around which do not subside even today. One way or another, they show the extent of this unpredictability and paradox.
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo and three colleagues from Stanford University investigated the nature of violence and cruelty that arises in a person under the conditions of a social role imposed on them. Final year college students were recruited to play the roles of guards and convicts in a simulated prison environment.
The experimenters were surprised to find that after a short time, the relationship between the 'guards’ and the 'prisoners’ quickly developed features typical to this scenario. At the same time, the 'guards’ noticed the rapid growth of sadistic manifestations in themselves and just a few days later, the 'prisoners’ staged an actual uprising in the 'prison’.
The study demonstrated how compliant and submissive people become when an ideology that justifies their actions is endorsed by the state or society. Simply put, when we are designated specific roles, and if those around us behave similarly, we follow suit.
The next experiment was conducted by Stanley Milgram of Yale University. The 'teachers’, whose reaction was tested, were told to increase the voltage in the electrodes attached to the 'learner’, who was actually a professional actor. The 'teachers’ did not know that, and the 'learner’ imitated the suffering caused by the electric shock in a highly believable manner. If the 'learner’ answered the questions incorrectly, the 'teacher’ was ordered to increase the voltage. At the same time, the 'teachers’ knew that a voltage of more than 300 volts was life-threatening. The experimenters, when asked about it, insisted that the experiment was not really as violent as it looked and that the 'teachers’ should continue.
Before the experiment, it was assumed that 2—3 per cent of 'teachers’ would administer 450 volts, which is lethal for humans. This corresponds to the statistics of people in the population with sadistic tendencies. But in the course of the experiment, this turned out to be 65 per cent! Only 12.5 per cent stopped on 300 volts, and the rest of the participants – in the range from 300 to 330 volts.
The experiment showed that people are inclined to do many things when provided with valid reasons or when they obey the instructions of an authority.
In 1977, another well-known experiment, called the Good Samaritan experiment, was conducted at Princeton University. But first, it is significant to understand the concept of human values. Values represent a person’s beliefs about what is important to them, what they adhere to, and what they are guided by in life. These beliefs shape who a person is and influence their actions.
About the experiment. The biblical story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30—37) tells how a certain Samaritan stopped to help a wounded man, while two clergymen, a priest and a Levite, had just passed by. A simple story with a lot of meaning. Psychologists John Darley and Daniel Batson decided to test whether religion has any significant influence on empathy and providing help to others. The participants of the experiment were students at the University’s Theological Seminary. They were divided into two groups: one was asked to deliver a speech on the Good Samaritan, and the other – a speech on the possibility of employment in the seminary. The speech was to be delivered in another building, and to get there, participants had to go through an alley. An elderly actor was lying on the side of the alley, faking a heart attack. Different participants were given different times to reach the audience. Therefore, some were in a hurry when passing through the alley, while others were not.
The results showed that students who had prepared a speech on the Good Samaritan stopped to help no more often than those who had prepared a speech on job opportunities. The only factor that influenced the decision of the students to help the man was the time they had at their disposal. Those who were in less of a hurry stopped more readily. And, regardless of the topic of their speech, only 10 per cent of those who had little time tried to help the 'sufferer’. It turned out that morality is time-dependent, which can significantly distort a person’s system of values.
The more time people have at their disposal, the kinder they are and the more inclined to empathise and help. And, therefore, the other way round: if people are in a hurry, they become unkind and indifferent. So, in a megalopolis, the probability of getting help in the street is much less than in the country. In other words, it sounds like, ‘We are kind, but we don’t have time for this’, or ‘We are ill-natured because there are traffic jams everywhere.’
And yet another experiment, although not as well-known as the previous ones. Scientists from the Institute of Zoology, which is part of the Zoological Society of London, together with the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, led by Dr Andrew King, showed how leaders can emerge in human society.
Imagine 200 people who are asked to move in a circle. The only rule that applies is that they should not approach each other closer than one metre. One metre in this case could be interpreted as some kind of safe personal space. Suddenly a group of five people appears in the crowd who begin to move not in a circle, but in a certain direction, towards some goal known only to them. After a while, the others do the same. Two hundred people start marching in one direction, without asking where or why.
If one gets the impression that in all these experiments we are talking about a kind of game, then it is worth noting that the boundary between any game and real life is very relative. They transform into each other interchangeably. The case study and phenomenology show that life sometimes acts as a game and a game – as life.
A celebrated English bard once famously said: 'All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.' And if that is the case, the actors do not just play their roles – there is a script, there are prepared monologues and actions.
Everyone has always been interested in the question: who writes this script and how? And, as we will see later, we are the authors of only a small and insignificant part of it.
The Hierarchy of Goals
The hierarchy of goals and communities. How the upper levels seek to subdue the lower ones, and how they manage to do so.
If your working day isn’t perfect, then you work
for someone else, not yourself. ― Anonymous
A person’s life can be viewed as a process of constantly setting goals and achieving them. A person’s daily activity, their thinking, decisions and, accordingly, actions that shape their behaviour, all this is directed and subordinated to the goals that they have. Or the goals that were set before them or that seduced them.
The levels of goals correspond to the forms of people’s associations. The level of goals in this hierarchy determines the category of self-identification of a person in which a person is aware of himself and which contributes to the achievement of his personal goals. The hierarchy is as follows: humanity, state, nation, corporation, group, family, and finally the individual itself. The goals of the upper levels tend to take over the goals of the lower levels. But they do not always succeed.
The highest level of goals is mega goals on a planetary scale, the goals of all mankind and civilisation. The most popular of them are environmental issues. Humanity does not stop trying to somehow solve them, but with varying degrees of success. One well-known example is the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Or such a hypothetical goal that would become real when aliens with clearly unfriendly intentions appeared. If there really is a threat of intervention
