0
0
Summary & Insights
0:00:05 Hey there, Stephen Dubner.
0:00:11 We are in the middle of a new series on the economics of live theater, which got me thinking
0:00:17 about another episode we made way back in 2012 about the psychology of one particularly
0:00:19 fascinating piece of theater.
0:00:24 Such a fascinating piece that it only closed finally in early 2025.
0:00:30 The episode also gets into one of the most famous experiments in the history of psychology.
0:00:34 So I hope you enjoy this bonus episode.
0:00:36 As always, thanks for listening.
0:00:51 Sometimes you see a piece of theater and it completely scrambles your brain.
0:00:54 I remember I was at one of the first performances of Hair.
0:00:59 That’s Philip Zimbardo, the renowned psychologist.
0:01:04 Seeing Hair scrambled his brain because…
0:01:08 The performers start walking on the seats over your head and walking down the aisles.
0:01:11 And that, I had never experienced that before.
0:01:14 And it was really troubling, exhilarating, confusing.
0:01:17 Because again, Hair was going to confuse you.
0:01:21 They’re going to sing songs about masturbation and black girls having sex with white guys
0:01:30 So essentially, before the play began, what they did is set up to say, this is going to shock you.
0:01:33 This is going to be off your usual radar.
0:01:37 So don’t come expecting traditional theater.
0:01:38 This is something new.
0:01:39 I still remember that.
0:01:40 It was like 40 years ago.
0:01:45 Again, that was Philip Zimbardo.
0:01:47 Does that name ring a bell?
0:01:51 If you ever took Psychology 101 in college, think back to that.
0:01:55 You remember reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment?
0:01:58 That was Zimbardo’s experiment back in 1971,
0:02:05 in which some student volunteers played the role of prisoners and others acted as guards.
0:02:08 Things got ugly fast.
0:02:18 Zimbardo died in 2024, at the age of 91.
0:02:22 In his everyday life, he liked messing with people.
0:02:27 In many settings I’m in, I tweaked my environment to see what would happen.
0:02:29 What would happen if, you know, you go into a restaurant,
0:02:31 and the waiter gives you a thing, and you say,
0:02:32 I’d like to start with dessert.
0:02:34 And he says, what?
0:02:37 I’d like to start with dessert.
0:02:38 You’ve got a really good dessert menu.
0:02:41 And sometimes he says, no, you can’t.
0:02:43 No, you have to start with the appetizer.
0:02:44 I said, no, I’d like the dessert.
0:02:45 I’ll work backwards.
0:02:46 What difference does it make?
0:02:49 By putting people in totally new situations,
0:02:53 that’s really how we discover something about ourselves.
0:03:12 This is Freakonomics Radio,
0:03:15 the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything,
0:03:18 with your host, Stephen Dubner.
0:03:31 Okay, so Philip Zimbardo is the man responsible for the Stanford Prison Experiment,
0:03:34 one of the most famous social science experiments in history.
0:03:40 We will hear more about that and some new revelations about the experiment later in this episode.
0:03:43 But first, let’s get to the real inspiration for today’s show.
0:03:49 It is a theater piece, an immersive, interactive theater piece called Sleep No More.
0:03:54 Sleep No More is the creation of a British theater group called Punch Drunk.
0:04:00 It opened in New York in 2011 and ran until January of 2025.
0:04:05 Sleep No More is a mashup of Macbeth and Hitchcock and film noir,
0:04:08 but it’s even stranger than all that.
0:04:12 I don’t even know how to describe it.
0:04:13 It’s insane. I don’t know.
0:04:14 It is. It’s crazy.
0:04:16 Sexual and violent.
0:04:18 Crazy, insane.
0:04:20 Dead babies involved.
0:04:23 Passionate. I don’t know.
0:04:29 Sleep No More is designed to throw you off balance.
0:04:31 It begins before you even go inside.
0:04:34 The location is called the McKittrick Hotel,
0:04:38 but in fact, it’s an old warehouse in Chelsea.
0:04:41 The whole thing is cloaked in secrecy.
0:04:42 Not really sure what to expect.
0:04:45 We were told to know as little as possible,
0:04:48 and so we’ve done almost no research as to what we’re about to do.
0:04:51 I’m just hoping I can make it all the way through and I don’t leave.
0:04:53 I don’t get too scared.
0:04:56 Just like little tidbits of intrigue.
0:04:59 You know, we’ve heard that you get like a key to a room, apparently.
0:05:02 Everyone wears a mask and you’re allowed to look through drawers in the sets.
0:05:04 That’s about all we know.
0:05:06 We heard that it’s like psychologically intense.
0:05:08 Yeah, psychologically intense.
0:05:10 And it seems interesting to me.
0:05:14 Psychologically intense.
0:05:14 Psychologically intense.
0:05:16 I would agree.
0:05:18 Now, what makes it so?
0:05:20 Let me offer two thoughts.
0:05:23 Control and context.
0:05:24 First, control.
0:05:29 If you are the kind of person who likes to have a lot of control over your surroundings,
0:05:32 if you’re not exactly a go-with-the-flow type of person,
0:05:35 and yes, I’m kind of describing myself here,
0:05:39 then Sleep No More presents you with a bit of a challenge.
0:05:42 It starts while you’re waiting in line on the sidewalk.
0:05:44 A bouncer requests a photo ID.
0:05:45 Doesn’t say why.
0:05:46 Just requests it.
0:05:49 And everybody in line complies wordlessly.
0:05:55 Once you’re inside, there’s a mandatory coat and bag check.
0:05:56 Everything must go.
0:05:57 Every computer, every purse.
0:06:02 And then, you’re shuffled through a long, pitch-black hallway.
0:06:10 Out of the blackness, you emerge into a bar.
0:06:13 Nice bar.
0:06:15 The good jazz band.
0:06:19 Place has the feel of a speakeasy.
0:06:23 And you’re thinking, hey, what year are we in here?
0:06:25 You’re offered a drink.
0:06:27 Absinthe, perhaps.
0:06:30 A fortune teller looks you over from a corner table.
0:06:33 After a while, you’re summoned into a freight elevator,
0:06:35 where you are given a mask.
0:06:39 A beautifully, creepy, beaked mask.
0:06:44 And then you are told what you may and may not do for the rest of the evening.
0:06:46 Here’s Tori Sparks.
0:06:47 She plays Lady Macbeth.
0:06:50 I think it’s very telling of who you are
0:06:53 and how you interpret those first instructions that you get.
0:06:55 You know, keep your mask on.
0:06:55 Don’t talk.
0:06:57 Don’t use your cell phone.
0:06:58 Fortune favors the bold.
0:06:59 Yeah.
0:07:01 You know, and people enter in.
0:07:05 And some people just can’t handle instructions.
0:07:07 They can’t handle limitations.
0:07:08 They want to talk.
0:07:09 And you just told them they can’t, so they will.
0:07:14 And other people are excited by the fact that they get to be anonymous for three hours.
0:07:25 Okay, so you’ve surrendered your valuables at the door and you’re now dispatched on a three-hour adventure
0:07:30 about which you are told next to nothing, during which you may not speak.
0:07:35 And yet, you’re also told that fortune favors the bold.
0:07:39 So yes, you have given up a bit of control.
0:07:45 Okay, now for the context.
0:07:46 Where are we?
0:07:47 Where’s the stage?
0:07:50 Well, there is no stage.
0:07:53 Or really, the stage is everywhere.
0:07:59 Six floors of warehouse that have been turned into an unbelievably elaborate set.
0:08:02 There’s an old hotel and a town.
0:08:05 There are lodgings for the Macbeths and the Macduffs.
0:08:10 There’s a grand ballroom, a forest, a hospital, a cemetery.
0:08:20 You are allowed to wander anywhere and everywhere, to open drawers and read letters, to eat candy from the glass jars in the sweets shop.
0:08:22 It’s sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure.
0:08:27 So you’re sort of forced to, like, port your own path around the building and find different scenes.
0:08:29 You make your own journey.
0:08:32 It’s, like, very personal.
0:08:34 It’s sexual and leading.
0:08:36 But what about the actors?
0:08:38 Where are they?
0:08:42 I didn’t see an actor for, like, the first 15 minutes, so I thought it was just kind of set decoration everywhere.
0:08:47 But then you start seeing them and trying to figure out who they are, their relationships.
0:08:52 You think back to what you were told, that fortune favors the bold.
0:08:57 And you learn that you have to follow the performers from room to room, even chase them.
0:09:00 Or they might bring you with them.
0:09:08 A bald woman dragged me up several flights of stairs, through staircases, into this, like, arena.
0:09:10 And it was, like, incredible.
0:09:16 The context is further muddied by the fact that none of the performers actually speak.
0:09:21 But over the course of the evening, you will see a lot.
0:09:27 Someone hanging themselves was pretty cool.
0:09:30 It’s like the final, I won’t tell you that, sorry.
0:09:35 A pregnant woman and her husband having a fight and then making up.
0:09:37 Lots of fighting.
0:09:39 Lots of kissing.
0:09:41 Lots of taxidermy.
0:09:42 Dry humping.
0:09:45 My friend Austin’s in it, and he gets naked and bloody.
0:09:49 So that was pretty crazy.
0:09:51 It’s just, uh…
0:09:52 It’s like a nightmare.
0:09:52 It’s like a nightmare.
0:09:59 And don’t forget, it’s very dark, and you’re wearing a mask.
0:10:01 The mask is utterly critical.
0:10:05 And without it, it wouldn’t work, or it’d be something very, very different.
0:10:07 That’s Felix Barrett.
0:10:12 He’s the artistic director of Punch Drunk and co-creator of Sleep No More.
0:10:13 They’re faceless.
0:10:14 They’re anonymous.
0:10:20 So there’s that sort of, that normal relationship between performer and audience.
0:10:22 It’s completely ground down.
0:10:27 The first time I tried it, a middle-aged lady came and apologized to me afterwards and said,
0:10:28 I’m so sorry.
0:10:29 I put the mask on.
0:10:31 I found myself being very rude.
0:10:32 I was getting too close to the performers.
0:10:34 I even touched one at one point.
0:10:36 I’m so sorry.
0:10:37 And you must have said, thank you.
0:10:41 I was like, thank you, because I didn’t even realize how powerful it was.
0:10:45 But she felt compelled to do it because the mask had given her that freedom.
0:10:49 And as soon as it came off, she remembered who she was and where she was.
0:10:57 The mask does seem to embolden people.
0:11:02 Well, I did something I wasn’t supposed to do.
0:11:08 I saw a dress hanging on the wall because they said, not everything is what it seems.
0:11:11 So those who take more risks will be rewarded more.
0:11:12 So I put on the dress.
0:11:13 She was punished.
0:11:14 Yeah.
0:11:17 She belonged to one of the actresses.
0:11:18 She didn’t belong to one of the actresses.
0:11:19 So I shouldn’t have done it.
0:11:26 The thought of being that much more anonymous with a switch of clothing was even more exciting.
0:11:35 One night, Tori Sparks, who plays Lady Macbeth, was dancing inside a sort of glass box.
0:11:45 I had a woman, I was performing a solo in the box, and like a crowd filled watching this thing.
0:11:50 And for whatever reason, this woman decided she was going to throw objects at the glass.
0:11:56 And she found anything, there’s not much in this room you can pick up and throw, but she found it all.
0:12:04 She went in our drawer, picked up the lipstick, the fur, anything, the wet t-shirts, and just started chucking it as hard as she could at the glass.
0:12:08 And fortunately, I was behind glass.
0:12:09 I just kept going with what I was doing.
0:12:12 Don’t you really want to know what’s going on in that person’s mind, then?
0:12:15 Or do you just, well, I guess in the moment, you’re just trying to survive the scene.
0:12:16 I was in shock.
0:12:19 Just like, you’re really making that choice right now.
0:12:20 Why?
0:12:23 Why would you even think that that’s what needs to be done right now?
0:12:25 And am I making you mad?
0:12:27 Are you trying to mess with me?
0:12:27 What’s going on?
0:12:29 So I just tried to stay in character.
0:12:33 And the steward that’s in this room, of course, went to try and stop her.
0:12:35 And she just, she was like, oh, I didn’t know.
0:12:37 I was completely clueless.
0:12:39 Fortune favors the bold.
0:12:39 Exactly.
0:12:41 Oh, my gosh.
0:12:44 Meanwhile, me and all these other spectators were just like, huh?
0:12:52 Every detail of Sleep No More, the music, the mask, the choreography,
0:12:58 has been carefully designed to crush your expectations that going to the theater means
0:13:02 just sitting in a square room and watching people on a stage speak their lines.
0:13:04 Here’s Felix Barrett again.
0:13:06 It’s completely safe.
0:13:09 It just feels, we almost fictionalize, we dimmed it back,
0:13:14 we fictionalize a state of tension that feels slightly unsettling and threatening
0:13:15 when actually it’s not.
0:13:19 Before Sleep No More came to New York, it played in Boston, in an old school building.
0:13:24 When we did Boston, the first show, they said health and safety,
0:13:26 said this is not going to work, it’s too dangerous.
0:13:29 So we had to put the lights up and the show didn’t work at all.
0:13:33 This audience was just walking around nonchalantly, just treating it like a gallery,
0:13:36 chatting because there was no sense of threat.
0:13:37 Even though you told them not to talk.
0:13:42 Yeah, because here we have this huge swathe of darkness.
0:13:45 If that’s not there, then there’s no mystery.
0:13:53 So how would you behave if you were thrust into an unfamiliar situation,
0:13:58 given a set of off-putting rules, and then told to hide behind a mask?
0:14:01 That’s coming up after the break.
0:14:03 I’m Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
0:14:20 Sleep No More, for me, was a thrill, unsettling on many dimensions, but also a thrill.
0:14:26 What it really made me think about, however, wasn’t Macbeth or Shakespeare or Hitchcock
0:14:31 or all the awesomely grisly ideas promoted therein.
0:14:34 I was mostly thinking about the audience.
0:14:40 What it really made me think about was Philip Zimbardo, his Stanford prison experiment,
0:14:44 and how people change their behavior depending on their surroundings.
0:14:46 Here’s Zimbardo again.
0:14:50 One of the things that strikes me about this interesting play
0:14:54 is that it puts the audience in a totally new situation.
0:14:59 That is, audiences have never been asked to wear a mask, play a role,
0:15:01 have a set of rules to govern their behavior.
0:15:05 In a way, Sleep No More does to the audience every night
0:15:09 what social scientists like Zimbardo have been doing in experiments for decades.
0:15:15 They put people in a situation, fiddle with the variables, and see how they behave.
0:15:21 Like Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience experiments at Yale in the early 1960s,
0:15:25 to see whether a volunteer would administer an electric jolt to someone
0:15:28 if told to do so by an authority figure.
0:15:30 I know, I keep giving them shocks.
0:15:31 Continue, please.
0:15:32 I’m up to 390.
0:15:33 Continue, please.
0:15:41 Continue, please.
0:15:49 Milgram’s experiments took place shortly after Adolf Eichmann went on trial in Jerusalem for Nazi war crimes.
0:15:51 Here’s Philip Zimbardo again.
0:15:58 And as a sidebar, little Stanley Milgram and I were high school classmates at James Monroe High School in the Bronx
0:16:03 in senior year 1948-49.
0:16:05 So essentially, there was something in that water.
0:16:10 But it was really, you know, he was a little Jewish kid who worried about, you know,
0:16:11 could the Holocaust happen in America?
0:16:14 If Hitler said, electrocute somebody, would you do it?
0:16:16 Or Hitler’s henchman?
0:16:18 And everybody said, no, Stanley, we’re not that kind of person.
0:16:20 And what he said, as a high school kid,
0:16:23 how do you know unless you’re in that situation?
0:16:29 After the Milgram experiments, Zimbardo got the idea to set up a fake prison at Stanford
0:16:33 with some volunteers acting as guards and some as prisoners.
0:16:39 And that was the central commonality in the Milgram-Bedian studies and my Stanford prison study,
0:16:44 is we put people in a totally new situation where, in both studies,
0:16:48 we gave people total power over someone else.
0:16:54 The experiment was designed to go on for two weeks.
0:16:58 Twenty-four volunteers, all male college students,
0:17:01 were randomly divided into inmates and guards.
0:17:06 The inmates were arrested at their homes and brought to a makeshift prison
0:17:08 in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department.
0:17:12 Immediately, their individuality was taken away.
0:17:15 The guards called them by ID number rather than name.
0:17:20 They wore stocking caps to cover their hair and a short smock with no underwear.
0:17:25 The guards, too, were dressed alike, essentially becoming anonymous.
0:17:28 And the guards not only were in uniforms,
0:17:30 but they had to wear silver-reflecting sunglasses,
0:17:32 an idea I got from the movie Cool Hand Luke.
0:17:36 It didn’t take long for the situation to curdle.
0:17:40 You got your hands in the air, why don’t you play Frankenstein?
0:17:41 This is your girl.
0:17:44 2093, you can be the bride of Frankenstein.
0:17:45 You stand here.
0:17:46 You come over there.
0:17:50 You be the bride of Frankenstein, and you be Frankenstein.
0:17:54 I want you to walk over here like Frankenstein and say that you love 2093.
0:18:04 A third of the guards started to exploit their authority, taunting prisoners, making them simulate sodomy,
0:18:07 clean toilets with their bare hands.
0:18:11 Zimbardo himself began to play a role.
0:18:14 I began to be the prison superintendent.
0:18:21 I see videotapes of my—I’m walking down the yard with my hands behind my back and my chest out.
0:18:22 I never do that.
0:18:24 I was surprised to see that.
0:18:31 But that is how, you know, the military officers, when they’re reviewing the troops—that’s the many politicians.
0:18:36 It’s a position of authority and power, which I abhor.
0:18:40 I mean, I always work hard to minimize the power I have as a teacher.
0:18:43 And here I was unconsciously assuming it.
0:18:48 Now, Zimbardo is a situationist.
0:18:49 I’m a situationist.
0:18:51 It’s dyed in the wool.
0:18:58 Individual variations in, quote, personality predict almost nothing about people in these situations.
0:19:05 Meaning, he firmly believes that people aren’t necessarily good or bad,
0:19:12 but that their behavior is strongly dependent on their situation, on the role they’re expected to play.
0:19:21 During the Stanford prison experiment, the situation was so intense that after just 36 hours, some prisoners began to break down.
0:19:25 I mean, Jesus Christ, I’m burning up inside, don’t you know?
0:19:26 I can’t see now.
0:19:27 I’ve f***ed up.
0:19:28 I don’t know how to explain it.
0:19:29 I’m f***ed up inside!
0:19:31 I want out!
0:19:32 I want out now!
0:19:37 Instead of lasting two weeks, the experiment was canceled after six days.
0:19:43 The way the study ended was, I had invited young faculty members and graduate students who knew nothing about this study
0:19:46 to come down and interview all the prisoners, guards, and staff.
0:19:51 And Christina Maslach, who had been my graduate student, who we had just started dating,
0:19:55 comes down the night before and sees the guards abusing the prisoners.
0:20:01 And I look up, it’s a 10 o’clock toilet run, 10 o’clock at night, last time prisoners go to the toilet.
0:20:05 And the prisoners have bags over their head, legs chained together, yelling, screaming, cursing.
0:20:08 And I say, hey, Christina, look at that.
0:20:08 Isn’t that interesting?
0:20:11 And she starts crying and runs out.
0:20:12 And we have this big argument.
0:20:14 And I’m saying, what kind of psychologist are you?
0:20:15 This is the crucible of human nature.
0:20:17 She says, wait a minute.
0:20:21 How could you see what I see and not see it as dehumanization?
0:20:22 I thought I knew who you were.
0:20:23 I don’t know who you are.
0:20:25 I don’t know who this person is.
0:20:29 And I’m not sure I want to continue my relationship with you if this is the real you.
0:20:30 How long had you been dating by this point?
0:20:32 Oh, probably six months.
0:20:35 And when she said it, was it kind of a light bulb moment for you?
0:20:37 Or did you fight against the impulse?
0:20:41 No, I fought against the impulse because at some deep level, I knew she was right.
0:20:44 I didn’t want to believe that I was chained by the situation.
0:20:45 I mean, I’m a grownup.
0:20:46 I’ve done lots of research.
0:20:50 And not only are you a grownup, but you are the administrator of this thing.
0:20:51 And it’s amazing to me.
0:20:56 I mean, now, 40 some years later, you can talk about it with the perspective of someone
0:20:59 who was a participant and who understands what happened to you.
0:21:04 But did you have any sense that what was happening to you was happening to you at the time?
0:21:04 Oh, not at all.
0:21:06 No, I’m saying it was not a light bulb.
0:21:10 It was a lightning bolt that when she said it, we both talked about it.
0:21:16 We subsequently got married the next year because I realized she was my heroine who saved me
0:21:18 because the study was going to go another full week.
0:21:21 And I’m not sure what would have happened at that point.
0:21:22 But it was a lightning bolt.
0:21:28 And of course, I resisted at first because what it means is I had made this mistake.
0:21:29 I should have ended it days earlier.
0:21:32 And essentially, it’s what administrators do.
0:21:36 I didn’t do anything wrong, but I allowed wrongdoing to go on.
0:21:40 And actually, one of the worst guards said in a later interview,
0:21:43 the professor never said, I couldn’t do it.
0:21:44 And therefore, I did it.
0:21:54 So does Sleep No More offer a better lesson in human behavior?
0:21:59 To answer that question, I called my Freakonomics friend and co-author Steve Levitt.
0:22:05 He’s an economist at the University of Chicago and host of the podcast, People I Mostly Admire.
0:22:13 Over the course of his academic career, Levitt has run and observed a lot of experiments, both in the lab and in the field.
0:22:16 Hey, let me ask you this, Levitt.
0:22:21 I’m sure you’re familiar with the famous Stanford prison experiment, Philip Zimbardo, yes?
0:22:21 Sure.
0:22:30 So what do you think that says about anonymity or the power that a circumstance, a place being put in a place and playing a role,
0:22:33 the power that that has on us?
0:22:36 You know, I actually never, that’s one result I don’t believe.
0:22:45 I just fundamentally don’t believe that if you take undergrads and you put them into the role of the prisoner versus the prison guard,
0:22:52 it’s just, you know, I’ve never tried it, but I just don’t believe that it’s real.
0:22:57 And I think to get it, you have to manipulate other things.
0:23:00 It just doesn’t seem right to me that people are like that.
0:23:03 Now, maybe that’s what’s so amazing about it is that it really happens.
0:23:08 And there was, I don’t know if you were with me by the time, I was talking to a movie, a director from the BBC,
0:23:16 and he said that he had tried to recreate that for the BBC, and it got so ugly so quickly that he had to cancel the whole thing
0:23:17 and they didn’t even do the show.
0:23:19 But I don’t know.
0:23:23 But wait, got so ugly so quickly, connoting that it did happen, yes?
0:23:24 Yeah, he said it was real too.
0:23:33 But a lot of times what I’ve found is that when I try to do experiments as an economist that work great for psychologists,
0:23:35 I cannot get them to work.
0:23:46 And I really have come to believe that it’s because the people in this study are so keen on doing what the researcher wants them to do.
0:23:53 And they think that the psychologist wants them to behave in one way, and they think the economist wants them to behave in a different way.
0:23:58 And so it’s hard to reproduce some of those psychological findings.
0:24:04 So I would love to do the prison study, and I’d love to do it in a way that was unbiased.
0:24:11 And I just, that’s one thing, I would bet a lot of money that things wouldn’t turn out the way they did in that old Zimbardo study.
0:24:13 Well, you know, let me read you.
0:24:18 Here’s what a couple of the volunteers who played guards back then, 40-some years ago, here’s what they said recently.
0:24:24 One said that he was playing a role from the outset trying to create drama to, quote, give the researchers something to work with.
0:24:28 And another guard said, I didn’t think it was ever meant to go the full two weeks.
0:24:33 I think Zimbardo wanted to create a dramatic crescendo and then end it as quickly as possible.
0:24:42 I felt that throughout the experiment, he knew what he wanted and then tried to shape the experiment by how it was constructed and how it played out to fit the conclusion that he had already worked out.
0:24:50 He wanted to be able to say that college students, people from middle-class backgrounds, that people will turn on each other just because they’re given a role and given power.
0:24:52 So people won’t believe me.
0:24:53 I’ve never heard those quotes.
0:24:55 I didn’t know anyone else thought that way.
0:25:00 What I said before was just my intuition that that is not human behavior, what got revealed in those studies.
0:25:07 Steve Levitt’s intuition turned out to be pretty good.
0:25:14 Since we first published this episode, there’s been more evidence that challenges the integrity of Philip Zimbardo’s findings.
0:25:29 In 2018, journalist Ben Blum and researcher Thibaut Letexier published separate investigations based on archival recordings and interviews with participants, which argued that the Stanford prison experiment had been significantly manipulated.
0:25:34 Zimbardo himself acknowledged that there were methodological problems with the experiment.
0:25:40 He shouldn’t have played the role of the warden, he said, but he stood by the experiment’s main conclusion.
0:25:47 The Stanford prison experiment is hardly the only high-profile psychology experiment to have been found shaky.
0:25:56 If you want to know more, check out a two-part series we ran in January 2024 called Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?
0:26:02 Coming up after the break, can theater take us to places that psychology can’t?
0:26:04 I’m Stephen Dubner.
0:26:05 This is Freakonomics Radio.
0:26:06 We’ll be right back.
0:26:20 A study like the Stanford prison experiment could never happen today, at least not in the U.S.
0:26:28 When it was over, the American Psychological Association imposed new standards for how research subjects could be treated.
0:26:37 So, if you really want to mess with someone, manipulate their mind, your best bet may still be the theater.
0:26:50 Felix Barrett, years before he created Sleep No More, staged a show that was so unorthodox and rarefied that only four people ever got to experience it.
0:27:02 It was called The Moonslave, and it started with an invitation being sent to come to a theater, a town in southwest England, to come to a theater, see a show called The Moonslave.
0:27:07 And we invited press and Arts Council, the main funding body.
0:27:25 So, they thought it was a bog-standard show, turned up, expecting a normal sit-down proscenium art show, arrived after dark to this sleepy little theater, no other cars in the car park, walked in inside the theater, addressed auditorium, seats for 200, programs, lights on, no one there.
0:27:33 So, they waited around for a while, got a bit spooked, thankfully all of them stayed, and then a phone rings up on the stage.
0:27:35 And they realize they have to get up onto that stage.
0:27:39 Amongst the set, they find a parcel that’s addressed to them.
0:27:43 Inside that parcel, then wrap it as a phone that says your driver’s waiting outside.
0:27:50 And then they leave the auditorium again, get into the second car waiting with a marsh chauffeur.
0:27:51 They get into the back of that car.
0:27:54 The car speeds off and drives into the countryside.
0:28:01 And there, in the back of the car, a narrated soundtrack, symphonic soundtrack begins on the car stereo.
0:28:03 And that’s the true beginning of the show.
0:28:09 And then for the next hour, they’re driven around, dropped off in the middle of the countryside, given a headset.
0:28:11 So, the story and the symphonic soundtrack continues.
0:28:17 And they go through this vast walk through forests and countryside,
0:28:21 cumulating in a massive sort of pyrotechnic finale.
0:28:30 When it’s revealed they’re not actually by themselves, they’re actually surrounded by 200 scarecrows.
0:28:38 And it was, we actually ended up shooting a marine flare into the sky to reveal, to turn the sky red for 15 miles.
0:28:45 So, it’s all about crescendo and expectation and intimacy.
0:28:51 Wow.
0:28:54 So, you do really love to mess with people.
0:28:56 And I say that not pejoratively at all.
0:29:05 Like, as a theatre creator, you see the audience member differently than other theatre creators do, don’t you?
0:29:14 It strikes me that you are half theatre creator and half social scientist.
0:29:20 I suppose, when I go and see, I can think back about the sort of five pieces of theatre that blow me away.
0:29:29 And there’s that sensation you get when it’s really high-quality, well-thought-out, well-crafted art.
0:29:31 That’s visceral.
0:29:33 That connects emotionally.
0:29:37 It’s almost like that sort of weird, that nexus where everything connects.
0:29:39 And you get this one sublime moment.
0:29:42 I can feel that in my body now if I think about it.
0:29:47 And all I want to do as a maker is to give audience members that sensation.
0:29:48 And it’s difficult to find.
0:29:52 And so, maybe I just go a different route to trying to source it.
0:29:54 But I think I’m just the same as any other director.
0:29:58 It’s just, you know, you just want your audience to be lost in the work you create.
0:30:03 That’s one of the pleasures of seeing Sleep No More.
0:30:07 Watching your fellow audience members get lost in the work.
0:30:11 They don their masks and cast off their social mores.
0:30:13 Yes, a few of them act out.
0:30:15 They interfere with the cast.
0:30:16 They steal.
0:30:17 They steal.
0:30:18 Yeah?
0:30:18 What do they steal?
0:30:23 They take, they love the letters in Malcolm’s office, Lady Macbeth’s letters.
0:30:26 They love to wear Lady Macduff’s fur coat.
0:30:30 They love the nurse’s jacket.
0:30:33 They love Macbeth’s coat that he gets hung in.
0:30:34 They have sex.
0:30:35 Yep.
0:30:39 I think every show we’ve done, there’s been some sex.
0:30:41 And there is empathy, too.
0:30:47 During Sleep No More, one character tries to poison Lady Macduff.
0:30:50 Here’s Maxine Doyle, the show’s choreographer and co-director.
0:30:55 There have been moments when audiences have tried to interrupt that moment.
0:31:00 There’s been moments when Lady Macduff, when we set this up, she falls in the party.
0:31:01 Sometimes they let her fall on the floor.
0:31:04 Most of the time, somebody will save her.
0:31:06 More interestingly is Lady Macbeth.
0:31:13 A decline of her story plays out in the hospital, and she finishes in an image which is really vulnerable.
0:31:17 Well, she’s naked and bloody in another bathtub in the hospital.
0:31:21 And she beckons to the audience sometimes to help.
0:31:25 And some audience will pick up a towel and will give her a towel or a holder.
0:31:31 So it tends to be that audiences want to save, nurture, protect.
0:31:44 And here again is Tori Sparks, who plays Lady Macbeth, and Nick Bruder, who plays Macbeth.
0:31:52 Some people’s actions are just, they can be sincere too, or they offer one of them at best a towel while they’re in the bathtub washing off the blood.
0:31:54 And the most sincere gesture possible.
0:31:55 Is it moving?
0:31:57 Yeah, it really can be.
0:32:00 The intent behind anything can really move you.
0:32:02 It just depends on why they’re doing it.
0:32:02 That’s a good point.
0:32:04 It’s the intent behind things.
0:32:06 There’s 20 characters.
0:32:06 Yeah.
0:32:08 So I could have a really great night.
0:32:10 Somebody else has a crap night.
0:32:12 Do you guys then have a post-mortem afterwards for you?
0:32:17 When we all collect in the elevator at the end, it is an, they’re just unreeling the nights.
0:32:19 Can you, did you see this person in that dress?
0:32:21 Did you see that guy in that polka dot shirt?
0:32:22 Can you believe what he did?
0:32:25 He took this, he took that, you know, everybody’s just like unleashing it all.
0:32:27 I don’t know what you guys are talking about.
0:32:35 In the end, Sleep No More is too woolly, too freewheeling to think of as a social experiment.
0:32:39 But it does look a little bit like society itself.
0:32:43 Rules are established and sometimes broken.
0:32:46 Mores are adopted, but not by everyone.
0:32:54 What’s most interesting, most encouraging perhaps, is how in Sleep No More, as in society in general,
0:32:58 what we don’t end up with is total chaos.
0:33:01 Here’s Steve Levitt again.
0:33:07 When I teach my class on the economics of crime to the undergraduates at the U of C,
0:33:14 one of the points I stress over and over is that the puzzle is not why is there so much crime.
0:33:15 The puzzle is just the opposite.
0:33:17 Why is there so little crime?
0:33:26 Why does the average person who has literally hundreds of chances to commit crimes in a day not take advantage of those, right?
0:33:36 Every time you walk past a five-year-old on the street, on the playground, you could bonk them over the head with no repercussions and run off.
0:33:38 Or you could steal candy.
0:33:42 It’s a real high-stakes crimes you’re talking about, beating up children, stealing candy.
0:33:45 But nobody does them.
0:33:46 And you don’t worry about people doing them.
0:33:57 And even when there are—I mean, I’ll be in a big room lecturing, and I’ll leave my cell phone and my backpack that has my computer in it.
0:33:59 If I lost a computer, I would be beside myself.
0:34:02 But I’ll have complete faith that no one is going to steal it.
0:34:06 And it’s really not, ultimately, because they think they’ll be caught.
0:34:15 I think that one of the greatest powers of society is the ability to inculcate in people a sense of right and wrong.
0:34:22 And so the overwhelming majority of people are trained to not do things that are negative to other people.
0:34:30 So the next time you’re at the grocery store, or in church, or in an elevator, ask yourself,
0:34:36 am I behaving the way I am because of who I am, or simply because of my surroundings?
0:34:40 What would I do if I were wearing a mask?
0:34:48 Am I as much of an individual as I think I am, or am I more like a lump of silly putty,
0:34:53 just waiting for society or a theater director?
0:34:55 To mold me.
0:35:02 I think it makes you a little more daring, a little less inhibited.
0:35:03 More mischievous?
0:35:05 You got really gutsy by the way.
0:35:07 I was really, I was really going for it.
0:35:10 Brusquely pushing people aside to follow the person I was trying to follow.
0:35:12 I got a little rude.
0:35:14 I would try to, like, make noises at other people.
0:35:17 I mean, I think you just, there’s no boundaries.
0:35:19 I know, it was completely different than anything I’ve ever experienced.
0:35:21 I just felt good.
0:35:23 It was right in the moment.
0:35:29 I hope you enjoyed this updated bonus episode.
0:35:35 Punch Drunk’s latest production, Viola’s Room, arrives in New York in June.
0:35:40 And we will be back very soon with a new episode of Freakonomics Radio.
0:35:42 Until then, take care of yourself.
0:35:44 And if you can, someone else too.
0:35:48 Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
0:35:53 This episode was produced by Susie Lechtenberg and updated by Dalvin Abouaji.
0:35:57 Special thanks to Jonathan Hochwald from Immersive and Jake Smith.
0:36:03 The Freakonomics Radio network staff also includes Alina Cullman, Augusta Chapman, Eleanor Osborne,
0:36:08 Ellen Frankman, Elsa Hernandez, Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippon, Jasmine Klinger, Jeremy Johnston,
0:36:13 John Schnars, Morgan Levy, Neil Carruth, Sarah Lilly, Theo Jacobs, and Zach Lipinski.
0:36:20 You can find our entire archive on any podcast app or at Freakonomics.com, where we also publish transcripts and show notes.
0:36:25 Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by The Hitchhikers, and our composer is Luis Guerra.
0:36:27 As always, thanks for listening.
0:36:36 When we were really young as a company, we did a production of The Cherry Orchard.
0:36:40 And these two, this couple, it was a huge bed as part of the set.
0:36:42 And they took off their masks and started making out.
0:36:47 And a student came and said, Fierce Watcher, I do, look, they’ve broken the rule because they’d become performers.
0:36:50 I said, well, you know, they know what the contract is here.
0:36:53 If they want to change their status, then by all means.
0:36:54 So we let them do it.
0:36:56 And that was, I had a whole crowd of audience just watching.
0:37:03 The Freakonomics Radio Network.
0:37:05 The hidden side of everything.
Điều gì xảy ra khi bạn tước bỏ danh tính của ai đó, đặt họ vào một căn phòng tối và bảo họ im lặng? Trải nghiệm sân khấu nhập vai *Sleep No More* – một phiên bản *Macbeth* kéo dài đầy những chiếc mặt nạ – chính là phòng thí nghiệm sống cho câu hỏi này, vang vọng những thí nghiệm tâm lý nổi tiếng và gây tranh cãi nhất trong lịch sử.
Vở diễn cố tình phá vỡ mọi quy ước của sân khấu truyền thống. Khán giả phải giao lại điện thoại, đeo những chiếc mặt nạ Venetian vô danh, và lặng lẽ lang thang qua sáu tầng bối cảnh nơi diễn viên diễn xuất những cảnh không lời, thường mang tính bạo lực hoặc gợi cảm. Những người sáng tạo thiết kế môi trường này để khơi gợi cảm giác bí ẩn và mối đe dọa nhẹ, biết rằng bóng tối và các quy tắc sẽ đẩy mọi người ra khỏi vùng an toàn của họ. Chiếc mặt nạ, đặc biệt, trở thành công cụ mạnh mẽ để biến đổi, khiến một số khán giả trở nên táo bạo đến gần bất thường với diễn viên, chạm vào đạo cụ, hoặc thậm chí can thiệp vào hành động diễn xuất – những hành vi họ sẽ không bao giờ nghĩ đến trong cuộc sống hàng ngày.
Thí nghiệm về sự vô danh và quyền lực tình huống này tự nhiên khiến ta nhớ đến Thí nghiệm Nhà tù Stanford của Philip Zimbardo, nơi các sinh viên đại học được giao vai “cai ngục” hoặc “tù nhân” nhanh chóng thể hiện hành vi lạm quyền và phục tùng. Podcast đã vẽ ra một sự tương đồng trực tiếp, gợi ý rằng *Sleep No More* đặt khán giả của mình vào một tình huống được kiến tạo tương tự, làm thay đổi vai trò mỗi đêm. Tuy nhiên, tập phim cũng đi sâu vào những tranh cãi đáng kể xung quanh nghiên cứu của Zimbardo, dẫn các tiết lộ sau này rằng người tham gia đã được hướng dẫn hoặc diễn cho các nhà nghiên cứu, thách thức kết luận của thí nghiệm rằng con người chỉ là sản phẩm thuần túy của hoàn cảnh.
Bất chấp khả năng hỗn loạn, kết quả phổ biến nhất trong *Sleep No More* không phải là tình trạng vô chính phủ mà là xu hướng hướng đến sự đồng cảm và bảo vệ. Những trường hợp khán giả đưa khăn cho một diễn viên đang yếu đuối hoặc cố gắng cứu một nhân vật khỏi chất độc thường xuyên được báo cáo. Điều này cho thấy ngay cả khi vô danh và không bị ràng buộc, đa số mọi người vẫn tuân theo bản năng xã hội hướng thiện vốn có. Trải nghiệm cuối cùng trở thành minh chứng cho sức mạnh của các chuẩn mực xã hội, cho thấy khi được tự do lựa chọn, con người thường mặc định với sự hợp tác và quan tâm hơn là sự tàn nhẫn.
### Những Góc Nhìn Bất Ngờ
– Những người sáng tạo chương trình nhận thấy để trải nghiệm nhập vai có hiệu quả, môi trường cần phải cảm thấy *kém an toàn hơn*. Khi quy định phòng cháy buộc họ phải làm sáng ánh đèn trong phiên bản đầu tiên, khán giả cảm thấy quá thoải mái, đối xử với không gian như một bảo tàng và trò chuyện – hoàn toàn phá vỡ sự huyền bí dự kiến.
– Chiếc mặt nạ vô danh không chỉ khuyến khích những trò nghịch ngợm nhỏ; trong những trường hợp cực đoan, nó dẫn đến sự đối đầu trực tiếp, chẳng hạn như một khán giả đã ném mạnh đồ vật vào một diễn viên sau tấm kính, một hành động mà cô sau này tuyên bố được thúc đẩy bởi câu thần chú “vận may thuộc về kẻ dũng cảm”.
– Mặc dù Thí nghiệm Nhà tù Stanford là nền tảng trong sách giáo khoa tâm lý học, nhà kinh tế Steve Levitt và những người khác bày tỏ sự hoài nghi sâu sắc, lập luận rằng hành vi của người tham gia có khả năng bị ảnh hưởng bởi mong muốn đáp ứng kỳ vọng của nhà nghiên cứu hơn là chỉ bởi tình huống.
– Những vật phẩm bị đánh cắp nhiều nhất từ bối cảnh công phu không phải là đồ lưu niệm nhỏ, mà là các đạo cụ gắn liền với nhân vật như những lá thư của Lady Macbeth hay áo khoác của Macbeth, cho thấy khán giả khao khát một kết nối cá nhân, hữu hình với câu chuyện.
### Những Bài Học Thực Tiễn
– **Chấp nhận sự vô danh để suy ngẫm chân thật:** Khi đặt vào một tình huống mà bạn cảm thấy vô danh (ngay cả trên môi trường số), hãy quan sát những thôi thúc của mình. Nó có thể tiết lộ những khía cạnh ẩn giấu trong hành vi của bạn, từ sự táo bạo đến thói rình mò, mang đến một tấm gương phản chiếu con người ít bị chi phối bởi xã hội của bạn.
– **Đặt câu hỏi về “Hoàn cảnh”:** Hãy ý thức về cách môi trường và vai trò được giao – dù là ở nơi làm việc, trong gia đình hay trực tuyến – đang định hình hành động của bạn. Nhận ra sự ảnh hưởng này là bước đầu tiên để đảm bảo hành vi của bạn phù hợp với các giá trị thực tế của bạn.
– **Tiếp nhận sự mất phương hướng:** Nếu bạn muốn khơi nguồn sáng tạo hoặc góc nhìn mới, hãy cố tình đặt mình vào những bối cảnh xa lạ, hơi khó chịu nơi các quy tắc không rõ ràng. Giống như những hành lang tối của vở diễn, những không gian này có thể buộc bạn tư duy theo lối mới.
– **Tin tưởng vào sự điều kiện hóa xã hội:** Thực tế rằng sự hỗn loạn không bùng phát trong một không gian không có quy tắc, vô danh như *Sleep No More* là lời nhắc nhở rằng sự giáo dục các chuẩn mực của xã hội có hiệu quả mạnh mẽ. Bạn hoàn toàn có thể tin tưởng vào lòng tốt nội tại của người khác, ngay cả khi sự giám sát ở mức tối thiểu.

當你剝奪一個人的身份,將他們置於黑暗房間中,並要求他們保持沉默,會發生什麼?沉浸式戲劇《不眠之夜》——一部長期上演、充滿面具的《馬克白》改編作品——正是這個問題的活體實驗室,其情境呼應了歷史上一些最著名且最具爭議的心理學實驗。


這場演出刻意打破了傳統戲劇的所有慣例。觀眾必須交出手機,戴上匿名的威尼斯面具,在六層樓的場景中靜默遊走,觀看演員演出無台詞、常帶暴力或感官色彩的場景。創作者設計這樣的環境,旨在營造神秘感與輕微的威脅感,他們深知黑暗與規則會迫使觀眾踏出舒適圈。面具尤其成為一種強大的轉化工具:它鼓勵某些觀眾異常貼近演員、觸碰道具,甚至干預演出——這些都是他們在日常生活中絕不會考慮的行為。


這場關於匿名性與情境權力的實驗,自然令人聯想到菲利普·津巴多的斯坦福監獄實驗——在那裡,被隨機分配為「獄警」或「囚犯」的大學生迅速表現出虐待與順從行為。相關播客節目直接將兩者類比,指出《不眠之夜》每晚都將觀眾置於類似的人為建構、角色轉換情境中。然而,節目也深入探討了津巴多研究存在的重大爭議,引用後續揭露的證據,指出參與者曾受到指導或為迎合研究者而表演,這對「人純粹是情境產物」的實驗結論提出了挑戰。


儘管存在混亂的可能,《不眠之夜》中最常見的結果並非無序,而是傾向於同理心與保護行為。常有報導稱,觀眾會向脆弱的演員遞上毛巾,或試圖拯救角色免於毒害。這表明即使處於匿名且無拘束的狀態,多數人內在的社會化良善傾向依然佔據上風。這場體驗最終成為社會規範力量的證明:當人們擁有選擇自由時,往往傾向於合作與關懷,而非殘酷。


令人驚訝的洞見



  • 創作者發現,要讓沉浸式體驗生效,環境必須讓人感到「較不」安全。早期版本因消防規定被迫提高照明亮度時,觀眾感到過於舒適,將空間視同博物館並隨意交談——完全打破了預期的沉浸魔咒。

  • 匿名面具不僅助長了輕微的惡作劇,極端情況下甚至引發公然對抗:例如曾有觀眾向玻璃後的演員猛烈投擲物品,事後她解釋此舉受「勇者致富」的信念驅使。

  • 儘管斯坦福監獄實驗是心理學教科書的基石,經濟學家史蒂夫·列維特等人卻深表懷疑,認為參與者的行為更可能源於滿足研究者預期的渴望,而非單純受情境影響。

  • 從精緻場景中被盜最多的並非小飾品,而是角色相關道具,如麥克白夫人的信件或麥克白的外套,這顯示觀眾渴望與敘事建立具體的個人連結。


實用啟示



  • 擁抱匿名以誠實反思:當處於感到匿名的情境(即使數位環境中),觀察自己的衝動。它能揭示行為中隱藏的面向,從大膽到窺視欲,為你較不受社會約束的自我提供一面鏡子。

  • 質疑「情境」的力量:留意你的環境與被賦予的角色——無論在工作、家庭或網路中——如何塑造你的行為。覺察這種影響是確保行為與真實價值觀一致的第一步。

  • 擁抱迷失感:若想激發創造力或新觀點,刻意讓自己置身於陌生、略感不安且規則模糊的情境。如同劇中的黑暗走廊,這類空間能迫使你形成新的思維模式。

  • 信任社會化塑造:在《不眠之夜》這類無規則、匿名的空間中未爆發混亂,提醒我們社會對規範的灌輸極具效力。即使監管極少,你通常仍可相信他人內在的善意。


¿Qué sucede cuando se despoja a alguien de su identidad, se le coloca en una habitación oscura y se le ordena guardar silencio? La experiencia teatral inmersiva Sleep No More—una adaptación de larga duración y llena de máscaras de Macbeth—sirve como un laboratorio viviente para esta misma pregunta, haciendo eco de algunos de los experimentos psicológicos más famosos y controvertidos de la historia.


El espectáculo desmonta deliberadamente todas las convenciones del teatro tradicional. Los espectadores entregan sus teléfonos, se ponen máscaras venecianas anónimas y deambulan en silencio por un decorado de seis pisos donde los actores interpretan escenas sin palabras, a menudo violentas o sensuales. Los creadores diseñaron este entorno para provocar una sensación de misterio y leve amenaza, sabiendo que la oscuridad y las reglas sacan a las personas de su zona de confort. La máscara, en particular, se convierte en una herramienta poderosa para la transformación, envalentonando a algunos espectadores para acercarse inusualmente a los intérpretes, tocar utilería o incluso interferir con la acción—comportamientos que nunca considerarían en su vida diaria.


Este experimento en el anonimato y el poder situacional evoca naturalmente el Experimento de la Prisión de Stanford de Philip Zimbardo, donde estudiantes universitarios asignados como “guardias” o “prisioneros” rápidamente adoptaron comportamientos abusivos y sumisos. El podcast establece un paralelo directo, sugiriendo que Sleep No More coloca a su audiencia en una situación similarmente construida y que altera roles cada noche. Sin embargo, el episodio también profundiza en la considerable controversia en torno al trabajo de Zimbardo, citando revelaciones posteriores de que los participantes fueron instruidos o actuaron para los investigadores, desafiando la conclusión del experimento de que las personas son puramente producto de su situación.


A pesar del potencial para el caos, el resultado más común dentro de Sleep No More no es la anarquía sino una inclinación hacia la empatía y la protección. Se reportan con frecuencia casos de espectadores que ofrecen una toalla a un intérprete vulnerable o intentan salvar a un personaje de un veneno. Esto sugiere que, incluso en el anonimato y sin restricciones, el condicionamiento social inherente de la mayoría de las personas hacia la bondad prevalece. La experiencia en última instancia se convierte en un testimonio de la fuerza de las costumbres sociales, mostrando que cuando se les da la libertad de elegir, las personas a menudo optan por defecto por la cooperación y el cuidado en lugar de la crueldad.


Hallazgos Sorprendentes



  • Los creadores del espectáculo descubrieron que, para que la experiencia inmersiva funcione, el entorno necesitaba sentirse menos seguro. Cuando las regulaciones de incendios les obligaron a iluminar más la escena en una versión temprana, el público se sintió demasiado cómodo, trató el espacio como un museo y conversó, rompiendo completamente el hechizo previsto.

  • La máscara anónima no solo fomentó travesuras menores; en casos extremos, condujo a enfrentamientos directos, como cuando una espectadora lanzó violentamente objetos a una intérprete detrás de un cristal, un acto que luego afirmó que fue impulsado por el mantra “la fortuna favorece a los audaces”.

  • Aunque el Experimento de la Prisión de Stanford es un pilar de los libros de texto de psicología, el economista Steve Levitt y otros expresan un profundo escepticismo, argumentando que el comportamiento de los participantes probablemente fue influenciado por su deseo de cumplir con las expectativas del investigador más que por la situación únicamente.

  • Los artículos más robados del elaborado decorado no fueron baratijas pequeñas, sino utilería relacionada con los personajes, como las cartas de Lady Macbeth o el abrigo de Macbeth, lo que sugiere que el público ansiaba una conexión tangible y personal con la narrativa.


Consejos Prácticos



  • Adopta el Anonimato para una Reflexión Honesta: Cuando te encuentres en una situación en la que te sientas anónimo (incluso digitalmente), observa tus impulsos. Puede revelar aspectos ocultos de tu comportamiento, desde la audacia hasta el voyeurismo, ofreciendo un espejo de tu yo menos gobernado socialmente.

  • Cuestiona la “Situación”: Sé consciente de cómo tu entorno y el rol asignado—ya sea en el trabajo, en familia o en línea—están moldeando tus acciones. Reconocer esta influencia es el primer paso para asegurar que tu comportamiento se alinee con tus valores reales.

  • Abrázate a la Desorientación: Si deseas despertar la creatividad o nuevas perspectivas, colócate deliberadamente en contextos desconocidos, ligeramente incómodos, donde las reglas no sean claras. Como los oscuros pasillos del espectáculo, estos espacios pueden forzar nuevos patrones de pensamiento.

  • Confía en el Condicionamiento Social: El hecho de que el caos no estalle en un espacio sin reglas y anónimo como Sleep No More es un recordatorio de que la inculcación de normas por parte de la sociedad es poderosamente efectiva. Generalmente puedes confiar en la buena voluntad intrínseca de los demás, incluso cuando la supervisión es mínima.


O que acontece quando se tira a identidade de alguém, coloca-o numa sala às escuras e lhe diz para não falar? A experiência teatral imersiva Sleep No More — uma adaptação de longa duração e repleta de máscaras de Macbeth — funciona como um laboratório vivo para esta mesma questão, ecoando alguns dos mais famosos e controversos experimentos psicológicos da história.


O espetáculo desmonta deliberadamente todas as convenções do teatro tradicional. Os membros da audiência entregam os seus telemóveis, colocam máscaras venezianas anónimas e vagueiam em silêncio por um cenário de seis andares, onde os atores representam cenas sem palavras, frequentemente violentas ou sensuais. Os criadores conceberam este ambiente para provocar uma sensação de mistério e ligeira ameaça, sabendo que a escuridão e as regras forçam as pessoas a saírem da sua zona de conforto. A máscara, em particular, torna-se uma ferramenta poderosa de transformação, encorajando alguns espectadores a aproximarem-se invulgarmente dos performers, tocar nos adereços ou até interferir na ação — comportamentos que nunca considerariam nas suas vidas quotidianas.


Esta experiência de anonimato e poder situacional traz naturalmente à mente o Experimento da Prisão de Stanford de Philip Zimbardo, onde estudantes universitários designados como “guardas” ou “prisioneiros” rapidamente adotaram comportamentos abusivos e submissos. O podcast traça um paralelo direto, sugerindo que Sleep No More coloca a sua audiência numa situação igualmente construída e de alteração de papéis todas as noites. Contudo, o episódio também aprofunda a controvérsia substancial em torno do trabalho de Zimbardo, citando revelações posteriores de que os participantes foram instruídos ou atuaram para os investigadores, desafiando a conclusão do experimento de que as pessoas são meros produtos da sua situação.


Apesar do potencial para o caos, o resultado mais comum em Sleep No More não é a anarquia, mas uma tendência para a empatia e a proteção. São frequentemente relatados casos de espectadores que oferecem uma toalha a um performer vulnerável ou tentam salvar uma personagem de um veneno. Isto sugere que, mesmo quando anónimas e desinibidas, o condicionamento social inerente da maioria das pessoas para a bondade prevalece. A experiência acaba por se tornar um testemunho da força dos costumes sociais, mostrando que, quando lhes é dada a liberdade de escolher, as pessoas tendem a optar pela cooperação e pelo cuidado em vez da crueldade.


Descobertas Surpreendentes



  • Os criadores do espetáculo descobriram que, para que a experiência imersiva funcionasse, o ambiente precisava de parecer menos seguro. Quando os regulamentos de incêndio os obrigaram a iluminar mais a cenografia numa versão inicial, a audiência sentiu-se demasiado confortável, tratou o espaço como um museu e conversou — quebrando completamente o feitiço pretendido.

  • A máscara anónima não encorajou apenas travessuras menores; em casos extremos, levou a confrontos diretos, como quando um espectador atirou violentamente objetos a um performer atrás de um vidro, um ato que ela mais tarde afirmou ter sido motivado pelo mantra “a sorte favorece os audazes”.

  • Embora o Experimento da Prisão de Stanford seja um pilar dos manuais de psicologia, o economista Steve Levitt e outros expressam um profundo ceticismo, argumentando que o comportamento dos participantes foi provavelmente influenciado pelo seu desejo de corresponder às expectativas do investigador, e não apenas pela situação.

  • Os itens mais roubados do cenário elaborado não eram pequenos bugigangas, mas adereços ligados às personagens, como as cartas de Lady Macbeth ou o casaco de Macbeth, sugerindo que a audiência ansiava por uma ligação tangível e pessoal com a narrativa.


Conclusões Práticas



  • Aproveite o Anonimato para uma Reflexão Honesta: Quando colocado numa situação em que se sente anónimo (mesmo digitalmente), observe os seus impulsos. Isto pode revelar aspetos ocultos do seu comportamento, da ousadia ao voyeurismo, oferecendo um espelho do seu eu menos governado socialmente.

  • Questionar a “Situação”: Esteja atento à forma como o seu ambiente e o papel que lhe é atribuído — seja no trabalho, na família ou online — estão a moldar as suas ações. Reconhecer esta influência é o primeiro passo para garantir que o seu comportamento está alinhado com os seus valores reais.

  • Abrace a Desorientação: Se quer estimular a criatividade ou novas perspetivas, coloque-se deliberadamente em contextos desconhecidos e ligeiramente desconfortáveis, onde as regras não são claras. Tal como os corredores escuros do espetáculo, estes espaços podem forçar novos padrões de pensamento.

  • Confie no Condicionamento Social: O facto de o caos não irromper num espaço anónimo e sem regras como o Sleep No More é um lembrete de que a incutação de normas pela sociedade é extremamente eficaz. Pode geralmente confiar na boa vontade intrínseca dos outros, mesmo quando a supervisão é mínima.


In an episode from 2012, we looked at what Sleep No More and the Stanford Prison Experiment can tell us about who we really are.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Freakonomics RadioFreakonomics Radio
Let's Evolve Together
Logo