We once examined the question of why using a certain drug that suppresses the function of a person’s violence inhibitor (or as we also called it, “Anti-Lorenz” agents) has little practical utility and effectiveness, but is capable of leading to serious problems. However, this was presented from the perspective of social processes, whereas now we will delve deeper into the biological essence of this issue.
As we know, the violence inhibitor is managed by the brain’s serotonergic system, specifically the 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors, as well as the MAO-A, TPH2, and SERT proteins associated with their function, encoded by the corresponding genes (for simplicity, we will call all of these “variables”). And we can assume that only a specific, quite narrow combination of these variables creates a high risk of developing violence inhibitor dysfunction in a particular individual. After all, only a tiny fraction of the population (no more than 1–2%) has increased psychopathic predispositions in any population.
Impact on at least one of these variables “upward” is quite capable of significantly strengthening the inhibitor function (eliminating the ability to initiate violence). Thus, in experiments on animals and humans, the mere activation of 5-HT1A or 5-HT1B receptors, or the enhancement of serotonergic function through impact on SERT activity, selectively eliminated violent behavior. At the same time, impact on any of the variables “downward” does not guarantee the weakening of the inhibitor (restoration of the ability to initiate violence), as was, for example, shown with the blocking of 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors in animals.
On the other hand, there are strong grounds to believe that attempts to actively exert such an influence can cause serious mental disorders—increased anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other pathologies related to the serotonergic system. Initially, such problems are often not particularly pronounced in psychopathic personalities simply because the narrow combination of “variables” required for this is evolutionarily maintained (with a bouquet of disorders, they simply would not have had reproductive success). In fact, according to research, violence inhibitor dysfunction itself is a “point” rather than an extensive disruption in brain function.
Why is all this important in practice? In the tasks of strengthening and weakening the violence inhibitor, there is a huge disparity in complexity. To put it simply—even in a successful attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor by suppressing any “variable,” it will not be possible to guarantee that this effect will not be reversible if someone applies agents to strengthen a certain “variable” to the person who did this. However, one can certainly guarantee serious side effects. In one of the experiments on rats using the neurotoxin 5,7-DHT, which affects the serotonergic system, although it was possible to increase their aggressiveness, this effect was reversed by introducing small doses of serotonin into the brain. A similar neurotoxic effect is exerted, for example, by methamphetamine, which at high intensity of intake is capable of increasing a person’s psychopathy. But most likely this effect is also reversible in the same way, and the result of weakening the inhibitor with “meth” in such a case will be a lack of result and the causation of serious harm to health.
And what if the aggressor does not know the specific time when they will have the practical opportunity to use violence? They would need to constantly take multiple drugs to weaken all “variables.” But constantly maintaining such a balance of “variables” so that simultaneously: 1) it is enough to weaken the violence inhibitor, 2) it is not yet enough to cause neurophysiological disorders, 3) it is enough to overcome the effect of agents for strengthening the inhibitor—is hardly possible in real life at all.
Ultimately, an attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor will only lead to serious neurophysiological and mental disorders, but will provide no guarantee against its reinforcement under appropriate influence. Practically effective and safe “Anti-Lorenz” agents turn out to be simply science fiction.
