Тег: Violence

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A hardware problem cannot be solved with software

When a capacitor on your motherboard bulges, you resolder it rather than trying to solve the problem by changing some variable in the Windows registry. When a shock absorber in your car dies, you certainly won’t go in and reprogram the electronic control unit in the hope that the problem can be solved without “dirty work.” But for some reason, when it comes to malfunctions in human “hardware,” many mistakenly believe that these problems can be solved purely “programmatically” (through philosophy, religion, social institutions), without therapeutic intervention in the defective systems of the body.

This misconception is especially noticeable in discussions about the violence inhibitor. But in fact, it is exactly the same kind of hardware system as processor elements like the ALU and registers. If a processor has physical defects or has degraded, no firmware update will help — this sad lesson was well learned by owners of the latest generations of Intel “stones.” Likewise, in the case of a degenerate rapist, no amount of persuasion will help — the problem is purely “hardware,” it is in his “noggin.” It’s time to accept the truth and abandon the illusions: hardware (physical) problems require a corresponding hardware solution (action in the real world)!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Myth of Eternal War: How Did Hobbes Deceive Us?

Once, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes confidently stated that the natural state of humanity is an endless “war of all against all.” Sounds familiar, right? This concept has become so ingrained that we sometimes forget to check its truthfulness. But in reality, it turns out that people are not as bloodthirsty by nature as we are led to believe.

Take, for example, the well-known story of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who claimed that killers among the Yanomami tribe were more successful in reproducing. The idea is clear and frightening: kill more, and you will have three times as many children! It sounds too harsh to be true, and indeed, it later turned out that Chagnon “stretched the truth” a bit—he was comparing elderly killers with young non-killers. And independent research showed that killers in tribal societies do not reproduce faster than others; in fact, to be honest, fewer of their children survive.

And in general, who said that wars are the norm? A famous myth from Steven Pinker goes like this: 15% of the prehistoric population constantly perished in wars until states emerged and brought order. Great advertising for the state, isn’t it? Except that archaeology shows something completely different: violent deaths in pre-cultural societies were no more than 2%. Moreover, the emergence of states did not reduce the level of violence at all. On the contrary, the first large structures often fueled conflicts and increased the percentage of killings to about 5%.

It is worth noting that anthropologists may unconsciously reinforce the notion of the inevitability of war. For example, researchers “record” groups as warlike that actually hardly ever fought, simply because of the presence of weapon images in rock paintings. But these images do not necessarily evidence actual aggression: weapons could have been used for hunting or symbolic ceremonies. As a result, a false impression is created that ancient people were constantly at war.

Data on so-called “simple” hunter-gatherer societies is also quite telling. Despite being depicted in many works as brutal and always ready to fight, in reality, they are the ones characterized by extremely low levels of aggression and violence. Real war is a rarity for them, not the norm. Conversely, societies with a complex social structure and a more developed hierarchy more often become participants in conflicts and wars. Interesting, isn’t it? It turns out that the more complex a society is, the more conflict and aggression it generates.

Furthermore, many proponents of the Hobbesian perspective fully acknowledge this fact, but they try not to emphasize it, seriously studying only cases of “complex” societies, as, for example, Lawrence Keeley did in the work “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.” Alternatively, they may simply categorize “complex” societies as “simple,” subsequently labeling the latter as warlike.

In general, peaceful coexistence is the norm for many peoples. Thus, a study of 590 cultures from around the world showed an absence of wars in as many as 64% of them. Of course, they might have defended themselves against attacks, but initiating attacks is something only a minority of cultures engage in.

So why do we continue to believe in the myth of a human nature doomed to eternal war? Perhaps the problem here is habit—this belief was passed from generation to generation without critical reflection. Or perhaps someone intentionally maintains this myth to justify the existence of a strong and powerful state “saving” us from ourselves.

Let’s admit it to ourselves: the idea that people are by nature inclined toward peace and cooperation sounds much more realistic, optimistic, and attractive. Perhaps it is time for us to stop considering peace a utopia and start seeing it as a natural part of human life. After all, as history and research show, peaceful communities are not the exception, but rather the rule. So is it worth continuing to cling to gloomy Hobbesian imagery? Probably not. It is time to stop allowing fears to dictate our view of humanity and start trusting each other a bit more!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Essential oils are effective anti-aggressive agents

Substances that have an anti-aggressive effect can be not only synthesized in laboratories but also found in various natural remedies. One category of such remedies is essential oils. Although they have traditionally been widely used to improve a person’s psychological state, the question of their effect on the nervous system is still insufficiently studied, especially when addressing the topic of aggressive behavior. However, existing research conducted on animals and even on humans indicates a great potential for studying this direction.

First, let us look at a study on the effect of a substance called linalool, which is present in a vast number of essential oils (bitter orange, neroli, petitgrain, rose, lavender, citronella, lemon, geranium, and others), on mice. It demonstrated that inhalation of this substance significantly reduces the number and duration of attacks on unfamiliar conspecifics, and at certain concentrations, almost completely eliminates them. At the same time, as shown in other experiments, such an effect cannot be explained by a general decrease in the activity of the mice, as this does not occur during the inhalation of linalool.

Another study was conducted on fighting fish, or Siamese fighting fish, whose males are known for their extremely aggressive behavior toward conspecifics, which is why they must be kept strictly alone. In the experiment, either lavender essential oil or pure linalool was used, which were added in various concentrations to a container of water. The test subject was placed in this container and given two minutes to acclimate, after which a container with another individual was placed next to it to allow visual contact. As a result, while individuals in the control group (without drugs) attempted to actively attack both during and after acclimation, individuals under the influence of both lavender essential oil and pure linalool showed almost no such behavior—their desire to attack disappeared. Moreover, although the aggressiveness of the individuals was restored over time, it did not return to the pre-test level even three months after the trial with the essential oil. Accordingly, we can conclude a limited permanent anti-aggressive effect from lavender oil.

But is all this applicable to humans? There are strong reasons to believe so, as many experiments have been conducted on the anti-aggressive effect of essential oils on people with cognitive impairments. A meta-analysis of 15 studies with 693 participants showed that although further research is needed to determine effective dosages and side effects, overall, the use of essential oils in therapeutic procedures has a significant anti-aggressive effect.

Although the mechanism of such an effect of essential oils is not yet sufficiently studied, it is known that their molecules can enter the hippocampus, the limbic system, and the amygdala of the brain through the nasal cavity and olfactory cells. It is worth noting that linalool and other substances from essential oils work as 5-HT1A receptor agonists (activating them), and such an effect is known for its selective anti-aggressive effect (eliminating attacking aggression without affecting defensive behavior and other activity), which is achieved through the strengthening of the violence inhibition mechanism. In addition, upon entering the blood, for example, through the skin, essential oils can affect various physiological reactions. Finally, by exerting a certain influence on the function of cholinergic synapses, they can prevent neurodegenerative processes.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Corporate Psychopathy – the Cause of the Global Economic Crisis

There is a theory developed by researcher Clive Boddy, according to which psychopaths working in corporations, particularly financial ones, played a significant role in the emergence of the 2008 global economic crisis. As is well known, not all managers are inclined to work for the benefit of the company that hired them. Some of them are dysfunctional leaders who literally destroy the company with their actions. One important type of such leaders are psychopathic personalities, which we will now discuss in more detail.

As we know, psychopaths in literature are defined as personalities who have problems manifesting empathy and sympathy toward other people, behave coldly and ruthlessly toward them, lack a conscience, and feel no guilt for causing harm to anyone. In turn, corporate psychopaths are individuals with similar characteristics who engage in organizational activities. They usually present themselves as pleasant, attractive, and successful individuals, but in reality, they merely manipulate everyone around them, usually to their detriment, to achieve purely personal goals.

Such individuals often receive rapid promotions and become leaders due to their charm and confidence, while they are prone to ignoring the needs of others, deceiving them, or even engaging in bullying. Furthermore, there is evidence that in some companies, including international financial corporations, psychopaths were even specifically selected for leadership positions due to the belief that such personalities are best suited for such work.

Usually, such individuals brought short-term success to companies through mass cost-cutting and employee layoffs. However, they were in no way concerned about the potential long-term harm of the strategies they chose, and in general pursued exclusively their own benefits, discarding their obligations and responsibility, striving to obtain as many personal “bonuses” as possible while everyone else was in the midst of financial litigation. From the actions of such “effective managers,” one can well expect that they will ultimately receive a large check for their efforts to “save” the company, after which it will simply go bankrupt.

Now imagine what would happen if, due to certain global changes in the corporate environment—such as increasingly frequent company mergers, the tendency of employees to change jobs more often and move to companies previously completely unknown to them, changes in the technological environment and others, which became common practice on the eve of the global crisis—psychopathic personalities received far more opportunities to occupy high positions, using not their actual work skills, but manipulation and political skills? In such a situation of growing corporate psychopathy, a corporate and social catastrophe can be expected, which is precisely what authors studying this problem warned about in their materials as early as 2005.

Such a problem has still not been given proper attention, which puts the very future of capitalism at risk. Of course, this problem is far from the only one in economic matters, but it deserves more detailed study and the application of appropriate measures.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Anti-Lorentz” is impossible in practice

We once examined the question of why using a certain drug that suppresses the function of a person’s violence inhibitor (or as we also called it, “Anti-Lorenz” agents) has little practical utility and effectiveness, but is capable of leading to serious problems. However, this was presented from the perspective of social processes, whereas now we will delve deeper into the biological essence of this issue.

As we know, the violence inhibitor is managed by the brain’s serotonergic system, specifically the 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors, as well as the MAO-A, TPH2, and SERT proteins associated with their function, encoded by the corresponding genes (for simplicity, we will call all of these “variables”). And we can assume that only a specific, quite narrow combination of these variables creates a high risk of developing violence inhibitor dysfunction in a particular individual. After all, only a tiny fraction of the population (no more than 1–2%) has increased psychopathic predispositions in any population.

Impact on at least one of these variables “upward” is quite capable of significantly strengthening the inhibitor function (eliminating the ability to initiate violence). Thus, in experiments on animals and humans, the mere activation of 5-HT1A or 5-HT1B receptors, or the enhancement of serotonergic function through impact on SERT activity, selectively eliminated violent behavior. At the same time, impact on any of the variables “downward” does not guarantee the weakening of the inhibitor (restoration of the ability to initiate violence), as was, for example, shown with the blocking of 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors in animals.

On the other hand, there are strong grounds to believe that attempts to actively exert such an influence can cause serious mental disorders—increased anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other pathologies related to the serotonergic system. Initially, such problems are often not particularly pronounced in psychopathic personalities simply because the narrow combination of “variables” required for this is evolutionarily maintained (with a bouquet of disorders, they simply would not have had reproductive success). In fact, according to research, violence inhibitor dysfunction itself is a “point” rather than an extensive disruption in brain function.

Why is all this important in practice? In the tasks of strengthening and weakening the violence inhibitor, there is a huge disparity in complexity. To put it simply—even in a successful attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor by suppressing any “variable,” it will not be possible to guarantee that this effect will not be reversible if someone applies agents to strengthen a certain “variable” to the person who did this. However, one can certainly guarantee serious side effects. In one of the experiments on rats using the neurotoxin 5,7-DHT, which affects the serotonergic system, although it was possible to increase their aggressiveness, this effect was reversed by introducing small doses of serotonin into the brain. A similar neurotoxic effect is exerted, for example, by methamphetamine, which at high intensity of intake is capable of increasing a person’s psychopathy. But most likely this effect is also reversible in the same way, and the result of weakening the inhibitor with “meth” in such a case will be a lack of result and the causation of serious harm to health.

And what if the aggressor does not know the specific time when they will have the practical opportunity to use violence? They would need to constantly take multiple drugs to weaken all “variables.” But constantly maintaining such a balance of “variables” so that simultaneously: 1) it is enough to weaken the violence inhibitor, 2) it is not yet enough to cause neurophysiological disorders, 3) it is enough to overcome the effect of agents for strengthening the inhibitor—is hardly possible in real life at all.

Ultimately, an attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor will only lead to serious neurophysiological and mental disorders, but will provide no guarantee against its reinforcement under appropriate influence. Practically effective and safe “Anti-Lorenz” agents turn out to be simply science fiction.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The aggressor will not complain to anyone if his violence inhibitor is strengthened

According to numerous studies, psilocybin is capable of strengthening the violence inhibitor for a very long, or even permanent period, and also weakening the tendency toward authoritarian views, with just a couple of doses equivalent to 5-10 grams of dried mushrooms. It should be noted immediately that this substance is classified by the authorities of the RF and many other countries as a prohibited psychotropic agent. But such a ban could lead to one interesting scenario, where an aggressive degenerate, in the event that their violence inhibitor is strengthened, will simply have nowhere to complain!

Imagine a situation where some degenerate rapist had those same “mushrooms” slipped into their food; they found out about it and decided to snitch. They went to the police station… but instead of taking a report and searching for some anti-violence fighters, they filed an administrative charge against the degenerate himself for drug use, with all the ensuing consequences—registration with a narcologist, suspension of driver’s licenses of all categories, a ban on holding certain positions (doctor, lawyer, official), and ultimately, even dismissal from work.

The degenerate will think about this for a bit and decide: “Better to keep my mouth shut, not even tell my friends, otherwise if they find out, I’ll never see a normal life again! And besides, no one will care; I’ve said it myself many times that ‘the sheriff isn’t interested in Indian problems’ and pushed for ‘strict liability,’ without ever imagining that it could affect me as well.”

Such a scenario is entirely expected, because how is a rapist even going to prove they are right?! And in many jurisdictions, it’s unlikely that anyone would care—they would more likely just try to use him to fill a quota, especially if he has already managed to get flagged for committing violence in the past.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Social movements as conduits of the dark ego and antisemitism

Various studies show that public and activist movements of various kinds, including eco-activists, feminist movements, and even movements against sexual violence, suffer from one problem – they are often represented by individuals with certain dark personality traits. Particular emphasis should be placed on grandiose narcissism, which is characterized by an inflated sense of superiority and self-importance, as well as an obsessive need for recognition. In addition, such individuals often suffer from psychopathy – a lack of empathy toward other people, an absence of guilt for causing them harm, etc. In general, it is assumed that people with dark personality traits tend to “hijack” pro-social movements to use them as a vehicle for their own selfish needs.

One example of this, which we have already considered several times in previous materials, is the seizure of leadership in social and political movements by psychopaths. This process is well described by psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski in the book “Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Applied to Politics.” Psychopathic personalities, being at the bottom of a movement at the start of their careers, do the dirty work for it that others would not undertake, earn a reputation within it, rise through the hierarchy by resorting to various kinds of manipulation, and displace everyone else from leadership positions. And when these individuals gain real power in society, they inevitably create large-scale catastrophes, such as repression, genocide, and wars.

In one of the current studies on this topic, researchers decided to examine the problem of antisemitism. Such an ideology also often serves as a vehicle for the dark ego. Participants in this study were 3,981 people from the USA and Britain. They underwent various tests for dark personality traits, as well as a predisposition to dark needs, such as aggressiveness, a desire to dominate others, sensation seeking, fake virtue (public demonstration of moral virtue without genuine moral conviction), and selfishness (lack of altruism). They also completed several questionnaires on adherence to various forms of antisemitism, ranging from a tendency toward prejudice against Jews (for example, viewing them as dishonest and greedy people) to radical anti-Zionist views that justify violence.

As a result, it was found that antisemitism is closely linked to dark personality traits – more than 94% of the indicators of these traits were positively associated with it. A particularly strong link to antisemitism is observed in the previously mentioned narcissism and psychopathy. And this applies to all investigated forms of antisemitism, from traditional to radical. Furthermore, the presence of dark needs in an individual was also linked to antisemitism.

Researchers believe that any ideology, prejudice, and activism that can help satisfy dark needs are attractive to people with high scores in dark personality traits. For example, according to research, both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism are linked to them. At the same time, exactly which ideological tools people with a dark ego use depends on which ideas and narratives they encounter in their specific life circumstances and whether they recognize the possibility of satisfying their dark needs.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Nonviolent Semai People

The Semai are a semi-nomadic people numbering about 50,000 who live in the center of the Malay Peninsula in Malaysia. This people are known for their absolute non-violence. Now, drawing on the works of anthropologist Robert Dentan, we will examine some interesting features of the lives of the members of this people.

The Semai initially present themselves as non-violent people. In their words, they speak of non-violence not as an ideal to be achieved, but as something already accomplished. For example, instead of saying that hitting people is bad and forbidden, they simply say “we do not hit people.” Of course, in reality, the Semai can get angry with one another and have conflicts. But direct acts of aggression are a great rarity for them. Even when under the influence of alcohol, they become very talkative and noisy, but never violent.

It is very important to note that physically punishing children is condemned among the members of this people. In conversations about this, they are most likely to say something like “how would you feel if a child died,” thereby equating a simple blow to murder. They primarily prevent undesirable behavior from children through certain threats and intimidation; for example, they often tell children about evil spirits that will eat them, or may threaten to hit them (but will not actually do so). Even if a child hits an adult, the adult will most likely start laughing at them or intimidate them, rather than respond with violence. It is not even customary to force children to do anything against their will; the Semai believe that their children will learn everything necessary on their own, without coercion. Thus, they are simply deprived of observing the very model of violent relationships between people.

An important concept for the Semai is “punan,” which means taboo. If a person does something that reduces the satisfaction and well-being of another person, it is “punan” and is treated as if that person had increased the other person’s chance of sustaining a physical injury. Whoever committed such an act must apologize and materially compensate for the inconvenience caused. If they refuse, the victim has the right to take the offender’s belongings—for example, taking their clothes while they are bathing—and then simply notifying them that these were taken as compensation.

If a conflict cannot be resolved, elders may be sought for help. However, it should be noted that their decisions are not enforced; among the Semai, it is simply customary to respect them. Public opinion also plays an important role in such a system where there is very little power and restriction. The parties to a conflict try to gain the support and help of other people. Naturally, verbal skills become important in such cases, and usually, the most influential members of the Semai are good orators. On the other hand, however, the Semai view overly polished speeches with suspicion, so whoever wishes to gain support must not press the audience too hard.

Finally, it is important to note that the Semai have no provisions for sanctions for murder, simply because murders never occur among them. Even killing animals for sustenance is a task that the Semai perform with great difficulty, and the killing of a human is something absolutely unthinkable for them.

The non-violent lifestyle of the Semai is very interesting and shows that people can live in complete peace with one another, even if conflicts still occur between them. Zero tolerance for violence, even as a method of achieving goals or raising children—this is what everyone could learn from the Semai.

How important it is to double-check popular claims

Many of you have likely heard the story of an experiment with monkeys, a banana, and a cold shower, also frequently circulated under the title “that’s just how it’s done here.” The essence of the experiment was that several monkeys were placed in a cage; a banana was hung from the ceiling, and a ladder was placed beneath it. Whenever one of the monkeys tried to reach the banana, all the monkeys were sprayed with cold water, and over time they lost interest in the banana. When one of the monkeys was replaced with a new one, the other monkeys would stop it from trying to reach the banana. Gradually, all the old monkeys were replaced by new ones, but the “tradition” of forcibly stopping newcomers from reaching the banana did not disappear, even after the cold shower was completely removed.

But this “widely known” experiment, which is often used to explain the process of socialization and the formation of traditions, seems to have never actually been conducted. Several online sources indicate that this experiment was first mentioned in the 1994 book “Competing for the Future,” written by strategic management consultants Hamel and Prahalad[1][2]. No references to the experiment are provided, and its description begins with the words “a friend of ours once described an experiment with monkeys.”

It is suggested that this story may have been partially based on an experiment conducted by researcher Gordon Stephenson in 1967. In this experiment, while alone, monkeys were presented with an object that, when manipulated, resulted in punishment—a jet of air directed at them. Afterwards, another monkey was placed with them as a partner who also attempted to manipulate the object. As a result, one of the trained monkeys pulled its partner away from the object, while two others expressed fear while observing the partner.

As we can see, the previously mentioned story bears little resemblance to the closest experiment actually conducted in reality. Nevertheless, this myth has been recounted in hundreds of books and thousands of articles. This story shows us that it is very important to double-check popular claims, as they may simply be false. And regarding the problem of violence addressed by our project, many such myths have also developed. One might recall the Milgram experiment, in which most of the results were hidden in the archives, or the Stanford Prison Experiment, which turned out to be a staged production with a predetermined result[3][4].