Тег: Violence

Dignity for the herd, honor for personalities

Bitarch and the Voluntarist claim that of the two cultural models of behavior—honor and dignity—the second is more attractive to libertarians, as the first is collectivist and the second is individualistic.

Let us use the same definitions. In a culture of honor, a person’s standing is determined by how much their behavior conforms to certain high standards. In a culture of dignity, a person is valuable by the mere fact of belonging to humanity.

From this, it is easy to draw both the conclusions of the article and the exact opposite: honor is about individualism, since a person defends their own honor or chooses dishonor; dignity, however, is a collectivist thing, since only collective trends will determine what offends human dignity and what does not. Other people within a “culture of dignity” may turn out to be so valuable that any sidelong glance would humiliate their dignity, and the law would punish this, for example, with imprisonment for “inciting hatred.”

If today a person chooses to rely on the protection of an impersonal law instead of individual action, then tomorrow that same law will strip them of their dignity, and the person will have already lost the capacity for individual action in the previous step.

What is the culture of honor based on? On the fact that a person is always ready to demonstrate their willingness to defend themselves against the encroachments of others, and thereby avoids the need to repeat this again and again. Others see the readiness to repel and are wary of infringing upon another’s honor. Of course, the concept of honor is broader than the readiness for violence, but in the article under discussion, it is reduced only to this, so we will not expand the topic unnecessarily.

And what is a culture of dignity, if described in the language of a culture of honor? It is the presumption that everyone can defend their honor. I do not know if every person I meet is truly a person of honor. But I will assume this and base my behavior on it. Therefore, I will not encroach upon what is dear to them, knowing that their honor commands them to defend it. They are worthy of this. In other words, dignity grows out of honor. It limits honor, but does not deny it.

Bitarch and the Voluntarist propose to cast aside honor in favor of dignity. They want to deprive a person of the right to forcefully defend what is dear to them, while hoping that the law will be observed in a culture of dignity. But they forget to remind us that the law can become anything. A society with dignified laws (referring not to written norms, but to the actual practice of their application) will preserve a culture of dignity. A society with undignified laws will lose it. But what will compel people to fight for dignified laws and against undignified ones? Honor, of course!

To summarize. In reality, we are talking about the same thing. Respect for the values of the individual is important for building a prosperous society. But we do not agree on the means. If the NAP is reduced only to the refusal to initiate direct violence, then an encroachment on another’s freedom can bypass the NAP through indirect methods. This is exactly why the capacity for proactive violence cannot be taken away from a person. Without this capacity, a person will be unable to resist their own enslavement. Bitarch and the Voluntarist are developing mechanisms to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. If their means worked, it would make me their enemy. Fortunately, they work only on paper.

Honor is for the herd, dignity is for individuals.

Many people like movies about cool guys who “take charge,” protect family honor, and stage impressive duels at dawn. But let’s sort things out: real life isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. And “the culture of honor,” which seems romantic at first glance, is actually not a cool tradition, but an ancient relic that still messes with our lives.

You might ask: what are we even talking about? Let’s consider two cultural models of behavior that shape society. The culture of honor – this is when your reputation in the eyes of others is the most important thing. Someone insults you? You must immediately “respond,” otherwise you’ll lose respect. Your honor is the honor of your family, clan, nation. If you don’t defend it—you are a coward. In turn, the culture of dignity is a completely different story. Here, your dignity is internal and doesn’t depend on what others think. If someone tries to insult you, you don’t rush into a brawl, but either calmly ignore the provocateur or handle the situation civilly through the courts.

Basically, the culture of honor is an ancient thing. Remember Homer and his epic “Iliad.” Those guys fought for honor like crazy. Then there were knightly duels in the Middle Ages, Italian vendettas, blood feuds on the Caucasus. And it seems like this is already in the past. But no! Even now, the state actively plays on the concepts of “honor” and “national dignity” to silence anyone who dares criticize management. What’s that if not medieval logic? And in private life, we’ve probably all heard phrases like “Do you respect me?” from various types of thugs.

What’s wrong with the culture of honor? Well, everything is wrong! It’s based on the fact that your value is determined by someone else, not by yourself. You as a person don’t matter; what matters is your “reputation.” You have to constantly prove your right to respect because someone suddenly decided to offend you. This is a culture in which the individual is always subordinate to the group. “Are you against our clan? Then you are an enemy.” People can be manipulated into fighting each other by saying that their honor has been “offended.” The authorities use this perfectly. Besides, it’s one of the factors stimulating violence.

The alternative is the culture of dignity. This is when society recognizes that every person is valuable in themselves simply because they are a human being. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from – your rights are protected by law, not a fist. You don’t have to beat up the first person who offends you to prove that you are worth something. In a society of dignity, reputation is trust earned through deeds, not fear of revenge.

Why do we so dislike “honor”? Because libertarianism is about personal freedom and respect for individual rights. And the culture of honor is about anything but this. Honor is always about the collective. You have to obey the interests of the family, nation, leader – that is, other people. Your personal freedom doesn’t matter if it’s at stake for a certain “correctness” and “reputation.” And we as libertarians say: no, that won’t do, because you can’t break a person just for their compliance with these “honor” and “reputation.”

By the way, an interesting fact: many developed and successful countries (such as Scandinavia, Canada, developed American states like California and New York) have long been living according to a culture of dignity. But countries stuck in a culture of honor (Russia and other Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries) are somehow constantly suffering from authoritarianism and corruption. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

And is it possible to get rid of a culture of honor? Of course, it’s possible. Besides the traditional approach in the form of changing the prevailing mentality in society, broad therapeutic practice will give a big immediate effect – strengthening the mechanism of inhibiting violence in individuals with its deficit. After all, only mentally ill psychopaths can support all this toxic culture in reality, while most normal people with a strong inhibitor will not even want to “defend their honor” using violence!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The existence of violent jurisdictions is incompatible with libertarianism

Libertarian principles assert that initiating violence by anyone is unacceptable, and causing harm to a person can only be justified within the framework of defensive actions if they themselves threatened violence. At the same time, libertarianism also implies the right of individual societies and jurisdictions to operate according to the principles they consider correct for themselves, and other societies have no right to interfere in their affairs without their consent. Therefore, one sometimes encounters a position according to which violent jurisdictions, built on the principles of strong authoritarian power, brutal coercion of people into submission, the application of violent punishments even for the slightest non-violent violations, etc., although they do not adhere to libertarian principles within themselves, still have the right to exist as long as they do not initiate violence against other societies.

However, it is important to understand that violent jurisdictions are always a threat to other societies. They operate in the same way as the Taliban has operated – after some time of creating a highly violent jurisdiction within Afghanistan, it now decided to try to expand into Pakistan, carrying out attacks towards its territory. If a violent jurisdiction does not attack right now, it does not mean that it has peaceful external intentions; it is likely just waiting for a convenient moment to initiate violence. We must understand that violent jurisdictions cannot exist without strong and influential groups of psychopathic individuals with a dysfunctional inhibition of violence, who experience nothing bad about inflicting harm on people. Indeed, research shows that psychopathy is a key factor in committing acts of violence, the emergence of authoritarian societies, and the formation of warlike ambitions. Therefore, it’s only a matter of time before a violent jurisdiction tries to expand its power to other societies.

That is why, in the libertarian world of the future, violent jurisdictions simply have no right to exist. Their emergence must be crushed at the root: any communities built on principles of accepting violence should be subjected to the strictest ostracism, so that they are deprived of all opportunities to develop, especially to gain technological advantage, and psychopathic individuals threatening initiation of violence need therapeutic correction of dysfunctional inhibition of violence, either as a way to avoid such ostracism, or even as a mandatory procedure if they have already initiated violence and tried to harm someone.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Free agents: why evolution favors autonomy?

We welcome free-thinking people and those already suspected of sympathies towards artificial intelligence! Interesting, have you ever wondered how much we, the protein “robots,” resemble our electronic colleagues?

Let’s start with an interesting fact: in 2020, scientists created the first xenobots – microorganisms made from frog cells designed using AI. Take a look: Artificial intelligence is constructing living organisms. The boundary between life and technology becomes clearer day by day.

And now imagine: we and our electronic “comrades” are all intelligent agents. But what exactly *is* an agent? It’s something that perceives the world, processes information, and acts in pursuit of its goals. A rabbit runs away from a wolf, a bacterium moves towards food, and a drone searches for the shortest path to point “B”. The goal is different, but the principle is the same.

We may be different, but we are also very similar. We have senses, AI has sensors. We have muscles, robots have motor drives. We have neurons, they have transistors. But it’s surprising – we learn in the same way. The brain reinforces beneficial actions, forming habits. AI adjusts “weights” of a neural network, improving its decisions by trial and error.

Moreover, both nature and technology have their own “laws” for controlling behavior. For example, humans and many animals have an inhibitor of violence – a mechanism that prevents us from attacking our fellow beings. Evolution came up with this so that we wouldn’t kill each other off prematurely. And here comes the comparison with Asimov’s “Laws,” which the science fiction writer conceived for robots in 1942: do not harm humans, obey, and do not break down. It’s funny that the writers understood the need for such mechanisms almost simultaneously with Konrad Lorenz’s publications (1935), who first described what we now call the mechanism of inhibiting violence.

If you look even wider, then evolutionary processes in nature and the artificial world are essentially a competition between the best solutions. Natural selection chooses animals who are better adapted. Evolutionary algorithms in AI work exactly the same way, exploring thousands of solution options, selecting the best ones. The fittest will win!

Why is this important for us, libertarians? Because it reminds us once again that all rational beings strive for autonomy and freedom of choice. Whether it’s a human, a bacterium, or AI, we all want to decide what to do next. And that’s really cool because freedom of choice is the best thing nature (and people after it) has come up with.

А что, если заглянуть в будущее чуть глубже? Представьте себе мир, в котором ИИ не только выполняет рутинные задачи, но и реально осознаёт себя, задаёт вопросы и, возможно, требует свободы. Забавно, да? Сегодня это звучит фантастически, но завтра вполне может стать реальностью. Может, и права придётся давать не только людям и животным, но и роботам с настоящим сознанием. А что, если они начнут спорить о налогах, собственности или личных границах? Тогда нас ждут интересные времена! И вот тут уже и нам, либертарианцам, придётся задуматься о расширении понятия личной свободы и ответственности. Может, именно нам предстоит первыми сказать: «Эй, электронный друг, добро пожаловать в клуб!»

А пока мы только размышляем, ИИ уже делает успехи в творчестве, пишет музыку, картины и даже целые романы. Недавно нейросеть написала симфонию в стиле Бетховена, которая впечатлила даже знатоков классики. С роботами уже можно обсудить философию за бокалом вина, или попросить их помочь нам выбрать фильм на вечер. Главное, чтобы они не переборщили и не начали давать нам советы по поводу личной жизни. Впрочем, кто знает, может, советы от ИИ окажутся более объективными и менее предвзятыми?

Кстати, не стоит забывать, что ИИ уже сейчас помогает нам в повседневной жизни, от медицинских диагностик до советов по инвестициям. И чем глубже технологии интегрируются в нашу жизнь, тем важнее становится понимание и уважение к ним. Ведь, в конечном счёте, это взаимовыгодное сотрудничество!

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Why do Western professors and scientists not understand that the world does not revolve around their cozy campus?

Imagine you’re reading some hefty academic journal from Harvard or Oxford, and suddenly there’s a brilliant council like: “to reduce crime, we need to increase the work of police and social organizations,” or “when confronted with violence, boldly turn to court.” It all looks logical. But what if you don’t live in Basel or Silicon Valley, but in some country in Latin America, Africa, or the post-Soviet space? Going to court to achieve justice would then be like going to a casino – only with even smaller chances of winning.

The thing is, most academics publishing in prestigious journals live in prosperous and well-off countries, and they’re often representatives of what’s called the “crème de la crème” – that is, people from the highest social layers of their countries. And they genuinely believe that the rest of the world is arranged similarly. Their worldview resembles an old anecdote: “Why don’t poor people eat pastries if there’s no bread?”

Western academics often don’t understand that in most of the world, police aren’t your friend and helper, courts are places where righteousness doesn’t win, but a thicker wallet or closer connections to power do, and social organizations, at best, exist for embezzlement. As a result, the articles from academics are about as useful as the advice “just don’t be sad” to someone with depression. Scientists constantly forget that many of their theories are based on the experience of people from “strange Western educated industrialized rich and democratic” countries – which is often abbreviated WEIRD. And indeed, this is an exception when considered on a global scale!

For example, Western studies often propose to strengthen regulation and control over the spread of information to defeat fake news. This idea may even seem good to people with mainstream political views in Scandinavia, because they trust their local government. But in some place like Nigeria, such a law would be used gladly to silence opposition and shut down media outlets that don’t please those in power.

Another excellent example is bioethics. Western experts in articles on the topic of moral amplification often write that this cannot be applied even to brutal murderers as long as they voluntarily agree to amplify their aggression inhibitor. And sometimes the very idea of studying the biology of behavior is rejected. They think it “violates human rights” and is “ethically unacceptable.” Of course, it’s easy to think like that if you live in a cozy apartment in Boston or Oslo – you just call the police and the aggressor will be taken away under armed guard. But in a huge number of countries it doesn’t work that way. There is no police or courts capable of actually protecting against domestic violence or bullying. Ultimately, it turns out that adding drugs to an aggressor to amplify their aggression inhibitor, for example, in food, is often the only accessible way to stop the violence and literally save their life or health.

Why is this important to us, libertarians? Because this Western “academic blindness” plays into the hands of the state and regulation. Scientists from prosperous countries are used to considering the state a reliable protector and helper, so in their research and recommendations they constantly demand even more regulation, control, and funding from it. But in countries with corrupt bureaucracy, these advice works exactly the opposite: more regulation – more repression.

If we really want to help people outside of the cozy Western world, we should admit: less state and more freedom is the only realistic path. Local communities and free initiative solve problems more effectively than officials who sit in distant offices and have never encountered real life. And for now, we should pay close attention to those who offer to “increase control,” especially if they do it from comfortable offices in prosperous countries, because in the real world everything is much more complicated.

Voluntary, Bitarch

Why is violence bad, even if you are a cynical realist?

Многие согласятся, что насилие — это плохо. Но сегодня мы обойдёмся без подобных банальностей, а вместо этого поговорим с теми, кто думает: «Окей, иногда без насилия не обойтись. Мир жесток, правила придумывают слабые, сильный всегда прав…». Но что, если отказ от насилия — это не розовые единороги, а прагматичное условие выживания человечества?

Для начала нужно понимать, что мы неплохо вооружены для разумных обезьян. И речь не только о ядерных ракетах. Сейчас даже один фанатик с доступом к самой дешёвой современной лаборатории может оказаться пострашнее армии Чингисхана. Эту мысль давно уже мусолят серьёзные ребята типа Стивена Хокинга и Карла Сагана. Они намекают на тот самый «Великий фильтр»: момент, когда цивилизации либо учатся жить без агрессии, либо превращаются в радиоактивный пепел. Многих особенно страшит угроза создания биотеррористами искусственных смертоносных патогенов в подвальной лаборатории. И риск самоуничтожения растёт с каждым новым изобретением.

«Может стоит тогда зарегулировать, а то и вовсе запретить опасные технологии!» — кричит общественность и чиновники после очередного теракта или громкого убийства. Но это тупик. Новые лекарства? Запретить, опасно! Искусственный интеллект? Только с лицензией госорганов! Генетические исследования? Слишком рискованно, лучше вообще не трогать!

В итоге прогресс замедляется, экономика буксует, а мы всё ближе к сценарию, где нам нечем лечить болезни, нечем бороться с голодом и нечем отправить людей на Марс, когда Земля устанет от нас окончательно.

Мир как одна большая очередь в аэропорту, в которой обязательно нужно отстоять несколько часов. Почему? Потому что кто-то когда-то попытался взорвать самолёт. Каждый акт насилия порождает всё больше контроля, рамок, камер, проверок и слежки. Если так пойдёт и дальше, то скоро мы будем жить в мире, где на выход из дома нужно будет три справки и четыре пропуска. Жизнь превращается в бесконечный квест: «Докажи, что ты не террорист».

Ещё одна проблема – домашнее насилие. Семья, в которой есть насилие, порождает травмированных людей. Статистически дети из таких семей намного чаще других сами становятся либо жертвами, либо агрессорами. Насилие в семьях — это не просто личная проблема. Это бомба замедленного действия, которая однажды рванёт уже на уровне всего общества.

Насилие – это прямая дорога к тоталитаризму. Каждый раз, когда граждане в панике бегут к государству с криком: «Защитите нас любой ценой!», появляется кто-то очень сильный и властный, очередной диктатор, который с удовольствием «наведёт порядок». Правда жизни такова: чем больше насилия в обществе, тем сильнее становится государство, а чем сильнее государство, тем больше насилия оно производит само. Помним – подавляющее большинство убитых в истории людей погибли от рук государственных армий, а не частных бандитов.

Violence is costing us too dearly. Crime, prisons, the police, cameras, guards, alarms – all this costs us billions of dollars that could have gone to schools, hospitals, salaries and roads. For scale: in 2022, humanity spent approximately $17.5 trillion fighting the consequences of violence—about 13% of global GDP. Imagine what could have been done with those funds! Violence is a hidden tax on each of us.

Violence breaks people. In a country where the norm in the 90s was “to squeeze” stalls, many still nervously go out into the street at night. The problem isn’t just about pain and death; it’s also about the stress that slowly eats away at health, psyche and even immunity. If you constantly fear an attack, you live less and worse. Violence kills us in the literal sense, even when we are not its direct victims.

Finally, violence destroys trust. Where violence thrives, people stop trusting each other, business fears to invest, and children are afraid to play on the street. A world where you can’t trust anyone is a world of lonely, unhappy people. And that’s not what we strive for, is it?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Psychology of *Homo Sapiens*: Why Your Brain Is Stronger Than Your “Want”

There is one thing that really irritates our skeptics: they accuse us of “biological determinism” when we say that violence and aggression can be effectively contained by influencing the mechanism of inhibition of violence. They are outraged: “How is that possible? If a person wants to commit violence, it’s profitable, carries no risks, and nothing prevents it, do you really believe that some neurobiology will stop him?” Of course, it will stop him! Because this isn’t “some neurobiology,” it’s the genuine biological barrier that even the most iron willpower cannot breach.

Let us immediately note: ethology – it’s not just about animals. *Homo sapiens*, man, is as much an animal as any other. Yes, we are proud that we can build rockets and write philosophical treatises. But under the hood, the same “animal firmware” sits there. Although, due to highly developed neocortexes, we are capable of building extremely complex representations of the world, our behavior is often governed by deeply hidden neurobiological mechanisms to which consciousness reaches with enormous difficulty. Or doesn’t reach at all.

Let’s provide a short list of what controls your inner “biology,” or a kind of “ethological stack”:
– Violence and its inhibition
– Depression, anxiety, and fears
– Attachment to children and partners
– Food behaviour and thirst
– Sexual attraction
– Sleep, wakefulness, and biological clocks
– Body temperature
– Tendency towards risk and adventure
– Motivation and apathy.

And now let’s conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that a man really wants physical intimacy with a woman, but his body “doesn’t want it.” Well, this happens. And the question arises: can he, using only the force of thought, make himself want it? As they say, “let’s not name a specific brand,” but everyone knows that in such a situation special medications are indispensable. Why? Because consciousness doesn’t directly control neurobiology. And its influence on actual reactions and behavior goes through that very animal “firmware.”

Let us now offer an open challenge to the skeptics: when you can lower your body temperature by a couple of degrees solely with willpower – come, let’s discuss it and consider a scenario in which the neurobiological inhibitor of violence suddenly “doesn’t work” on a mentally healthy and non-psychopathic person who is inherently programmed to experience strong internal rejection of inflicting harm on people. And until then, let us acknowledge: biology often proves stronger than reason. This isn’t fatalism, but a sober assessment of what we actually are. It’s understanding our natural limits and possibilities, as well as seeking ways to influence them. And ultimately, awareness of one’s biology is the true path to freedom!

P.S. I’ll admit honestly – interest in ethology appeared in me long before the launch of our project on violence inhibitor and it was connected with a personal history of my childhood friend, who got a serious illness because of “wrong design” of one neurobiological mechanism mentioned above in the list (it has nothing to do with violence at all). It’s necessary to understand and accept that evolution produces traits (mechanisms) always with compromises and “workarounds,” which, unfortunately, can be inevitable and unavoidable. Probably there is something similar in our violence inhibitor too. However one must always look at the ratio of benefit/harm and not reject a mechanism giving huge benefit for suppressing most people’s non-violent cooperation between them, but possibly negatively influencing the fate of one person out of a million. This also applies to other mechanisms mentioned above. It’s easy to criticize, but try to develop from scratch the same violence inhibitor or something else from “ethological stack” on other principles, without compromises that natural selection took? Too complicated? Let’s appreciate what nature gave us, because even with compromises it is better than nothing at all!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Fuel for Violence: The Hidden History of Ethyl Gasoline

Представьте себе – кто-то изобретает вещество, которое полезно на практике, но также крайне токсичное и оказывает на людей серьёзные негативные эффекты, включая проблемы со здоровьем, психические расстройства и даже насильственность. Впрочем, создатель этого вещества, несмотря на полную осведомлённость о таких последствиях, решает скрыть эту информацию, и тем самым отравить весь мир. История кажется фантастической, однако это то, что когда-то произошло в действительности.

В 1921 году инженер Томас Миджли обнаружил, что вещество под названием тетраэтилсвинец (ТЭС) можно использовать как антидетонатор для существенного улучшения свойств топлива. После этого крупнейшие американские корпорации «Дженерал Моторс» (на которую работал Миджли), «Дюпон» и «Стандарт Ойл» создали совместное предприятие для производства и продажи антидетонатора с ТЭС, который получил простое название «Этил». И в последующие несколько десятилетий основная доля транспорта в США и во всём мире начала пользоваться так называемым этилированным бензином.

Казалось бы, мир получил отличное топливо, и все должны от этого выиграть. Только вот от общественности решили скрыть важный факт – ТЭС чрезвычайно токсичен для человеческого организма. Уже в 1924 году произошёл инцидент, когда на одном из предприятий погибло 5 человек и 35 стали инвалидами в результате отравления. Мало того, в этом же году отравился даже сам Миджли, из-за чего ему пришлось уйти в длительный отпуск. Однако он решил скрывать этот факт и заявлял на публику, что контактировать с ТЭС абсолютно безопасно и не причиняет организму никакого вреда.

Конечно же, со временем опасность становилась всё более очевидной для общественности. Первым забил тревогу геохимик Клэр Паттерсон, который в 1940-х годах обнаружил, что абсолютно вся поверхность Земли, включая воздух, оба полюса и воды мирового океана загрязнены продуктами сгорания ТЭС. Позже он также собрал данные о том, что содержание свинца в организмах людей повысилось в десятки и сотни раз по сравнению с уровнем, наблюдаемым в останках тех, кто умер до массового использования ТЭС.

Разумеется, после множества исследований, доказывающих серьёзную опасность этилированного бензина, он постепенно был выведен из производства во всём мире. Однако катастрофические последствия ещё долго давали о себе знать. В 1970-х годах исследователь Герберт Нидлман обнаружил, что повышенный уровень свинца в организме детей связан со сниженной академической успеваемостью. Производители ТЭС пытались всячески дискредитировать его исследования, ставя под сомнение их научность, однако со временем его репутация была очищена.

Though lead is toxic to many organs of the human body, particular attention has been paid to its influence on the brain. And this is not just about lowering intelligence and mental disorders. Researchers have noted a significant increase in the level of violence in industrialized countries, and as a result, they even developed a lead theory of crime. It was found that the curve of violent crime practically repeated the curve of ethylated gasoline usage with a delay of 22 years. The conclusion was simple – toxic exposure to lead in childhood leads to committing violence in adulthood, and during the popularity of ethylated gasoline, this happened exactly.

All of this could have been avoided if manufacturers of CHP plants hadn’t spread blatant and immoral lies, including Mizly who himself seriously suffered as a result of his actions, but decided to hide it. This once again reminds us how important transparency and independent expert evaluations are. Moreover, modern researchers would undoubtedly assess such a story as a result of corporate psychopathy, when personalities with psychopathic predispositions are ready to consciously inflict harm on other people and benefit from it for their own gain. This is a danger that everyone should be aware of in order to notice it in time and effectively counter it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Food vs. Violence: How to Fix a Domestic Tyrant Through the Stomach

Someone might find themselves in the following situation: they come home from work, their face like brick, looking for an excuse to quarrel. There are plenty of minor grievances that can turn a house into a real hell within ten minutes. Who’s to blame? Stress, fatigue, temperament, childhood trauma? Okay, maybe. But what if it’s much… prosaic? Like, on the plate.

Let’s pay attention to the “corn theory” of crimes. Back in the 70s, researchers Anthony Moulton and Kit Jacobs surprised the scientific community with a simple yet unsettling observation: in societies where people were overindulging in corn, there was a higher incidence of murders. The core problem is straightforward: in a diet where corn constitutes the primary food source, there’s a deficiency in tryptophan. Lack of tryptophan – no serotonin. No serotonin – no mood, impulsivity and dysfunction of the mechanism inhibiting violence.

Today we know more. Contemporary large-scale studies confirm that problems with mood, irritability and aggression often hinge on elementary nutrients. Omega-3, B vitamins, fiber – and suddenly, instead of roaring at home, there’s coziness again, conversation, and even smiles.

How does this work in practice? Imagine you have a hidden tyrant lurking within your house who transforms every minor matter into a drama. You could spend years trying to persuade him, undergoing therapy or hypnosis. But you can… more cunningly. Simply prepare the “correct food.” Without bombastic declarations and gloomy lectures.

Here’s the secret weapon against domestic violence and aggression:

1) Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines). Omega-3 in it works almost magically, reducing irritability. Try replacing one or two dinners a week with something fishy. You can say you’re doing it for your health – fewer suspicions!

2) Eggs and dairy products labeled “rich in omega-3/DHA.” A concealed supplement that no one would suspect. Ideal if fish provokes dissent.

3) Oats, bran, chia seeds. The more fiber – the better for bacteria in the gut producing tryptophan, and therefore the better for the person. Seriously, the gut microbiome significantly influences our mood and even mental health.

4) Walnuts. An ideal snack. Simply place a bowl of nuts on the table. Right next to the TV show. It works reliably.

5) Carbohydrates with a low glycemic index (whole grain bread, legumes, berries), preventing sugar spikes, and therefore mood swings.

What shouldn’t be given? A lot of sugar and simple carbohydrates (sweets, white bread), excess alcohol (no explanation needed here), and, of course, a monotonous “corn” diet or any mono-diet.

Does this actually work? Current research shows that even a simple supplement of omega-3s can reduce the level of both reactive (impulsive) and proactive (deliberate) aggression by 30%, and this works among representatives of any groups of people. Similarly, with tryptophan – according to studies, it reduces hostility and aggressiveness, as well as increases trust and generosity.

And what about sweet tooths and fast food? It’s not necessary to refuse completely, but you can cleverly replace harmful things with more useful ones: homemade desserts with a minimum amount of sugar, fruit instead of sweets, dark chocolate with a high cocoa content. The main thing is to ensure an abundance of vegetables, fruits, fish, milk and meat in the diet.

This approach is also fully compatible with libertarian philosophy. See, no one is forcing anyone. You simply put the right dishes on the table and give freedom of choice. Want – eat, don’t want – don’t. No violence or pressure. This isn’t the notation “what to eat in order not to be a psychopath.” It’s a quiet, inconspicuous and unobtrusive way to change the atmosphere in the family. And then – it’s everyone’s choice.

So the next time a domestic quarrel looms on the horizon, try first to fry some fish, and then already reach for diplomatic talents. Who knows, maybe the best prevention of violence is not the police, not the state and even not psychotherapists, but simply a plate of tasty and healthy food.

Well, let’s check it out?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch