Автор: Битарх

Why punishments for crimes are becoming increasingly humane

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In the distant past, it was absolutely normal to use physical punishments, such as whipping or beating with a stick, even for minor offenses. Theft, insults, or leading a lifestyle that did not conform to accepted norms could even lead a person to the death penalty. Over time, punishments became less violent, and the death penalty remained only for the most brutal crimes. But even this is not the limit; in many countries, the death penalty has been banned, and in some (for example, Norway), even imprisonment has become an extremely mild form of punishment, where a person is only deprived of their liberty, but is provided with access to all the benefits necessary to lead a full life.

Reflecting on the topic of why punishments are becoming more humane, one can come to various conclusions. However, a very good explanation is provided by an article on the function and regulation of aggression by psychologist Seymour Feshbach, written back in 1964. It describes the concept of empathic inhibition, the presence of which deters a person from causing harm to others. This concept can be called an early prototype of the later proposed theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, which examines the psychology of violence in more detail and depth.

As Feshbach claims, a physical attack brings psychological discomfort to the person. This, among other things, becomes a major problem and barrier in the application of physical punishments. Other forms of punishment, which do not require the direct infliction of pain and harm, are far less uncomfortable for those executing them and cause them fewer negative psychological consequences.

An example can be drawn from what the landowner A. S. Zeleny wrote about corporal punishment in 1857: “One of the most unpleasant and heavy duties of our patriarchal landlord management (and for me—yes, probably not for me alone—the most unpleasant and heavy) is the necessity of subjecting our people to corporal punishment (birching) from time to time… corporal punishment has something repulsive about it… life becomes somehow coarsened; everything feels awkward in the soul… although one realizes that the act of punishment committed is only the fulfillment of a duty and that this evil is for now necessary.”

Of course, one can always find a degenerate who feels nothing wrong at all about causing harm to other people. Moreover, a system of imprisonment instead of physical punishments requires orders of magnitude more funds for its maintenance and places a heavy burden on society as a whole. At first glance, beating a petty criminal with a stick and executing a major criminal is a far more profitable strategy than imprisoning them. But when the issue is the widespread application of punishments for crimes, it is unlikely that enough degenerates could be found to effectively apply physical punishments to everyone who has committed even the slightest offense.

The violence inhibition inherent in humans makes direct physical punishments involving pain and harm an extremely limited and non-scalable tool. Therefore, instead of these, more indirect punishments are used, in which there is no need to engage in the direct infliction of pain, even if they are more costly from an economic point of view. Of course, established bandits may still set their most degenerate agents upon particularly unacceptable prisoners, for example for political reasons, and punish them brutally, up to the organization of staged “suicides.” But this does not concern the vast majority of criminals in most places of detention. And this once again confirms the concept of the violence inhibitor.

Justification and normalization of violence are signs of psychopathy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When discussing the topic of violence, you may encounter people who see nothing wrong with this phenomenon. Of course, they will most likely condemn certain forms of violence, but at the same time, they will call it an absolutely normal tool—for example, like a knife, which can be used for good in the kitchen or for harm in an attack on a person. Just as a knife does not become “bad” because of how it is used, they claim the same is true for violence. For example, they may often justify state violence, reprisals for violations of norms that are important to the interlocutor, or someone may justify violent “punishments” toward children for “disobedience” and other forms of violence that seem rationally beneficial or necessary to some people.

If a person resorts to such argumentation, it is worth asking them whether they themselves could commit violence in the same situations where they justify its use, and whether they would consider such an act justified and rational. The fact is that at least two items from different versions of Robert Hare’s “Psychopathy Checklist” examine the issue of justifying violence. One assesses the lack of remorse and guilt regarding causing pain and suffering to others, as well as the tendency to believe that the victim of violence deserves it. The second assesses the unwillingness to take responsibility for causing harm, shifting it onto the victim or circumstances, the rationalization of violence, and the denial of the seriousness of its consequences for the victim. Both items also belong to the affective component of psychopathy, which is directly linked to the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism in a person.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in people with low levels of psychopathic traits, aggressive behavior, if present, is reactive in nature. Such behavior depends on a specific situation (for example, provocation, conflict, or threat), is not planned in advance, and does not involve the intentional pursuit of a goal. At the same time, the aggressive behavior of people with high levels of psychopathy is more proactive—meaning planned, intentional, and purposeful. But as research demonstrates, these people tend to present their proactive aggressive acts as reactive, and the victim as the culprit who provoked the act of violence (this behavior is better known as “victim blaming”). Additionally, specifically in men, high levels of affective psychopathy (but not other components) are associated with a tendency to believe that in the case of rape, the woman may be to blame herself and that there is not that much harm to the victim in such an act. Again, people who justify violence tend to blame the victim.

Of course, not everyone who justifies violence is actually a psychopathic personality with a dysfunction of the violence inhibitor. However, resorting to such argumentation significantly increases the risk that you are speaking with exactly such a person. And there is no point in talking to mentally ill violent individuals and taking their arguments even slightly seriously—they are formed due to a distortion of perception created by the disorder they suffer from. Always remind them that a position justifying violence is very similar to how a psychopath would express it, especially if the person has also expressed their own ability and willingness to commit an act of “justified” violence. This can leave a proponent of violence bewildered and discredit them in the eyes of others. And do not fear that such an argument resembles an appeal to the person (ad hominem), because in this case, it is based not on a logical trick, but on the statement of a scientifically proven fact about the link between a person’s psychopathy and their tendency to justify violent acts.

How the state nudges people to become more “illegal”

Voluntarist, Bitarch

You are likely already aware that recently the Russian authorities decided to issue summonses in electronic form and consider them received by conscripts simply by the fact of their appearance in the database. And if a conscript does not come to the military recruitment office on their own, various sanctions await them: a ban on leaving the country, registering an individual entrepreneurship or housing, driving a car, refusal of loans, and others. What will such measures lead to in practice?

Obviously, they will push people to move from the legal framework into relations that are more illegal from the state’s point of view. There are millions of potential conscripts, and far from every one of them will risk appearing at the military recruitment office of their own free will, regardless of the threatening sanctions. But at the same time, they are unlikely to give up leading a life that is at least somewhat full. Therefore, people will increasingly engage in the conscious violation of a number of state laws. In turn, this will create an overload of law enforcement agencies, as they will lack the time, strength, and resources to effectively deal with all the violations due to their excessive number, and will also contribute to the development of grey and black markets operating beyond the reach of the state and its regulations. The stationary bandit, as we see, is digging his own grave with such measures.

It is also worth noting that the Russian state authorities have so far only announced a number of sanctions against a conscript in case of failure to appear following an electronic summons. However, given that a summons will now be considered delivered after its placement in the database, and repeated failure to appear for delivered summonses is grounds for criminal prosecution, those same millions of potential conscripts could end up as “illegal” people, which would only increase the consequences described in the previous paragraph by orders of magnitude. However, most likely the stationary bandit will not create such a large problem for himself. If serious punishments follow, they will be selective and exemplary, but not mass.

Although, just in case, one should expect anything from the stationary bandit for the sake of one’s own safety. However, the good news is that the stationary bandit will only destroy himself further if he decides to do this. And an alternative to him will always be found, especially if millions of people need it and the stationary bandit proves too overloaded to control and suppress everything. This could lead to the flowering of agorism—a voluntary free market existing outside state interference—and in the case of stronger pressure on millions of “military-obligated” persons, the emergence of so-called “unregistered people,” who simply do not exist legally from the state’s point of view.

How common are psychopathic traits and how strongly are they linked to the capacity to commit violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is known that a high level of psychopathic traits in a person is associated with a risk of violent behavior. This is not surprising, as psychopathy is expressed by a decrease, or even a complete suppression, of a person’s natural internal resistance to causing harm to others. However, few know how psychopathic traits are distributed in the general population and how strong the link is between them and the capacity to commit acts of violence. Some may be surprised, but as numerous studies demonstrate, the majority of people do not possess even the slightest psychopathic traits.

A study of 638 individuals from England, Wales, and Scotland demonstrated that 70.8% of them exhibited a zero level of psychopathy according to the PCL:SV test (scale from 0 to 24). The average psychopathy value was 1.52 for men and 0.63 for women. Only 2.3% of people had a psychopathy level of 11 and above, and only 0.6% had 13 and above, which indicates potential or subclinical psychopathy. However, a level of 18 would be a trait of definitive psychopathy, which only one person in the entire sample reached. A semi-normal distribution of psychopathic traits for the general population can be observed, in which a zero score is the mean for the distribution [1].

A similar American study examining 514 people living in the same county demonstrated that more than half of the people had a level of 0 or 1, and two-thirds had 0, 1, or 2. The average level was 2.67 (3.53 for men, 2.16 for women, 1.70 for whites, and 3.86 for African Americans). A level of 13 and above was obtained by only 1.2% of people (1% of men, 1.2% of women, 1.9% of African Americans, and about 1% of whites) [2]. Among American managers and company executives (sample of 203 people), the vast majority (80%) had a level from 0 to 3 on the PCL-R test (scale from 0 to 40). Only 9 people (4.4%) had a level of 25 and above (potential psychopathy), 8 of whom (3.9%) had a level of 30 and above (definitive psychopathy). The average level was 3.64 [3].

A completely different situation is observed among violent people. In one study, 98 men undergoing forensic psychiatric examination and accused of violent crimes showed an average level of psychopathic traits on the PCL-R equal to 21.4. And only 9 people (9.2%) had a psychopathy level below 10 [4]. A similar Swedish study with 43 men, 74.4% of whom were accused of violent crimes, demonstrated an average psychopathy level equal to 23.08 [5]. There is also a current study of murderers sentenced to death in California. For them, the average psychopathy level was 23.31. Only 15% of the individuals considered had a level of 10 and below. Among them were those who had not committed crimes previously, repented for their actions, and behaved in accordance with judicial norms. Individuals with higher psychopathy scores behaved much worse. And 5 people who scored a maximum of 40 points were the most brutal criminals—serial sexual murderers [6].

Additionally, one study provides a meta-analysis of 22 studies with 29 unique samples of murderers from 6 countries: USA, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Brazil. It determined that the average level of psychopathic traits in murderers according to the PCL-R test is 21.1. At the same time, it is noted that for people who do not commit crimes, it is only 5.1 [7].

As the authors of the studies note, in the vast majority of people, psychopathic traits are completely absent or expressed to a small degree. Violence and murder have a strong link to them, and the higher the level of these traits, the more brutal violence can be expected from a person. This once again confirms that the commission of acts of violence is pathological behavior, the result of a failure in the correct functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism, which leads to the emergence of psychopathic traits. Everyone should understand that violence is a disease.

Why Natural Remedies Therapy Against Violence Is Not Just Another “Leech Treatment”

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As we know, some naturally occurring agents, such as herbal extracts and their mixtures, are potentially capable of producing a strong and yet selective anti-aggressive effect, arising from the activation of a neurophysiological mechanism of violence inhibition. If someone is not yet familiar with this topic, I suggest reading our material on it. However, such an idea may face some criticism, doubts regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of the approach. And to eliminate misunderstandings, it is important to examine it.

  1. This does not resemble homeopathy or untested folk medicine. For example, one of the potentially effective anti-aggressive agents we are considering, a mixture of 10 herbs called Kamishoyosan, is an officially approved medicinal product in China and Taiwan; in the latter, it is one of the most prescribed agents for stomach and breast cancer. Additionally, in Asian countries, Kamishoyosan is often used for insomnia, irritability, mood swings, including psychological problems during menopause in women, and many other neurophysiological issues. Of course, studies confirm the effectiveness of this agent and describe its impact on the nervous system in detail.
  2. Research and development in this direction are much more accessible than the creation of synthetic anti-aggressive agents. All the natural means necessary for this typically cost pennies, and even purchasing additional equipment if herbal extracts are needed (although in practice, it is almost always possible to do without it, simply by making decoctions or tinctures or buying ready-made extracts) is still far more accessible than creating a full-fledged chemical laboratory. The bioactive substances of these agents are already well described, or at least simply known. Moreover, some of them exhibit properties very similar to analogous synthetic drugs; for example, the effect of the substance emodin from certain herbs is compared to the effect of the synthetic substance CP-94253, which experimentally demonstrated a selective anti-aggressive effect.
  3. Such agents cannot be banned. Even if you have a laboratory and the ability to synthesize substances that could potentially be much more effective than bioactive substances from natural agents, your activity will be quickly stopped if for some reason it displeases government authorities. The agents we are considering, however, are too widespread; it is simply physically impossible to ban them, and many experiments on them and their preparation for use can be easily conducted at home, relying only on information from the Internet.
  4. The idea of using these agents is very easy to spread. If one of the herbs or herbal mixtures becomes known for its selective anti-aggressive effect, it will quickly be used by everyone, for example, in treating the violence of their loved ones. And it is unlikely that anyone will doubt or consider the idea of its use risky, since unknown synthetic pills are one thing, and decoctions, tinctures, and herbal extracts already long used by many people are quite another.

The topic of using natural agents to treat certain pathologies, including the pathology of violent behavior, is often underestimated; however, it is actually very promising for a number of the reasons we have listed. Therefore, in the matter of solving the problem of violence, we should direct part of our attention to this approach, as there is a significant chance that it will yield substantial results. At the very least, it will allow for the confirmation of the idea itself: therapy for violent behavior through the influence on the violence inhibitor.

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.