Innate Human Violence

Benjamin Tucker

Prof. J Kakar, Eng114

March 28, 2005

Rough Draft, Essay #3.

Phillip Zimbardo, Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and Howard Zinn were/are all gifted psychologists that strived to understand the simple complexities of conformity within an individual's specific societal structure. Within their own specific areas of psychology, every single one of them came to one simple conclusion that allowed each of them to become the quality of psychologist that they are today, and that is the understanding that the power of the situation can be stronger than the individual. So much so, that the events which occurred in the Abu Gharib prison, were just a matter of time.

Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, world renowned psychologist, current professor at Stanford University, and leader of the 1971 study of the 'Stanford Prison Experiment' said "When you put that set of horrendous work conditions and external factors together, it creates an evil barrel...You could put virtually anybody in it [evil barrel] and you're going to get this kind of behavior" (Edge). Thirty years ago, Zimbardo began a study which demonstrated the power of a certain social situation that distorted the participants' personal identities and morality in order to understand what specifically made those personalities conform the kind of behavior that most of them, swore they could never be. quote of individual who said that he could not be mean to any living thing.

Another psychologist by the name of Dr. Solomon Asch also came to the very real and innate understanding of the degree to which individuals will surrender their own morality and ethical issues to other more persuasive, however blatantly wrong situations. In 1955 Dr. Asch began a conformity study in which students were asked a simple question pertaining to their perception of the distance of a line in comparison to another line in front of them. After the subject's answer was given, the proctor, or group taking the study, would suggest an answer that was either incorrect, or different than the one suggested by the participant. Interestingly enough, one-third of the time the participant would yield to the answer given by the majority, or the proctor and many times, the answer given would be the wrong one. What did this prove? Very simply that an individual is more likely to yield to the majority than to be considered an outcast. With social conformity, comes a sense that what you are doing is the right thing not because you know that it's right,