Автор: Битарх

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

Does the intake of psychoactive substances make a person violent

The consumption of psychoactive substances has long been considered a significant factor predisposing to violent behavior. This is especially taken for granted regarding individuals with addictions to them. However, it is also indisputably true that the presence of dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions serves as a precursor to such behavior. Therefore, researchers became interested in the extent to which psychopathic traits influence the link between psychoactive substance use and violence.

In the past, some studies were conducted regarding the link between alcohol consumption and aggressiveness in animals and humans. Many of these studies concluded that alcoholism itself cannot be a factor predicting violence. In experiments on mice, aggressiveness from alcohol consumption increased only in individuals with significantly reduced levels of serotonin receptor mRNA in the brain (and, as is known, the serotonin system is responsible for the function of the violence inhibitor). And in violent behavior resulting from alcohol consumption in humans, the level of psychopathic traits they possess plays an important role.

Current studies, conducted on criminals, reach similar conclusions when studying the influence of addiction to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine on the propensity to commit violent crimes. Elevated psychopathy scores explain a significant portion of this influence, and if their mediating effect is taken into account, such a link becomes weak.

We can indeed observe more frequent acts of violence by people taking psychoactive substances. However, it seems that they are not the primary cause of such behavior and do not make a person more violent in and of themselves, but may only act as a provoking factor in the case of those individuals who are already prone to committing violence but simply exercised better self-restraint before consumption. Therefore, any intervention aimed at reducing violence from substance-dependent individuals must focus not only on the therapy of the addiction itself, but also on the therapy of the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, as it is this that remains the root of the problem.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How repressive regimes and large-scale evil arise

Why does large-scale evil exist, encompassing entire societies and nations, such as dictatorships, repression, genocides, and wars? Psychiatrist Andrzej Łobachevsky, in his book “Political Penerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Applied to Politics,” concludes that mental abnormalities play a key role in its emergence. People with such abnormalities often attempt to make sense of their pathological perception of the world. Particularly dangerous are individuals with primary psychopathy, who, due to emotional deficits, lack a conscience and experience no guilt or remorse for harming others. Under certain circumstances, the small number of psychopaths with insane ambitions can strike at the vulnerabilities of a society and plunge it into conditions leading to large-scale tragedies.

At the same time, pathological ideologies such as fascism or authoritarian communism are often developed and promoted by schizoid personalities, although readers of “schizoid declarations” frequently fail to notice this. Psychopaths, meanwhile, join social movements that adhere to such ideologies, where they can hide their deficiencies and successfully pursue their lust for power. They easily pretend to be sincere followers of the ideology, perform all the dirty and cruel work for the movement that no one else would undertake, infiltrate its leadership, and eventually seize control. Psychopaths ultimately become the generative factor of pathocracy—a system of governance in which a pathological minority seizes control over a society of normal people.

To suppress resistance, they resort to terror and propaganda, eliminating individuals who are dangerous to them and forcing everyone else to adopt pathological patterns of thinking. Such patterns are especially readily accepted by approximately 6% of the population, who possess the least resistance to the influence of psychopaths. They become active supporters of the pathocracy and accomplices in its atrocities. War is also one of the tools for strengthening pathocracy, helping to redirect the population’s attention from important issues toward imperialistic ambitions and dividing them into parts loyal and disloyal to the regime. Furthermore, there is no avoiding the control of science, which is directed to serve the interests of the pathocracy.

Lobachevsky believes that the only means against evil is the knowledge of its existence and its true nature. Based on this knowledge, evil must be fought just like any other pathology—using medical and therapeutic methods, including mandatory therapy for primary psychopaths. At the same time, it is very important to mitigate punishments and forgive individuals who have committed evil. Before the public, they must be presented as suffering from an illness rather than as being guilty, because a punitive and vengeful approach does not allow people to understand the true nature of their behavior, and thus deprives them of the opportunity to effectively prevent such behavior in the future. By striving for retribution rather than cure, we will leave future generations with exactly the same problems we have now, including the problem of pathocracy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Carrying weapons is absolutely normal behavior, if it is not done for the purpose of committing crimes

Quite interesting results were demonstrated by studies examining the link between carrying and using weapons and a person’s psychopathic predispositions. For instance, high scores in callous-unemotional traits among adolescents are linked to more frequent weapon carrying, regardless of any extraneous factors, and its use in committing crimes. Additionally, the presence of certain psychopathic predispositions in an individual, especially emotional coldness and antisocial behavior, is linked to the illegal use of weapons and a tendency toward violent confrontations.

However, the first study notes that adolescents with low callous-unemotional trait scores may also be inclined to carry weapons, but this is not associated with committing armed attacks and often occurs simply because their peers also carry weapons—they are merely succumbing to their influence. The second study notes that legal weapon carrying, associated with legal motivations for such behavior (for example, ensuring self-defense), has no connection to psychopathic predispositions.

Such results lead to the conclusion that carrying a weapon not for the purpose of committing an attack is absolutely normal behavior, which does not indicate the presence of any mental abnormalities, including psychopathic predispositions arising from the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism that make a person capable of easily harming others. Therefore, there is simply no reason to fear a weapon in the hands of an average individual, if this suddenly causes anyone fear. Nor is there any reason to listen to those who will claim that a normal person has no need for a weapon.

Also, let us not forget that a mentally healthy person will try to possess a weapon legally, if possible. Here, it is worth noting a long-established fact immediately – weapon bans only affect law-abiding citizens, depriving them of the ability to effectively defend themselves against attacks. Such people will not be inclined to acquire weapons if there is no legal way to do so. At the same time, psychopaths will prefer illegal weapons regardless, which they will obtain on the black market or manufacture themselves. Think about it – it is unlikely that a person who anticipates that they might commit a violent crime with some probability, or has even planned it in advance, will use legal weapons that can be traced. And with illegal weapons, a psychopath will be able to easily attack ordinary people if those people do not have a legal right to armed self-defense.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the terrible and uncomfortable fortress city of Kowloon turned out to be an extremely attractive place for people to live

Until 1993, the Kowloon Walled City existed in Hong Kong. Its defining feature was the actual absence of government authority. This became possible because, during the transfer of land from the United Kingdom to China in 1898, a small area of 2.6 hectares containing the fortress was not included in the agreement. It became a Chinese enclave, but later, as it turned out, China withdrew its troops from there. Consequently, this territory became controlled by no one.

After World War II, people began to settle in the Kowloon territory en masse, and by the early 1990s, its population reached 50,000 people, making it the most densely populated place in the world. The entire area was densely built up with buildings. Of course, this place suffered from poor sanitation and a lack of space; one could only breathe fresh air on the rooftops, and visually, it was a terrifying place. Furthermore, in the 50s and 60s, the area was controlled by criminal gangs. Nevertheless, people actively moved there for permanent residence. How did this happen?

Kowloon was a place where state regulations and taxes were absent. Although gangs and drug trafficking were widespread there initially, by the 70s, Hong Kong police had begun conducting raids and flushing them out. The population of Kowloon also took up the eradication of drug trafficking and violence. A practice even developed where if someone committed a crime, that person was simply thrown out of the city, where they would quickly fall into the hands of the Hong Kong police. Former residents of Kowloon themselves claim that the place was safe. And for the most part, the state still did not interfere in the life of Kowloon, which meant that after the disappearance of the bandits, business flooded in and the place began to prosper.

A cohesive society also emerged in Kowloon, where residents helped each other in everything. This included the appearance of kindergartens, schools, clinics, and charitable organizations, which required no laws or regulations to exist. Along with the presence of diverse businesses that sought out Kowloon due to the lack of taxes and regulations—causing even residents of the rest of Hong Kong to frequently visit to purchase cheap goods and services—all of this made the Walled City an attractive place to live, despite all its seemingly most serious drawbacks.

As we can see, the assertion that people are willing to sacrifice freedom and give a significant portion of their money to the state just to live in comfortable conditions with spacious streets, good ecology, parks, and all possible amenities, is not all that well-founded, since Kowloon—which provided no comfort but gave complete freedom in how to live, earn, and manage one’s means—attracted so many people, even though the comfortable “city of the future,” Hong Kong, was within walking distance. In fact, all such amenities could have existed in a place like Kowloon if it weren’t for territorial limitations. Furthermore, security was provided in Kowloon, not least due to the efforts of the residents of the walled city themselves. Although there was police intervention in the 70s, they were not present there on a regular basis and mainly only took in criminals who had already been expelled from the city. Kowloon was not some kind of “violent ancap,” as some might claim. The Kowloon ancap was quite safe and non-violent.

