Тег: Psychopathy

Psychopathy – a zombie idea? Not quite!

Recently, the article by Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen has made waves, attempting to completely refute the concept of psychopathy and labeling it a “zombie idea.” The author concludes that psychopathy does not exist in principle, and that the scientific community’s interest in this idea is fueled only by the cultural popularity of the concept. But do such claims actually hold water, or is this just another attempt to ride the hype by denying the obvious? Let us examine everything in order.

First of all, the author refers to his own meta-analysis, in which he finds that, according to research data, psychopathic personalities perform no worse than ordinary people on empathy tests. However, it is extremely important to note that modern science does not claim an absolute inability of psychopaths to empathize. Often, the discussion concerns a deficit in affective empathy (the ability to feel the emotions of others while observing them) to varying degrees, while simultaneously, cognitive empathy (the mere ability to read others’ emotions without feeling them) is frequently fully intact. The author of the article primarily uses empathy as a monolithic construct, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Furthermore, such results may have a rather interesting explanation—psychopathy may consist not in the absence of empathy itself, but merely in the absence of its automatic activation. For instance, in one experiment, psychopaths were found to have the same level of mirror neuron activation (which is typically associated with empathy) as ordinary people. But this only occurred when they were given the task of manifesting it intentionally! As for spontaneous empathy, they demonstrated a clear deficit in neural activity in that case. Another experiment similarly proved the ability of psychopaths to take the perspective of others (to understand their state and thoughts), but only when it is an intentional task. At the same time, automatic (reflexive) perspective-taking occurs only in low-psychopathic personalities.

The author also uses psychopathy itself as a monolithic construct, without paying particular attention to its individual traits and the connections between them. This is also an extremely incorrect approach, as in modern research, results and conclusions are often presented within the framework of multi-factor models of psychopathy, which are perfectly functional.

There are also moments where the author has explicitly lied. He claims that frequently cited studies in favor of the psychopathy concept—for example, neurobiologist James Blair’s article on the mechanism of violence inhibition, which normally deters a person from harming others, the presence of moral-psychological impairments in psychopaths, as well as certain neurophysiological studies—are merely isolated pieces of evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously. However, Blair’s core positions and his violence inhibitor model, such as the reduced ability of violent and psychopathic personalities to perceive distress signals (sadness, fear, etc.) from others, have been replicated by dozens of studies! Furthermore, there is already a great deal of evidence regarding the link between structural brain impairments and psychopathy.

Finally, the author decided not to mention the strongest argument in favor of the psychopathy concept at all: its extremely high predictive power regarding violent crime, and especially murder. This, for example, is supported by numerous studies and meta-analyses by criminologist Matt DeLisi. Moreover, so far there is not a single study that refutes such a link. As forensic psychologist John Marshall notes in one of his articles, psychopathy is the strongest indicator of violence, it is difficult to ignore in the matter of predicting such behavior, and the fact that the “average” criminal who commits a murder demonstrates moderate manifestations of psychopathy underscores that this is not just a rare subtype of murderers, but a general trend for all cases of lethal violence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why parents should be interested in treating psychopathy in their children

Considering various approaches to solving the problem of violence using biomedical technologies, such as strengthening the violence inhibition mechanism and bio-enhancing morality, one can quite quickly conclude that the most appropriate and effective approach would be to perform such procedures as early as possible. Moreover, signs of psychopathic traits, which are the strongest predictors of violent behavior and indicate dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, can be detected as early as childhood, even at the age of 2-4 years, as demonstrated by research.

It is important to understand that if an individual with a risk of developing a violent and psychopathic personality undergoes morality bio-enhancement very early, they will essentially not even have a chance to be such a personality for even a short time. Furthermore, the nervous system at this age is still developing, which makes it possible to achieve an effective result even with gentle intervention. Widespread practice in detecting and correcting violence inhibitor dysfunction could solve the problem of violence in society long before it even arises.

This should already be enough to convey to many parents how important it is to carefully monitor a child’s behavior and emotional reactions (for example, empathy and whether they have an aversion to causing harm to someone), and to intervene in a timely manner upon detecting any anomalies. However, if some parents are suddenly not very concerned about what kind of personality their child will grow into, or if they see no problem with violence at all, then it is worth reminding them of another very strong motivation to consider this issue—personal well-being and the preservation of their own nerves.

Research on violence and psychopathy is often focused on the person with such a condition—their behavior, the risks to society, and criminal manifestations. Some of it discusses the role parents may play in the development of psychopathic traits in a child. At the same time, the opposite problem remains in the shadow—when parents become the very first victims of heartlessness, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, and even cruelty on the part of their own child.

Of course, it is not customary to label children as psychopaths, but they may demonstrate early signs of this condition or so-called callous-unemotional traits—emotional numbness, lack of guilt, and an inability to empathize. Such signs indicate that the child does not simply have a “difficult character”; we are talking about deep-seated personality characteristics which, among other problems, can seriously destroy family dynamics.

For parents, such a child becomes a severe psychological trial. Parenthood brings them no pleasure, only daily problems. They find themselves in a trap: on one hand, the social expectation to love and support their child, and on the other, constant stress, fear, and a sense of helplessness. Often, such families face a lack of understanding from others and even accusations of poor parenting, which only increases their sense of isolation and guilt. Parents may also face very serious problems if their child begins to behave antisocially in society, as they will have to bear responsibility for their actions.

All this being said, it must be understood that good upbringing and a favorable environment alone may not be enough to prevent a child from developing a psychopathic personality (although this is, of course, also important for reducing the risk). Therefore, all parents have an interest in detecting early signs of this condition and resorting to therapeutic intervention if they are present. This will certainly help them preserve their own family, and with widespread practice, it will also lead to a reduction in the level of violence throughout society, and over time—to the complete eradication of this problem!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How Psychology Predicts Support for the War

Debates about war often revolve around questions of morality, law, or geopolitics. However, modern psychological research reveals a very interesting point: a person’s attitude toward war is largely determined not by arguments, but by their personality traits. For instance, a recent study in Britain showed that support for war is closely linked to certain stable psychological characteristics, rather than just a rational assessment of the situation.

First of all, it should be noted that so-called social dominance orientation (SDO)—the tendency to believe that society should be hierarchical and that some groups of people deserve to have power over others—plays an important role. As it turns out, people with high SDO scores are more likely to support military actions because they perceive the world merely as an arena of competition and a struggle for power. Conversely, people with low SDO scores tend toward more egalitarian views: they are more likely to consider all people equal and are therefore less inclined to justify violence as a tool of policy.

Another point worth noting is childhood abuse. As is well known, there is a connection between childhood experiences and attitudes toward violence in adulthood. Accordingly, it was found that people who were subjected to both emotional and physical abuse by family members in childhood are far more likely to come out in support of war.

We should also consider the willingness to obey authority. People with an extremely submissive personality type tend to align themselves with the aggressive policies of the state, including the waging of wars. In their understanding, one must not speak out against authority or sow useless doubts in people’s minds. On the contrary, people with low scores in obedience to authority who support the freedom to oppose it are not inclined to speak in favor of war.

Finally, let us not forget the dark personality traits. As it turns out, sadism is very strongly linked to support for war. People with this trait derive pleasure from cruelty and causing harm to others, and are therefore highly inclined to advocate for violence as a method of conflict resolution. Support for war is also characteristic of personalities with psychopathy, as they are emotionally detached from other people and feel no aversion to committing violence.

All this shows that the choice “for” or “against” war cannot be explained by a person’s rational assessment of the situation alone. In practice, the opposite often happens: first, a person has a certain psychological predisposition, and only then are arguments selected that fit well into it. Certain personality traits lead a person to rationalize military aggression, exaggerating convenient arguments and ignoring everything else.

From a libertarian perspective, this is especially important, because if support for war is linked to personality traits such as a drive for dominance or psychopathy, it calls into question the very idea of granting a “monopoly on violence” to a stationary bandit. In such a case, decisions about war would reflect not objective necessity, but the psychological distortions of those given the power to make them.

It is also interesting that such attitudes are closely linked to views on freedom and control in general. People who accept violent hierarchy as the norm are more likely to justify not only external aggression but also internal restrictions—from the strengthening of security forces to the suppression of civil rights. The presence of such people in society is very beneficial to the state, as it allows it to introduce authoritarian orders without hindrance.

Therefore, any debate about war is not just a clash of arguments, but a clash of psychological types. This means that to achieve peace and freedom, it is not enough to simply “convince.” It is necessary to understand which psychological predispositions make people inclined to justify violence, and to work specifically with them. For as long as there are enough people in society who are psychologically ready to accept war, a reason to start one will always be found.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Dark Rizz”: Why We Fall in Love with Tyrants and Vote for Psychopaths

Perhaps some of you have already seen this concept – “Dark Rizz” (Тёмный ризз) – on Western social networks. If not, it conceals a rather unsettling, yet intriguing, psychology. And recently, Psychology Today released an excellent article on this subject, from reading which you’ll only have one thought in your head: “Damn it, this is an ideal description of the relationship between a citizen and the state!” So let’s examine in detail how it operates, why our brains succumb to manipulation, and what significance understanding this has from a libertarian standpoint.

At the core of “Dark Rizz” lies the classic “Dark Triad”: narcissism (I – the center of the universe), Machiavellianism (the ends justify the means, and people are pawns), and psychopathy (there is no fear or conscience). Individuals possessing such qualities often exhibit a strange, toxic magnetism. They aren’t kind or caring, but it’s impossible to tear your eye away from them because they exude an extraordinarily attractive confidence.

Is this familiar? Simply turn on the television or watch election debates. That politician who shouts loudest of all promises to “restore order” and views opponents as dirt – that’s it. We often accept their fearlessness as competence, and their brazenness as leadership strength. But why do we fall for it? Psychologists term this intermittent reinforcement. Imagine you are communicating with a person (or living in a country) who behaves unpredictably. Today he is cold, ignores you or introduces a new ridiculous ban. The next day – he pays attention to you, reduces the mortgage rate, or simply doesn’t hit you. This contrast triggers a dopamine rush. If you were given a treat every day, you would get used to it. But when the treat is given randomly, after a week of being whipped – you begin to crave it. You become addicted.

In interpersonal relationships, this is referred to as “emotional swings.” In politics, it’s called populism and statism. A stationary bandit creates a problem (cold), you suffer, and then he slightly loosens his grip (warmth). And you feel grateful. “Thank you for letting us breathe on even days, our great leader!”

The author of the article, Dr. John Gruda, aptly expresses himself regarding this issue: “Calm, emotionally stable people rarely become heroes of drama.” This implies that healthy relationships (and a healthy market economy) are boring. You go to the bakery, pay money, and receive bread. The baker doesn’t gaslight you, doesn’t disappear for a week, and doesn’t demand worship. It is a fair deal. However, “Dark Rizz” is cinematic. It’s tension and drama. Politicians with “dark charisma” sell us this show to us. They create chaos so they can heroically resolve it. They make us feel small so that they appear large.

How to spot a trap? Psychologists advise asking yourself: “Do I feel better or worse after talking to this person?” Healthy charisma (and a healthy society) gives you a feeling of safety and autonomy. “Dark charisma” feeds on your fear and insecurity. If a leader (or partner) demands loyalty through fear, avoids responsibility and constantly changes the rules of the game – it’s not a ‘strong hand’, it’s just manipulation.

What should libertarians do with this knowledge? Of course, you need to remember about boundaries. Dark rizz only works when your personal boundaries are blurred. In politics, these are boundaries of self-ownership and private property. And if someone steps over them, you simply need to send them into the woods. It’s also worth appreciating boredom. Stability of contracts, inviolability of personality and a free market don’t cause an adrenaline rush. And that’s great! We don’t live in a blockbuster; we just need to live and work normally. And finally, you shouldn’t confuse control with charisma. If someone is trying to control every step you take, disguising it as “national interests” or “overall security” – it’s not leadership. It’s abuse, inflated to the scale of a country.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From heartlessness to brutality: psychopathy as a key to predicting violence

Modern science shows that violence – not just the result of influence on a person by society, environment, upbringing or simply their personal choice. Primarily, violence is a biological phenomenon – the result of dysfunction of the inhibition mechanism of violence and arising psychopathic predispositions due to this. And John Marshall, a forensic psychologist, writes quite well about the key role of psychopathy in committing violence in one of his articles, which we will now consider in more detail.

Firstly, he mentions the meta-analysis by Brittany Fox and Matt DeLisi from 2019, which considered 29 samples from various countries covering over 2600 murders. The correlation between psychopathy and committing murder was equal to 0.68. For comparison – in medicine a correlation of 0.3 between smoking and lung cancer is already considered significant enough not to be ignored. And the link between psychopathy and murder was twice as strong! What’s more, the more extreme or organized the form of killing is, the more manifestations of psychopathy there are in it.

Moving on to the most relevant studies published this year, Melissa Parker West and her colleagues conducted an analysis of 117 studies on the connection between psychopathy and sexual violence. The correlation was moderate, at a level of 0.35, however it is important to note that it remains stable across various samples, including prisoners in jails and public samples. In medicine, similarly strong will be the link between cholesterol and heart disease. Such results completely destroy the idea that psychopathy has nothing to do with sexual or non-sexual violence. The data indicates the opposite: features of psychopathy significantly increase the risk of violence.

Why is this important? Critics argue that psychopathy – a too vague, exaggerated and useless in practice construct. But the data says something different. Psychopathy predicts murders with an effect size that is very rarely found in social sciences. It predicts sexual aggression at a level comparable to well-established medical risk factors. This makes it one of the most powerful indicators of violence. And the fact that the “average” criminal who has committed murder shows moderate manifestations of psychopathy underlines that this is not just a rare subtype of killers, but a general tendency for all cases of lethal violence.

But what is the practical benefit of such knowledge? Of course its value is not purely academic; it’s useful in assessing and managing risks. For example, we need to understand what measures to take towards a criminal and how suitable he is for returning to society. And if we ignore the factor of psychopathy, we can easily make a wrong answer and issue a blind judgment.

Also, this knowledge is useful in preventing violence. Psychopathic traits don’t arise at one moment when a person turns 18 years old. They can be traced in the individual’s development even in childhood and adolescence, observing their callousness and lack of emotion, absence of empathy and a tendency to manipulative or abusive behavior. It is very important to identify and intervene in the problem as early as possible. Combating these traits before they turn into ingrained adult personality models is one of the ways to reduce the number of future abusers.

Finally, psychopathy doesn’t limit itself to prisons or громкие дела (loud cases) about murders. Many people discover psychopathy in personal life: with partners, colleagues, friends or bosses. The ability to recognize emotional superficiality, pathological lies, manipulation and lack of empathy can protect a person from violence. It is necessary to raise public awareness, which will help people avoid psychopaths and the danger they represent, as well as take the right actions when encountering them!

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Fear and politics took away our effective medicines

Imagine a world where substances that could actually help people with depression, PTSD, addiction, and even, as it turns out, to treat psychopathy and be effective in the matter of moral enhancement, lay forgotten on history’s dusty shelves, chained by bureaucratic red tape. The discussion centers around psychedelics – LSD, psilocybin, and other enigmatic, vibrant substances that are now back in vogue thanks to the renewed interest of many scientists and therapists.

Back in mid-20th century, psychedelics were a genuine star in science. Scientists saw considerable potential within them, and psychotherapists were enthusiastic about the possibility of assisting individuals in experiencing profound, transformative experiences. Naturally, skepticism existed, but it was justified by a lack of robust methods and clear protocols to confidently assess the impact of psychedelics on people. Essentially, this represented typical scientific skepticism—essential for any novel research direction. However, as usual, political forces intervened.

When counterculture figures in the United States, protesting the Vietnam War, began utilizing psychedelics for recreational purposes and to “expand consciousness,” politicians became concerned. Authorities disapproved of this “uncomfortable freedom,” as psychedelics symbolized cultural rebellion and dissent, undermining government authority and control, and they quickly designated them a scapegoat. “Drugs! Dangerous! Ban Them!” – this is what newspaper headlines declared.

Naturally, scientists also found themselves in trouble. Research on psychedelics was halted because authorities effectively choked off any efforts to study these substances. Moreover, government restrictions extended beyond well-known psychedelic compounds to encompass all substances affecting 5-HT2A receptors in the brain – crucial elements of the mechanism behind classic psychedelics. The American government implemented strict legal limitations; any experiments with psychedelics demanded extensive bureaucratic approvals and stringent control by governmental bodies. This meant that only a select few laboratories could access such research.

And now, decades later, scientists are cautiously opening this door again. It turns out that in the right doses and under the control of professionals, psychedelics are quite safe, and the problem most often arises from uncontrolled use of excessively large doses, when these substances truly turn into “malevolent drugs stealing reason,” rather than powerful therapeutic tools. Research is also being conducted on finding the most effective dosages, with maximum therapeutic effect and minimal side effects. In general, modern research suggests that within controlled sessions, psychedelics are not only safe and do not disrupt human cognitive and affective abilities, but also enhance empathy, help cope with trauma, and even significantly reduce aggression levels.

Furthermore, now work is underway to create new molecules that will retain all the advantages of original psychedelic substances, but minimize potential risks. Compounds are being developed that selectively affect specific brain receptors, allowing for therapeutic effects without unwanted side effects such as hallucinations or excessive stimulation. It’s quite something – science has come very far, and now we can be witnesses to a second psychedelic renaissance.

The irony is that all these years skepticism towards psychedelics was not so much scientific as it was political. So maybe it’s enough already to stop fearing the ghosts of the past? Because science clearly shows us that in the case of psychedelics, we should trust research rather than scary stories from the last century. Today, psychedelics can be successfully used for therapeutic purposes, including even such an important direction as enhancing the function of the mechanism of violence inhibition, bio-amplifying morality and treating psychopathy.

Voluntarist, Bitarchy

The world is hostile by its nature, and everyone around is an enemy?

Let’s immediately give a short answer for those who don’t have time to read the whole post: those who think this way almost certainly are psychopathic individuals and probably also suffer from a dysfunction of the mechanism of violence inhibition. We will then analyze in more detail why this is so based on a scientific publication.

Some people tend to hold such a view of the world – that it’s inherently hostile. They also tend to consider other people’s actions as being more aimed at causing harm than they actually are. Thus, they can see threats even where none actually exist. All of this is described by the concept called “hostile attribution bias”.

Of course, no one is obliged to carelessly treat other people, and in many situations checking each person for potential hostile and harmful intentions is perfectly normal. But we must understand – this is done because some people *do* want to cause harm, and you can run into them. At the time same, labeling people as bad and the world in general is unlikely to be an adequate view. And perhaps some personality traits are significantly linked with such a view.

Research conducted by the University of Alabama examined the link between hostile attribution bias and psychopathic predispositions. As a result, this link turned out to be moderately expressed. So, it’s quite possible that people with high overall scores on psychopathy, as well as, in particular, such a factor as impulsivity control impairment (indicating problems with controlling impulsive reactions), would be more inclined to perceive the actions of others in situations they don’t understand as hostile than others. Furthermore, hostile attribution bias was moderately linked with all forms of aggression – both proactive (intentional) and reactive (impulsive). This shows that individuals with elevated levels are prone to respond to perceived hostility by resorting to aggressive actions of various types, including the observation of a link with the manifestation of physical aggression. Don’t forget that all forms of aggression are also significantly linked with psychopathic predispositions.

As we see, individuals who have psychopathic predispositions and are prone to manifesting any forms of aggression often perceive a threat where one simply doesn’t exist. The world seems more hostile to them, and everyone around them – those who undoubtedly want to harm them. Of course, there really do exist psychopathic individuals among us who can easily, without experiencing any psychological discomfort or internal resistance, even commit murders, and it is quite reasonable to be wary of them. But most people are still non-violent and don’t seek to harm anyone. And if someone thinks otherwise, if someone labels people as inherently hostile and aggressive creatures, then it’s perfectly justified to think whether this person is judging others according to themselves.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From Napoleon to a ban: the route of a toxic commenter

We all know this kind of character: sitting behind a screen at 3 a.m., and they just won’t settle down. They leave a caustic comment with few or no actual arguments, check if they’ve been answered, reply even more causticly, and so on ad infinitum. It seems they don’t even need coffee anymore—they are energized by pure indignation.

Why is it important to pay attention to this? Network trolls are not just bored thrill-seekers. In reality, these are people with a whole set of psychological “special effects.” Psychologists have long found that internet trolls often possess a whole bouquet of unpleasant traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and even sadism. Such a “commenter” usually has an overly inflated ego; they believe themselves to be absolutely right and smarter than everyone else. Trying to prove something to such a person is the same as explaining etiquette rules to a cat: you can try, but the result is predictable.

Such trolls couldn’t care less about the feelings of others, but they love infuriating people and watching them suffer. They are like emotional vampires who feed on your indignation. And the most interesting part is that they often develop a peculiar addiction. Every new comment, every reaction from the “victim,” is pure dopamine for them. The troll throws out the “bait” and waits for a reaction, like a fisherman at dawn. That explains why they literally live in the comments: their self-esteem and enjoyment of life directly depend on how many people they manage to anger today. Interestingly, according to research, narcissism is linked to social media addiction.

Their obsessive need to have the last word in an argument reaches the point of absurdity. Even if everyone has long since gone home, the troll will return and write one more comment. Because they must. Because they can. And the trolls’ main trump card is anonymity. While in real life one could easily lose friends and be ostracized, there are no consequences online. The troll is protected by a nickname, an avatar, and the ability to create a few dozen more fake accounts. They are like James Bond in the world of forums: no one knows their face, and they always return.

Why do some people engage in endless trolling? There are many options. For example, such people usually have little power in their real lives. However, in the comments, they can feel like Napoleon—even if their “empire” is limited to a couple of discussions on Telegram. For some, trolling is like an extreme sport; they are simply bored living without drama. And sometimes, personal grudges are the cause. If the neighbors didn’t let them sleep peacefully, now they won’t let the entire internet sleep peacefully.

An interesting nuance: many trolls mask their behavior as freedom of speech. They love to say, “I’m just expressing my opinion!” But there is a huge chasm between constructive criticism and aggressive trolling. Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s opinion, not the right to boundlessly insult and humiliate others within their own communities. Trolls who hide behind liberal/libertarian ideas actually discredit the very essence of freedom of speech and only contribute to increased censorship and control. The irony is that their behavior only brings them closer to what they supposedly fight so fiercely against.

So what can be done about this? Resource owners and administrators should be tougher on their private territory. A troll who tries to infuriate and insult others is best sent to “read-only” mode—let them observe adequate communication from the sidelines. Sometimes this is the only way to restore a healthy atmosphere in the comments and let others know that rules of decency exist even online.

And the main piece of advice for ordinary users: don’t feed the trolls. Your reaction is vital to them. The best punishment for a troll is being ignored. A troll without attention is like a rock star without an audience: sad and meaningless. And remember: on the other side of the screen, there is most often an unhappy and insecure person! This doesn’t excuse them, but it explains it. Sometimes it’s enough to just remember this to stay calmer in the face of such provocations.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

May my cow die, as long as the neighbor’s two die

It is widely known that the higher a person’s psychopathy scores, the less they are concerned with honesty and causing harm to others. However, researchers were interested in what values psychopathic individuals adhere to in such cases and what motivation shapes their behavior. To this end, an assessment was conducted of 3,521 adult volunteers regarding their level of psychopathy (using the Levenson test), values, aspirations, orientation toward social dominance, as well as a preference for absolute or relative well-being.

First and foremost, psychopathic individuals showed a greater drive toward achieving financial success than toward improving the world around them. Additionally, they—and especially those with high scores in primary psychopathy (traits such as callousness and lack of empathy)—identified material possessions as a central good in human life and a source of happiness, as well as the idea that a person’s success in life is determined by the amount of property they own.

However, it is unlikely that such views can be considered inherently bad, as it is an individual’s choice which values are important to them, provided they do not involve causing harm to others. But what truly can be called a problem is the preference of psychopathic individuals to be wealthier than other people, even if this means having less wealth in absolute terms. In the completed questionnaires, they expressed a reluctance to obtain a higher income, better education, or more leisure time if other people around them would receive even more of these things and have a social status higher than theirs. In absolute terms, they are willing to have less wealth if other people have even less than they do, allowing them to achieve a higher social status in comparison.

It seems that sayings like “let my cow die, as long as my neighbor’s two cows die” or “let my shed burn down, as long as my neighbor’s cow dies” did not appear out of nowhere, but describe the preferences of a specific category of individuals—psychopaths. Apparently, it is primarily important for them to assert themselves at the expense of others and to be relatively better than them, rather than to achieve a specific level of well-being. The strong inclination of psychopathic individuals toward such values once again reflects how dangerous their mental state is, caused by a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. Normal people should certainly be wary of them, as they are capable of and willing to cause any harm if, in relative terms, it elevates them above everyone else. And in the long term, such a pathology, as we have pointed out many times, requires therapy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch