…A very interesting article. Back in 1971, psychologist Phillip Zambardo and his colleagues set up an experiment to test situational variables on human behaviour. The exercise became known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. A mock prison was set up in the basement of the University, a group volunteers were screened for mental stability, and were divided into two groups. One group were guards, and given special rights for example, allowed to go home at the end of a normal shift, and return at a given start time next day. The other group subjected to the confines of prison conditions 24 hours a day. The experiment lasted six days out of a planned fourteen.

…Of the guards, only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; while the prisoners quickly lost their resolve to continue and became passive and depressed, to the point where the experiment was discontinued earlier than planned.

…The experiment proved (in spite of the contested flaws), the speed at which a leader can negatively dominate the subjects. I often wonder if, as proved with the Stanford Prison experiment, the high incidence of depression and anxiety in our society are not a direct cause of domination of political leadership, where subjects are effectively powerless pawns in their hands.

Sorry Rod, I don't think you're talking about leadership. In your Snowy experience you are merely talking about a natural bushman. Some of us are able to spend all day working around a 10,000 acre paddock, & always know the way to the gate, others are lost in minutes.

Perhaps it is an obvious of confidence of those who know where they are that makes others follow them, which disappears once everyone is back in a familiar location.

The rest of it sounds more like a popularity contest, & nothing about choosing a real leader. All too often the popular choice is in no way qualified to chose an intelligent path, or lead anyone.

The current US government is a perfect example, as was the Rudd effort.

.

Dear Diver Dan,

.

There are indeed some dangerous monsters lurking in the basement of human nature that need to be kept firmly under lock and key.

The Stanford Prison experiment resembles a theatrical representation (in the form of a reality show) of Sigmund Freud's concept of the human psyche: the id, the ego and the super-ego. The id seeks to achieve its desires, regardless of the consequences. The super-ego seeks to impose its rigid morality in all circumstances. The ego decides what the person actually does, expressing his or her personality.

In the Stanford reality show the students were assigned specific egos that they agreed to assume. They were to do it seriously and were paid for it.

Deconstructing and rearranging the human psyche, even if only in a reality show, unlocked the prison cell in the basement and set the monsters free. Phillip Zambardo and his colleagues were playing with fire.

It reminds me of the Milgram experiment ten years earlier in which one participant was to administer an electric shock to another particpant every time the latter failed to provide the correct answer to a question. The "experimenter" who organised this little game constantly applied pressure on the first participant to constantly increase the electric shocks.

Without going into specific details, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of "brain washing" or manipulation of the participants in these experiments in order to "disconnect" their personal egos and have them adopt the "experimental" egos assigned to them.

I have difficulty considering the "experimenters" of these reality shows as "leaders". Organisers, instructors, experimenters, directors, manipulators, yes. Leaders, no.

The problem is, of course, that an authentic leader in real life may be tempted to employ his leadership talents in order to position himself as a dictator and tyrant. The names of Stalin and Hitler immediately come to mind.

.

.

Dear Hasbeen,

.

I'm afraid I've never had the pleasure of working in a 10,000 acre paddock but I do recall going shooting with my 303, basically at anything that moved, in the bush somewhere between Dalby and Mitchell.

I left the car on the side of the road and walked off into the bush. The day drew on and I looked at my watch and remember saying to myself it was time to head back. Just as I thought I caught a glimpse of the tiny speck of the car in the distance the night fell down as though somebody pulled down a black curtain.

It took me the best part of an hour and a half to find the car which I normally should have reached in about a quarter of an hour if it had been daylight.

That was on relatively flat ground apart from the occasional gully. Perhaps the 10,000 acre paddock you have in mind is on relatively flat ground too.

It's quite a different story when you are surronded by mountain peaks and valleys that all look alike and when you have to descend one, crawl through dense forest at the bottom and hope that the one you then climb is the one aimed for. In my experience it is not possible to walk in straight lines in that type of country.

............

"The rest of it sounds more like a popularity contest, & nothing about choosing a real leader. All too often the popular choice is in no way qualified to chose an intelligent path, or lead anyone."

You are so right, Hasbeen, but if you have a better solution I would love to hear it.

Remember what Winston Churchill is supposed to have said: "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

It seems better to me to have a say in choosing who will be the candidates for an election rather than political party leaders choosing for me. I prefer to have first choice, not second.

Do you prefer left-overs?

.

No Banjo, I have not had much experience on the plains, all of mine is in bumpy country, with large areas of timber that were effectively impenetrable at least on a horse.

Michener tells a story from his research for Tales of the South Pacific, of a bunch of US city type servicemen who decided to take a one mile or so short cut through the jungle somewhere near Noumea. One of 5 walked out a day later, & the bodies of the others were found 3 or 4 days later.

They could see the base they were going to, as they entered the jungle.

I have had to find & rescue people only a kilometer or so from a resort, or their boat, in the Whitsunday islands on a number of occasions. Most people have no idea, but it is possibly only experience they lack.

I still don't like your idea for choosing leaders. The general public will only know of either sportsmen, entertainers, or those good at self promotion, & publicity. You are bound to end up with an Obama, a Rudd or Skippy. What we do need is some way of finding those who have the capacity to understand the problems, not charm the punters.

So there's your problem, all we need from you is the answer.

Banjo/hasbeen

...Yep!! My point was really to mark a psychological difference between the leaders and the led. The success of the leader depends on the conflicts of the led. Take our great Winston Churchill. Now there was a leader with a vision, who would never be described as a dictator! A manipulator yes, an appeaser no: But that’s politics of the times! With Neville Chamberlain, on the other hand, the fault was appeasement. Does that remind you of Julia Gillard?

Lost:
...There is an equation at work here: The less the visibility, the greater the propensity to directional loss. Having spent a large slice of my life lost under the sea, I am an expert at it! The trick is to maintain a contact with the starting and ending point of a trip in order to endure. One connector is called a compass (with an ability to use it). Another is a physical line (used frequently in diving), A GPS is the modern mans alternative to effort: But here is the “rub” Never, Never rely on the fallacy that instinct is reliable; if one never wishes to return home then rely on instinct! A lesson hard learned by all of the lost! All this navigational technology can be euphemistically applied to a good leader.

...A good leader has resources of experience, intelligence and total control OVER instinct! That is why humans were given by God, the greater power of intellect over instinctual animals, you must agree