Of course, Kowloon was ultimately destroyed by violence—external violence from a stationary bandit, even if the latter had previously helped in getting rid of internal violence. That is why it is important to eradicate all forms of violence, including having some serious means to neutralize external aggressors, rather than relying on the hope that “good” aggressors will only catch “bad” aggressors without ever interfering in the lives of peaceful people.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How they try to deceive us into thinking that humans are supposedly cruel by nature

Once, Mexican anthropologist Santiago Genovés decided to conduct an experiment that journalists dubbed the “sex raft.” Along with himself, he placed on a small raft intended to cross the Atlantic Ocean 5 men and 6 women, who were strangers to one another and belonged to different races and social classes. The stated goal was to study the behavior of people placed in an extreme situation.

However, Genovés was convinced that humans are extremely aggressive by nature and expected an outbreak of cruelty and debauchery during the experiment. Not waiting for this to happen, he began to stage provocations himself. For example, he repeatedly tried to turn the crew against a specific individual, or publicly announced details from the questionnaires previously filled out by the participants, which he considered embarrassing and provocative. He even documented non-existent cruelty—for instance, he described the participants’ hunt for a shark to prepare food as “mob madness.” There were also constant various problems on the raft, such as leaks, a broken compass, and a lack of radio communication for several weeks. Nevertheless, no real violence occurred, and the people did not fight with one another. If the experiment participants hated anyone during this time, it was only Genovés himself, who remained extremely dissatisfied with the results of the experiment.

Another interesting story concerns a group of 6 Polynesian boys who, through foolishness, spent 15 months on a small uninhabited island. This story was discovered by writer Rutger Bregman, who did not like the gloominess of William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies.” In that novel, children stranded on an uninhabited island quickly reverted to a savage way of life and even began killing other children who disliked what was happening. Bregman decided to look for similar stories, but in real life, and reality turned out to be much more optimistic. The Polynesian boys on the uninhabited island were able to establish a system of relationships that precluded conflict and worked together to ensure survival.

These cases once again show that there are no grounds to consider humans to be creatures cruel by nature. We are often tried to be convinced of this by dubious personalities such as Henovés himself, but everything they say is simply a lie. Although, unfortunately, sometimes lies become popular. This refers to the Milgram experiment, which contained many methodological errors and had most of its results hidden from the public, yet what was actually published succeeded quite effectively in deceiving the public about the willingness of the average individual to inflict any pain on others at the command of an authority figure. It also refers to the Stanford prison experiment, which turned out to be a setup with a predetermined result from the very beginning, and the truthfulness of which the public believed for 50 years, until the archival data was thoroughly studied. Their organizers, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, also apparently seemed inclined, even before organizing their experiments, to believe that most people are easily capable of initiating violence. And their deception proved far more successful than the attempts to deceive everyone by someone like Henovés.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Statism can and must be defeated anonymously

Recently, an interesting story occurred involving the pirate library Libgen. American judge Collin McMahon sided with book publishers and, following their complaint, ordered the resource to pay $30 million in compensation for violating so-called “copyrights” (privileges granted to a stationary bandit). However, enforcing this decision proved impossible – quite simply, no one knows who the actual creator and leader of this pirate library is. Furthermore, the judge’s ruling prohibits anyone from participating in the resource’s activities, such as providing data storage, registering domains, or even distributing links to it. However, the resource’s operation relies on the work of thousands of volunteers from all over the world who upload files and distribute torrents, so the resource has faced no problems other than the blocking of certain domain names.

This case contrasts sharply with the story of the creators of the Tornado Cash crypto mixer. They did not act anonymously, openly presenting themselves as the creators of the resource. And for this, they were subject to state prosecution. Even the mixer’s co-founder, Roman Storm, was caught in the crosshairs, despite being exclusively involved in writing software code for the resource and having no way of knowing for what purposes specific users were using it. He constantly insists, “I was just writing code, how can that be a crime?!”. But if you cross the path of the state authorities, any actions begin to be considered a crime, regardless of how they were viewed in former times.

Today, one can come up with many “digital” ways to fight the regulations and bans of the stationary bandit. And such a fight should definitely be conducted anonymously, since it will not back down from those who decide to openly challenge it, even if there were no precedents of prosecution for such activities in the past. De-anonymizing oneself is not at all necessary for success, as can be seen from the example of Libgen itself, which receives 16 million visits per month without having any public face to represent it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch