Тег: Violence

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

Debates on enemy platforms

I have a friend who is a freshman. His university has introduced mandatory, useless subjects at the expense of the rest of the learning process. I am mainly talking about “Fundamentals of Russian Statehood.” It is terrible propaganda, a twisting of facts, and the omission of others, all heavily seasoned with emotions and the speaker’s personal opinion.

I have the opportunity to attend this lecture without being a student and to publicly leave the instructor exposed, as the fairy tales coming out of his mouth are easily shattered by logical inconsistencies and objective reality.

The question itself: Is it worth the candle?

Anonymous question

Your doubts are completely justified. The question of whether it is worth the candle arises when the inevitable costs of an activity are large enough, while the potential gain is small. For example, if you played cards at night before the Industrial Revolution with tiny stakes, it is quite possible that even the person who hits the jackpot would not recoup the cost of the burned candles from their winnings. If, in a police state where the public expression of non-enthusiastic views is punished by imprisonment, you were to hold a debate with a state propagandist before an audience of a couple of dozen people, even a total rhetorical rout of the opponent might not be worth the subsequent lost years. However, blowing up a drone manufacturing plant might justify the risks of criminal prosecution in the eyes of many.

Of course, to make the game worth the candle, it is not necessarily about raising the stakes. You can limit yourself to reducing the costs. For example, participating in online debates under a pseudonym. Or moving to a less repressive state. Or engaging in a public dispute with a state lecturer on the subject of paleontology. In other words, playing cards with small stakes, but after the Industrial Revolution, when candles have become cheaper and you can burn even cheaper electricity instead.

In your particular case, where resources are scarce and you don’t want to take too many risks, but you want to harm a specific person who represents the hated state, and in such a way that they have a chance to understand their mistakes, it seems to me that a minor terrorist attack, also known as hooliganism, would be the optimal solution. The simplest thing would be to break a car window. And the stone used to break the window could be wrapped in a piece of paper with a profound saying. You know, something like, “Sudden arrival is the foundation of Russian statehood.” The person is left with nothing, and at the same time suffers an intellectual defeat, which is exactly what you wanted.

Of course, the recipe will have to be modified to fit the context, and obvious precautions will have to be taken: don’t get caught on camera, leave your phone at home, and don’t leave traces of your DNA on evidence.

“It’s the Law of the Jungle”: how to lock wolves in a cage and accidentally invent a justification for authoritarianism

Every time the conversation turns to freedom, self-organization, and rejecting the state boot on one’s neck, a skeptic inevitably emerges in the comments. They believe that such ideas are mere idealism, since in nature, the strongest male always rules. The alpha keeps the pack in fear, and if you remove the leader, the wolves will tear each other apart. After all, man is a wolf to man!

But for now, let’s set aside politico-economic treatises and speak the language of biologists. Because the main biological trump card of “strong hand” supporters is not just a misconception, but a grand scientific myth that people have blindly believed for half a century.

Where did this myth of the vicious alpha male, who growls at his peers, dominates, and holds power through violence, even come from? In 1970, American biologist L. David Mech released the book “Alpha: His Essential Role in the Wolf Pack,” where he described the brutal hierarchy of predators. The book instantly became a bestseller, and the “alpha” image was plucked for management textbooks, movies, and political speeches. It sounds like the perfect justification for authoritarianism: males fight for status, the strong subjugate the weak, and order is maintained through fear.

However, there was one tiny but extremely important nuance. Mech conducted his observations in a cramped zoo enclosure. Adult wolves from different places, who did not know each other, were herded there and locked behind bars. The scientists essentially created a prison barrack, observed the camp-style bullying that emerged in the confined space with its local “overseers,” and with a knowledgeable look, declared that this was the natural order of things.

When that same researcher ventured into the wild years later to observe real, free wolves, he was appalled. There were no bloody tyrants there. A wolf pack in the wild is simply a cohesive family. The “alphas” are just an ordinary mom and dad. They don’t oppress their peers for self-assertion; instead, they teach the young how to hunt, care for the wounded, share prey, and coordinate the pack through care and authority.

Mech then spent thirty years unsuccessfully begging publishers to stop printing his old book. But authoritarians fell so in love with the fairy tale of the “right of the strong” that the alpha male myth remains more alive than ever.

Of course, a lover of dictatorship might concede that things are that way with wolves. However, we are primates, which means the most vicious one should definitely rule us. But even that is not the case.

The eminent primatologist Frans de Waal studied chimpanzees for decades and proved: the leader among primates is far from the most muscular and aggressive male. Stupid tyrants at the top of the hierarchy do not live long. If an alpha begins to act like a banana dictator—beating the weak and seizing food—their peers quickly unite into a coalition, lie in wait for the bully, and stage an early impeachment (with a possible lethal outcome).

A true leader among chimpanzees is a subtle politician and diplomat. He regularly shares delicious food, grooms allies, protects females with offspring, and, most importantly, breaks up fights. His status is maintained not by the animal terror of those around him, but by trust, respect, and mutual benefit. This is a voluntary recognition of leadership, not submission under the lash.

Do you see the irony? The entire pseudo-scientific concept of “natural tyranny” was born from observations of animals that were forcibly placed in a cage. Statists of all stripes love this trick: first, lock people in an artificial cage of prohibitions, taxes, regulations, and redistribution of wealth; then wait for an angry struggle for resources and status to begin on the soil of artificial scarcity and lack of freedom; and finally, step onto the podium in a white tie and solemnly announce the vicious and wild nature of man, whom only a guard with a baton can save from mutual destruction.

Market relations, horizontal connections, mutual aid, and voluntary communities—this is what is truly woven into our nature. Violence, the cult of the leader, and coercion are systemic failures that arise where people are deprived of freedom and driven into an enclosure. So stop confusing the laws of nature with the routine of a prison cell block!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“God suffered and told us to do the same”: how traditional families breed ideal slaves for the state

You have probably heard the popular fable in our circles: if you want to defeat the Leviathan, go to the forests, have ten children, homeschool them using sacred books to bypass state schools, and you will have your freedom. Many libertarians, especially those of a conservative bent, view religion, and Christianity in particular, with great sympathy. At first glance, the logic here seems ironclad. Historically, the Church has built magnificent parallel institutions. It is capable of snatching children from the gripping clutches of the state education system, where they are hammered with etatism and the belief that “taxes are the price of civilization” from the cradle. To some, this may seem like the ideal shield against totalitarianism.

But even the sun has spots, and in closed communities, these spots sometimes turn into actual black holes. We are talking about violence against children, elegantly masked as “divine plan.”

A large-scale psychological study was recently conducted, and the figures were quite gruesome. It turns out that if a child is beaten for no reason (which is disgusting in itself), that is one thing. But if they are beaten with a belt while being told, “You are a sinner, God will punish you,” or forced to stay silent about the abuse for the “honor of the community,” the trauma is multiplied a hundredfold. Guilt simply burns out the psyche from the inside.

And this is where the hope of a considerable number of libertarians crashes down. Many of us fantasize that proud freethinkers will emerge from closed traditional communities—little John Galts who will give the stationary bandit the middle finger. But in reality, this produces broken, beaten people with skyrocketing levels of anxiety and depression. A child who was “broken” from childhood in the name of higher powers will not go out to shake the state, because they simply do not have the strength for it. They will grow up as a person accustomed to obeying an authority that hits them on the head with a boot or a sacred book. They will find themselves a new master, and the state loves such people.

Now to the main point—the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Violence against a child is a direct and gross violation of the NAP. Children are not the property of parents, like a chair or a crypto wallet. They have rights. And if a father sets up a branch of the Inquisition at home because a child prayed incorrectly or asked an inconvenient question, this is not “freedom of religion,” but banal, blatant aggression.

At this point, many true anarchists might cringe, but libertarians need to monitor as closely as possible what happens behind the high fences of “parallel institutions.” If we see overt physical or cruel psychological violence against children, there is absolutely nothing shameful about unleashing child protective services on such parents.

Yes, some may strongly dislike the idea of calling the state for help. But let’s stay in reality. We do not yet have private detective agencies for the protection of children’s rights that offer them shelter and a proper foster family, and provide aggressors with a dose of a drug to strengthen their violence inhibitor. Saving a victim from an NAP violation in the moment is more important than theoretical purity. If a domestic tyrant is ruining the life of a defenseless person, using the existing protection mechanism (even if it is state-run) is normal and morally justified. This is the protection of the basic right to life and inviolability. You do not become an etatist by saving a child from beatings. You become a human being.

Decentralization and freedom from the state are wonderful. But tyrants must not be allowed to hide behind the Bible or anything else, turning their families into sovereign totalitarian sects. True freedom begins not with our refusal to pay taxes, but with the recognition of every person’s right—even the smallest—to a life without violence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Citizen-Avenger”: Not a Libertarian, but a State in One Person

After the release of the movie “Citizen Vigilante,” some viewers saw the main character as almost a libertarian avenger: the state is failing, the courts release criminals, and an armed citizen takes the protection of society into his own hands.
 
It sounds impressive. But this character has about as much in common with libertarian philosophy as a sea pirate does with the protection of private property. The external attributes are similar: distrust of the state, weapons, independence, and contempt for bureaucracy. But inside, there is a completely opposite system of values.
 
Libertarianism begins not with a pistol, but with the recognition of every person’s right to life, liberty, and property. From this follows the non-aggression principle: violence cannot be used against someone who has not initiated it themselves. And this is where the image of the “people’s avenger” falls apart. The vigilante kills not only criminals. He executes the relatives of a rapist—people who did not participate in the rape. Yes, they say disgusting things, justify the crime, and blame the victim. Their words are loathsome. But libertarianism does not presume the death penalty for vile views.
 
A person is responsible for their own actions, not for the crimes of a son, brother, father, or neighbor. Collective responsibility is a favorite practice of authoritarianism. Today, a family is shot for the act of a relative; tomorrow, property is seized from the “wrong” class; and the day after tomorrow, people are sent to camps for having an unfortunate last name. The path is well-trodden, and the signs have long been in place.
 
Even more terrifying is the scene with the oncoming car. The hero intentionally drives into the opposite lane, forcing an innocent driver off the road. The car falls into a ditch and explodes. People die simply because the vigilante needed a vivid illustration for another monologue. This is no longer “private justice,” but the murder of innocents for the sake of a political spectacle.
 
At the same time, the film tries to endow the hero with a moral code. On the bus, he pays the fare for teenagers and gives them a lecture: if some do not pay, the costs are shifted to others. Everyone must follow the rules! The thought itself is clear. Only it is preached by a man who entered the country illegally, did not legalize his status, hides the real owners of real estate behind a network of holdings, and raises questions with tax authorities. The result is a surprising moral compass: if you don’t pay for a public transport ticket, you undermine society. If you hide your business, money, and legal status—well, that’s something else, that’s an “extended vacation.”
 
Of course, a libertarian is by no means obligated to consider state law just. Immigration restrictions violate natural human rights, taxes are theft, and financial regulation is a violation of property rights. Breaking any law that punishes “crimes” without a victim does not make a person a villain and is entirely permissible.
 
But then one must be consistent. You cannot declare yourself an opponent of the system when the rules hinder you, and become a stern defender of order when a teenager doesn’t buy a ticket. This is no longer a philosophy of freedom, but the good old “everything for friends, the law for everyone else.”
 
“Citizen Vigilante” could have raised an interesting question: what should society do when the state justice system truly fails to protect victims? Where is the line between self-defense, civil resistance, and vigilantism? But instead of a complex conversation, the film presents the viewer with a man who has appointed himself investigator, judge, and executioner. Moreover, evidence, proportionality of punishment, and the rights of the innocent interest him about as much as a cash receipt interests a bank robber.
 
The film’s protagonist does not protect individual freedom. Instead, he creates his own pocket state: he writes the laws himself, determines the guilty himself, passes sentences himself, and exempts himself from the rules. This is not libertarianism, but the dictatorship of one man—just without a coat of arms, a parliament, and boring meetings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Hardening of character or a lifelong trauma?

There is a traditional opinion: a boy needs to “harden” his character to grow into a full-fledged man and be ready for life. Following this position, or simply using it as a justification for violence, some abusive fathers deliberately harm their sons. Victims encounter this form of violence at a very early age, which makes it important to examine.

At the core of such an approach is the belief that a boy must grow up to be tough, insensitive, aggressive, and dominant, and that any manifestations of vulnerability, emotionality, and softness allegedly make him weak and unable to survive in society. However, a recent article published on the Psychology Today website correctly notes how such “upbringing” actually only causes serious damage to the child’s mental and emotional development.

The methods used for such “hardening” include physical “punishments,” psychological pressure, humiliation, and intimidation. A child may be forced to participate in aggressive or painful activities, or encouraged to fight or engage in excessively harsh sports such as boxing, martial arts, and even American football. Simultaneously, he is required to suppress his emotions—especially fear, sadness, and affection. The boy is taught not to cry, not to complain, and not to show weakness, forming an internal belief that sensitivity is something shameful. These practices may be accompanied by direct instructions on what a “real man” should be.

It is important to understand: such actions cannot be justified by “good intentions,” partly because in practice they are often used by the abuser purely for personal interests, as a method of control and dominance over family members. A son may be used as a tool—for example, to strengthen the father’s power, exert pressure on the mother, or pass on the same beliefs and behavioral models to the next generation, making violence an inherent trait of the family. Abusive fathers also tend to destroy the bond between the son and mother, which is crucial for psychological development and a sense of security.

The consequences of such actions for the child’s emotional development are very profound. The constant suppression of feelings leads to the child stopping the recognition of his own emotions and the emotions of other people. His capacity for empathy decreases, and difficulties with self-regulation and the expression of experiences arise. In the future, this may manifest as emotional detachment, an inability to build close relationships, and outbursts of uncontrollable aggression.

Ultimately, the boy may begin to identify with the aggressor and adopt his model of behavior. He is deprived of the ability to build healthy relationships, becomes cruel himself, and passes this cruelty on to future generations, forming a closed cycle of violence and traumatic experience. Alternatively, he may suppress himself, leading to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Often, both outcomes blend to some extent. This only decreases, rather than increases, the child’s social adaptability.

Beyond psychological harm, such treatment can lead to physical consequences—injuries, chronic stress, and related health problems. And even if the child is not a direct victim of physical violence, the mere observation of aggression in the family already has a destructive effect on his psyche and health.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: “hardening” through violence has nothing to do with care or upbringing. It is a form of abuse of power by a domestic tyrant, which destroys the child’s personality and even exacerbates the problem of violence at the societal level. Such practices are simply incompatible with a free, non-violent society, and they must be completely replaced by models of upbringing based on respect, empathy, and the development of emotional resilience not through the suppression of feelings.

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

Fight, flight, freeze… or just hack someone else’s brain?

As we know, there are three basic survival strategies in the wild. Encountered danger? In that case, fight, flee (“run”), or play dead (“freeze”/”hide”). But here’s the thing: while we thought this was an exhaustive menu, evolution decided not to stop there. As it turns out, there is a fourth, far more sophisticated path in the wild. Let’s call it “hack your neighbor’s neurobiology.”

Imagine: you are a huge, strong tropical cockroach. An emerald cockroach wasp (which is about three times smaller than you) flies up to you and gives you a quick sting. You are alive, you are conscious, your legs are working. But you… don’t want anything anymore. The wasp delivers a second, surgically precise sting directly into the cockroach’s subesophageal ganglion (the brain). Its venom acts as a perfect blocker of octopamine—the neurotransmitter responsible for initiative and the motivation to move. The cockroach is not paralyzed! It simply completely loses its free will. It is in a state of severe apathy. The wasp takes the giant by its antenna and, like a compliant dog on a leash, leads it to its burrow, where it will lay an egg on it. The larva will eat the cockroach alive, and the cockroach won’t even attempt to escape.

There is also the famous Toxoplasma (Toxoplasma gondii). This single-celled parasite desperately needs to get into a cat’s intestine—that is the only place where it can reproduce. But how do you get there if you are currently inside a mouse? Toxoplasma doesn’t just wait for the mouse to be eaten by chance. It takes control! The parasite forms microscopic cysts in the amygdala of the mouse’s brain, as a result of which the mouse completely loses its innate terror of the smell of cat urine, or even begins to experience slight sexual arousal from it. The mouse goes out into the open on its own, searches for a cat, and predictably becomes its lunch.

Another very cool example: the lancet fluke—a flatworm that needs to get from an ant into the stomach of a sheep or a cow. It penetrates directly into the ant’s subesophageal ganglion and takes the helm like a seasoned truck driver. In the evening, when it gets cold, the parasite forces the ant to separate from the colony, climb to the very tip of a tall blade of grass, and cling to it firmly with its jaws. The ant hangs there and waits to be swallowed by a cow. But do you know what is most amazing? If the cow doesn’t come during the night, and in the morning the sun begins to blaze (which could cause the ant to dry up and die along with the parasite), the worm releases control! It allows the ant to unclench its jaws, descend to the ground, and hide in the shade. The ant spends the whole day living its usual ant life, and in the evening, the parasite presses the button again: “Time to climb the blade of grass!”. And so it goes until they are eaten.

Why is this so cool? When we hear the word “parasite,” we imagine someone who just drinks blood or steals nutrients. But evolution has shown: information and control over behavior are the most valuable resources. These creatures do not control the victim through fear. They use perfect knowledge of neuropharmacology. They synthesize analogues of dopamine, serotonin, various alkaloids and proteins that “hack” the neural circuits of other species. This is not a random system glitch, but the result of millions of years of harsh evolutionary selection. Those who learned to change the host’s behavior in their favor survived and reproduced much more effectively than those who just sat and waited for a miracle. And nature didn’t give a damn about philosophical concepts like “free will”!

What does this mean for us, humans? Acting upon the neurobiology of an opponent who threatens us with harm—for the sake of bio-enhancing morality or as a violence inhibitor—is also not some “madman’s rambling,” but a fully successful strategy supported by millions of years of evolution, which is becoming technologically more accessible to us every day. If you don’t like such an approach at all, then look at yourself and propose full recognition of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the impermissibility of violence in exchange for the limitation of biotech weapons that affect behavior.

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

Divide, conquer, and… smile with all 32 teeth!

We usually talk about violence in physical terms. But there is another type of aggression that is far more elegant from a biological perspective. It is not the club of a Neanderthal, but a surgeon’s scalpel. Or, to be more precise, a sweet poison. Recently, a great article by Winifred Rohl on this topic was published in Psychology Today. She raises the issue of exactly how psychopathic personalities break social bonds. If we look at the market of human relationships as a free exchange of values, then a psychopath is a monopolist-fraudster. And their primary currency is confusion. Let’s now examine this problem point by point.

First, psychopaths use charm as camouflage. Rohl writes: “For psychopaths, charm is their glitter.” Biologically, this is mimicry. A psychopath cannot feel empathy, so they simulate it. Example: you see a charismatic leader who says the right things. Your brain, tuned to search for an “alpha,” screams: “Oh, this is someone to follow!”. In reality, it is a predator who has simply learned in what tone to purr.

Second, they employ the “Wedge” tactic. The article gives a chilling example: a mother (a psychopath) tells her daughter over the phone: “Speak, darling, we are alone, this is private.” The daughter pours her heart out. Meanwhile, the mother winks at the second daughter, who is sitting nearby and listening to everything. Why? To create an artificial deficit of information and trust. While you are fighting among yourselves, you aren’t looking at the one pulling the strings. A classic of statecraft transferred to the kitchen.

Third, they “hack” the hierarchy. Research by Paul Babiak (author of “Snakes in Suits”) shows that psychopaths are promoted in corporations. Why? Because they perfectly hack vertical management systems. To the boss, they “sell” confidence and flattery (psychopaths do not experience anxiety, so they appear super-competent). Meanwhile, they terrorize, sabotage, and frame their colleagues and subordinates. The result: those at the top see an “effective manager,” while those at the bottom see scorched earth. By the time the information reaches the top, the psychopath has already gained their benefit and moved to another department.

Why did evolution leave us with such personalities (approximately 1% of the population)? It is a parasitism strategy. If everyone around is cooperating and trusting (cooperative strategy), then an individual appears who can exploit this trust for maximum personal gain. Without spending resources on conscience, reflection, or fear. Pure profit.

How to avoid becoming prey? The author of the article emphasizes: the main marker that a psychopath is nearby is your feeling of “I’m going crazy.” If person A tells you nasty things about person B in secret, and then you see them hugging—you experience cognitive dissonance. You begin to doubt your own sanity.

So what should be done? Look at actions, not glitter: charisma is cheap, reputation and adherence to contracts are expensive. Therefore, decentralize your fact-checking. If you are told, “The whole department thinks you’re an idiot,” do not take it on faith. Go and speak with the department directly. Psychopaths fear the direct communication of victims like fire, because lies only live in the dark. So protect your neurons and your boundaries. Freedom begins where manipulation ends!

Voluntarist, Bitarch