Тег: Violence

Why some private companies cause harm

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Private companies, especially from the perspective of supporters of left-wing socio-economic views, are often considered socially irresponsible, working solely for their own material gain, while being completely unconcerned about the impact of their activities on society and the environment in which they exist. It cannot be denied that such a statement is to some extent true, as it is not difficult to imagine how a businessman might dump toxic waste into a river or squeeze the last bit of strength out of their employees without providing fair compensation for their labor. However, this is not always the case, and the problem of “bad” companies deserves a closer look.

A study on the topic of corporate psychopathy can help us with this. In it, 346 Australian employees took part in a survey in which they rated their supervisors (managers) for psychopathy using the PM-MRV test; they were able to rate both current and previous supervisors, resulting in a total of 567 individuals being evaluated. Based on the survey results, the managers were divided into normal, dysfunctional (partially psychopathic), and psychopathic. The test itself includes standard items for assessing primary psychopathy, such as superficial charm, deceitfulness, manipulativeness, a grandiose opinion of oneself, a lack of remorse regarding causing harm to employees, cold-bloodedness, a lack of empathy, and an unwillingness to take responsibility (shifting the blame for one’s own mistakes onto others). In addition to the psychopathy of the managers, the study assessed whether the activities of the companies with these managers were socially and environmentally responsible, beneficial to the local community, and loyal to the employees.

Of the 567 managers, 292 were rated as normal, 132 as dysfunctional, and 143 as psychopathic. Such a high proportion of psychopathic individuals among managers (as much as 25%), which significantly exceeds the general population (only 1%), should not be surprising, as such positions, which grant a person power over others, strongly attract psychopaths and give them the opportunity to fully unfold their cruel abilities. Now we should pay attention to how companies with these different types of managers conduct their activities.

In the case of normal managers, the vast majority of respondents (89.3%) rated the company’s activities as socially and environmentally responsible. However, this figure drops to 66% in the presence of dysfunctional managers and to 52.5% in the case of psychopathic managers. Additionally, 85.8% of respondents rated the company’s activities as beneficial to the local community if normal managers were employed. For companies with dysfunctional managers, this figure drops to 75%, and in the case of psychopathic managers, it falls to 55.1%. Furthermore, the majority of respondents (79.6%) agreed that the company behaves loyally toward employees in the presence of normal managers, but this figure drops as low as 23.7% in the presence of psychopathic managers. This confirms that corporate psychopaths do not care at all about those who work with them or under them. It is also worth noting that in the case of normal managers, 82% of respondents felt recognition for a job well done, whereas only 24.8% of respondents stated this in the presence of psychopathic managers.

One can see how strongly parameters such as social and environmental responsibility, providing benefit to the local community, and loyalty to employees on the part of the company depend on the psychopathy of its managers. Moreover, the study we are considering assessed primary psychopathy specifically, and its manifestation, as is known, is strongly linked to a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, due to which an individual ceases to experience internal resistance and repulsion toward causing harm to other people. And the problem of “bad” companies is unlikely to be solved as long as individuals with such a pathology hold their leadership positions. It undoubtedly requires therapy and eradication from society.

The critical error of dystopias about a non-violent society: there is no need to cut anything out of a human

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In a number of works demonstrating a non-violent society or the results of eradicating violent behavior in a specific person, the essence boils down to the alleged existence of some aggressive stimulus, which is precisely why a person becomes capable of hitting or killing someone, committing brutal crimes, or even starting wars. Having named it the cause of violence, the authors then describe societies in which, to eradicate it, they decided to suppress or literally cut this stimulus out of the person. The results of such a process turn out to be extremely discouraging – we get “castrated” people and a society deprived of all its creative potential.

Let’s start with Stanislaw Lem’s “Return from the Stars,” where people undergo a procedure called “betrization” – the neutralization of aggressive stimuli in the brain and the strengthening of the self-preservation instinct. According to Lem, in a peaceful society, people would become lackadaisical, unable to perform complex tasks, and would stop experiencing strong emotions. Let’s also recall Anthony Burgess’s “A Clockwork Orange,” where the main character undergoes a complete brainwashing. Being a devout Catholic, Burgess is inclined to believe that man is driven to violence by original sin, however, he possesses free will and the choice of whether to commit violence, and eradicating this freedom would be sinful. One could also briefly mention the anime series “Psycho-Pass,” in whose society certain works of art were even banned for inducing aggression in people, and in one scene, people who did see violence turned out to be absolutely indifferent and emotionless toward the victim’s suffering. There is one more work in which art was also banned for the same reason, but it will be appropriate to mention it a bit later.

All these works make the same critical mistake. In reality, it is not the presence, but precisely the lack of certain stimuli that makes a person capable of violence. As research demonstrates, aggression is often not the result of a loss of self-control, but may even require self-control for the intentional commission of acts of violence. Furthermore, improving self-control in aggressive people does not always help them, and may even do the opposite – it can make them even more effective aggressors. And psychopathic individuals, who commit the vast majority of violent crimes, often experience enhanced development of self-control from adolescence.

The same position can be derived from the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism – the ability of some individuals to cause harm to other people stems from their inability to experience internal repulsion and resistance toward it. They also have reduced empathy and guilt. Moreover, the effect of the most promising means for treating aggressive behavior (agonists of certain serotonin receptors) consists in stimulating and restoring full nervous activity, rather than in suppressing and eradicating anything.

A world in which they decided to fight violence and other evil by cutting something out of a person is most realistically demonstrated in the film “Equilibrium.” Its events take place after a “Third World” war, and human emotions were named as its main cause, which they now decided to suppress using a specific drug. Only, if you look closely at the people in this work, they have become not peaceful and ideal, but unfeeling psychopaths. This is especially evident in the “clerics” – soldiers whose task is to detect people who have shown emotions, destroy works of art, and kill all those who resist the regime.

Violent people need not fewer, but more emotions. They need not suppression, but on the contrary – stimulation of nervous activity. In order not to commit violence, one must feel more strongly, not more weakly. And Lem’s “betrization” in the real world would more likely lead to total psychopathy, rather than to some peaceful but passive society. The nature of violence described in dystopian works has little in common with real violence.

What distinguishes aggressive behavior in healthy people from that in psychopathically predisposed individuals

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Not all aggressive behavior in humans can be called the result of some mental deviation, or, at least, a deviation as serious as a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions. Some aggressive behavior, for example, self-defense, is completely natural based on ethological definitions and evolutionary data. Therefore, the question arises as to what the difference is between the aggressive behavior of ordinary people and that of psychopathic individuals

To answer this question, aggressive behavior must be divided into reactive and proactive forms. Reactive aggression manifests spontaneously or impulsively; it is not planned behavior and carries absolutely no goals other than causing harm directly within a conflict situation. Of course, it can be pathological, and sometimes it can be classified as violence from an ethological point of view. However, reactive aggression can also be completely natural non-pathological behavior, such as self-defense. In turn, proactive or instrumental aggression consists of achieving a specific result; it is the planned and motivated infliction of harm upon a victim. There is little reason to doubt the pathology and violent nature of behavior in which a person intentionally attempts to achieve something specifically by causing harm to other people.

As demonstrated by a vast number of studies, there is a strong link between a person’s level of psychopathic traits and the reactivity/proactivity of their aggressive behavior. For example, psychopathic criminals are more prone to violent attacks, and their aggressive behavior can be both proactive and reactive, whereas the crimes of non-psychopathic individuals are more reactive. This is especially true in the case of the most violent crimes, such as rape and murder. At the same time, less serious crimes, such as theft or burglary, can be committed with equal probability by both a psychopath and a non-psychopath. Similar results are shown in studies of the non-criminal population. Individuals prone to instrumental aggression are more psychopathic.

Even in the case of imprisoned murderers, higher levels of psychopathy are associated with greater proactivity or instrumentality of their crimes. In the case of clinical psychopaths, as much as 90-93% of murders are purely instrumental, without the slightest trace of reactivity. And even a criminal committing a single act of instrumental violence is already associated with an increased level of psychopathy. Furthermore, a current study of murderers sentenced to death in California demonstrates that individuals with low levels of psychopathy (less than 15% of the sample) often had no prior criminal record, repented for their deeds, and behaved according to judicial norms. Other individuals were prone to worse behavior. And five individuals (less than 1% of the sample) with the highest psychopathy scores were the most brutal criminals—serial sexual murderers.

These and many other data once again confirm that while not all aggressive behavior is a sign of a mentally unhealthy individual, the commission of violent attacks as planned and intentional behavior pursuing certain goals definitely demonstrates a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions. Such people pose the greatest threat to every member of society, as due to their pathology, they are capable of using violence as a tool, which leaves ordinary people only the fate of the victim.

Aggression as a result of “self-control,” not its loss

Voluntarist, Bitarch

For a long time, violence was treated as something that arises due to a person’s loss of self-control. Even therapeutic measures aimed at curbing aggressiveness most often involve the development and strengthening of self-control, so that short-term impulses do not determine one’s behavior more strongly than rational thinking and long-term goals. Of course, in the case of reactive aggression arising as a result of frustration, impulsivity, or an emotional outburst, these are fairly obvious things. But such aggression is far from the biggest problem. As a rule, it is short-term, does not go beyond the specific provoking or conflict situation, and does not pursue any intentional goals. Additionally, some forms of reactive aggression, such as defensive aggression, are completely normal and natural.

The real biggest problem is controlled aggression. A current study, published this month, asserts that a significant portion of aggression is not the result of a loss of self-control. Often, on the contrary, it requires self-control—for example, to carry out a calculated act of revenge. Furthermore, improving self-control in aggressive people does not necessarily reduce their violent predispositions; in fact, it may even make them more effective in committing violence. And psychopathic individuals, who account for the bulk of violent crimes, often experience an enhanced development of self-control starting from adolescence.

Of course, this should not be a particularly great discovery for those who know about the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism and understand why the vast majority of people do not harm others, at least intentionally. A person often commits violence not because of an excess of emotionality and irrational behavior, nor due to an impulsive nature, but on the contrary—because of a lack of emotionality and extremely cold-blooded, calculating behavior aimed at obtaining profit and achieving personal goals, regardless of whether someone will be harmed, or even if it is necessary to personally and directly cause that harm, up to and including murder. However, it is good that such a position is now gaining popularity in scientific circles and is replacing outdated views that emphasize reactive aggression at the expense of studying and understanding proactive aggression.

Self-control and rationality, of course, will stop a person from committing impulsive aggressive acts on emotional grounds. But if one imagines an absolutely rational person capable of making decisions and acting completely without emotion, such a person would be a much greater threat than just some unrestrained idiot, who would most likely stop once they saw and understood that their actions could actually seriously harm someone. In a full and healthy regulation of aggression, it is indispensable that a person experiences strong repulsion and resistance to any attempt to harm someone or commit a violent attack.

There can be no question of somehow restraining, limiting, or controlling such resistance to violence, nor the feelings in whose development it plays a key role, such as empathy and guilt. Therapy for aggressive individuals should, first and foremost, be aimed precisely at the development and restoration of such emotional reactions—that is, the return of the correct functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism. After all, a person who is capable of experiencing such reactions in fairly strong manifestations will certainly not commit violence.

Our practical successes in the therapy of violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The primary activity of the “Voluntarist” project is the study of the nature of violent behavior, in which we have succeeded thanks to the violence inhibition mechanism theory. Violence is primarily a pathology, a malfunction of internal neurophysiological mechanisms, causing a person to stop experiencing sufficient repulsion and resistance to causing harm to other people. Additionally, a series of animal experiments demonstrates the possibility of treating such a disorder; some agents are capable of eliminating attacking aggression in intraspecific clashes without affecting defensive aggression and other forms of behavior, i.e., acting selectively. Some of these agents are of natural origin, primarily belonging to Asian medicine.

Given the accessibility of agents in this category, distributed as medicinal herbs or bioactive supplements, organizing experiments to test them is not an overly difficult task and proved manageable even for a small team associated with our project. For now, the experiments are ongoing, and the final protocol and conclusions are still far off; however, some intermediate results have already demonstrated success that cannot go unshared.

1. Experimental Setup

The experiment consists of combining the resident-intruder paradigm and social isolation in rats. The development of territoriality (for example, in their own cage) and the absence of social contacts provoke attacking aggression in them when encountering a conspecific, especially if the latter has a lower weight. First, a series of control experiments is conducted, after which the agents can be tested. Due to the small number of available subjects (5 residents and 5 intruders), they are used repeatedly; however, experiments are conducted no more often than once every 3 days, and every other time a control experiment is performed to measure the aggressiveness of the resident subjects to ensure its presence and that any subsequent decrease observed will be due to the application of the agent rather than external factors.

2. Kamishoyosan and Si Ni San

Several already tested agents demonstrated a significant influence on rat behavior, but the reduction in aggressiveness either did not occur, was insufficient, or was non-selective. However, among them, one agent proved extremely effective. This is Kamishoyosan (and in our case, the Chinese analog Jia Wei Xiao Yao Wan produced by Min Shan) — a popular agent in Asian medicine that is potentially, based on pharmacological data, capable of activating the violence inhibition mechanism.

Relying on the fact that a scientific publication on this agent demonstrated only a partial effect in the case of a single oral application at a dosage of 400 mg/kg, we decided to test dosages of 500 mg/kg and 1 g/kg. Furthermore, the second dosage was applied to an extremely aggressive subject that always actively attacked a conspecific introduced into its cage. However, the original study did not measure aggressiveness specifically in intraspecific clashes, and according to another study, a dosage of 200 mg/kg is the best for maximizing social activity in mice during contact with conspecifics, so we decided to test that as well.

As expected, the effect of Kamishoyosan was neither sedative nor stimulating; it proved to be specifically anti-aggressive. Aggressive attacks were eliminated in all three experiments, and even if they appeared occasionally, it was exclusively in non-intense forms. At the same time, while dosages of 500 mg/kg and 1 g/kg did not disrupt the social and non-social activity of the rats, the reduction in their aggressiveness occurred through an increase in inactivity. On the other hand, the 200 mg/kg dosage replaced aggressive behavior specifically with non-aggressive social activity.

However, the question of the specific mechanism of Kamishoyosan’s action remained open. It was necessary to determine which specific component and bioactive substance from this mixture of herbal extracts produces this effect, so we decided to test the agent Si Ni San, which contains only three components from Kamishoyosan and was expected to produce the same effect. A dosage of 500 mg/kg was tested, and the result was confirmed — a previously highly aggressive subject, which had performed active attacks on the intruder subject, including during the control experiment before the application of the agent, ceased the attacks. At the same time, its non-social activity was not significantly reduced, and its social non-aggressive activity actually increased, although inactivity also increased, but not at the expense of these forms of activity (only at the expense of attacks). This means that the effect was specifically anti-aggressive, not sedative.

Detailed study of materials on mixtures similar to Si Ni San suggests to us that the main bioactive substance in them, including Kamishoyosan, may be paeoniflorin from the extract of Paeonia lactiflora (white peony) — one of the components of these mixtures. Research indicates that this substance both activates serotonin 5-HT/1A receptors and affects the expression of TPH2 and SERT genes associated with the functioning of serotonin and the violence inhibitor. Also, in general, substances from this extract further influence the expression of the MAO-A gene, which is also extremely important in the matter of aggressive behavior. Based on all this, we obtain the most promising candidate for a component from the previously mentioned mixtures that activates the violence inhibition mechanism.

3. Inhalation Experiments

In addition to oral application, in the case of some agents, inhalation (breathing in a drug with bioactive substances) can also be used. Especially considering the overall possibility of creating an effective agent of this kind; for example, the recently approved inhalation drug Zavzpret (or Zavegepant) proved so effective in the therapy of chronic migraine that in some patients it works in as little as 15 minutes and for 48 hours after application.

To date, we have managed to test three such agents containing the substances d-limonene and linalool, which act as agonists of serotonin 5-HT/1A receptors. All of them are essential oils from different parts of the bitter orange (Citrus aurantium). We used fruit peel oil, which consists almost entirely of d-limonene; flower oil (neroli), which roughly contains 34% linalool and 10% d-limonene; and twig and leaf oil (petitgrain), containing up to 40% linalool.

Inhalation was carried out as follows — for 10 minutes, a mixture of essential oil, an equal amount of emulsifier (oil solvent), and water if necessary, was evaporated in an isolated chamber (60 L). Then, a rat was placed in the chamber and remained there for another 10 minutes while the evaporation of the mixture into the chamber continued. 2 ml of bitter orange peel oil, 4.5 ml of neroli oil, and 5 ml of petitgrain oil were used in a mixture with a volume of 10 ml (sufficient for 20 minutes of evaporation).

All agents had a significant anti-aggressive effect; attacks were either completely eliminated or reduced to extremely rare and non-intense manifestations. And, of course, the effect is selective. Meanwhile, the inhalation of vapors of other essential oils (clove, lemongrass, sage), which do not contain these substances, did not eliminate intense aggressive attacks. Obviously, the substances in them do not act on the neurophysiological mechanisms associated with the violence inhibitor.

Experiments are still ongoing, and most likely other agents affecting the violence inhibitor will be found. However, we have already been able to confirm the very concept of this mechanism and the possibility of such an effect by using various methods of delivering active substances into the body.

I am also attaching recordings of the process of conducting successful experiments to the material:

War Crimes and Psychopathy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It will be quite obvious that extremely cruel people who commit violence both privately and by official order—for example, while serving in the police or armed forces—are psychopathic individuals with problems in the inhibition of violence. While a large number of studies compare the distribution of psychopathic traits between private criminals and the general population, there is very little such data regarding war criminals. However, there is one study examining men who served in the police or armed forces in Chile under the regime of dictator Augusto Pinochet and committed crimes against humanity, such as mass arrests, torture, murder, and the “disappearances” of people unwelcome to the regime.

The average psychopathy level according to the PCL-R test (scale from 0 to 40) for a sample of Chilean men who were not criminals was 5.21. Chilean men who were criminals demonstrated an average psychopathy level 4 times higher—20.93. This result is consistent with other studies conducting similar comparisons between samples of violent criminals and the rest of the population in various countries.

But far more interesting results are shown by Chilean men who committed crimes against humanity. Their average psychopathy level was 21.06, almost the same as that of ordinary criminals. It would seem there is no difference between them. But let us move to the comparison of different components of psychopathy. For each of the 20 items of the PCL-R test, a person can receive 0, 1, or 2 points, depending on the absence, partial presence, or full presence of a certain psychopathic trait. These items are divided into 4 categories representing the assessment of manipulation in interpersonal relationships (tendency toward lying and deception), affective psychopathy (lack of empathy and guilt), an impulsive lifestyle, and antisocial behavior. In the first two categories, the average scores for these criminals were much higher (1.43 and 1.64) than the scores of ordinary criminals (0.91 and 1.19) and the rest of the population (0.31 and 0.37). Meanwhile, in the last two categories, their scores (1.00 and 0.51) were much higher than those of the rest of the population (0.24 and 0.16), but lower than those of ordinary criminals (1.28 and 0.99).

The commission of cruel and mass crimes against humanity is associated with extremely pronounced manipulativeness and deceitfulness, as well as insensitivity and ruthlessness, even when compared to the commission of ordinary private acts of violence. At the same time, the perpetrators of such crimes appear much more normal than ordinary criminals in their lifestyle; they are not as impulsive or antisocial.

It should be noted that the second category of PCL-R test items, responsible for affective psychopathy, can be most directly correlated with the mechanism of violence inhibition. A malfunction of this mechanism in a person primarily leads precisely to the absence of internal rejection and resistance to causing harm to others, whereas the other categories rather reflect traits that often accompany such ruthlessness. Based on this, it can be concluded that in those who commit crimes against humanity, the malfunction of the violence inhibitor is far more severe than in private violent criminals. At the same time, they are well able to restrain themselves in situations where it is rationally beneficial, for example, in everyday life. This may be linked to a sufficiently high level of intelligence in these individuals, which allowed them, among other things, to successfully enter police or military service and be honored with the dictator’s order to destroy people unwelcome to him.

The link between a person’s socioeconomic status and insensitivity to violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is well known that a person’s socioeconomic status is closely linked to their capacity and inclination to commit acts of violence. However, it would be incorrect to say that this link is direct and that every person is equally susceptible to the negative influence of the environment, even in the case of youth, who are generally considered highly suggestible. As we know, the absence of a sense of repulsion and internal resistance to causing harm to others, which stops a healthy person from committing violent attacks, stems from a mental disorder consisting of a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. And the findings of some studies indicate to us that this may mediate the link between socioeconomic status and violence.

To begin with, let us recall that psychopathic traits can serve as a fairly good indicator of this dysfunction, primarily those related to interpersonal and affective (emotional) psychopathy. Psychopathic traits are also linked to violent crime, and especially to intentional and targeted acts of violence. In this dysfunction, not only the environment but also genetic factors play an important role. Research has already shown that the MAO-A gene mediates the influence of childhood abuse on violent crime. Whether under good or abusive treatment, carriers of the high-activity variant of the gene did not become more violent; however, carriers of the low-activity variant were 4 times more prone to brutal violence in the latter case. Similarly, the HTR1B gene mediates the link between abuse and psychopathic traits. Both genes are directly linked to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism.

An equally important result is demonstrated by a study of different variants of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4, encoding the 5-HTT protein) in young people with different socioeconomic statuses, determined based on the income and professional status of their parents. As was discovered, homozygosity for the long allele of this gene in the case of low socioeconomic status significantly increased the risk of the development of narcissistic traits and traits of callousness-unemotionality compared to average statistical indicators. These very traits are components of psychopathy that demonstrate a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism. Naturally, the higher a person’s socioeconomic status, the lower the indicators for these traits were. However, an increased risk of their occurrence was in any case not observed in carriers of the short allele of the gene; their indicators did not differ significantly from the average statistics regardless of socioeconomic status.

Once again, we see that certain variants of genes related to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism are capable of either making a person resistant to environmental influence or creating a risk that this influence may reduce their resistance to causing harm to others. Violence is not simply the result of socioeconomic status or abuse. Although these factors create a risk of violence, this is far from always the case, as the roots of such pathological behavior lie in human neurophysiology and genetics. And this suggests to us the necessity of creating therapeutic solutions to the problem of violence.

Why Europe became the most developed region in the world

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In world history, a situation has arisen where Europe, or the so-called “West,” became a more developed and progressive region than the rest of the world. Even the “East,” which seemingly also had many achievements, was unable to achieve the same level of wealth and development. One could reflect on this topic for a long time and provide various arguments, but now we will examine this issue from the perspective of the concept of a culture of compromise, introducing some reflections regarding violence in human relationships. This post will be a brief summary and commentary on a video on this topic by Savromat.

How did the history of the West differ from the history of the East? One can look at China, the leading power of the East, which constantly collapsed and reunified, and this entire process was accompanied by one side destroying all others—the sole winner took everything. This is an example of a zero-sum game, where wealth is not created but redistributed, or even lost due to the costs of conducting conflicts. A completely different situation arose in Europe, where there was no single winner who destroyed everyone and took everything. In many European conflicts, instead of destroying the defeated, the winner merely forced them into submission, while recognizing their right to life, property, and even political rights. Recall the medieval free cities and religious orders, which, although formally under a king, nevertheless maintained autonomous jurisdiction. Such a culture of compromise was clearly established by the beginning of the second millennium and for a long time contributed to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth.

Many reasons can be named for why this happened. But the essence is as follows—brutal violence is certainly not a strategy that could lead to enrichment and development. Societies prone to the total destruction of opponents condemn themselves to the non-observance of the most basic rights and the squandering of wealth. Societies prone to seeking compromise and establishing agreements multiply wealth.

One presumptive factor contributing to the development of a culture of compromise in Europe could have been biological—a lower percentage of violent individuals with a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism, and especially cruel psychopathic personalities. Even if this were true only for a part of European society, it might have been enough to develop and spread such a cultural norm. Of course, psychopathic personalities are inclined toward power and conquest in any case, but if some of them were not absolutely unfeeling clinical psychopaths, it increased the chance that they would be predisposed to have mercy on the defeated and thereby not destroy the wealth of society as a whole.

Of course, in any society, the overwhelming majority of the population is quite non-violent, and extremely cruel psychopathic individuals are a tiny minority, but even a small difference in what exactly that minority percentage constitutes can have a radically different impact on society. And apparently, a higher percentage of such individuals creates a greater risk of societal impoverishment due to the total non-observance of basic rights to life and property.

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.