Автор: Битарх

Who strives for political power and how to solve the problem of pathocracies

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Regarding the question of who typically holds political power, there is a vast difference between a healthy average individual, who feels aversion to harming others, empathy, and other social feelings, and a minority of “degenerates” who do not care about the well-being of others and are ready to realize their ambitions even at the cost of numerous victims. Obviously, individuals belonging to the first category simply do not strive for political power, preferring to build social connections based on voluntary agreements. And this clearly demonstrates the very essence of the institution of statehood, proving once again that states are simply stationary bandits.

I think everyone agrees that power is very often held by psychopathic personalities. This state of affairs could be explained by their high manipulative abilities. But that is not the only essence—in the struggle for power, such individuals simply face no serious competition. Healthy people do not need power supported by coercive force, nor are they likely to be able to utilize it to its full extent, even if they occupy a high political post. At the same time, a psychopath craves power and is always capable of using all its tools, including those for destroying potential competitors. Furthermore, upon taking power, they attract other similar personalities who also crave a high position. And fair and empathetic people are left with nothing but to step aside, otherwise state repression may be applied to them.

We can discuss for a long time the problems that the abuse of power leads to. But it would be better to see that such abuse is simply unavoidable. For the reasons already mentioned, a psychopath, or at least an individual who, while not completely ill, is nonetheless more insensitive, will always have an advantage in obtaining political power. Any “monopoly on violence” over time becomes a pathocracy—a regime where power belongs to people with mental disorders. And here it would be appropriate to ask the etatists—do you really want to live in a social system that will, at some point, guaranteedly hand your life over to the disposal of mentally ill individuals?

People studying the problem of pathocracies usually propose mandatory psychological evaluation for all potential candidates for political posts as a solution. Of course, if we analyze such an approach in more detail, we will realize that it is unlikely to avoid the problem of corruption. But if it worked, we would quickly obtain a government that is at least incapable of effectively resorting to repressive and violent tools. And this would make it easier to achieve a free, non-violent society.

Therefore, it is still important to develop methods of social pressure that would not allow psychopaths to achieve any success. Any individual who demonstrates signs of psychopathy, and even more so one who has committed violence in the past, should be subject to serious ostracism (especially in the sphere of electoral rights) and pushed toward therapeutic procedures aimed at treating their mental disorder. After all, to guaranteedly dismantle “monopolies on violence” and “stationary bandits,” we must first make the emergence of pathocracies absolutely impossible, i.e., solve the problem of the presence of violent psychopathic individuals in society. If there are none, no one will need any political power.

Therapy against violence with the help of natural herbs

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Quite interesting results are shown by research into a number of remedies popular in the “non-traditional” medicine of several Asian countries (Japan, China, Korea) used for the therapy of nervous system disorders. The practice of their application and laboratory tests demonstrate a strong anti-aggressive effect. And we are talking not only about a general sedative effect. These remedies seem capable of restoring the correct functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism.

The first of these remedies is kamishoyosan (or Jia Wei Xiao Yao Wan), which is a blend of 10 herbs very frequently prescribed in Asian countries for certain disorders. A recent study of its application in mice demonstrated a clear anti-aggressive effect, which is linked to the activation of serotonin 1A receptors and an overall improvement in the functioning of the serotonergic system responsible for the inhibition of violence. Of course, the exact mechanism of such an effect is not yet known; this needs to be clarified in future research. However, shogaol, which is contained in ginger—one of the components of the mixture—acts as a partial agonist of 1A receptors (a drug that activates them).

Another remedy with a similar effect is yokukansan (or YiganSan), which is a blend of 7 herbs. In its case, it has already been determined that the anti-aggressive effect is provided by the Uncaria herb, specifically its component—geissoshizinin methyl ether. This substance also works as an agonist of serotonin 1A receptors. The application of the mixture itself, as well as the herb extract and the active substance separately, showed no influence on the activity of the test subjects despite a significant anti-aggressive effect; that is, it is certainly not a matter of a simple general sedative effect.

The idea of pharmacological therapy for violent behavior through the restoration of the correct functioning of the serotonergic system and the violence inhibition mechanism has long revolved around the use of serotonin 1A and 1B receptor agonists. And it is possible that this therapy could be achieved even without synthesizing new chemical compounds, since such compounds are already present in a whole range of natural medicinal plants; it is only necessary to study their influence on the violence inhibitor.

In one of these or another natural remedy, there should be a substance that provides a sufficiently selective anti-aggressive effect without affecting unrelated neurophysiological functions. It is also possible that some of these remedies could be used without extracting a specific active substance, but in the form of an extract, tincture, or decoction, and this would be sufficient to produce a selective effect. Of course, all this still needs to be experimentally verified, but research in this direction has good prospects for the development of anti-aggressive agents, while also significantly reducing their cost and simplifying the process.

Furthermore, such research could once again confirm the concept of the violence inhibitor and greatly popularize it among the masses. Let us not forget that millions of people suffer daily from domestic and family violence, and in many cases, the source of the violence lives with them. This means the problem of victims of domestic violence could be solved quite simply—by adding tinctures and extracts of readily available herbs to the perpetrator’s food and drinks. If such an approach proves effective, these remedies could generally become widely used in the therapy of violent behavior.

Where racist prejudices grow from and what liberals should actually pay attention to

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is one fact: the vast majority of people do not commit and take no part in violent crime. Despite the prejudices that some people hold toward representatives of other ethnic and linguistic groups, peoples, races, sexual and other minorities, it is pointless to argue with this fact even in their case. However, why do such prejudices arise in the first place, who is to blame for them, and whom should liberals seeking to eradicate them focus on first?

The proportion of people involved in violent crime is very small relative to society as a whole, but through their actions, they cause a great deal of harm and thereby attract an enormous amount of attention. With such behavior, a minority of violent offenders ruins the reputation of entire groups of people to which they themselves belong, in the eyes of representatives of other groups and society in general. Therefore, liberals dreaming of building a harmonious multicultural society should first and foremost pay attention to these violent offenders, since their presence only creates problems and hinders the achievement of an open, tolerant society with a normal attitude toward the peaceful representatives of minorities, who constitute the vast majority among them. Mere accusations of others of racism and other vices can do little to help them in reality, as long as the real root of the problem they wish to solve is simply ignored.

In considering this problem, we cannot do without an understanding of the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which individuals capable of committing violent attacks simply suffer from a disorder that prevents them from experiencing aversion and resistance to causing harm to other people. Of course, such a disorder requires the development and application of an effective therapy that restores inhibitory control over aggression. But until such therapy exists, it is at least worth separating violent individuals from everyone else. For example, societies that freely accept migrants should, both for their own good and for the good of the majority of the migrants themselves, test them for malfunctions in the violence inhibitor and the capacity to commit violence, and not admit that smaller portion of them in whom such issues are discovered.

There are no “bad peoples,” “criminal peoples,” “violent peoples,” or other such nonsense that can be heard from people with racist views. But in any people, unfortunately, a minority of people capable of easily committing violence is still present in one quantity or another. And it is this minority that attracts the most attention and most severely damages the reputation of their own peoples. Therefore, liberals should begin to solve the problem of prejudice toward minorities precisely with them. And, of course, it would also be helpful to communicate to everyone the fact that the vast majority of people do not commit violence and that the problem lies only in a small number of violent offenders.

The future belongs to ideas incomprehensible to the stationary bandit

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When a person adheres to certain views regarding the social order, desires specific social changes, and especially engages in practical activities aimed at their popularization and implementation, they may encounter certain risks and threats. I think it is unnecessary to remind you that oppositional views are very often persecuted by the established political power. Even in fairly liberal and democratic societies of the Western world, human rights and freedoms are still limited, and views that do not align with the government agenda are suppressed. And what can be said about non-liberal and non-democratic societies? In them, one can receive severe punishment, or even lose one’s life, simply for expressing an opinion that does not coincide with the “official” point of view.

Activity that questions the established social system is obviously dangerous and risky. But does this problem apply to absolutely all such activity? Let’s look at a few striking examples that allowed it to be successfully avoided.

One such example is the emergence and spread of the internet. This led to previously unseen informational freedom, the effective uniting of people sharing the same interests, and the free organization of various activities, including those aimed at achieving social changes. A very important role in the formation of a free internet specifically was played by the fact that stationary bandits (states) simply underestimated its potential. Many conservative “experts” in the past were extremely skeptical of the internet and believed that it would not have a significant impact on social and economic life.

Imagine what would have happened if governments had understood the potential of the internet from the start. They would surely not have allowed such freedom, introducing many laws regulating its operation long before its wide distribution. Perhaps the creation of any internet resources would have been subject to direct regulation and licensing by government agencies. Also, internet providers would have been required from the beginning to technically design the network’s operation in a way that prevented the emergence and functioning of resources not approved by the government.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Governments seriously began to regulate the internet only when access to it was already in the hands of almost every person, countless resources had been created within it, and it had become an integral part of economic activity. They and their “experts” turned out to be fools, unable to understand a fundamentally new informational tool.

A similar story happened with cryptocurrencies. States explicitly forbid using anything as a medium of exchange and payment other than the money they themselves issue. But initially, cryptocurrencies were barely perceived as money by anyone; they were treated as a toy, a diversion for a small number of “geeks.” And only when they acquired huge scales did governments undertake their regulation. Most likely, if governments had realized the potential of cryptocurrencies from the start, they would have simply introduced laws banning any such means. Now, it is too late to introduce a complete and abrupt ban.

One can conclude that it is safest to participate in the promotion and implementation of those ideas aimed at achieving social changes which no governments will initially take seriously. And such activity has the best chance of actually changing the world, since governments, due to their own lack of understanding and lack of interest, will not ban it or punish the people associated with it.

Perhaps those who are still engaged in activity that is quite clear and absolutely comprehensible to stationary bandits should switch to other ideas that are underestimated by them despite their enormous potential? For example, such an idea could be the complete eradication of violence as a tool for achieving any goals and as a method of interaction between people, which is what is promoted on this channel.

What is often not taken into account in the assessment of the reproductive success of violent individuals

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Violent behavior and psychopathic predispositions were long considered, and through many studies, to be adaptive traits that should provide a reproductive advantage. Of course, more current research refutes this view. Studies of tribal peoples found no real advantage for killers in the number of children over non-killers. Studies of psychopathic personalities, while showing their success in romantic relationships (which is explainable by manipulative behavior and the ability to use the feelings of others for their own benefit), do not always show success in long-term relationships and having children. These conclusions, which at first glance seem counterintuitive to many, are actually very logical if we look at what violent individuals are like and how this affects success in continuing the lineage.

It is worth asking one simple question: why would a violent individual need children at all? The answer to this question is quite obvious in the case of normal people, who would like to care for someone, raise someone, leave something behind for the future, simply because they feel a need for it. But violent people are far less concerned with such things; they are more interested in direct personal gain here and now, which the need to care for someone or worry about the distant future can only hinder. Of course, this does not mean that such feelings are entirely absent in violent individuals; they can be expressed as much as in normal people. But at least on average, one should expect this from them less often.

Even if you simply browse the internet, for example, visit the site “Quora,” where various people communicate in a question-and-answer format, you can see confirmation of what current research says. As an example, let’s take a comment from a woman answering a question about whether psychopaths want to have children. She points to both her own selfishness, unwillingness to care for someone and spend her time, as well as the negative aspects associated with having children. She believes that most parents are unhappy, and that having children is a “hellish cult.”

However, it should be noted that there are reasons why a psychopath may strive to have children. First, let’s note social influence. In the past, consciously and openly refusing to start a family and continue the lineage was something unacceptable and condemned; such a person would likely be considered abnormal by many. Such pressure could have played its part, just as its absence certainly plays a part in the modern world, where the refusal of family and children is becoming an absolutely normal personal choice. Of course, a normal person with the previously mentioned feelings will often still be inclined to have children, at least one child. But for a psychopath in such conditions, there is a much higher probability of becoming a staunch “childfree” (no offense to non-violent people who have decided not to have children).

Reasons could also include a person’s personal beliefs, the social influence that still remains in some situations encouraging the having of children and condemning the refusal of it, or even simply an accidental pregnancy. But even if a psychopath does have a child, they are unlikely to influence them in a positive way. On the contrary, the result will most likely be psychological trauma for the child, which will only reduce their own reproductive success in the future. As we can see, violence is once again not an adaptive trait in the long term.

It is good that psychopaths are nevertheless less successful in continuing their lineage than normal and mentally healthy individuals, especially in modern social conditions. Although it would be even better if none of them had or raised children, at least until an effective therapy for their condition is developed, aimed at restoring the function of the missing mechanism of violence inhibition.

What is the influence of genetics and environment on the capacity to commit violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Different human abilities and inclinations in terms of character and behavior, of course, arise due to neurophysiological characteristics formed both genetically and under the influence of the environment. However, it is often a contentious issue to what extent these two types of factors determine a person’s personality. Disputes may especially concern the problem of violence—what is the role of innate predispositions and the social environment in which a person exists? Let’s try to provide a clear answer to this question.

Let’s start with a study examining the genetic risk of developing psychopathy in 7-year-old children. Important components of psychopathic predispositions are callous-unemotional traits, manifested by a lack of empathy, guilt, and other social emotions, as well as antisocial behavior manifested by increased aggressiveness. As this study showed, the coincidence of both components in children has an extremely high level of heritability—81%. Meanwhile, in cases where children exhibit only antisocial behavior, a moderate level of heritability is observed—30%.

The difference between these two groups of children is that representatives of the first group, in whom callous-unemotional traits are observed, are capable specifically of intentional antisocial behavior and violence. They have a high risk of developing psychopathy and a tendency toward violent crime in adulthood, and they are resistant to educational measures. Their condition is more severe than that of children in the second group, whose behavioral problems are not as serious or long-term.

Another study should be mentioned, which examined the stability of different types of aggression from childhood to adolescence. The stability of reactive aggression, which arises as a subject’s reaction to frustration or threat (defensive aggression also falls under reactive), can be explained in nearly equal measure by genetics (48%) and environmental influence—shared (11%) and non-shared (41%). However, the stability of proactive aggression, i.e., the use of aggressive actions to achieve certain goals and the intentional infliction of harm on people, was predominantly genetically mediated (85%). Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that in adulthood, a strong genetically mediated stability of callous-unemotional traits still persists. For example, between the ages of 17 and 24, it is 58%.

The ability to commit intentional acts of violence, or proactive aggression, certainly has an extremely strong genetic influence. This is consistent with the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which the average healthy individual experiences a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people. This mechanism is expressed as an innate unconditional reflex that emerged during human biological evolution, and callous-unemotional traits and psychopathic predispositions are the result of a failure in its correct functioning.

As we can see, this impairment, leading to the capacity for intentional violence, can certainly be called a genetic abnormality, for which the best treatment would be the development of appropriate gene therapy. Strong candidates for its application could be genes associated with the correct functioning of the serotonin system, such as MAO-A, SERT, TPH2, as well as the 5-HT1A/1B receptor genes.

The situation is slightly different with reactive aggression. Its increased level is often linked to hypersensitivity to threats, and this may indicate not only a malfunction of the violence inhibitor but also of the threat response mechanisms. Since, as the concept of the threat superiority effect tells us, these mechanisms are activated both by innate threats (for example, snakes and spiders) that humans encountered during evolution and adapt to threats through acquired experience, environmental influence plays a significant role in their correct functioning alongside genetics.

The economic price of violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In 2017, the Institute for Economics and Peace released a report that provided a comprehensive assessment of global economic losses from activities aimed at “containing, preventing, and eliminating the consequences of violence.” As it turned out, violence costs us 13.6 trillion dollars per year, or 13.3% of global GDP (estimate given for 2015). To put this in perspective, a 10% reduction in the economic impact of violence would free up more funds than the total value of global food exports or the total volume of global foreign direct investment in 2014. These are gigantic figures.

Military spending plays the primary role in this matter, reaching 6.16 trillion dollars, or 45% of all economic losses from violence. Internal security expenditures, such as spending on police, the judicial system, prisons, and private security, account for 3.5 trillion dollars, or 26% of all losses. It is also worth highlighting homicides and violent crime, which directly lead to medical expenses and loss of income for victims, and indirectly to their loss of productivity, as well as the productivity of their families and friends due to psychological consequences. This accounts for 1.79 trillion dollars, or 8% of all losses. Of course, violence leads to many other losses, for example, those related to internal and external conflicts, as well as the refugees that follow them.

Naturally, it is impossible to add certain less obvious losses to this assessment, especially those related to systemic violence and missed opportunities. Of course, we have already accounted for spending on military and security sectors, as well as losses from private violent crime. But how much benefit could these funds have brought if they had been invested in productive activity, rather than being taken by states to sponsor security structures, as well as other bureaucratized, corrupt, and inefficient state structures? How much potential was lost due to the harm caused by perpetrators, whether by the state—for example, in the persecution of people and wars—or by private individuals? Obviously, the real economic losses from violence will be much higher than 13.3% of global GDP per year; this estimate is merely the absolute minimum from which to start.

We could lose far less if we invested funds into solving the problem of violence rather than into its containment and the elimination of its consequences. The Institute for Economics and Peace article states that a dollar invested in education will bring more benefit and contribute more strongly to maintaining peace than a dollar invested in prisons. But we must also remember that the source of all serious violence is a minority of pathological individuals with a dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, who feel nothing wrong with causing harm to other people. A dollar invested in the development of an effective therapy that restores inhibitory control over aggression in those who lack it would eliminate losses from violence that are orders of magnitude greater than such an investment. A great deal of funds, time, and human lives could be saved and directed toward productive activity that increases the well-being of everyone.

The link between age and the propensity for violence in humans

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As is well known, the majority of crimes, including violent ones, are committed between the ages of 15 and 25, after which the criminal activity of individuals declines, if it does not cease entirely. There are even claims that such a link between age and crime is universal across different groups of people and societies, meaning this phenomenon has a strong biological determination. The decline in criminal activity with age is often linked to the formation of the nervous system and the development of emotional control.

For a full understanding of the topic under consideration, it is worth mentioning one important biological factor. The average healthy individual possesses a violence inhibitor, which triggers a rejection reaction toward causing harm to other people. Of course, its function develops with age, but this process can already be observed at the age of 4-7; as an unconditional reflex that automatically activates when observing distress signals (expressions of sadness, fear, pain), the violence inhibitor is present in humans from birth.

Obviously, the commission of violence requires that the violence inhibitor function in a person be impaired or suppressed. However, it is very important to note that such an impairment does not provoke violence on its own. It only means that there is one fewer deterrent against committing violence. And this is where social factors come into play, which mediate the link between age and crime. Their list is as follows:

– over time, criminals begin to realize that their activities do not provide much benefit compared to the risks they take and the effort expended;
– with age, people strive to “settle down,” and the negative influence of peers in youth is later replaced by social disapproval;
– as they age, criminals may lose partners for committing crimes due to death, imprisonment, or loss of trust in them;
– the decline of physical abilities due to aging makes crime a more dangerous and less successful occupation;
– the propensity for crime is reduced by life experience, the loss of aspirations that require it, or the acquisition of legal methods for satisfying those aspirations.

As we can see, many social circumstances make crime less profitable in the eyes of the criminals themselves over time. But there are also circumstances that can bring back violent urges. There is a common belief that in the Rwandan genocide, the bulk of the violence was committed by young people aged 19-20. However, as data shows, the main perpetrators of violence were men over 30. The median age of all perpetrators during the genocide was 34. And only a third of them were involved specifically in violent crimes.

It is also worth mentioning that aging is often associated with neurodegenerative processes, and this can contribute to increased aggression. An example can be found in those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Particular attention should be paid to the functioning of their serotonergic system, which is responsible for the violence inhibition mechanism. Research links the impairment of its function to the increased aggression observed in Alzheimer’s patients who have a reduced density of serotonin 1A receptors. Meanwhile, aggression remains at a low level in those patients whose 1A receptor density is not reduced.

It can be concluded that the link between age and criminal activity, including violent activity, is mediated not by biological, but by social factors. Most individuals are not prone to it due to a sufficiently expressed violence inhibitor. But those in whom a deficiency can be observed are dependent on environmental influence in the manifestation of their violence. And certain social factors can incite them to violence at any age. Also, it seems that these individuals risk manifesting increased aggression due to aging and neurodegenerative diseases, however, it should be noted that this can rarely evolve into actual criminal activity due to their condition and age.

How violent personalities evaluate themselves and what to do about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Understanding the pathology of violent behavior may face the problem that a person who, due to a dysfunctional violence inhibitor, is capable of easily committing it, is unlikely to evaluate themselves as an unhealthy personality. Many disorders lead to negative symptoms clearly felt by the person, such as anxiety, mood deterioration, depression, suicidal thoughts, and others. But the matter is more complex when the disorder itself does not cause suffering. The ability to commit violence as a result of a person’s lack of a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people belongs precisely to such disorders. Let’s examine this problem in more detail and find out what it is important for us to understand about violent personalities in view of this.

A good option would be to look at people with psychopathic predispositions, since psychopathy is a direct result of the impairment of the violence inhibitor’s function. As Robert Hare, who developed the well-known PCL checklist for assessing psychopathic traits, writes, psychopaths have a narcissistic and extremely inflated view of their self-esteem and importance, a truly astounding egocentrism and sense of self-worth; they consider themselves the center of the universe, superior beings who have the right to live by their own rules. He also considered the issue of treating psychopaths. According to him, the term “treatment” implies that there is something to treat: a disease, subjective distress, inadequate behavior, etc. But, as far as we can determine, psychopaths are quite satisfied with themselves and see no need for treatment, at least in the traditional sense of the word.

Certainly, psychopaths have an inflated view of themselves. They consider themselves important and worthy. They often feel entitled to live by their own rules and think that laws do not apply to them. They tend to have grandiose ideas about their potential. They believe they deserve to be the CEO of a company, or are convinced that they are the best in all matters.

Such personality characteristics of violent individuals are not surprising. From early childhood, they experience no negative feelings when causing harm to others and, accordingly, consider this normal. Manifestations of empathy, compassion, and the inability to commit violent attacks, which are inherent in the average and healthy individual, are perceived by them as weakness. Perhaps this is precisely what predisposes them to place themselves above others.

All this, of course, hinders the eradication of violence from society, since the perpetrators themselves often do not consider themselves abnormal or sick. They should always be reminded of this, referring to the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism and the pathology of their condition according to medical definitions. In particular, one can recall Wakefield’s criteria for disorder, which a condition meets if it arises as a result of the inability of some internal mechanism to perform its biological function (in our case, this concerns the violence inhibitor) and leads to the causing of harm.

But the most effective method would be to exert strong social pressure on them. A person with a dysfunction of the violence inhibitor must understand that no one will risk having any dealings with them until they agree to therapy that restores inhibitory control. Such people are more dangerous even than those suffering from infectious diseases, whom hardly anyone would now take for study, work, or risk starting a family with without undergoing treatment. If a significant part of society understands this, and if an effective therapy against violence is developed, then violent people will seek treatment based on rational considerations. Of course, there will be those who will not do so even under social pressure. They must be monitored closely, and one must be ready for self-defense, which may also include the use of therapeutic drugs on the attacker.

Aggression and Testosterone

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Aggression in male animals and men is very often linked to the sex hormone testosterone. Thus, a decrease in testosterone levels should be followed by a decrease in aggressiveness, and an increase in its levels — by extremely high aggressiveness. Of course, aggression is linked to testosterone, but it cannot be reduced exclusively to the action of a single hormone in isolation from all other neurophysiology. Otherwise, one might arrive at certain misconceptions, for example, that if a high level of testosterone in some men is natural, then violent behavior is also absolutely natural. Additionally, such a view contradicts the concept of the violence inhibitor, according to which many species and even humans possess innate restraints on intraspecific aggression.

To begin, let us recall that the violence inhibitor is linked to the serotonergic system, and the activation of certain serotonin receptors (1A and 1B) can suppress attacking aggression without affecting defensive aggression and other forms of behavior. But how can testosterone affect this effect? As one study shows, there is simply no such influence. Testosterone-driven activation of aggression and serotonin-driven inhibition of aggression work independently of each other; that is, the pro-aggressive effect of testosterone does not consist of suppressing serotonin function. And the influence of serotonin on testosterone-induced aggression is apparently carried out via a parallel inhibitory pathway. It is presumed that this influence occurs in brain regions such as the medial amygdala, hypothalamus, prefrontal cortex, and the septum (septal area), where both sex hormone receptors and serotonergic nerve endings are simultaneously located.

Such an influence of serotonin is necessary to restrain aggression so that it does not cease to be adaptive and functional behavior. This aligns with the violence inhibitor theory, according to which certain internal restraints on aggression prevent it from escalating into violence that causes harm to members of one’s own species. And since testosterone does not disrupt the operation of these restraints, it cannot be the cause of uninhibited aggression. Of course, testosterone increases aggressiveness, but normally only within natural inhibiting limits.