media). I know that you can't judge a nation on who's in power, but this is the case.

Sometimes I must wonder if many (most...) of my fellow Americans realize that there is a world outside of our borders. Few American's hold passports, those that do are more likely to travel within the hemisphere, and even when the trip overseas is made, it is to typical, touristy destinations. We are a product of our geography as much as we are a product of our own pride. After World War II, the US underwent a two decade boom unprecedented in human history. Our population and wealth grew to a point where we became even more self-sufficient than before, even as we were coming in contact with more of the world. In terms of many manufactured goods, we're different from the rest of the world not because everything we have is better, but because we form a large enough market to support any given product. I think TVs are even now measured in inches all over the world, right? I am not sure anybody makes (good...) TVs in the US any more, but we're a big market and our influence is still felt. Then again, being isolated and self-centered sounds awful, and in terms of a good intellectual education about the world, it is. but it was an outgrowth not of a bad attitude, or a superior attitude, but simple self-sufficiency. Americans often didn't speak a second language, especially in the second half of the twentieth century. French and German people spoke two or three in most cases. Was that because the Americans are jerks and the Europeans are well educated and urbane? Of course not. It's because an American could live an entire lifetime in the US and never come across anybody who didn't speak his language. Of course this extended to cultural issues as well; no need to understand how or when to bow or why to not eat with one's left hand, if you literally never encountered anyone who had different customs than you.

With all of this said, the point I make is this: Americans have a great deal of pride in their country and are unafraid to shout that pride from the rooftops (Hence the popularity of Toby Keith, lol). That pride may be romanticized/exaggerated, even groaned at by other countries, but we carry on with our pride because we wear it on our sleeves. 

The Stanford Prison Experiment and Sociological Research Ethics

The aim was to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life. What it struck was a deep nerve within human behavior that, while fascinating, is deeply disturbing.

I would have stopped the experiment. The benefits did not outweigh the risk. Continuing the experiment after the first signs of severe emotional distress were of little to no benefit to anyone. After a relatively short period of time, the experiment only served to show a game of role play quickly spiraling out of control. While the glimpse of this dark side of human behavior was no doubt a scientific "treat" to watch, the safety and security of the volunteers should have been the top priority.

Furthermore, Dr. Zimbardo never should have had himself play a role in the prison. As the Superintendent of the prison, he became part of the harm done to the prisoners and was no longer an objective viewer of the experiment  Had he only been the researcher, perhaps he would have been able to see the severity of the way the guards treated the prisoners as a viewer from the outside. It wasn't until someone completely unfamiliar with the experiment observed the mock prison and was able to call attention to the growing chaos.

In short, the lack of fully informed consent by participants and the level of humiliation and distress experienced by those who acted as prisoners was shocking, at best. Granted, the consent could not be fully informed as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment. In addition, participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological and physical harm. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger.

Now, it wasn't all bad. The experiment showed what authority and power over others can do to typical,  mentally sound individuals, causing some to act abusively and erratically. Another benefit was bringing to light the profound effects that confinement and absolute control can have on prisoners. Overtime, such abuse could cause permanent psychological damage. Again, though, I stress that I do not believe that these benefits outweighed the detriments of the experiment. In retrospect, the risk of harm to the individuals was too great. There were risks recognized before the beginning of the experiment, of course, but the events during the first few days of operation should have prompted a dismissal of all subjects. I would have ended the experiment when the first prisoner showed that he needed to be dismissed. The benefits of the experiment were not so innovative as to continue the experiment any further. Even in 1971, these conclusions could be drawn in other ways, such as observation in real prison settings or even reflecting on past historical events and experiments performed.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a perfect example of a human research experiment gone way too far.