Автор: Битарх

How important it is to double-check popular claims

Many of you have likely heard the story of an experiment with monkeys, a banana, and a cold shower, also frequently circulated under the title “that’s just how it’s done here.” The essence of the experiment was that several monkeys were placed in a cage; a banana was hung from the ceiling, and a ladder was placed beneath it. Whenever one of the monkeys tried to reach the banana, all the monkeys were sprayed with cold water, and over time they lost interest in the banana. When one of the monkeys was replaced with a new one, the other monkeys would stop it from trying to reach the banana. Gradually, all the old monkeys were replaced by new ones, but the “tradition” of forcibly stopping newcomers from reaching the banana did not disappear, even after the cold shower was completely removed.

But this “widely known” experiment, which is often used to explain the process of socialization and the formation of traditions, seems to have never actually been conducted. Several online sources indicate that this experiment was first mentioned in the 1994 book “Competing for the Future,” written by strategic management consultants Hamel and Prahalad[1][2]. No references to the experiment are provided, and its description begins with the words “a friend of ours once described an experiment with monkeys.”

It is suggested that this story may have been partially based on an experiment conducted by researcher Gordon Stephenson in 1967. In this experiment, while alone, monkeys were presented with an object that, when manipulated, resulted in punishment—a jet of air directed at them. Afterwards, another monkey was placed with them as a partner who also attempted to manipulate the object. As a result, one of the trained monkeys pulled its partner away from the object, while two others expressed fear while observing the partner.

As we can see, the previously mentioned story bears little resemblance to the closest experiment actually conducted in reality. Nevertheless, this myth has been recounted in hundreds of books and thousands of articles. This story shows us that it is very important to double-check popular claims, as they may simply be false. And regarding the problem of violence addressed by our project, many such myths have also developed. One might recall the Milgram experiment, in which most of the results were hidden in the archives, or the Stanford Prison Experiment, which turned out to be a staged production with a predetermined result[3][4].

Why it is often useless to threaten psychopathic individuals with punishment

Social orders are often built on the assumption that potential punishments for their violation should deter a significant portion of individuals who would otherwise boldly commit any crime. To some extent, this is indeed true; however, the degree to which a person is susceptible to the threat of punishment also depends on what kind of personality they have.

As was recently found, individuals with psychopathic predispositions demonstrate reduced sensitivity to pain, which affects their ability to learn from painful consequences. In one experiment, while performing a task in which participants could receive either a reward or an electric shock, possessing more pronounced psychopathic traits led to a poorer ability to learn from painful experience. Due to the more rapid development of pain tolerance, participants with high psychopathy scores quickly returned to their initial expectations and did not change their behavior.

Earlier studies show that if psychopathic individuals are asked to learn how to navigate a maze using various levers, while simultaneously avoiding those that cause painful shocks, they handle only the first task well. And in the case of a gambling experiment, in which two decks contained cards leading to high wins but also high losses, making long-term winning impossible, while the other two decks led to small wins but also small losses, making long-term winning possible, psychopathic individuals were poor at learning not to choose cards from the first two decks, whereas ordinary participants had no such problem. Apparently, they easily concentrate on faster and larger gains, ignoring the accompanying risks. Additionally, one MRI study showed that the brains of violent offenders with high psychopathy scores process punishment stimuli in an atypical way, which may lead to an inadequate assessment of benefits and punishments.

There is also a suggestion that psychopaths may actually derive pleasure from experiencing fear and deliberately place themselves in situations that induce it. This is supported by one study in which individuals with higher psychopathy scores, and especially its primary factor (traits such as lack of empathy and superficial charm), expressed more pleasure from watching videos with content aimed at inducing fear than participants with lower scores. Furthermore, researchers of corporate psychopathy studying information security in the banking sector note that fear of immediate or direct punishment is unable to prevent unethical behavior on the part of psychopathic people. Therefore, they, among others, propose conducting screening for psychopathic predispositions before hiring anyone.

It can be observed that individuals with psychopathic predispositions tend to inadequately assess the benefits and negative consequences of their behavior, and threatening them with punishment is often simply pointless. Therefore, in their case, instead of punishment, it is certainly worth considering a therapeutic approach that corrects the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, because of which they possess high psychopathy scores.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Dallas Buyers Club

Imagine: you are given a terminal diagnosis, and a cure for your disease exists, but you aren’t given it. Why? Because it’s not allowed; it’s not state-approved. Absurd? However, this is exactly the situation a Texan named Ron Woodroof once found himself in—the hero of a true story that became the basis for the film “Dallas Buyers Club.” And how he acted is a true lesson in freedom and the fight against bureaucracy.

Ron was an ordinary guy from Dallas: an electrician who loved rodeos and lived a quiet life. In 1985, he received terrible news—he had HIV/AIDS and only a month to live. The doctors threw up their hands: they said there was an experimental drug called AZT, but access to it was strictly limited, and there were no other officially approved medicines. For most, such a sentence would sound like the bell for the final round, but not for Ron. He had no intention of obediently dying according to a schedule approved by officials.

What does a desperate but stubborn Texan do? He takes matters into his own hands! Ron found out that in Mexico and other countries, other drugs were already being used against AIDS—unapproved in the US, but helpful. He told all the prohibitions to go to hell and went across the border for medicine. He returned with a trunk full of life-saving pills and began sharing them with other patients. Thus, the underground “Dallas Buyers Club” was born—a kind of medical cooperative of freedom. Patients united, paid a symbolic membership fee, and in return received the necessary medicines they could not obtain legally. No charitable foundation or government program could have helped them as quickly as this club did.

Of course, the authorities found such lawlessness intolerable. The FDA and other officials declared war on Ron. He had dared to break the rules: he sold unregistered drugs, bypassed pharmaceutical monopolists, and generally dared to treat himself without permission! The bureaucrats tried to shut down the shop: raids, confiscations, threats of lawsuits. But Ron just looked for new ways. He transformed himself into a doctor or a priest, smuggling medicine in suitcases across the border. He set up supplies from Mexico, Japan, Europe—everywhere where regulators were faster. Every additional batch of drugs meant months and years of life saved for someone. In the end, Ron lived not 30 days, but over seven years—largely because he chose how to be treated himself instead of waiting for mercy from officials.

Let’s look at the situation more broadly: new drugs and technologies are born every year—from gene therapy and stem cells to experimental cancer drugs. Scientists figure out how to save a life—it seems like a miracle! But years will pass before the bureaucratic machine allows these miracle cures to be widely used. The usual approval path for a new drug can stretch for 5, 10, or 15 years. For a critically ill patient, this is an eternity they do not have. It results in a strange ethic: “Yes, we have a potential rescue for you, but please wait, first we need the paperwork.” The right to experiment is something that suggests itself. It is no coincidence that some countries have passed “Right to Try” laws—allowing the terminally ill to try any experimental therapies, bypassing part of the bureaucracy. It’s better to take a risk than to be guaranteed to die, right?!

And here is another interesting twist—biohacking. This is when people are both the guinea pigs and the doctors. Some, not waiting for approval, inject themselves with an experimental vaccine or gene therapy. Some take potent nootropics or hormones that are not officially permitted to upgrade their organism. In short, they test everything new that science has devised on themselves, regardless of regulators. These enthusiasts also defend their right to dispose of their own body and health. Their motto is “My body, my choice,” and they are ready to bear the consequences. The state, however, usually sees them as violators: oh, so you’re experimenting without a license, how dare you! And they dare because they want to live long, be healthy, or simply not wait for permission from above.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Compatibility of Libertarian Philosophy with the Idea of Strengthening the Violence Inhibitor

The assertion that the best explanation for violent and antisocial behavior is the presence of psychopathic predispositions resulting from a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, and the proposal to address such behavior through therapeutic methods, may encounter the argument that this is simply an unacceptable interference with a person’s body, which, among other things, does not comply with libertarian principles. Such a remark is understandable; however, there are a number of conditions under which this idea is absolutely compatible with libertarianism.

First, therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction may be applied mandatorily only to individuals who have already committed acts of violence in the past, or as part of defensive actions in the event of a direct violent threat from someone and the pursuit of violent goals by someone.

