Тег: Violence

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The economic price of violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

The link between age and the propensity for violence in humans

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How violent personalities evaluate themselves and what to do about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aggression and Testosterone

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

Pre-New Year address and year-end results

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Although 2022 was marked by a surge of violence in one of its most terrible forms—armed conflict—within the framework of our work on studying violence in human relationships and society, it was not without achievements in the opposite, better direction, aimed against violence. Previously, when arguing that violence should be called a deviation and a pathology rather than a natural social phenomenon, we relied only on individual facts and observations that did not demonstrate the full picture of what was happening. This could have caused distrust in such assertions given the brutal events still observed in human society.

But now everything has changed. We can confidently call the existence of a violence inhibition mechanism not just a hypothesis and a theory, but an indisputable fact. Evolutionary, archaeological, anthropological, military, psychological, neurophysiological, genetic, and many other pieces of evidence—demonstrating the same conclusions and forming a complete system that explains everything regarding violence—only confirm this. Violence is undoubtedly a pathological form of behavior, the result of a breakdown of a person’s internal inhibitors of aggression, due to which they stop experiencing a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people. And the reason we observe so much violence in society is only because it exerts an enormous influence—even one violent person in certain circumstances is capable of causing harm to thousands of other, peaceful people.

All the evidence against the position that justifies and normalizes violence has been successfully gathered in one place—on the website Antiviolence.io. The main material of the site begins with definitions of the concepts of aggression, violence, and self-defense. Then we move to archaeological and anthropological evidence, examine cases of genocides, debunk various myths about violence, and confirm that in any war, even the most brutal one, never more than 2% of soldiers with psychopathic predispositions experience no resistance to committing murder, and in general, the overwhelming majority of people never kill or attempt to kill anyone. Further, we examine the evolutionary reasons for the emergence of the violence inhibitor in animals and humans, and become acquainted with a model that explains in detail how this mechanism functions.

Based on neurophysiological and genetic evidence, we conclude that people capable of easily committing violence should be treated as mentally ill and pathological personalities in need of therapy to restore the function of the violence inhibitor. Such therapy could contribute to the complete eradication of the pathology of violence from human relationships and society.

We have also not ignored many other questions about violence, which you can explore on the same website or in the materials of this channel. Of course, we will have to examine many more topics and problems, as it is impossible to answer all questions at once. But we have at least already created a solid foundation for the continuation of our activities without encountering serious controversial points.

I would like to congratulate you all on the upcoming New Year! In the coming year, we must definitely advance even further in understanding the problem of violence and how this phenomenon can be eradicated. And of course, how to popularize this understanding among an even greater number of people, which will undoubtedly only bring us closer to achieving a free, non-violent society. Stay with us in the coming year so as not to miss this!

A few words about scientific and technical progress and modern civilization

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a position based on the idea that scientific and technical progress and modern civilization are an evil capable only of making humans unhappy. Of course, this position is not very popular and is unlikely to ever gain significant support, but I would like to say a few words about how untenable it actually is.

The conversation can begin with the fact that the opponents of progress themselves have survived largely because of it, rather than having a high probability of dying from hunger, cold, or disease in early childhood. Moreover, the drastic increase in human survival rates and the accessibility of benefits is an obvious consequence of progress. However, it is sometimes less obvious that only thanks to progress does humanity have any chance at all of surviving in the long term.

Some may argue that progress has created means capable of severely harming all of humanity (by destroying the environment or even serving as weapons of mass destruction). However, it is pointless to argue against the fact that it is the lack of progress that could harm humanity the most. In such a case, it would be 100% unable to leave the boundaries of its home planet and would perish during the next planetary-scale catastrophe. The Earth is not eternal; furthermore, some catastrophe could happen very soon, rather than hundreds of millions of years from now. It turns out that opposing progress means advocating for the complete annihilation of humanity in the future. Is any of the critics of progress ready to openly support such an idea?

Another argument against progress is the alleged suffering of people in an urban environment that is unnatural for them. Instead, a life close to nature is proposed, to which the human psyche is best adapted, and for the sake of human happiness, the possibility of preserving humanity in the future can be sacrificed now. Of course, in reality, prehistoric people suffered greatly; archaeological evidence often shows traces of prolonged physiological stress from hunger and disease on their remains. The transition to primitive agriculture also did not fully solve this problem; just a few centuries ago, crop failure (for example, due to climatic factors) was a common cause of famine, and peasants of the past regularly suffered from food deficiency and monotony. An average resident of a modern city, who is constantly fed, kept warm, and fairly healthy, will clearly be happier. But this is not even the point; the point is that, according to the opponents of progress, the human living environment must be frozen in time.

One of the most natural processes for all living things is adaptation to changing environmental conditions. And modern urban civilization, like any form of potential future civilization, can easily be called a new living environment to which one simply needs to adapt. Moreover, humans also gain an advantage—they control how the new environment will be structured, which makes adaptation easier. Without progress, the change in the environment would still happen due to inevitable climatic changes, but people would have to do without such an advantage, facing an increased chance of premature extinction instead of adaptation.

An opponent of progress is ready to appeal to the naturalness of a certain living environment for humans. But why then does he deny such a natural process as adaptation? Why does one kind of naturalness satisfy him, while the other does not?

Finally, it should be said that opponents of progress simply have no chance of turning their ideas into reality. They will not be able to convince everyone, and their only way out is to forcibly compel others to renounce progress. But without progress, there simply will not be significant means to carry out such compulsion, especially on a global scale. And groups of people promoting progress will always have an advantage in terms of the means allowing them to protect themselves from such violent coercion. Thus, any ideas against progress are simply stillborn.

People with a weak violence inhibitor are the worst partners for relationships

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Any form of abuse in a relationship deserves condemnation for many reasons and should not be tolerated. However, particular attention should be paid to the consequences of relationships with degenerates who possess a weak violence inhibitor and exhibit psychopathic traits. As shown in one current Canadian study of victims of abuse in heterosexual relationships (93% of whom were women), up to 30% of “abusers” meet the criteria for psychopathy, and such individuals are the strongest predictor of long-term violence in relationships. Additionally, due to a dysfunctional violence inhibitor, they easily ignore distress signals (expressions of sadness and fear) from their partners, except in cases where they can use this for their own manipulative purposes. For example, by manipulating fear, they may intimidate their partner, coerce them into sexual contact, or force the use of substances. And the main conclusion of the study is that psychopathic abusers have the worst impact on the mental health of their partners, leaving them with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Obviously, degenerates with a weak violence inhibitor should not be allowed into relationships, at least until they agree to therapy for their disorder. First and foremost, every normal individual should think about their own safety and mental health, as relationships with such psychopathic abusers can only cause harm. Furthermore, if you know that a certain person is capable of easily committing violence without experiencing any resistance, it would be a good idea to warn everyone in your circle about this and the potential consequences of a relationship with them. Finally, the predisposition to a weak violence inhibitor simply should not be reinforced in the human gene pool. A good example is provided by a close relative of humans—the pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo), which has an extremely non-violent society and does not kill its own kind. According to some researchers, female bonobos simply refuse to breed with aggressive males. By acting in the same way, humans could significantly reduce the prevalence of a weak violence inhibitor in the very next generation.

How strongly the resistance to committing murder affects a person

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In 2011, US Air Force psychologists conducted a mental health screening of 600 combat drone operators. As it turned out, 42% of UAV operators reported moderate or severe stress, and 20% reported emotional exhaustion or burnout. A later study showed that drone operators suffered from the same levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation as conventional combat crews. Many will immediately ask—why is this happening?

As far back as the 20th century, many military experts concluded that 98% of people experience strong internal resistance to committing murder, and only up to 2% of individuals with psychopathic predispositions do not. In analyzing the issue of modern warfare involving combat drones, it is important for us to pay attention to what these experts said about the factors influencing the ability to kill and the factors leading to psychological trauma on the battlefield. The conclusions drawn and listed in the works of Dave Grossman will be especially helpful to us in this regard.

Firstly, this example with combat drone operators confirms the conclusion that killing is the most traumatic experience for a human being. As Grossman writes, the contradiction between the necessity to kill and the inability to do so due to internal resistance traumatizes a soldier’s psyche more than any other difficulties of combat operations. And those soldiers who were still able to kill most often suffer for the rest of their lives after the war because of what they committed.

A drone operator does not experience cold, hunger, lack of sleep, physical injuries, the loss of comrades, the risk of dying at any moment, and many other things that an ordinary soldier faces in battle. The only thing that unites them is the necessity to kill. This, therefore, only proves the long-established conclusion that killing is absolutely unnatural for humans and is the most traumatic experience of all possible ones.

Secondly, although military experts of the past concluded that distancing allows one to bypass the resistance to killing, they apparently underestimated how strongly it is expressed in humans. Even for a UAV operator, who may be located on the other side of the planet from the combat operations, this resistance does not completely disappear. The mere awareness of committing a murder is enough to cause psychological trauma.

An analogy can be drawn with the trench warfare of the First World War, in which hand grenades proved to be psychologically effective weapons. A soldier simply threw a grenade toward the enemy trenches, and it was not necessary for him to directly observe the enemy for this or what his actions led to. However, if he did see the result of his actions, or even just heard it, for example in the form of the screams of enemy soldiers, it could already traumatize his psyche.

All of this shows us that as long as a human is fundamentally capable of realizing the fact of committing a murder, no means will make it an easy act for them. By the way, this also aligns with the assumption of the Violence Inhibition Mechanism (VIM) model. Although this mechanism is directly activated only when a person can observe the suffering of their victim, due to the process of conditioning (the formation of conditioned reflex reactions), its functioning from childhood develops the ability to experience a rejection reaction even at the mere thought of committing violence.

As we can see, one cannot underestimate how unnatural the act of killing is for a human being. Every mentally healthy individual possesses a violence inhibitor, the function of which cannot simply be bypassed or suppressed. Even if certain means and methods enable some people to commit murder, it still does not end well for them. Only a tiny percentage of psychopathic personalities are truly capable of easily committing murder.