This morning I felt particularly stir crazy from being cooped up in the house, so I decided to go to pick up some coffee. When I finally reached the drive-thru window, I was met by one of the employees. He began to detail to me how several local restaurants had employees who had contracted COVID-19. Even blatantly pointing out the window to the adjacent establishment. Claiming that the franchisee owner was going so far to cover it up to prevent a loss in business. Naturally, I was initially shocked by this individual’s candor. However, he made one fatal error which led me to start questioning the integrity of his accusations. He revealed the fact that he was a former employee of the adjacent building. Informing me that he knew both the owner and the manager well. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why this individual would have the incentives to levy such claims against the other business. For anyone out there that has been fired or layoff, you aren’t going to have too many kind words for the former employer that released you.
The employee I was conversing with stated he obtained this information from speaking with the present manager of the neighboring eatery. As implausible it may seem for the manager to disclose such information to an employee of a competitor will have to be dispensed with. It degenerates into nothing more than he said/ she said scenario. There isn’t enough evidence on either side to make a definite claim. So I will be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that his statement about the other establishment was true. There may have been multiple motives for him informing me of this development in the local culinary scene. He may have felt some unbridled compulsion to inform of the potential hazard of dining at the other restaurant. He may have had personal moral code that would not allow him to withhold such information from innocent parties. Such as adhering to Kantian morality or having strong religious beliefs. Perhaps he is an admirer of George Washington. The conviction to want to shield innocent parties from exposure to COVID-19 is certainly a laudable objective. I would perceive this as the behavior of a Baptist.
Assuming the information was true and he possesses pure intentions for proliferating this news, he can be considered a Baptist. However, it is also possible for him to simultaneously be the Bootlegger as well? I would argue yes. As individuals, we can have multiple motives for engaging in an action. It isn’t outlandish to assume that he had subordinate motives for detailing to me that the neighboring establishment’s staff had tested positive for COVID-19. How does he benefit from disclosing knowledge to me? What are his incentives for doing so?
There are two potential self-seeking motives for his actions. The first reason would be attempting to enact vengeance on a former employer. Doing so by creating a rumor that damages their credibility in the community. If the purported facts are completely fictitious the Bootleggers and Baptists dynamic dissolves. Any pure intention is no longer present. The second reason for his shocking candor that sways into the territory of defamation would be increased job security. The pandemic has likely chewed into the profits of his current employer. To avoid getting laid off for budgetary reasons, he is attempting to divert business to his restaurant. Done out of self-interest and exhibiting behavior that is in line with that of a bootlegger.
Bruce Yandle’s concept of Bootleggers and Baptists was intended to demonstrate how unlikely coalitions are formed in the political arena. Considering we as humans can have multiple reasons for advocating for a policy or engaging in various forms of rent-seeking, it is possible for an act to severe in both roles. Providing they are being honest about their moralistic motives, but also stand to benefit from their attempt to influence public opinion. For instance, I could advocate for a ban on smoking in public parks. Truly feel that I am attempting to save others from the health effects of secondhand smoke. At the same time also be advocating for a smoking ban because I dislike cigarette smoke. The roles of Bootleggers and Baptists are not always mutually exclusive.
It is analogous to the ID and Superego allying. Both are satisfied with the cause and both are the deep-rooted psychoanalytical manifestations of the Baptists and the Bootlegger. When an individual strikes a balance between their hyper-moralistic inclinations and darker impulses they can assume both roles. When avarice and morality align themselves in the intentions of one person this phenomenon becomes possible. Yes, this application of Yandle’s trope does exercise a bit of artistic license. However, Yandle never said that individuals couldn’t form coalitions within themselves. Doing so by combining various rationals for advocacy and then vocalizing them. Typically under the guise of concern for the moral imperative of the situation.
The recent findings regarding the validity of the Stanford Prison Experiment have been disappointing. Even on a personal level. While the study was morally questionable it was one of my favorite studies. In college, I majored in psychology. I found myself particularly drawn to social psychology. Naturally, my social psychology textbook dedicated several pages to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Despite the litany of ethical questions and procedural constraints that have spawned from SPE and the infamous Milgram’s Experiment, the controversial studies have always been the most intriguing to me.
When I was younger often flippantly reducing the ethical considerations to mere inconveniences. As I have gotten older, I have begun to take the ethics of research more seriously. Veering away from a sterile utilitarian mentality to one that holds the rights of the subjects in high esteem. Needless to say, I had to reluctantly acquiesce the fact that one of the most interesting studies conducted in the history of psychological research was a fraud. In science when new fact-based developments come to surface we must except them tentatively until proven otherwise. Even when the facts do not comport with our interests or opinions.
Even though it is reasonable to suspect that the Stanford Prison Experiment was fabricated, are any of the results salvable? The results certainly are not scientifically valid nor can be generalized. That is a difficult question to answer. An exact replication of this study is out of the question. As the purveyor of the Prior Probability blog has mentioned in the comments section of part II, ethical constraints prohibit an exact replication. However, in the United Kingdom, an amended version of the study was conducted back in 2001. Typically referred to as the “BBC Prison Experiment“. This more ethically amenable study did not fully verify the results of Zimbardo’s 1971 study. In 2018, Zimbardo came back and criticized the UK experiment and cited a 1979 study that mirrored his results. Such back-peddling can only be met with incredulity considering the ample evidence that Zimbardo heavily manipulated the results of his 1971 “experiment”.
Philip Zimbardo’s desired results do dovetail to our initiative assumptions about authority. We have all heard the expression of being “drunk on power”. It was the great Lord Acton that once said:
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority…
It is quite evident that an implied potential for abusing authority is embedded in the human psyche. The problem becomes determining whether this qualitative attribution is factual or illusory. To do so through scientific means is downright cumbersome. Attempts to quantify an inherently qualitative value judgment is difficult. However, there seems to be quite a bit of anecdotally/observational evidence that does point in the direction of Zimbardo’s findings. The unfortunate aspect of observations is that we cannot deduce the prime cause of the observed occurrence. It is possible that the root cause could be an unobservable variable or our observation is clouded by bias.
The instances of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison would appear to be observational evidence congenial to Zimbardo’s results. Per a 2012 paper written by Kristin Richardson, the situational context of the Abu Ghraib prison may explain the behavior of the guards. Suggesting that the fact that senior leadership was complicit in the controversy for fostering an environment where such human rights violations can take place (p.76-77). This lack of oversight being prevalent in other areas of interacting with prisoners of war such as interrogation. Richardson also cites what is known as the Thomas Theorem for addressing how the soldiers guarding the detainees at Abu Ghraib could resort to inhumane measures. This theorem asserts that reality is a mental construct and that reality is real because we believe it is (p.9). Leading to the assumption that the guards did lose a sense of consensus reality while in prison. Started to relax their moral precepts to accept the role of an uncompromisingly tough prison guard. Keeping potential terrorists in-check. Providing some qualitative confirmation about Zimbardo’s assumptions regarding the behavior of the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Having an understanding of the human mind, I understand how powerful it is. It has the capability of making a delusion a reality. Reinforcing the observations asserted in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave thousands of years before the advent of neuroscience. People can get caught up in a fabricated reality. To not only believe they can get away with abusing prisoners but to believe they are justified. This distortion of reality being triggered by the context of the environment. That does not mean that reality is a complete construct. The fact that there is a consensus reality is a clue that not every aspect of experience is subjective. We merely interpret concrete reality through sensory input creating the spectrum of deviations. As intriguing as Richardson’s insights are they still do not provide us with any causal inferences. Due to ethical and methodological concerns, we may never be able to validate these observations scientifically.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is arguably one of the most famous studies in the discipline of social psychology. Mentioning the study by name generally evokes images of the darker side of the human condition. As you can see from my previous essay detailing the reported qualitative details of the study. Dr. Zimbardo’s controversial study garnered much attention to the ethical considerations of psychological research. While the study has been widely cited and profoundly influential in recent years it has come under fire. Back in 2018, journalist Ben Blum, published an expose scrutinizing the validity of Zimbardo’s work. Exposing major methodological flaws that most likely compromised the results. Even inferring that Zimbardo attempted to manipulate variables to influence the results.
Could one of psychology’s most well known and influential studies be completely invalid? Contrived and orchestrated like a school play? Such a determination veers into murky waters. It can be said confidentially that Zimbarado’s methods were flawed From the standpoint of methodology, the ethical considerations are a whole other subject. When applying the scientific method to research it is imperative to control for any confounding variables. This is the only way to confirm that the results are being impacted by the variables being manipulated by the experimenter. Otherwise, the results fall victim to the third variable problem. Making it impossible to derive causation from the results of the study. At the very least Zimbardo was derelict in regards to preventing outside factors from contaminating the results.
From a methodologically the Stanford Prison Experiment suffers from poor data collect, faulty participant selection, and the demand characteristics of the study.
Poor Data Collection:
Anyone who has read Zimbardo’s 1971 paper can tell you two characteristics are striking. The first being the unorthodox composition of the paper. The second being the paucity of hard data. The details of the paper are almost entirely qualitative. Making the term experiment an unfitting title for the study. French researcher Thibault Le Texier would most likely agree. In his paper, Debunking The Stanford Prison Experiment, he highlights many of the methodological flaws in the study. His research reveals that only 15% of the total “experiment” was recorded. “6 hr of video and 15 hr
of audio” out of the total 150 hours devoted to the experiment. No data was collected during day three of the study (p.12). Such gaps in data collection can only put the results of the study in question. Without sufficient data, the researchers are merely speculating. Presenting speculation as scientific findings are intellectually dishonest and problematic.
A touchstone of scientific inquiry is the ability to control for confounding variables. Extraneous variables that influence attributes being studied and swaying the results. How do we know that the results of Zimbardo’s study were truly due to the situational conditions of being granted unfettered authority over other people? Unfortunately, we cannot. Per Le Texier’s archival research Zimbardo “collected very little personal information about the participants”(p.12). This is profoundly problematic if we are expected to draw causal results from this study. Zimbardo neglecting to collect adequate background information on the subjects generates more questions than answers. The cruel behavior of the guards may have been influenced by factors other than the situation. For example personality traits, political beliefs, religious convictions, etc. Not collecting such preliminary data not only skews the results but is just plain sloppy. Any experienced researcher should have known better to be so cavalier.
It has also come to surface that Zimbardo did not collect any data from actual prisons. Again, another fault in data collection that prevents these findings from being generalized. Without data from prisons, it is difficult to not only have an accurate understanding of typical behavior in these environments, but nothing to compare the results. Yes, you could utilize behavior before the experimental conditions as a baseline. However, this does little if you are seeking to make universal claims about the behavioral dynamics of prisons. In the absence of this information how can really can’t. The results could be atypical for the average prison.
The experiment suffered from one fatal error from the very beginning that could have impacted the results. Zimbardo placed an advertisement in the local paper requesting volunteers for a prisonexperiment (p.2). Even providing the detail of the study is a “prison” experiment in the process of soliciting participants allows extraneous variables to creep in. Contaminating the results. Individuals who may be interested in a prison study may skew towards people with a specific personality type, ideological convictions, or other proclivities. Thereby generating an applicant pool that may be predisposed towards authoritarian tendencies. As unlikely as this sounds considering we are talking about a group of college kids in the 1970’s California, it cannot be ruled out. It cannot be ruled out because Zimbardo failed to shield the study from self-selection. This concern would even be a talking point if Zimbardo had merely request for participants for a study versus a “prison study”.
Speaking of an experiment taking place in a prestigious university in the 1970’s California, that is a really specific and unique time and place. Bringing to light another question, the generalization of participants. Generally, when you select subjects for a study, you want the pool of applicants to be as diverse as possible. Why? More diversity greatly reduces the likelihood of sampling error. The general population of the United States is extremely diverse. To reflect this, you need a diverse pool of participants to randomly select from. Otherwise, you run the risk of potentially selecting subjects that maybe all have similar characteristics that do not reflect the overall population. The greater the number and diversity of subjects any peculiarities tend to washout, averaging results that can be generalized. Would a bunch of college students presumably attending Stanford be a good representation of the American population? By any metric or measure that would be a resounding no!
Demand Characteristics in an experiment are “ques” that subconsciously influence the behavior of the subjects. For example, knowing the experimenter’s expectations or desired results impacting participant behavior. Once again, Zimbardo was derelict in his duty as a researcher to avoid such issues. Zimbardo expressed what his expected and desired outcomes were for the experiment to the guards during orientation (p.5). The guards also expressed feeling as if they were being “watched and filmed” (p.8). It is quite evident that when feel as if we are being observed we are more apt to behave differently. Especially when the lead experimenter has already expressed his opinions about the potential results. This fact is solidified in the testimony of Guard #1:
He wrote to Zimbardo, 3 months after the experiment, “I was always acting [. .] I
was always very conscious of the responsibility involved in the guards’ and the experimenters’ positions; I mentioned this to various people at various times, including to you during the debriefing” (Guard 1, 1971b). He wrote to him again, 3 months later,
I consciously felt that for the experiment to be at all useful ‘guards’ had to act something like guards.
[. . .] I felt that the experiment was important and my being ‘guard-like’ was part of finding out how people react to real oppression. (Guard 1,1972, p. 5)
(Le Texier, 2019, p. 8)
Unfortunately, it is speculated that to a certain extent the study was scripted and fabricated. Extends beyond the concerns of demand characteristics. Le Texier found that Zimbardo had prewritten conclusions for the study (p.13). There is ample evidence that the experimenters had conditioned the prisoners and guards in how to behave (p.10). Explaining to the participants how to behave in the context of the experiment. Zimbardo and the other researchers claim that the cruel behavior of the guards to have occurred organically is beyond spurious. Especially when the subjects were being coached. To make matters worse, the experiments even played an active role in the experiment. Removing themselves from the role of impartial observers. The role of warden was played by one of Zimbardo’s experimenters.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study conducted on August 14th through 20th of 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, Craig Haney, W. Curtis Banks, and David Jaffe. The lead researcher Zimbardo embarked upon this study to examine how situational factors and authority could lead to normal people engaging in abhorrent behavior. The researchers placed an advertisement in the local paper looking for volunteers for the experiment. The researchers performed psychological evaluations to make sure that the participants were healthy and not suffering from previous mental conditions. Then they were arrested by actual Palo Alto police officers. Underwent standard booking procedures and were taken to a basement on the Stanford campus. Out of the eighteen participants nine were assigned to be guards and the other nine were prisoners. The roles were randomly assigned by a coin toss.
The guards stripped the prisoners naked and sprayed them down with delousing spray. The prisoners were then dressed in jumpsuits (without undergarments) and provided nylon stockings to wear on their heads to mimic the practice of head-shaving in prisons. Each prisoner was assigned a number and was only referred to by their number. The guards periodically took counts on the faux-inmates. The inmates went to the bathroom in buckets and were escorted by the guards to the makeshift facilities. Generally with a bag over their heads. The subjects that were assigned to the role of guards purportedly developed their own rules for governing the mock prison. These “guard” devised parameters included punishments such as limitations on food, solitary confinement, and push-ups. As time went on the severity of guard sanction punishments increased drastically. Even include instances of sexual humiliation ranging from forcing the prisoners to remove their clothes to even forcing them to simulate sodomy. Such displays of cruelty were lead by the sadistic ring-leader David Eshelman, referred to by the prisoners as “John Wayne”.
Due to the concern about the well being of the subjects Zimbardo cut the experiment short. It was originally planned to run for two weeks and was ended after six days. By day five one of the prisoners had developed a rash that was assumed to be psychosomatic. Engendered by the psychological distress (p.14) Instanced of prisoners who refused to eat being force feed by guards. Then there was the story of prisoner 819.
The only prisoner who did not want to speak to the priest was prisoner
#819 who was feeling sick and had refused to eat…While talking to us he broke down and began to cry hysterically, ..While I was doing this one of the guards lined up all of the prisoners and had them chant aloud.
As soon as I realized that #819 was hearing all this, I raced into the room where I had left him, and what I found(66)was a boy crying hysterically while in the background his fellow prisoners were yelling and chanting that he was a bad prisoner…
“OK, let’s leave.” Through his tears, he said to me, “No, I can’t leave.” He could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner. Even though he was feeling sick, he was willing to go back into that prison to prove that he was not a bad
prisoner. (Zimbardo, Haney, Banks & Jaffe. 1971. P. 12.)
As the old saying goes often we”… go along to get along…” in order to avoid conflict. However, is harmony coerced by social pressure really the best approach to decision making? Especially when the stakes are high? All too frequently we end up making decisions that conform to our peers and superiors reflecting the phenomena known as groupthink. What happens when a group of individuals makes decisions predicated upon the assumed preferences of the group? For good measure let us add the hypothetical dimension that all the other members of the group do the same; however, no one truly believes that they are making a good decision. Yet collectively as a group, they proceed despite their misgivings.
The recently detailed scenario sounds completely absurd. Such a situation is antithetical to reason and too farfetched to be a common occurrence. In reality, it is exceedingly common. The prevalence of this phenomenon spans the pressure cookers of boardrooms and battlefields to the bedroom. Exampflying the fact while humans have the capacity for reason, we are not inherently reasonable. This fallacy afflicting internal group dynamics goes by the moniker of The Abilene Paradox. The phrase was first coined by a social psychologist and professor of management science by Jerry Harvey in 1974 .
Professor Harvey named the paradox after an ill-fated drive to a cafeteria in Abilene, Texas. Harvey, his wife, and his in-laws had spent the hot July afternoon playing dominoes and drinking lemonade. Then Harvey’s father-in-law makes the suggestion to make the 106 miles/ round trip to the cafeteria in Abilene. Did I mention it was 104 degrees Fahrenheit on that very afternoon? Plus, per Professor Harvey:
I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?” 
Certainly has all the ingredients for a joyful road trip, doesn’t it? Oppressive heat and dangerously inclement weather, unfortunately, circumstances don’t improve. The food was abhorrently bad so much so that Harvey stated:
The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials. 
After the long and daunting trip back to Coleman, Texas there was a long bout of Silence among Harvey and his reluctant journey companions. Harvey then sparks a contentious conversation by blurting out ““It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” . Unwittingly, spurring an argument that raged until the wee hours of the morning. The truth reared its ugly head, no one really wanted to undertake the pilgrimage to Abilene for subpar food. Rather, everyone agreed to well based upon the assumption that everyone else really wanted to go. Once the truth came to light tempers flared and finger-pointing ensued.
Why Are We Susceptible to Such a Fallacy?
While many may see the Abilene Paradox as a predominately psychological phenomenon, I would personally classify it as a logical fallacy with a strong basis in psychology. Acting upon a set of information you know is faulty or that will lead to ruin is the abdication of reason. Even if agreeing with the group is intended to appease everyone, it will invariably yield detrimental results. We attempt to rationalize such an erroneous abandonment of consequential commonsense by reassuring ourselves that we are conforming to the will of our peers and superiors. Not only are we making an error in judgment by agreeing to actions that we already know will yield poor results, but it is also incorrect to assume that all parties are on board. Each of the individuals in the car ride to Abilene did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they were the odd-man-out. The only one with apprehensions about taking the long and arduous trip to a third-rate cafeteria. It was patently obvious that the conditions were a recipe for a miserable trip, but no one spoke up. Odds are if something is saliently problematic you aren’t the only individual who thinks so.
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” 
This Japanese proverb does not lend itself to sound and pragmatic decisions in the boardroom. However, it does provide some insight into why we surrender our facilities to such absurdity. Professor Harvey makes the counterintuitive claim that this paradox arises from mismanagement of agreement rather than from conflict . Harvey views this being at the core of this perplexing quirk of human interaction with 6 sub- symptoms.
1. Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the nature of the situation or problem facing the organization. For example, members of the Abilene group agreed that they were enjoying themselves sitting in front of the fan, sipping lemonade, and playing dominoes.
2. Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the steps that would be required to cope with the situation or problem they face. For members of the Abilene group “more of the same” was a solution that would have adequately satisfied their individual and collective desires.
3. Organization members fail to accurately communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another. In fact, they do just the opposite and thereby lead one another into misperceiving the collective reality. Each member of the Abilene group, for example, communicated inaccurate data to other members of the organization. The data, in effect, said, “Yeah, it’s a great idea. Let’s go to Abilene, ” when in reality members of the organization individually and collectively preferred to stay in Coleman.
4. With such invalid and inaccurate information, organization members make collective decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what they want to do, and thereby arrive at results that are counterproductive to the organization’s intent and purposes. Thus, the Abilene group went to Abilene when it preferred to do something else.
5. As a result of taking actions that are counterproductive, organization members experience frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with their organization. Consequently, they form subgroups with trusted acquaintances and blame other subgroups for the organization’s dilemma. Frequently, they also blame authority figures and one another. Such phenomena were illustrated in the Abilene group by the “culprit” argument that occurred when we had returned to the comfort of the fan.
6. Finally, if organization members do not deal with the generic issue — the inability to manage agreement —the cycle repeats itself with greater intensity. The Abilene group, for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was that it became conscious of the process, did not reach that point. (Page 4) 
It is important to remember that while the Abilene Paradox is applicable to a variety of different situations Harvey oriented towards business management. Due to the fact that at the time he was a professor of management science. The underlying pattern of sub-symptoms stems from faulty assumptions and a lack of clear and honest communication. These deficits enable the paradox to occur often leading to pathologic group dynamics until resolution has been reached. The irony is an attempt to circumvent conflict resulting in fracturing and finger-pointing. At the heart of all of the internal frustration is the unfulfilled wish that someone articulated their concerns sooner.
On a deeper level, the paradox examples our deep longing to fostering and maintain relationships. Connections ranging from friendships to professional relationships. Even the bitter hermit hopes for sincere companionship. Aristotle, the renown classical philosopher, pontificated upon the virtues of friendship. Connecting with other people has proven itself to be an enduring human yearning. Even the sterile confines of a corporate boardroom can relinquish the pursuit of peer approval. Circling back to the previously quoted Japanese proverb, it may yield shoddy advice in the realm of decision making, but provides great insight into the human condition. Being “nailed down” is being ridiculed by our peers. Being “nailed down” is being ostracized for expressing an unpopular opinion. No one wants to be the thrid-wheel or the weirdo. Despite any defense mechanism utilized to combat being maligned by your peers, it is merely a means to cope. Not a reflection of reality. Smoke and mirrors.
Professor Harvey reflects upon this fact of humanity and how it is connected to the Abilene Paradox. Professor Harvey:
One is tempted to say that the core of the paradox lies in the individual’s fear of the unknown. Actually, we do not fear what is unknown, but we are afraid of things we do know about. What do we know about that frightens us into such apparently inexplicable organizational behavior? Separation, alienation, and loneliness are things we do know about —and fear. Both research and experience indicate that ostracism is one of the most powerful punishments that can be devised. Solitary confinement does not draw its coercive strength from physical deprivation. The evidence is overwhelming that we have a fundamental need to be connected, engaged, and related and a reciprocal need not to be separated or alone. Everyone of us, though, has experienced aloneness. From the time the umbilical cord was cut, we have experienced the real anguish of separation —broken friendships, divorces, deaths, and exclusions. C. P. Snow vividly described the tragic interplay between loneliness and connection (Pages 9-10) .
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions:
Our intentions and outcomes are independent of one another and it is a cumbersome reality to come to terms with. Even actions with the most beneficent of intentions can yield heinously awful results. For instance, U.S. military officials thought it would be a really keen idea to oust Saddam Hussein out of power in Bagdad. The idea of freeing a constituency from decades of tyranny seems superficially Nobel. However, the region never became stable to sustain a democracy resulting in a power vacuum. Creating an opportunity for any gang, terrorist cell, or tribe bloodthirst enough to go the extra mile to seize power. Despite anyone’s intentions or motives, it was a complete disaster. Tax dollars squandered and lives expended for a failed socio-politico experiment. While I am not a full-on consequentialist, I still believe that outcomes are morally imperative in the decision-making process. Ignorance does not excuse any externalities incurred especially when it comes to the loss of life.
While a road trip to an abominable cafeteria may seem like a frivolous example of bad decision-making it merely the allegory for a grander concept. It is the applicability of the story that makes it important. Professor Harvey even demonstrates how the paradox was applicable to the Watergate Scandal. The scandal in the eyes of many Americans compromised the presidency in an irreversible fashion. Meaning that it eroded the trust in arguably the most powerful decision-maker in the free world. While institutional transparency is important it is eclipsed by the decision of going to war. The stakes are much higher! The lives of your constituents are on the line. The circumstances precipitating such a decision need be beyond justified, due to the levity of the consequences. The true tragedy becomes when someone in Congress votes for a war that none of his constituents wanted (a conflict he even had reservations about entering) and then his constituents vocally support the war to appear patriotic. The Abilene Paradox can apply to decisions ranging from going to war or something as mundane as where to grab some dinner.
I have to admit that I am personally a fan of the controversial Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Dr. Peterson emerged out of relative obscurity to international attention through conjuring up the ire of the political Left through his criticism of Canadian bill C-16. This piece of legislation that passed in the Canadian parliament would allow punitive actions against any individual who does not use the proper gender pronoun for a transgender or intersex individual . Dr. Peterson rightfully asserts how this bill would impede free speech in an authoritative manner by criminalizing specific language . This is far from the only provocative opinions expressed by Dr. Peterson, some comments he has made in regards to the “gender pay gap”, gender, and even the “me-too” movement have irked many people and engendered a fair share of reactive criticism.
Peterson who is a self-proclaimed “Classical British Liberal” has oftentimes been erroneously claimed to be associated with the Alt-Right. My theory is the reason for incorrect attribution is an attempt to defame Dr. Peterson due to his lack of adherence to the ethos of the extremity of the brand of Progressive ideals espoused by Social Justice Warrior. However, while he is far from an Alt-Right supporter he also is more than a mere provocateur. It would be incorrect to place Dr. Peterson into the same category as individuals such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Dr. Peterson is sincere in his arguments and does not seek to make incendiary comments for pure shock value. Also, he speaks in a very nuanced and precise manner to avoid veering into a misunderstanding. Even with all the precautions and unassuming explanations by Dr. Peterson, it seems as if his motives and concerns are still either misinterpreted or distorted.
All of the controversies aside, Dr. Peterson is genuinely a wealth of knowledge and tells us to do something we should have been told when were just children. Take responsibility for yourself. His now infamous saying that has morphed into a catchphrase and even a manifesto, “clean your room”. The logic behind this assertion is that many young people feel the need to take on the burdens of the world when they do not even have the order in their own lives. Dr. Peterson suggests, if you cannot even maintain order in your personal bedroom, how can you resolve bigger issues or bring about order within society in a significant manner? . When you consider the current climate on college campuses in regards to political activism, many college students presume too much in regards to their ability to influence change and their overall comprehension of complex issues. If you cannot maintain order in your life in a minor manner, you cannot work on the intricate issue of world peace or abolishing prejudice.
Overall Dr. Peterson is more than just an academic attempting to rebel against the appeals for political correctness in academia. He even published a self-help book 12 Rules For Life, which I hope to read sometime down the road. Dr. Peterson draws from his extensive knowledge of psychology, evolutionary biology, mythology, history, philosophy, theology, and even analysis of sacred texts to reflect upon what is eternally true about the human condition. Many of these same truths which transcend cultural boundaries and specific time in history. However, one thing that really struck me as interesting is when Dr. Peterson expounds upon the topic of how to properly incorporate our shadow. You may be asking what is the “Shadow”? Well, the concept of the “Shadow” was first devised by Psycho-analytical psychologist Carl Jung. Essentially, the shadow is one of the many archetypes that Dr. Jung addressed in his research. The shadow represents our capacity for evil and capitulation to our lower impulses. Analogous to Sigmund Freud’s concept of the ID, however, slightly more complex. Jung saw how this archetype for human evil had manifested itself throughout mythology, folklore, and even in organized religion. He also justified the cross-cultural applicability through the concept of collective consciousness. The collective consciousness is the concept that we as humans develop similar ideas even when culturally isolated, due to the fact that all humans are united under the same consciousness. Hence, why throughout human history there is a high prevalence of organized religion, just as an example 
“If you are not capable of cruelty, then you are absolutely a victim of anyone who is. For those who are exceedingly agreeable, there is a part of them crying out for the incorporation of the monster within them, which is what gives them the strength of character and self-respect, because it is impossible to respect yourself until you grow teeth. And if you grow teeth, you realize that you’re somewhat dangerous, or seriously dangerous. Then you might be more willing to demand that you treat yourself with respect and that other people do the same thing. That doesn’t mean that being cruel is better than not being cruel. What it means is that being able to be cruel, and then not being cruel is better than not being able to be cruel, because in the first case you’re nothing but weak and naive, and in the second case you’re dangerous, but you have it under control. If you’re competent at fighting, it actually decreases the probability that you’re going to have to fight, because when someone pushes you you’ll be able to respond with confidence, and with any luck a reasonable show of confidence, which is a show of dominance, will be enough to make the bully back off .
The first time that I recall hearing Dr. Peterson discussing the concept of incorporating the shadow to derive strength was on a Podcast, I forgot if it was on the Joe Rogan Experience or another Podcast. However, that is beside the point. Dr. Peterson really touches upon an excellent point about acknowledging our capacity for evil and then learning to utilize it in a constructive manner. If you think about it, when dealing with a bully you cannot be completely righteous. To a certain extent, you need to be willing to assert some aggression in order to prevent a bully from completely dominating you. However, if you do not have your aggression controlled in any disciplined manner you will make your own descent into becoming a bully. Essentially, aggression is a component of our shadow as it is a negative aspect of the human condition. Which how we chose to utilize it can be either be for productive or counter-productive means. What defines a bully or an evil person from a good person is delineated by how you chose to utilize our innate attribute of aggression. An evil person will use aggression for counter-productive means, in other words, they will use aggression to achieve things that will be detrimental to others an society. While a good person will utilize aggression in a manner that is productive. In other words, they will only moderately use aggression, however, without any malice in the intent.
In order to have the strength to confront someone who is a bully or a manifestation of the shadow, you need to have a little bit of shadow within yourself. If you do not have any aggression or ability for moderated capacity for malice you will fail to be able to defend yourself. An individual who is completely meek does not possess the ability to punch back either literally or metaphorically. However, it is all a matter of balance. Allowing the shadow to become unchecked with no defined boundaries, will merely force you down a path of unadulterated evil. So as Dr. Peterson suggests in the quote above you need to be able to CONTROL your shadow. It is all about finding that equilibrium. If you allow your capacity for wrongdoing to override you, you will become evil. However, in contrast, if you are solely righteous and relinquish your ability to punch back you will be taken advantage of and will be victimized. So we need to embrace our dark side for the sake of survival, however, we do not allow it to corrupt us.