The psychology of evil | Philip Zimbardo

Translator: Morten Kelder Skouboe Reviewer: Jonas Tholstrup Christensen

Philosophers, dramatists, theologians

Filosoffer, dramatikere, teologer

have grappled with this question for centuries:

har kæmpet med dette spørgsmål i århundreder:

what makes people go wrong?

hvad får folk til at blive dårlige?

Interestingly, I asked this question when I was a little kid.

Interessant nok stillede jeg dette spørgsmål, da jeg var lille.

I grew up in the South Bronx, inner-city ghetto in New York,

Da jeg var barn og voksede op i det sydlige Bronx' ghetto

i New York, var jeg omringet af ondskab,

and I was surrounded by evil,

as all kids are who grew up in an inner city.

som alle børn er, der vokser op i den indre by.

And I had friends who were really good kids,

Og jeg havde venner, der var virkelig gode børn,

who lived out the Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde scenario -- Robert Louis Stevenson.

der udlevede Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde-scenariet -- Robert Louis Stevenson.

That is, they took drugs, got in trouble, went to jail.

Det vil sige, de tog stoffer, kom i problemer, kom i fængsel.

Some got killed, and some did it without drug assistance.

Nogle blev dræbt, nogle uden stoffernes hjælp.

So when I read Robert Louis Stevenson, that wasn't fiction.

Så, da jeg læste Robert Louis Stevenson, var det ikke fiktion.

The only question is, what was in the juice?

Det eneste spørgsmål er, hvad var i juicen?

Og vigtigere, den linje mellem godt og ondt --

And more importantly, that line between good and evil --

which privileged people like to think is fixed and impermeable,

som priviligerede folk kan lide at tænke på som fast og uigennemtrængelig,

with them on the good side, the others on the bad side --

med dem på den gode side og de andre på den dårlige side --

I knew that line was movable, and it was permeable.

Jeg vidste, den linje var bevægelig og gennemtrængelig.

Good people could be seduced across that line,

Gode mennesker kunne forføres over den linje,

and under good and some rare circumstances, bad kids could recover

og under gode og sjældne omstændigheder kunne dårlige børn komme sig

med hjælp, med forbedring, med afvænning.

with help, with reform, with rehabilitation.

So I want to begin with this wonderful illusion

Så jeg vil begynde med denne skønne illusion

by [Dutch] artist M.C. Escher.

af [hollandske] kunstner M.C. Escher.

If you look at it and focus on the white, what you see is a world full of angels.

Hvis man ser på den og fokuserer på det hvide,

hvad man ser, er en verden fuld af engle.

But let's look more deeply, and as we do,

Men lad os se dybere, og som vi gør det,

what appears is the demons, the devils in the world.

kommer dæmonerne, verdens djævle frem.

That tells us several things.

Og det fortæller flere ting.

One, the world is, was, will always be filled with good and evil,

Ét, verden er, var, vil altid være fyldt med godt og ondt,

because good and evil is the yin and yang of the human condition.

for godt og ondt er den menneskelige tilværelses yin og yang.

It tells me something else.

Det fortæller mig noget andet. Hvis I husker,

If you remember, God's favorite angel was Lucifer.

var Guds yndlingsengel Lucifer.

Apparently, Lucifer means "the light."

Åbenbart betyder Lucifer "Lyset."

It also means "the morning star," in some scripture.

Det betyder også "morgenstjernen" i nogle tekster.

And apparently, he disobeyed God,

Og han adlød ikke Gud,

and that's the ultimate disobedience to authority.

og det er den ultimative autoritetsulydighed.

And when he did, Michael, the archangel, was sent to kick him out of heaven

Og da han gjorde det, blev ærkeenglen Mikael sendt

for at sparke ham ud af himlen sammen med de andre faldne engle.

along with the other fallen angels.

And so Lucifer descends into hell, becomes Satan,

Og så stiger Lucifer ned i helvede, bliver Satan,

becomes the devil, and the force of evil in the universe begins.

bliver Djævelen, og ondskabens kraft i universet begynder.

Paradoksalt nok skabte Gud helvede for at opbevare ondskab.

Paradoxically, it was God who created hell as a place to store evil.

He didn't do a good job of keeping it there though.

Han var dog ikke god til at holde den der.

Så denne bue af kosmisk forvandling

So, this arc of the cosmic transformation of God's favorite angel into the Devil,

af Guds yndlingsengel til Djævelen

giver for mig sammenhængen til at forstå folk,

for me, sets the context for understanding human beings

who are transformed from good, ordinary people into perpetrators of evil.

der bliver forvandlet fra gode, normale folk

til udøvere af ondskab.

So the Lucifer effect, although it focuses on the negatives --

Så Lucifer-effekten, selvom den fokuserer på de negative --

the negatives that people can become,

de negative ting, folk kan blive,

not the negatives that people are --

ikke de negative ting, folk er --

leder mig til en psykologisk definition. Ondskab er udøvelsen af magt.

leads me to a psychological definition.

Evil is the exercise of power.

And that's the key: it's about power.

Og det er nøglen: det handler om magt.

Til bevidst at skade mennesker psykologisk,

To intentionally harm people psychologically,

to hurt people physically, to destroy people mortally, or ideas,

til at skade folk fysisk, til at ødelægge folk dødeligt, eller idéer,

and to commit crimes against humanity.

og til at begå forbrydelser imod menneskeheden.

If you Google "evil," a word that should surely have withered by now,

Hvis man googler "ondskab," et ord der sikkert er visnet nu,

you come up with 136 million hits in a third of a second.

får man 136 millioner resultater på en tredjedel af et sekund.

A few years ago -- I am sure all of you were shocked, as I was,

For et par år siden -- I blev nok alle chokerede, som jeg blev,

with the revelation of American soldiers abusing prisoners in a strange place

over afsløringen af amerikanske soldater,

der misbrugte fanger et mærkeligt sted

in a controversial war, Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

i en kontroversiel krig, Abu Ghraib i Irak.

And these were men and women

Og disse var mænd og kvinder,

der trak fanger igennem utrolig ydmygelse.

who were putting prisoners through unbelievable humiliation.

I was shocked, but I wasn't surprised,

Jeg blev chokeret, men jeg blev ikke overrasket,

because I had seen those same visual parallels

for jeg havde set de samme visuelle paralleller,

when I was the prison superintendent of the Stanford Prison Study.

da jeg var fængselsdirektøren i Stanford Fængselsforsøget.

Immediately the Bush administration military said what?

Straks sagde Bush-administrationens militær ... hvad?

What all administrations say when there's a scandal:

Hvad alle administrationer siger, når der er en skandale.

"Giv ikke os skylden. Det er ikke systemet, men de få dårlige æblers,

"Don't blame us. It's not the system.

It's the few bad apples, the few rogue soldiers."

de få uberegnelige soldaters."

My hypothesis is, American soldiers are good, usually.

Min hypotese er, amerikanske soldater er gode, som regel.

Maybe it was the barrel that was bad.

Måske var det tønden, der var dårlig.

But how am I going to deal with that hypothesis?

Men hvordan vil jeg håndtere den hypotese?

I became an expert witness for one of the guards,

Jeg blev ekspertvidne

for en af vagterne, Sergent Chip Frederick,

Sergeant Chip Frederick, and in that position,

og i den position havde jeg adgang til alle efterforskningsrapporterne.

I had access to the dozen investigative reports.

I had access to him.

Jeg havde ham, kunne studere ham,

I could study him, have him come to my home, get to know him,

få ham med hjem, lære ham at kende,

do psychological analysis to see, was he a good apple or bad apple.

lave psykologisk analyse og se, var han et godt eller dårligt æble.

And thirdly, I had access to all of the 1,000 pictures

Og for det tredje havde jeg alle 1.000 billeder,

that these soldiers took.

som disse soldater tog.

These pictures are of a violent or sexual nature.

Disse billeder er af voldelig eller seksuel natur.

All of them come from the cameras of American soldiers.

De kommer alle fra amerikanske soldaters kameraer.

Because everybody has a digital camera or cell phone camera,

Fordi alle har et digitalt kamera eller mobiltelefonkamera,

they took pictures of everything, more than 1,000.

tog de billeder af alt. Mere end 1.000.

And what I've done is I organized them into various categories.

Og det, jeg har gjort, er, jeg organiserede dem under forskellige kategorier.

Men disse er af det amerikanske militærpoliti, reservesoldater.

But these are by United States military police, army reservists.

They are not soldiers prepared for this mission at all.

De er ikke soldater, der er forberedt på denne mission overhovedet.

Og det skete alt sammen et enkelt sted, Afdeling 1-A, på nattevagten.

And it all happened in a single place, Tier 1-A, on the night shift.

Why?

Hvorfor? Afdeling 1-A var centeret for militærefterretningsvæsnet.

Tier 1-A was the center for military intelligence.

It was the interrogation hold.

Det var forhørsfæstningen. CIA var der.

The CIA was there.

Interrogators from Titan Corporation, all there,

Forhørsledere fra Titan Corp. (efterretningsfirma)

og de får ingen informationer om opstanden.

and they're getting no information about the insurgency.

So they're going to put pressure on these soldiers,

Så de lægger pres på disse soldater,

militærpolitiet, til at krydse linjen,

military police, to cross the line,

give them permission to break the will of the enemy,

give dem tilladelse til at knække fjendens vilje,

to prepare them for interrogation, to soften them up,

til at forberede dem på forhør, til at bløde dem op,

to take the gloves off.

til at tage fløjlshandskerne af. Disse er de pæne formuleringer,

Those are the euphemisms, and this is how it was interpreted.

og sådan her blev det fortolket.

Let's go down to that dungeon.

Lad os gå ned i det fangehul.

(Kameraklik)

(Typewriting)

[Abu Ghraib Iraq Prison Abuses 2008 Military Police Guards' Photos]

[The following images include nudity and graphic depictions of violence]

(Camera shutter sounds)

(Dump lyd)

(Thuds)

(Camera shutter)

(Kameraklik)

(Camera shutter)

(Dump lyd)

(Breathing)

(Åndedrag)

(Bells)

(Klokker)

(Bells end)

So, pretty horrific.

Så, ret rædsomt.

That's one of the visual illustrations of evil.

Det er en af de visuelle illustrationer af ondskab.

And it should not have escaped you

Og I bør have set, at

grunden til, jeg placerede fangen med sine arme ude

that the reason I paired the prisoner with his arms out

with Leonardo da Vinci's ode to humanity

med Leonardo da Vincis hyldest til mennesket,

is that that prisoner was mentally ill.

er, at den fange var psykisk syg.

That prisoner covered himself with shit every day,

Den fange dækkede sig selv med lort hver dag,

og de plejede at skulle rulle ham i skidt, så han ikke stank.

they had to roll him in dirt so he wouldn't stink.

But the guards ended up calling him "Shit Boy."

Men vagterne endte med at kalde ham "Lortedrengen."

What was he doing in that prison rather than in some mental institution?

Hvad lavede han i det fængsel

frem for på et sindssygehospital?

In any event, here's former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

Uanset hvad, her er tidligere Forsvarsminister Rumsfeld.

He comes down and says, "I want to know, who is responsible?

Han kommer ned og siger, "Jeg vil vide, hvem er ansvarlig?

Hvem er de dårlige æbler?" Altså, det er et dårligt spørgsmål.

Who are the bad apples?"

Well, that's a bad question.

Man må omformulere det og spørge, "Hvad er ansvarligt?"

You have to reframe it and ask, "What is responsible?"

"What" could be the who of people,

For "hvad" kunne være hvem som i folk,

but it could also be the what of the situation,

men det kunne også være hvad som i situationen,

and obviously that's wrongheaded.

og det tydeligvis, hvor jeg vil hen.

How do psychologists try to understand such transformations of human character,

Så hvordan bærer psykologer sig ad med at forstå

sådanne forvandlinger af menneskets karakter,

if you believe that they were good soldiers

hvis man tror på, at de var gode soldater,

before they went down to that dungeon?

før de gik ned i det fangehul?

There are three ways. The main way is called dispositional.

Der er tre måder. Hovedmåden hedder dispositionel.

Vi ser på det, der inden i personen, de dårlige æbler.

We look at what's inside of the person, the bad apples.

This is the foundation of all of social science,

Dette er grundlaget for al samfundsvidenskab,

the foundation of religion, the foundation of war.

grundlaget for religion, grundlaget for krig.

Social psychologists like me come along and say,

Socialpsykologer som jeg kommer og siger, "Jah,

"Yeah, people are the actors on the stage,

folk er skuespillerne på scenen,

but you'll have to be aware of the situation.

men man skal være bevidst om, hvordan den situation er.

Who are the cast of characters? What's the costume?

Hvem er de medvirkende? Hvordan er udklædningen?

Is there a stage director?"

Er der en regissør?"

And so we're interested in what are the external factors

Og derfor er vi interesserede i, hvad er de eksterne faktorer

around the individual -- the bad barrel?

omkring individet -- den dårlige tønde?

Og samfundsforskere stopper der, og de går glip af den store pointe,

Social scientists stop there and they miss the big point

that I discovered when I became an expert witness for Abu Ghraib.

som jeg opdagede, da jeg blev ekspertvidne i Abu Ghraib.

The power is in the system.

Magten er i systemet.

The system creates the situation that corrupts the individuals,

Systemet skaber situationen, der fordærver individerne,

and the system is the legal, political, economic, cultural background.

og systemet er den retslige, politiske, økonomiske, kulturelle baggrund.

And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers.

Og her ligger magten hos dårlige-tønder-magerne.

Så vil man ændre en person, må man ændre situationen.

If you want to change a person, change the situation.

And to change it, you've got to know where the power is, in the system.

Hvis man vil ændre situationen,

må man vide, hvor magten er i systemet.

Så Lucifer-effekten involverer at forstå

So the Lucifer effect involves understanding

forvandlinger af menneskelig karakterer med disse tre faktorer.

human character transformations with these three factors.

And it's a dynamic interplay.

Og det er et dynamisk samspil.

What do the people bring into the situation?

Hvad bringer personerne med ind i situationen?

What does the situation bring out of them?

Hvad bringer situationen ud af dem?

And what is the system that creates and maintains that situation?

Og hvordan er systemet, der skaber og opretholder den situation?

My recent book, "The Lucifer Effect," is about,

Så min nye bog, "The Lucifer Effect," handler om,

hvordan forstår man, hvordan gode personer bliver onde?

how do you understand how good people turn evil?

And it has a lot of detail about what I'm going to talk about today.

Og den har en masse detaljer,

om hvad jeg vil tale om i dag.

So Dr. Z's "Lucifer Effect," although it focuses on evil,

Så Dr. Z.'s "Lucifer Effect," selvom den fokuserer på ondskab,

really is a celebration of the human mind's infinite capacity

er virkelig en fejring af det menneskelige sinds

uendelige kapacitet til at gøre enhver rar eller grusom,

to make any of us kind or cruel,

caring or indifferent, creative or destructive,

omsorgsfuld eller ligeglad, kreativ eller destruktiv,

and it makes some of us villains.

og det gør nogle af os skurke.

And the good news that I'm going to hopefully come to at the end

Og den gode nyhedshistorie, som jeg forhåbentlig når til

is that it makes some of us heroes.

til slut, er, at det gør nogle af os helte.

Dette er en skøn tegning i The New Yorker,

This wonderful cartoon in the New Yorker summarizes my whole talk:

som virkelig opsummerer hele min tale:

"I'm neither a good cop nor a bad cop, Jerome.

"Jeg er hverken en god eller dårlig betjent, Jerome.

Like yourself, I'm a complex amalgam

Som dig selv er jeg en kompleks blanding

of positive and negative personality traits

af positive og negative personlige træk,

that emerge or not, depending on the circumstances."

der kommer frem eller ej, afhængig af omstændighederne."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

There's a study some of you think you know about,

Der er en afhandling, nogle af jer tror, I kender til,

but very few people have ever read the story.

men meget få personer har nogensinde læst historien. I så filmen.

You watched the movie.

This is Stanley Milgram, little Jewish kid from the Bronx,

Dette er Stanley Milgram, lille jødisk barn fra Bronx,

and he asked the question, "Could the Holocaust happen here, now?"

og han stillede spørgsmålet, "Kunne Holocaust finde sted her, nu?"

People say, "No, that's Nazi Germany, Hitler, you know, that's 1939."

Folk siger, "Nej, det var Nazityskland,

det var Hitler, du ved, det var 1939."

He said, "Yeah, but suppose Hitler asked you,

Han sagde, "Jah, men forestil dig, Hitler spurgte dig,

'Ville du give en fremmed strøm?' 'Aldrig, jeg er en god person.' "

'Would you electrocute a stranger?' 'No way, I'm a good person.'"

He said, "Why don't we put you in a situation

Han sagde, "Hvorfor sætter vi ikke dig i en situation

og giver dig en chance for at se, hvad du ville gøre?"

and give you a chance to see what you would do?"

Og så, hvad han gjorde var, han testede 1.000 normale personer.

And so what he did was he tested 1,000 ordinary people.

500 New Haven, Connecticut, 500 Bridgeport.

500 New Haven, Connecticut, 500 Bridgeport.

Og annoncen sagde, "Psykologer vil forstå hukommelsen.

And the ad said, "Psychologists want to understand memory.

We want to improve people's memory, because it is the key to success."

Vi vil forbedre folks hukommelse,

fordi hukommelsen er nøglen til succes." OK?

OK?

"Vi vil give jer 30 kroner -- 20 kroner for jeres tid."

"We're going to give you five bucks -- four dollars for your time.

We don't want college students. We want men between 20 and 50."

Og den sagde, "Vi vil ikke have universitetsstuderende.

Vi vil have mænd mellem 20 og 50."

In the later studies, they ran women.

I de senere studier, brugte de kvinder.

Normale mennesker: barberer, kontorfolk, funktionærer.

Ordinary people: barbers, clerks, white-collar people.

So, you go down,

Så, I går ned, og en af jer skal være elev,

one of you will be a learner, one will be a teacher.

og en af jer skal være lærer.

The learner's a genial, middle-aged guy.

Eleven er en venlig, midaldrende fyr.

He gets tied up to the shock apparatus in another room.

Han bliver spændt fast til chokapparatet i et andet rum.

The learner could be middle-aged, could be as young as 20.

Eleven kunne være midaldrende, kunne være så ung som 20.

Og en af jer får at vide af autoriteten, fyren i kitlen,

And one of you is told by the authority, the guy in the lab coat,

"Your job as teacher is to give him material to learn.

"Dit job som lærer er at give denne fyr materiale at lære.

Gets it right, reward.

Lærer han det, beløn ham.

Gets it wrong, you press a button on the shock box.

Lærer han ikke, trykker du en knap på chokkassen.

The first button is 15 volts. He doesn't even feel it."

Den første knap er 15 volt. Han mærker det ikke engang."

That's the key.

Det er nøglen. Al ondskab starter ved 15 volt.

All evil starts with 15 volts.

And then the next step is another 15 volts.

Og det næste skridt er 15 volt mere.

The problem is, at the end of the line, it's 450 volts.

Problemet er, at i slutningen er det 450 volt.

Og som man skruer op, skriger fyren,

And as you go along, the guy is screaming,

"I've got a heart condition! I'm out of here!"

"Jeg har en hjertesygdom! Jeg vil ud herfra!"

You're a good person. You complain.

Du er en god person. Du klager.

"Sir, who will be responsible if something happens to him?"

"Sir, hvem tager ansvaret, hvis der sker noget med ham?"

The experimenter says, "Don't worry, I will be responsible.

Forsøgslederen siger, "Bare rolig, jeg tager ansvaret.

Continue, teacher."

Fortsæt, lærer."

Og spørgsmålet er, hvem ville skrue helt op til 450 volt?

And the question is, who would go all the way to 450 volts?

You should notice here, when it gets up to 375,

I bør bemærke her, når den når 375,

it says, "Danger. Severe Shock."

siger den, "Fare. Voldsomt chok."

When it gets up to here, there's "XXX" -- the pornography of power.

Når den når herop, står der "XXX" -- magtens porno.

So Milgram asks 40 psychiatrists,

(Latter)

Så Milgram spørger 40 psykiatere,

"Hvor stor procentdel af amerikanske borger ville gå hele vejen?"

"What percent of American citizens would go to the end?"

They said only one percent.

De sagde kun én procent. Fordi det er sadistisk opførsel,

Because that's sadistic behavior, and we know, psychiatry knows,

og vi ved, psykiatrien ved, kun én procent af amerikanerne er sadistiske.

only one percent of Americans are sadistic.

OK.

OK. Her er dataene. De kunne ikke tage mere fejl.

Here's the data. They could not be more wrong.

Two thirds go all the way to 450 volts.

To tredjedele går hele vejen til 450 volt. Dette var bare ét studie.

This was just one study.

Milgram did more than 16 studies.

Milgram foretog mere end 16 studier. Og se på det her.

And look at this.

I studie 16, hvor man ser nogen som sig selv gå hele vejen,

In study 16, where you see somebody like you go all the way,

90 percent go all the way.

går 90 procent hele vejen. I studie fem, hvis man ser folk gøre oprør, gør 90 procent oprør.

In study five, if you see people rebel,

90 percent rebel.

What about women? Study 13 -- no different than men.

Hvad med kvinder? Studie 13 -- ingen forskel fra mænd.

So Milgram is quantifying evil as the willingness of people

Så Milgram kvantificerer ondskab som folks villighed

to blindly obey authority, to go all the way to 450 volts.

til blindt at adlyde autoritet, til at gå hele vejen til 450 volt.

And it's like a dial on human nature.

Og det er som en knap på menneskets natur.

A dial in a sense that you can make almost everybody totally obedient,

En knap på den måde, at man kan gøre næsten enhver totalt adlydende,

down to the majority, down to none.

ned til flertallet, ned til ingen.

Så hvilke eksterne paralleller findes? For al forskning er kunstig.

What are the external parallels? For all research is artificial.

What's the validity in the real world?

Hvilken gyldighed har det i den virkelige verden?

912 amerikanske borgere begik selvmord eller blev myrdet

912 American citizens committed suicide or were murdered

by family and friends in Guyana jungle in 1978,

af familie og venner i Guyanas jungle i 1978,

because they were blindly obedient to this guy, their pastor --

fordi de blindt adlød denne mand, deres pastor --

not their priest -- their pastor, Reverend Jim Jones.

ikke deres præst -- deres pastor, Pastor Jim Jones.

Han overtalte dem til at begå kollektivt selvmord.

He persuaded them to commit mass suicide.

And so, he's the modern Lucifer effect,

Derfor er han den moderne Lucifer-effekt,

en Guds mand, der bliver Dødsenglen.

a man of God who becomes the Angel of Death.

Milgram's study is all about individual authority to control people.

Milgrams studie handler om individuel autoritet til at kontrollere folk.

Det meste af tiden er vi i institutioner,

Most of the time, we are in institutions,

so the Stanford Prison Study is a study of the power of institutions

så Stanford Fængselsstudiet er et studie af institutioners magt

to influence individual behavior.

til at påvirke individuel opførsel.

Interestingly, Stanley Milgram and I were in the same high school class

Interessant nok var Stanley Milgram og jeg i samme gymnasieklasse

i James Monroe i Bronx, 1954.

in James Monroe in the Bronx, 1954.

I did this study with my graduate students,

Så dette studie, som jeg foretog

med mine kandidatstuderende, især Craig Haney --

especially Craig Haney -- and it also began work with an ad.

vi begyndte også med en annonce.

Vi havde ikke penge, så vi havde en billig, lille annonce,

We had a cheap, little ad,

but we wanted college students for a study of prison life.

men vi ville have universitetsstuderende til et studie af fængselsliv.

75 personer meldte sig, tog personlighedstests.

75 people volunteered, took personality tests.

We did interviews.

Vi foretog interview. Valgte to dusin:

Picked two dozen: the most normal, the most healthy.

de mest normale, de sundeste.

Randomly assigned them to be prisoner and guard.

Vi valgte tilfældigt hvem, der skulle være fange og vagt.

So on day one, we knew we had good apples.

Så på dag et vidste vi, vi havde gode æbler.

I'm going to put them in a bad situation.

Jeg vil sætte dem i en dårlig situation.

And secondly, we know there's no difference

Og for det andet vidste vi, der ikke er nogen forskel

between the boys who will be guards and those who will be prisoners.

på drengene, der skal være vagter,

og drengene, der skal være fanger.

To the prisoners, we said,

Børnene, der skulle være fanger,

"Wait at home. The study will begin Sunday."

vi sagde, "Vent hjemme på kollegierne. Studiet begynder på søndag."

We didn't tell them

Vi fortalte dem ikke,

that the city police were going to come and do realistic arrests.

at bypolitiet ville komme og foretage realistiske anholdelser.

(Video) (Music)

[Day 1]

(Video) Studerende: En politibil trækker op foran, og en betjent kommer til fordøren

Student: A police car pulls up in front, and a cop comes to the front door,

and knocks, and says he's looking for me.

og banker og siger, han leder efter mig.

So they, right there, you know, they took me out the door,

Så lige der tog de mig ud af døren,

they put my hands against the car.

de satte mine hænder mod bilen.

It was a real cop car, it was a real policeman,

Det var en ægte politibil, det var en ægte politimand,

and there were real neighbors in the street,

og der var ægte naboer på gaden,

der ikke vidste, at dette var et eksperiment.

who didn't know that this was an experiment.

And there was cameras all around and neighbors all around.

Og der var kameraer og naboer over det hele.

They put me in the car, then they drove me around Palo Alto.

De satte mig ind i bilen, så kørte de mig rundt i Palo Alto.

They took me to the basement of the police station.

De tog mig til politistationen,

politistationens kælder. Så satte de mig i en celle.

Then they put me in a cell.

I was the first one to be picked up, so they put me in a cell,

Jeg var den første, der blev samlet op, så de satte mig en celle,

der var som et rum med en dør med tremmer.

which was just like a room with a door with bars on it.

You could tell it wasn't a real jail.

Man kunne se, det ikke var et ægte fængsel.

De låste mig inde i dette nedværdigende tøj.

They locked me in there, in this degrading little outfit.

They were taking this experiment too seriously.

De tog dette eksperiment for seriøst.

Here are the prisoners, who are going to be dehumanized, they'll become numbers.

Philip Zimbardo: Her er fangerne, der skal umenneskeliggøres.

De vil blive til tal.

Her er vagterne med magtens og anonymitetens symboler.

Here are the guards with the symbols of power and anonymity.

Vagter får fanger

Guards get prisoners to clean the toilet bowls out with their bare hands,

til at rensetoiletkummerne med deres bare hænder,

til at lave andre ydmygende opgaver.

to do other humiliating tasks.

De klæder dem af. De håner dem seksuelt.

They strip them naked. They sexually taunt them.

De begynder at lave nedværdigende aktiviteter,

They begin to do degrading activities, like having them simulate sodomy.

som at få dem til at simulere sodomi.

You saw simulating fellatio in soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

I så simuleret fellatio ved soldater i Abu Ghraib.

Mine vagter gjorde det på fem dage. Stressreaktionen var så ekstrem,

My guards did it in five days.

The stress reaction was so extreme

that normal kids we picked because they were healthy

at normale børn, vi valgte, fordi de var sunde,

had breakdowns within 36 hours.

brød sammen inden 36 timer.

The study ended after six days, because it was out of control.

Studiet stoppede efter seks dage, fordi det var ude af kontrol.

Five kids had emotional breakdowns.

Fem børn havde følelsesmæssige sammenbrud.

Does it make a difference

Gør det en forskel, om krigere går i kamp

if warriors go to battle changing their appearance or not?

og forandrer deres udseende eller ej?

If they're anonymous, how do they treat their victims?

Gør anonymitet en forskel

for måden, hvorpå de behandler deres ofre?

In some cultures, they go to war without changing their appearance.

I nogle kulturer går de i krig

uden at ændre deres udseende.

I andre kulturer maler de sig som i "Fluernes Herre."

In others, they paint themselves like "Lord of the Flies."

I nogle bærer de masker.

In some, they wear masks.

I mange er soldaterne anonyme i uniform.

In many, soldiers are anonymous in uniform.

So this anthropologist, John Watson, found 23 cultures that had two bits of data.

So denne antropolog, John Watson, fandt

23 kulturer, der havde to dele af data.

Do they change their appearance? 15.

Ændrede de deres udseende? 15.

Do they kill, torture, mutilate? 13.

Dræber, torturerer, lemlæster de? 13.

Hvis de ikke ændrer deres udseende,

If they don't change their appearance,

dræber, torturerer eller lemlæster kun en ud af otte.

only one of eight kills, tortures or mutilates.

Nøglen er i den røde zone.

The key is in the red zone.

If they change their appearance,

Hvis de ændrer deres udseende,

vil 12 ud af 13 -- det er 90 procent -- dræbe, torturere, lemlæste.

12 of 13 -- that's 90 percent -- kill, torture, mutilate.

And that's the power of anonymity.

Og det er anonymitetens magt.

So what are the seven social processes

Så hvilke syv sociale processer

that grease the slippery slope of evil?

smører ondskabens glidebane?

Mindlessly taking the first small step.

At tage det første lille skridt uden at tænke.

Dehumanization of others. De-individuation of self.

Umenneskeliggørelse af andre. Af-individualisering af Selv'et.

Diffusion of personal responsibility.

Spredning af personligt ansvar. Blind lydighed over for autoritet.

Blind obedience to authority.

Uncritical conformity to group norms.

Ukritisk tilpassethed til gruppenormer.

Passive tolerance of evil through inaction, or indifference.

Passiv tolerance af ondskab gennem manglende handling eller ligegyldighed.

And it happens when you're in a new or unfamiliar situation.

Og det sker, når man er i en ny eller ukendt situation.

Ens vanemæssige reaktionsmønstre virker ikke.

Your habitual response patterns don't work.

Your personality and morality are disengaged.

Ens personlighed og moral er frigjort.

"Intet er lettere end at fordømme udøveren af ondskab;

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer;

intet sværere end at forstå ham," fortæller Dostojevskij os.

nothing more difficult than understanding him," Dostoyevsky.

At forstå er ikke at undskylde. Psykologi er ikke undskyld-ologi.

Understanding is not excusing. Psychology is not excuse-ology.

So social and psychological research reveals

Så social og psykologisk forskning afslører,

hvordan normale, gode mennesker kan blive forvandlet uden stofferne.

how ordinary, good people can be transformed without the drugs.

You don't need it. You just need the social-psychological processes.

Man behøver dem ikke. Man behøver bare de social-psykologiske processer.

Real world parallels?

Virkelige verden paralleller? Sammenlign dette med dette.

Compare this with this.

James Schlesinger -- I'm going to end with this -- says,

James Schlessinger -- og jeg bliver nødt at slutte med dette -- siger,

"Psychologists have attempted to understand how and why

"Psykologer har forsøgt at forstå, hvordan og hvorfor

individuals and groups who usually act humanely

individer og grupper, der som regel opfører sig menneskeligt,

can sometimes act otherwise in certain circumstances."

nogle gange kan opføre sig anderledes under bestemte forhold."

That's the Lucifer effect.

Det er Lucifer-effekten.

And he goes on to say, "The landmark Stanford study

Og han fortsætter med at sige, "Milepælen, Stanford-studiet,

provides a cautionary tale for all military operations."

fortæller en advarende fortælling til alle militære operationer."

If you give people power without oversight,

Hvis man giver folk magt uden tilsyn,

it's a prescription for abuse.

er det en recept på misbrug. De vidste det, og lod det ske.

They knew that, and let that happen.

Så en anden rapport, en efterforskningsrapport af General Fay,

So another report, an investigative report by General Fay,

says the system is guilty.

siger, systemet er skyldigt. Og i denne rapport,

In this report, he says it was the environment that created Abu Ghraib,

siger han, det var miljøet, der skabte Abu Ghraib,

by leadership failures that contributed to the occurrence of such abuse,

ved lederskabsbrister, der bidrog

til forekomsten af sådant misbrug,

and because it remained undiscovered

og det faktum, at det forblev uopdaget

by higher authorities for a long period of time.

af højere autoriteter i lang tid.

De misbrug stod på i tre måneder. Hvem holdt øje med butikken?

Those abuses went on for three months.

Who was watching the store?

The answer is nobody, I think on purpose.

Svaret er ingen og ingen med vilje.

He gave the guards permission to do those things,

Han gav vagterne tilladelse til at gøre de ting,

og de vidste, ingen nogensinde ville komme ned i det fangehul.

and they knew nobody was ever going to come down to that dungeon.

Så man behøver et paradigmeskift på alle disse områder.

So you need a paradigm shift in all of these areas.

The shift is away from the medical model that focuses only on the individual.

Skiftet er væk fra den medicinske model,

der kun fokuserer på individet.

The shift is toward a public health model

Skiftet er imod en folkesundhedsmodel,

that recognizes situational and systemic vectors of disease.

der erkender situations- og systemiske sygdomsvektorer.

Bullying is a disease. Prejudice is a disease.

Mobning er en sygdom. Fordomsfuldhed er en sygdom. Vold er en sygdom.

Violence is a disease.

Since the Inquisition, we've been dealing with problems at the individual level.

Og siden Inkvisitionen, har vi håndteret problemer

på det individuelle niveau. Og ved I hvad? Det virker ikke.

It doesn't work.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "The line between good and evil

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn siger, "Linjen mellem godt og ondt

cuts through the heart of every human being."

skærer gennem hjertet på ethvert menneske."

That means that line is not out there.

Det betyder, den linje ikke er derude.

That's a decision that you have to make, a personal thing.

Det er et valg, som man må foretage. Det er noget personligt.

So I want to end very quickly on a positive note.

Så jeg vil slutte meget hurtigt af i en positiv tone.

Heroism as the antidote to evil,

Heltemod er modgiften mod ondskab,

by promoting the heroic imagination,

ved at fremkalde den heltemodige fantasi,

især i vores børn, i vores uddannelsessystem.

especially in our kids, in our educational system.

We want kids to think, "I'm a hero in waiting,

Vi vil have børn til at tænke, jeg er den afventende helt,

venter på den rette situation kommer,

waiting for the right situation to come along,

and I will act heroically.

og jeg vil agere heroisk.

My whole life, I'm now going to focus away from evil --

Hele mit liv vil nu fokusere væk fra ondskab --

som jeg har været i, siden jeg var barn -- for at forstå helte.

that I've been in since I was a kid -- to understanding heroes.

Heltemodets banalitet

Banality of heroism.

er, det er normale mennesker, der gør heroiske gerninger.

It's ordinary people who do heroic deeds.

It's the counterpoint to Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil."

Det er kontrasten til Hannah Arendts "Ondskabens Banalitet."

Our traditional societal heroes are wrong, because they are the exceptions.

Vores traditionelle samfundshelte er forkerte,

fordi de er undtagelserne.

They organize their life around this. That's why we know their names.

De organiserer hele deres liv omkring dette.

Det er derfor, vi kender deres navne.

Og vores børns helte er også forkerte idoler,

Our kids' heroes are also wrong models for them,

for de har overnaturlige kræfter.

because they have supernatural talents.

We want our kids to realize most heroes are everyday people,

Vi vil have vores børn til at indse, de fleste helte er hverdagsfolk,

og den heroiske gerning er usædvanlig. Dette er Joe Darby.

and the heroic act is unusual.

This is Joe Darby.

He was the one that stopped those abuses you saw,

Han var den, der stoppede de misbrug, I så,

for da han så de billeder,

because when he saw those images,

he turned them over to a senior investigating officer.

overleverede han dem til en auditør.

He was a low-level private, and that stopped it.

Han var en lavtrangerende menig, og det stoppede det. Var han en helt? Nej.

Was he a hero? No.

They had to put him in hiding, because people wanted to kill him,

Man blev nødt til at skjule ham, fordi folk ville slå ham ihjel,

and then his mother and his wife.

og så han mor og hans kone.

I tre år gemte de sig.

For three years, they were in hiding.

This is the woman who stopped the Stanford Prison Study.

Dette er kvinden, der stoppede Stanford Fængselsstudiet.

When I said it got out of control, I was the prison superintendent.

Da jeg sagde, det kom ud af kontrol, var jeg fængselsdirektøren.

I didn't know it was out of control. I was totally indifferent.

Jeg vidste ikke, det var ude af kontrol. Jeg var totalt ligeglad.

She saw that madhouse and said,

Hun kom ned, så det galehus og sagde,

"You know what, it's terrible what you're doing to those boys.

"Ved du hvad, det er frygteligt, hvad du gør ved de drenge.

They're not prisoners nor guards, they're boys, and you are responsible."

De er ikke fanger, de er ikke vagter,

de er drenge, og du er ansvarlig."

And I ended the study the next day.

Og jeg stoppede forsøget dagen efter.

The good news is I married her the next year.

Den gode nyhed er, jeg giftede mig med hende året efter.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

I just came to my senses, obviously.

Jeg kom bare til mig selv, tydeligvis.

So situations have the power to do [three things].

Så situationer har magten til at gøre, gennem --

But the point is, this is the same situation

men pointen er, dette er den samme situation,

der kan oppiske den fjendtlige fantasi i nogle af os,

that can inflame the hostile imagination in some of us,

that makes us perpetrators of evil,

der gør os til udøvere af ondskab,

can inspire the heroic imagination in others.

kan inspirere den heroiske fantasi hos andre. Det er den samme situation.

It's the same situation and you're on one side or the other.

Og man er på den ene eller anden side.

Most people are guilty of the evil of inaction,

De fleste er skyldige i ondskab ved passivitet,

because your mother said, "Don't get involved. Mind your own business."

fordi mor sagde, "Bland dig uden om. Pas dine egne sager."

Og man må sige, "Mor, menneskeheden er mine sager."

And you have to say, "Mama, humanity is my business."

So the psychology of heroism is -- we're going to end in a moment --

Så heltemodets psykologi er -- vi stopper om et øjeblik --

hvordan opildner vi børn i nye heltekurser,

how do we encourage children in new hero courses,

that I'm working on with Matt Langdon -- he has a hero workshop --

som jeg arbejder med Matt Langdon -- han har et helteværksted --

to develop this heroic imagination, this self-labeling,

til at udvikle denne heroiske fantasi, denne selv-markering,

"I am a hero in waiting," and teach them skills.

"Jeg er en afventende helt," og lære dem evner.

To be a hero, you have to learn to be a deviant,

For at være en helt må man lære at være afvigende,

because you're always going against the conformity of the group.

for man vil altid gå imod gruppens tilpassethed.

Helte er normale mennesker, hvis sociale handlinger er usædvanlige. Som handler.

Heroes are ordinary people whose social actions are extraordinary. Who act.

Nøglen til heltemod er to ting.

The key to heroism is two things.

A: man må handle, når andre folk er passive.

You have to act when other people are passive.

B: You have to act socio-centrically, not egocentrically.

B: man må handle socio-centreret, ikke egocentreret.

And I want to end with a known story about Wesley Autrey, New York subway hero.

Og jeg vil slutte med historien, som nogle af jer kender,

om Wesley Autrey, New York undergrundshelt.

Fifty-year-old African-American construction worker standing on a subway.

Halvtreds år gamle afrikansk-amerikanske bygningsarbejder.

Han står i undergrunden i New York.

A white guy falls on the tracks.

En hvid mand falder på skinnerne.

The subway train is coming. There's 75 people there.

Undergrundstoget kommer. Der er 75 personer til stede.

You know what? They freeze.

Ved I hvad? De fryser.

He's got a reason not to get involved.

Han har en grund til ikke at blande sig.

He's black, the guy's white, and he's got two kids.

Han er sort, manden er hvid, og han har to små børn.

Instead, he gives his kids to a stranger,

I stedet giver han sine børn til en fremmed,

springer på skinnerne, lægger manden mellem skinnerne,

jumps on the tracks, puts the guy between the tracks,

lays on him, the subway goes over him.

lægger sig på ham, toget kører over ham.

Wesley and the guy -- 20 and a half inches height.

Wesley og manden -- 52 cm høje.

The train clearance is 21 inches.

Togets højde er 53 cm.

A half an inch would have taken his head off.

Halvanden cm ville have revet hovedet af ham.

And he said, "I did what anyone could do," no big deal to jump on the tracks.

Og han sagde, "Jeg gjorde, hvad enhver kunne have gjort,"

ikke noget stort at hoppe på skinnerne.

And the moral imperative is "I did what everyone should do."

Og det moralske bud er, "Jeg gjorde, hvad enhver bør gøre."

And so one day, you will be in a new situation.

Og derfor en dag vil man være i en ny situation.

Take path one, you're going to be a perpetrator of evil.

Tag vej ét, man bliver en udøver af ondskab.

Evil, meaning you're going to be Arthur Andersen.

Ond, og man bliver til Arthur Andersen.

You're going to cheat, or you're going to allow bullying.

Man vil snyde, eller man vil mobbe.

Path two, you become guilty of the evil of passive inaction.

Vej to, man bliver skyldig i ondskaben ved passiv inaktivitet.

Path three, you become a hero.

Vej tre, man bliver en helt.

Pointen er, er vi klar til at tage vejen

The point is, are we ready to take the path to celebrating ordinary heroes,

til at fejre normale helte,

waiting for the right situation to come along

vente på, den rette situation kommer

til at sætte heroisk fantasi til handling?

to put heroic imagination into action?

Fordi det sker måske kun én gang i ens liv,

Because it may only happen once in your life,

and when you pass it by, you'll always know,

og når man lader den passere, vil man altid vide,

jeg kunne være blevet en helt, og jeg lod det gå forbi.

I could have been a hero and I let it pass me by.

So the point is thinking it and then doing it.

Så pointen er at tænke det og så gøre det.

Så jeg vil takke jer. Tak. Tak.

So I want to thank you. Thank you.

Let's oppose the power of evil systems at home and abroad,

Lad os modsætte os onde systemers magt hjemme og generelt,

and let's focus on the positive.

og lad os fokusere på det positive.

Advocate for respect of personal dignity, for justice and peace,

Tale for respekt for personlig værdighed, retfærdighed og fred,

which sadly our administration has not been doing.

hvilket vores regering sørgeligt nok ikke har gjort.

Mange tak.

Thanks so much.

(Bifald)

(Applause)