Second, in the case of individuals who have psychopathic predispositions but have not yet initiated violence, such therapy may only be offered on a voluntary basis or as a way to avoid sanctions in the form of ostracism applied to them due to the fact that psychopathy is a serious risk factor in maintaining any relationship with them. In research on the problem of corporate psychopathy, companies are already being encouraged to screen potential employees for psychopathic predispositions, as such mentally ill individuals can easily harm their operations and are extremely prone to engaging in “white-collar” crime in the workplace, including fraud and deception of their colleagues and management, if they find some benefit in it. In many cases, it will be absolutely normal and acceptable to ostracize psychopathic personalities, just as today, for example, many would ostracize those with contagious infectious diseases who refuse treatment, which is also a serious risk factor. However, it would be a good thing to offer them therapy as a means of avoiding ostracism.

Additionally, the idea of therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction can be popularized in various spheres where its effective and voluntary application is possible. For example, it can be promoted among parents as a method of treating children exhibiting early signs of psychopathic predispositions (also known as callous-unemotional traits). This and the previously described options for practicing such therapy are absolutely compatible with the idea of non-interference and libertarian principles.

It is also worth noting what is incompatible with libertarianism. Among those calling themselves libertarians, one can find individuals who adhere to the admissibility of initiating violence, or even sending a person into forced slavery through the use of violence as a response to non-violent violations, such as failure to pay a debt, theft, or simply the violation of some previously agreed-upon rules. Sometimes one can even encounter the delusions of clearly mentally deranged individuals, claiming that, for example, a lender has the right to put an explosive bracelet on a debtor and threaten its activation in case of non-payment, and these individuals also call themselves libertarians.

Such actions give the victim of the violation every right to seize any property, funds, and income of the violator that they (independently or with someone’s help) can reach to compensate for damages and associated costs. It is also grounds to ostracize the violator until they compensate for the damage. However, non-violent violations do not authorize a violent response. Of course, if someone threatens a person with violence, even while pursuing non-violent end goals (for example, demanding a wallet while holding a knife), it is entirely permissible to resort to unlimited self-defense (and in general, this is already a case where the attacker is in need of mandatory therapy). But responding with violence to a crime already committed, if it is absolutely non-violent, is clearly not a libertarian approach.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Prescription drug dispensing is harmful and limits our freedom

When was the last time you wondered why you first have to go to a doctor for a prescription to buy certain medications? Essentially, a prescription is just another bureaucratic barrier preventing people from taking care of their own health. Prescription-only dispensing is not only inconvenient but also does more harm than good. Now we will list several reasons why this is the case.

The first reason is the restriction of freedom of choice. Why does an adult not have the right to decide that they need certain medications? The prescription requirement seems to tell us: “You are not competent enough to take care of your own health; a doctor must do it.” Thus, the state takes away the opportunity to make informed decisions.

The second reason is the waste of time and money. Doctor consultations, additional tests, and follow-up visits are not cheap. This is especially true for those living outside big cities, where there is already a shortage of doctors and getting an appointment can take weeks. As a result, an unnecessary burden is placed on the healthcare system, which also hurts those who truly need help.

The third reason is the growth of the black market and health risks. When access to medicines becomes more difficult, people begin to seek workarounds. However, it is easy to encounter problems this way—for example, instead of quality drugs, one might come across a counterfeit that harms their health.

The fourth reason is the decrease in personal responsibility. When doctors and the state decide everything for us, people stop educating themselves on health issues. The mindset becomes: “The doctor will tell me what to do anyway.” This is very dangerous: instead of studying medications and analyzing risks, many simply shift the responsibility.

Finally, it is no secret that prescription dispensing benefits a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical organizations that lobby for their interests through the state. It can be used to control prices, access to drugs, and even influence demand. This is more of a tool of influence than real concern for people’s health.

The problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is often cited in defense of prescription dispensing. The problem of antibiotic resistance does indeed exist, but its scale is not limited to buying medicine without a prescription. First, doctors themselves may prescribe antibiotics unjustifiably, especially if their workload prevents them from performing highly accurate diagnostics, and patients who already have a prescription often complete the treatment course incorrectly. Second, the mass use of antibiotics in agriculture, where they are used to accelerate growth and prevent disease in animals, has a far more significant impact. Third, if we want people to take responsibility for their health, the focus should be on proper education rather than bureaucratic barriers. When a person understands the risks and consequences of the incorrect use of antibiotics, they are more likely to use them consciously. We must popularize the more rational use of antibiotics rather than resorting to etatist bans, which poorly solve the problem and only create additional difficulties for those who truly need the drugs.

The libertarian approach suggests that people are capable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them. Instead of strict restrictions, more attention should be paid to medical education so that everyone has access to reliable information. Prescription dispensing is an example of excessive government control that deprives us of the right to decide what is best for us.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the “right of the strong” is being imposed on everyone in the modern world

We are all aware of the existence of international conventions and agreements that limit the development and use of various forms of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Other forms of weaponry and many military practices are also prohibited. This is all justified by ethical reasons—the fact that certain weapons and practices are too lethal, cause immense human suffering, and act non-selectively, meaning a vast number of civilians could easily become victims. This position is quite understandable; however, it is also important to look at it from another perspective.

In today’s high-tech world, the development of weapons of mass destruction may be accessible to many jurisdictions. And such weapons are entirely capable of making them an unattractive victim, even for large and powerful states with millions of soldiers and units of conventional weaponry. Under such conditions, the very essence of the “right of the strongest” changes—the strong is no longer the one who actually possesses the power and ability to inflict harm on the weak with impunity, but the one who can convince the weak of the need to follow certain norms, regulations, and prohibitions.

Of course, this is not being said to justify the actual use of truly inhumane military practices. The point is simply that the goal of prohibiting such practices may well be to place the weak at a disadvantage compared to strong players and in complete dependence on their will. One does not have to look far for examples; one can simply recall the position in which the Budapest Memorandum placed Ukraine, under which it was forced to exchange nuclear weapons for paper guarantees of security.

Small and weak jurisdictions could very well be independent of the will of superpowers if they were allowed to develop and possess the same weapons of mass destruction—not for their use, but simply as a means of deterrence against external aggression. Furthermore, even when discussing the use of such weaponry, not all its forms would be particularly cruel or absolutely unacceptable. For example, with the current level of progress, it is now entirely possible to speak of the development of ethological (behavioral) weapons that would simply make enemy soldiers incapable of committing murder and fighting, without causing them any permanent or serious harm. Such a weapon could be an airborne bio/chemical agent to enhance the human mechanism for inhibiting violence or even to dismantle hierarchy—reducing authoritarianism and obedience to authorities (commanders). Surely, many other variants of similar weaponry could be devised. And there are no reasons to believe why any jurisdiction should not possess such weaponry. Except, again, that it would be disadvantageous for the strong players on the international political arena. It is in their interest to convince everyone else to follow international agreements and thereby limit their potential for defense against their interference.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How early can violent behavior be detected and corrected

At what age do you think one can realize that a particular person is prone to developing into an antisocial, violent, and psychopathic personality? Some might be surprised, but this can be detected as early as two years of age!

Of course, children are not labeled as psychopaths in any case. However, there are similar concepts for them called callous-unemotional traits or deceitful-callous behavior, which take into account things such as a child’s lack of guilt for bad behavior, a tendency to lie, to be selfish, mean, etc. According to many studies, higher scores in such traits are a strong predictor of a greater risk of violent behavior and the presence of psychopathic traits in adulthood.

However, it is important to highlight the results of several studies on this topic. One study on children aged 4–9 showed that the presence of callous-unemotional traits predicts behavioral problems a year later. Also, their presence at age 3 predicts high and sustained aggressiveness at ages 6–12. And in another study, researchers decided to assess 731 children on a deceitful-callous behavior scale at the age of 2–4 and check how it predicts problematic behavior one year later, as well as at the age of nine and a half.

The results showed that children who scored high on this scale at the age of 2 already experienced serious behavioral problems by the age of 3. Additionally, high scores on it between the ages of 2 and 4 predicted a child’s tendency to break rules and behave aggressively at the age of nine and a half.

Such results once again confirm the conclusions of other studies that psychopathic predispositions emerge at an early age and maintain high stability throughout life. It is very important to take this information into account in order to prevent violent behavior. If we are attentive to children and detect the risk of psychopathy as early as possible, measures can be taken, including therapeutic intervention, which will prevent this risk and resolve the problem of violence long before it arises in practice.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Psychopathy as a predictor of authoritarian political views and what can be done about it

Many studies have examined the psychological foundations of human political views, as various personality traits influence ideological attitudes, opinions, and values. Of particular interest is whether there is a link between psychopathic predispositions and a tendency toward authoritarian political positions, which has also been studied. Furthermore, there are studies indicating one interesting way in which a person’s authoritarian tendencies can be reduced.

A rather illustrative study by Zlatko Šmra concerns the question of whether psychopathy, as well as indicators of positive and negative affect, predicts a person’s inclination toward totalitarian political ideology. In this study, psychopathy was divided into 4 factors: interpersonal (tendency to deceive and manipulate people), affective (lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse), lifestyle (impulsivity, parasitism, and irresponsibility), and antisocial (poor behavioral control and an excessive tendency to commit criminal offenses). For simplicity, we will define the first two factors as primary psychopathy and the others as secondary. In turn, positive and negative affect reflect how much a person is inclined to exhibit enthusiasm and activity, or rather, some unpleasant states of mood, such as anger and nervousness. Finally, totalitarian political ideology implies a person’s high need for state social regulation, their acceptance of life under a dictatorship, the denial of individual freedom, as well as support for repressive methods and procedures. It should be noted that in this case, we are referring to both radical left and radical right ideologies.

In a sample of 386 students aged 18 to 29, it was shown that traits of primary psychopathy significantly predict an individual’s predisposition toward totalitarian political ideology, whereas the link with secondary psychopathy is virtually zero. However, psychopathy scores in general, and secondary psychopathy in particular, predict the presence of negative affect, which in turn also increases a person’s predisposition toward totalitarian political ideology to a certain extent. These results provide a valuable contribution to the understanding of how individuals adopt totalitarian views.

But understanding the problem is not where it ends. In one study, it was shown that the administration of psilocybin sustainably reduces people’s predisposition toward authoritarian views on the libertarian-authoritarian scale (the effect was observed even a year after administration). This substance, which belongs to the psychedelics, exerts a strong prosocial and empathic effect on humans, due to which it is proposed for the therapy of psychopathy as well.

The primary effect of psychedelics on the human brain is the activation of serotonin 2A receptors. However, studies show, that the prosocial effect in the case of their use is likely due to serotonin 1A receptors. This means that selective anti-aggressive agents that act specifically on this type of receptor and produce minimal or no side effects or influence on other behaviors could potentially be effective in the therapy of psychopathy (strengthening the violence inhibitor) and reducing human authoritarianism. As a result, we gain the possibility of effective and safe treatment of psychopathy, as well as its consequences, such as authoritarian tendencies.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Examples of testing anti-aggression agents on humans

As is known, the brain’s serotonergic (5-HT) system plays a key role in the regulation of aggression and is responsible for the function of the violence inhibition mechanism in humans. Therefore, it has become the target of many studies aimed at developing the most effective anti-aggressive agents. Of course, there are many substances that have shown efficacy in animal experiments. But now we will list some of those that have already been tested in humans.

In experiments on mice and dogs, the administration of tryptophan, which is a precursor to serotonin, had an anti-aggressive effect without disrupting other behaviors. But what about application to humans? In some experiments, it reduced aggressiveness and hostility, as well as increased trust and generosity. Other bioactive supplements that affect serotonergic function can also be useful (for example, inositol reduces hostility in humans, and S-adenosylmethionine reduced aggressiveness in experiments on patients with schizophrenia).

In many animal experiments, it has been shown that certain 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptor agonists (drugs that activate them) are capable of suppressing offensive aggression without affecting defensive behavior and other forms of activity. In humans, the laboratory agent eltoprazine was tested for a similar effect with the aim of “inhibiting destructive behavior without other significant behavioral, psychiatric, or somatic side effects.” In a number of trials on aggressive patients with dementia, intellectual disability, psychotic disorders, and personality disorders, it did not lead to an overall improvement in their condition, but significantly reduced aggressiveness with minimal to no side effects. Also, in one experiment, the agent zolmitriptan, which has a similar effect, significantly reduced aggression associated with alcohol consumption.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), although they may have side effects, have been most extensively tested in humans regarding violence. In patients with personality disorders, fluoxetine reduces the risk of aggressive behavior by 4 times. In one experiment, it also significantly reduced violence committed by alcoholics toward their loved ones. In another experiment, paroxetine successfully eliminated aggression associated with primary psychopathy (implying heartlessness and lack of empathy), and this was not the result of a sedative effect. It appears that primary psychopathy is linked to dysfunction of the serotonin system. Sertraline was once tested on violent recidivists, and it proved effective in correcting their behavior. Also, in several experiments, citalopram improved participants’ ability to recognize facial expressions of fear (and recognizing distress signals from others is important in the work of a violence inhibitor), increased their generosity, and made them more prone to choosing to avoid harming people in certain types of moral dilemmas.

It is also worth mentioning psychedelics, which are agonists of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors that are capable of stimulating empathy and prosocial behavior in humans. In one experiment, psilocybin even led to a sustained reduction in predisposition toward authoritarian political views, and it is believed that it could be very useful in treating psychopathy and antisocial behavior. Additionally, any experience of its use, as showed by a study of criminal behavior among 480 thousand American adults, significantly reduces the risk of committing violent assaults.

Finally, let us note some other examples. For instance, omega-3 intake leads to a moderate reduction in both reactive (impulsive) and proactive (instrumental) aggression, which may be linked to improvements in the function of the violence inhibitor. Substances affecting 5-HT1A receptors are also found in essential oils, the inhalation of which proved effective in reducing aggressiveness in people with cognitive impairments. Furthermore, the possibility of using probiotics (bifidobacteria and lactobacilli), which participate in the metabolism of tryptophan and serotonin in the body, for the therapy of violent behavior is already being studied.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How extremism and radicalization are linked to psychopathy and other personality traits

The question of the role of individual personality in extremism, i.e., the support for the use of violence to achieve political goals, and radicalization, including aggressive religious radicalization, is quite interesting. In this regard, it is particularly important to note that psychopathic predispositions are the strongest factor predicting violent behavior, which means it can be assumed that they also explain these phenomena to some extent. And in some studies, this question has indeed been addressed.

For example, in one of them, it was studied to what extent the presence of militant extremist thinking in a person can be explained by a tendency toward psychopathy, sadism, and disintegration (psychosis). Using a sample of 306 students, it was shown that sadistic and psychopathic tendencies are linked to pronationality—the support of violence as a method of achieving goals. Psychopathy and disintegration were also linked to the belief that the world is a corrupt and vile place. Furthermore, disintegration was a good predictor of a person’s tendency to rely on supernatural forces as a rational justification for extremist actions. These results were replicated in a similar study conducted on a sample of 147 male inmates.

In another study involving a sample of 643 women, it was shown that those with high scores in Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) were characterized by the highest levels of radicalized consciousness and behavior and were prone to aggressive religious radicalization. Also, in a sample of 299 students, a positive correlation between Dark Triad traits and pro-violence and support for extremism was confirmed. A significant positive correlation between psychopathy and extremism is confirmed by another study, conducted on 954 volunteers. Additionally, in a sample of 469 students, it was found that psychopathy and narcissism directly explain a person’s pro-violence, whereas psychopathy and Machiavellianism directly explain radical religious behavior.

As we can see, psychopathy, as well as other socially negative personality traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, sadism, and disintegration, are factors that, according to numerous studies, predict a person’s tendency toward pro-violence, extremism, and radicalism. This must be known for a better understanding of the problem of such behavior and a more effective search for possible methods to solve it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch