Тег: Violence

Why it is often useless to threaten psychopathic individuals with punishment

Social orders are often built on the assumption that potential punishments for their violation should deter a significant portion of individuals who would otherwise boldly commit any crime. To some extent, this is indeed true; however, the degree to which a person is susceptible to the threat of punishment also depends on what kind of personality they have.

As was recently found, individuals with psychopathic predispositions demonstrate reduced sensitivity to pain, which affects their ability to learn from painful consequences. In one experiment, while performing a task in which participants could receive either a reward or an electric shock, possessing more pronounced psychopathic traits led to a poorer ability to learn from painful experience. Due to the more rapid development of pain tolerance, participants with high psychopathy scores quickly returned to their initial expectations and did not change their behavior.

Earlier studies show that if psychopathic individuals are asked to learn how to navigate a maze using various levers, while simultaneously avoiding those that cause painful shocks, they handle only the first task well. And in the case of a gambling experiment, in which two decks contained cards leading to high wins but also high losses, making long-term winning impossible, while the other two decks led to small wins but also small losses, making long-term winning possible, psychopathic individuals were poor at learning not to choose cards from the first two decks, whereas ordinary participants had no such problem. Apparently, they easily concentrate on faster and larger gains, ignoring the accompanying risks. Additionally, one MRI study showed that the brains of violent offenders with high psychopathy scores process punishment stimuli in an atypical way, which may lead to an inadequate assessment of benefits and punishments.

There is also a suggestion that psychopaths may actually derive pleasure from experiencing fear and deliberately place themselves in situations that induce it. This is supported by one study in which individuals with higher psychopathy scores, and especially its primary factor (traits such as lack of empathy and superficial charm), expressed more pleasure from watching videos with content aimed at inducing fear than participants with lower scores. Furthermore, researchers of corporate psychopathy studying information security in the banking sector note that fear of immediate or direct punishment is unable to prevent unethical behavior on the part of psychopathic people. Therefore, they, among others, propose conducting screening for psychopathic predispositions before hiring anyone.

It can be observed that individuals with psychopathic predispositions tend to inadequately assess the benefits and negative consequences of their behavior, and threatening them with punishment is often simply pointless. Therefore, in their case, instead of punishment, it is certainly worth considering a therapeutic approach that corrects the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, because of which they possess high psychopathy scores.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Compatibility of Libertarian Philosophy with the Idea of Strengthening the Violence Inhibitor

The assertion that the best explanation for violent and antisocial behavior is the presence of psychopathic predispositions resulting from a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, and the proposal to address such behavior through therapeutic methods, may encounter the argument that this is simply an unacceptable interference with a person’s body, which, among other things, does not comply with libertarian principles. Such a remark is understandable; however, there are a number of conditions under which this idea is absolutely compatible with libertarianism.

First, therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction may be applied mandatorily only to individuals who have already committed acts of violence in the past, or as part of defensive actions in the event of a direct violent threat from someone and the pursuit of violent goals by someone.

Second, in the case of individuals who have psychopathic predispositions but have not yet initiated violence, such therapy may only be offered on a voluntary basis or as a way to avoid sanctions in the form of ostracism applied to them due to the fact that psychopathy is a serious risk factor in maintaining any relationship with them. In research on the problem of corporate psychopathy, companies are already being encouraged to screen potential employees for psychopathic predispositions, as such mentally ill individuals can easily harm their operations and are extremely prone to engaging in “white-collar” crime in the workplace, including fraud and deception of their colleagues and management, if they find some benefit in it. In many cases, it will be absolutely normal and acceptable to ostracize psychopathic personalities, just as today, for example, many would ostracize those with contagious infectious diseases who refuse treatment, which is also a serious risk factor. However, it would be a good thing to offer them therapy as a means of avoiding ostracism.

Additionally, the idea of therapy for violence inhibitor dysfunction can be popularized in various spheres where its effective and voluntary application is possible. For example, it can be promoted among parents as a method of treating children exhibiting early signs of psychopathic predispositions (also known as callous-unemotional traits). This and the previously described options for practicing such therapy are absolutely compatible with the idea of non-interference and libertarian principles.

It is also worth noting what is incompatible with libertarianism. Among those calling themselves libertarians, one can find individuals who adhere to the admissibility of initiating violence, or even sending a person into forced slavery through the use of violence as a response to non-violent violations, such as failure to pay a debt, theft, or simply the violation of some previously agreed-upon rules. Sometimes one can even encounter the delusions of clearly mentally deranged individuals, claiming that, for example, a lender has the right to put an explosive bracelet on a debtor and threaten its activation in case of non-payment, and these individuals also call themselves libertarians.

Such actions give the victim of the violation every right to seize any property, funds, and income of the violator that they (independently or with someone’s help) can reach to compensate for damages and associated costs. It is also grounds to ostracize the violator until they compensate for the damage. However, non-violent violations do not authorize a violent response. Of course, if someone threatens a person with violence, even while pursuing non-violent end goals (for example, demanding a wallet while holding a knife), it is entirely permissible to resort to unlimited self-defense (and in general, this is already a case where the attacker is in need of mandatory therapy). But responding with violence to a crime already committed, if it is absolutely non-violent, is clearly not a libertarian approach.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the “right of the strong” is being imposed on everyone in the modern world

We are all aware of the existence of international conventions and agreements that limit the development and use of various forms of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Other forms of weaponry and many military practices are also prohibited. This is all justified by ethical reasons—the fact that certain weapons and practices are too lethal, cause immense human suffering, and act non-selectively, meaning a vast number of civilians could easily become victims. This position is quite understandable; however, it is also important to look at it from another perspective.

In today’s high-tech world, the development of weapons of mass destruction may be accessible to many jurisdictions. And such weapons are entirely capable of making them an unattractive victim, even for large and powerful states with millions of soldiers and units of conventional weaponry. Under such conditions, the very essence of the “right of the strongest” changes—the strong is no longer the one who actually possesses the power and ability to inflict harm on the weak with impunity, but the one who can convince the weak of the need to follow certain norms, regulations, and prohibitions.

Of course, this is not being said to justify the actual use of truly inhumane military practices. The point is simply that the goal of prohibiting such practices may well be to place the weak at a disadvantage compared to strong players and in complete dependence on their will. One does not have to look far for examples; one can simply recall the position in which the Budapest Memorandum placed Ukraine, under which it was forced to exchange nuclear weapons for paper guarantees of security.

Small and weak jurisdictions could very well be independent of the will of superpowers if they were allowed to develop and possess the same weapons of mass destruction—not for their use, but simply as a means of deterrence against external aggression. Furthermore, even when discussing the use of such weaponry, not all its forms would be particularly cruel or absolutely unacceptable. For example, with the current level of progress, it is now entirely possible to speak of the development of ethological (behavioral) weapons that would simply make enemy soldiers incapable of committing murder and fighting, without causing them any permanent or serious harm. Such a weapon could be an airborne bio/chemical agent to enhance the human mechanism for inhibiting violence or even to dismantle hierarchy—reducing authoritarianism and obedience to authorities (commanders). Surely, many other variants of similar weaponry could be devised. And there are no reasons to believe why any jurisdiction should not possess such weaponry. Except, again, that it would be disadvantageous for the strong players on the international political arena. It is in their interest to convince everyone else to follow international agreements and thereby limit their potential for defense against their interference.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How early can violent behavior be detected and corrected

At what age do you think one can realize that a particular person is prone to developing into an antisocial, violent, and psychopathic personality? Some might be surprised, but this can be detected as early as two years of age!

Of course, children are not labeled as psychopaths in any case. However, there are similar concepts for them called callous-unemotional traits or deceitful-callous behavior, which take into account things such as a child’s lack of guilt for bad behavior, a tendency to lie, to be selfish, mean, etc. According to many studies, higher scores in such traits are a strong predictor of a greater risk of violent behavior and the presence of psychopathic traits in adulthood.

However, it is important to highlight the results of several studies on this topic. One study on children aged 4–9 showed that the presence of callous-unemotional traits predicts behavioral problems a year later. Also, their presence at age 3 predicts high and sustained aggressiveness at ages 6–12. And in another study, researchers decided to assess 731 children on a deceitful-callous behavior scale at the age of 2–4 and check how it predicts problematic behavior one year later, as well as at the age of nine and a half.

The results showed that children who scored high on this scale at the age of 2 already experienced serious behavioral problems by the age of 3. Additionally, high scores on it between the ages of 2 and 4 predicted a child’s tendency to break rules and behave aggressively at the age of nine and a half.

Such results once again confirm the conclusions of other studies that psychopathic predispositions emerge at an early age and maintain high stability throughout life. It is very important to take this information into account in order to prevent violent behavior. If we are attentive to children and detect the risk of psychopathy as early as possible, measures can be taken, including therapeutic intervention, which will prevent this risk and resolve the problem of violence long before it arises in practice.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The moral philosopher and children

An interesting dispute occurred here on Twitter between two libertarians whom I quite respect.

On one side, @dobroum presented a universal moral philosophy, one of whose conclusions is the assertion that any violence against children is inadmissible, as well as the rather banal “it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick,” meaning that a family should be complete, everyone in the family should love one another, the father should earn enough to support the whole family, and the mother should prioritize raising offspring above any other hobby. And divorces, kindergartens, and single mothers harm children.

He was opposed by @VoiceInTwit, who argued that there are no universal parenting methods, that violence from children is quite acceptable to suppress with forceful means, and that in the real world one has to deal with imperfect situations—and if a moral philosophy with its universal principles cannot handle such situations, then its value is small.

Even from my retelling, it is not difficult to understand whose side I am on in this dispute. However, I should note that although this looks like a confrontation between the theorist Dobroum and the practitioner Voice, in fact, the situation is the opposite: the practitioner Dobroum (has children, raises them non-violently) against the theorist Voice (has no children of his own). Due to my own lack of children, my judgments will suffer from the same deficiency.

Nevertheless, a specific case of non-violent child-rearing only proves the fallacy of the thesis “non-violent upbringing is impossible,” yet this thesis is not being put forward in the debate. Instead, the thesis “non-violent upbringing is not always appropriate” is being advanced, and here the practice must move into the realm of theory to defend the opposing claim that “violent upbringing is always inappropriate.”

Alas, the attempt to justify the non-application of violence to children through a universal NAP runs into two obstacles. First, as Voice notes, in a situation where the NAP is violated by a child, they are deprived of the protection of the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, the NAP proves to be non-universal (violence can be used to suppress violence, but if violence is used by a child, it cannot be). Second, the problem of fuzzy boundaries arises in full force: not being competent from birth, an infant remains a will-less object of manipulation by adults for quite a long time; otherwise, they would not survive. There is no clear line between manipulation without consent and violence. An infant can be undressed without consent, whereas for an adult, this is usually a criminal offense. Meanwhile, universal moral principles should work, shouldn’t they? Unfortunately, with children, the use of crutches is inevitable: no matter how you look at it, they acquire legal personhood only gradually.

At this stage of the dispute, the advocate of non-violent treatment of children must take off the hat of a moral philosopher and become a practitioner again, bringing utilitarian arguments that those who have experienced childhood trauma statistically turn out to be stupider and unhappier by adulthood, after which one can fully immerse oneself in a discussion about how applicable statistics are to individual cases. And here, all the cards fall to the hands of the one who is skeptical of playing with statistics, because it was with those very same statistical arguments that we were fed before the forced COVID vaccination, as well as the stripping of the right to bear arms.

Raising a child is the responsibility of those who are doing it. And everyone does it, from parents to cartoon creators to a random passerby expressing their moral judgment to a child. A parent cannot and should not shield a child from any adverse influence. Likewise, a parent cannot claim an exclusive right to do whatever they please with their child—a random passerby may not limit themselves to rendering a moral judgment, but may also use force if they deem it necessary.

So, about the use of force. I very much hope that even the most non-violent moral philosopher still teaches her girls to use it. This includes explaining in which situations it is appropriate to use force, even if it is not being directly used against you personally right now. Otherwise, there is a danger of raising pacifists or helpless victims instead of defenders of freedom. However, it is not such a great danger, since a parent is never solely responsible for upbringing. And that is a good thing.

Psychopathy as a predictor of authoritarian political views and what can be done about it

Many studies have examined the psychological foundations of human political views, as various personality traits influence ideological attitudes, opinions, and values. Of particular interest is whether there is a link between psychopathic predispositions and a tendency toward authoritarian political positions, which has also been studied. Furthermore, there are studies indicating one interesting way in which a person’s authoritarian tendencies can be reduced.

A rather illustrative study by Zlatko Šmra concerns the question of whether psychopathy, as well as indicators of positive and negative affect, predicts a person’s inclination toward totalitarian political ideology. In this study, psychopathy was divided into 4 factors: interpersonal (tendency to deceive and manipulate people), affective (lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse), lifestyle (impulsivity, parasitism, and irresponsibility), and antisocial (poor behavioral control and an excessive tendency to commit criminal offenses). For simplicity, we will define the first two factors as primary psychopathy and the others as secondary. In turn, positive and negative affect reflect how much a person is inclined to exhibit enthusiasm and activity, or rather, some unpleasant states of mood, such as anger and nervousness. Finally, totalitarian political ideology implies a person’s high need for state social regulation, their acceptance of life under a dictatorship, the denial of individual freedom, as well as support for repressive methods and procedures. It should be noted that in this case, we are referring to both radical left and radical right ideologies.

In a sample of 386 students aged 18 to 29, it was shown that traits of primary psychopathy significantly predict an individual’s predisposition toward totalitarian political ideology, whereas the link with secondary psychopathy is virtually zero. However, psychopathy scores in general, and secondary psychopathy in particular, predict the presence of negative affect, which in turn also increases a person’s predisposition toward totalitarian political ideology to a certain extent. These results provide a valuable contribution to the understanding of how individuals adopt totalitarian views.

But understanding the problem is not where it ends. In one study, it was shown that the administration of psilocybin sustainably reduces people’s predisposition toward authoritarian views on the libertarian-authoritarian scale (the effect was observed even a year after administration). This substance, which belongs to the psychedelics, exerts a strong prosocial and empathic effect on humans, due to which it is proposed for the therapy of psychopathy as well.

The primary effect of psychedelics on the human brain is the activation of serotonin 2A receptors. However, studies show, that the prosocial effect in the case of their use is likely due to serotonin 1A receptors. This means that selective anti-aggressive agents that act specifically on this type of receptor and produce minimal or no side effects or influence on other behaviors could potentially be effective in the therapy of psychopathy (strengthening the violence inhibitor) and reducing human authoritarianism. As a result, we gain the possibility of effective and safe treatment of psychopathy, as well as its consequences, such as authoritarian tendencies.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Examples of testing anti-aggression agents on humans

As is known, the brain’s serotonergic (5-HT) system plays a key role in the regulation of aggression and is responsible for the function of the violence inhibition mechanism in humans. Therefore, it has become the target of many studies aimed at developing the most effective anti-aggressive agents. Of course, there are many substances that have shown efficacy in animal experiments. But now we will list some of those that have already been tested in humans.

In experiments on mice and dogs, the administration of tryptophan, which is a precursor to serotonin, had an anti-aggressive effect without disrupting other behaviors. But what about application to humans? In some experiments, it reduced aggressiveness and hostility, as well as increased trust and generosity. Other bioactive supplements that affect serotonergic function can also be useful (for example, inositol reduces hostility in humans, and S-adenosylmethionine reduced aggressiveness in experiments on patients with schizophrenia).

In many animal experiments, it has been shown that certain 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptor agonists (drugs that activate them) are capable of suppressing offensive aggression without affecting defensive behavior and other forms of activity. In humans, the laboratory agent eltoprazine was tested for a similar effect with the aim of “inhibiting destructive behavior without other significant behavioral, psychiatric, or somatic side effects.” In a number of trials on aggressive patients with dementia, intellectual disability, psychotic disorders, and personality disorders, it did not lead to an overall improvement in their condition, but significantly reduced aggressiveness with minimal to no side effects. Also, in one experiment, the agent zolmitriptan, which has a similar effect, significantly reduced aggression associated with alcohol consumption.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), although they may have side effects, have been most extensively tested in humans regarding violence. In patients with personality disorders, fluoxetine reduces the risk of aggressive behavior by 4 times. In one experiment, it also significantly reduced violence committed by alcoholics toward their loved ones. In another experiment, paroxetine successfully eliminated aggression associated with primary psychopathy (implying heartlessness and lack of empathy), and this was not the result of a sedative effect. It appears that primary psychopathy is linked to dysfunction of the serotonin system. Sertraline was once tested on violent recidivists, and it proved effective in correcting their behavior. Also, in several experiments, citalopram improved participants’ ability to recognize facial expressions of fear (and recognizing distress signals from others is important in the work of a violence inhibitor), increased their generosity, and made them more prone to choosing to avoid harming people in certain types of moral dilemmas.

It is also worth mentioning psychedelics, which are agonists of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors that are capable of stimulating empathy and prosocial behavior in humans. In one experiment, psilocybin even led to a sustained reduction in predisposition toward authoritarian political views, and it is believed that it could be very useful in treating psychopathy and antisocial behavior. Additionally, any experience of its use, as showed by a study of criminal behavior among 480 thousand American adults, significantly reduces the risk of committing violent assaults.

Finally, let us note some other examples. For instance, omega-3 intake leads to a moderate reduction in both reactive (impulsive) and proactive (instrumental) aggression, which may be linked to improvements in the function of the violence inhibitor. Substances affecting 5-HT1A receptors are also found in essential oils, the inhalation of which proved effective in reducing aggressiveness in people with cognitive impairments. Furthermore, the possibility of using probiotics (bifidobacteria and lactobacilli), which participate in the metabolism of tryptophan and serotonin in the body, for the therapy of violent behavior is already being studied.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How extremism and radicalization are linked to psychopathy and other personality traits

The question of the role of individual personality in extremism, i.e., the support for the use of violence to achieve political goals, and radicalization, including aggressive religious radicalization, is quite interesting. In this regard, it is particularly important to note that psychopathic predispositions are the strongest factor predicting violent behavior, which means it can be assumed that they also explain these phenomena to some extent. And in some studies, this question has indeed been addressed.

For example, in one of them, it was studied to what extent the presence of militant extremist thinking in a person can be explained by a tendency toward psychopathy, sadism, and disintegration (psychosis). Using a sample of 306 students, it was shown that sadistic and psychopathic tendencies are linked to pronationality—the support of violence as a method of achieving goals. Psychopathy and disintegration were also linked to the belief that the world is a corrupt and vile place. Furthermore, disintegration was a good predictor of a person’s tendency to rely on supernatural forces as a rational justification for extremist actions. These results were replicated in a similar study conducted on a sample of 147 male inmates.

In another study involving a sample of 643 women, it was shown that those with high scores in Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) were characterized by the highest levels of radicalized consciousness and behavior and were prone to aggressive religious radicalization. Also, in a sample of 299 students, a positive correlation between Dark Triad traits and pro-violence and support for extremism was confirmed. A significant positive correlation between psychopathy and extremism is confirmed by another study, conducted on 954 volunteers. Additionally, in a sample of 469 students, it was found that psychopathy and narcissism directly explain a person’s pro-violence, whereas psychopathy and Machiavellianism directly explain radical religious behavior.

As we can see, psychopathy, as well as other socially negative personality traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, sadism, and disintegration, are factors that, according to numerous studies, predict a person’s tendency toward pro-violence, extremism, and radicalism. This must be known for a better understanding of the problem of such behavior and a more effective search for possible methods to solve it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Does the intake of psychoactive substances make a person violent

The consumption of psychoactive substances has long been considered a significant factor predisposing to violent behavior. This is especially taken for granted regarding individuals with addictions to them. However, it is also indisputably true that the presence of dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions serves as a precursor to such behavior. Therefore, researchers became interested in the extent to which psychopathic traits influence the link between psychoactive substance use and violence.

In the past, some studies were conducted regarding the link between alcohol consumption and aggressiveness in animals and humans. Many of these studies concluded that alcoholism itself cannot be a factor predicting violence. In experiments on mice, aggressiveness from alcohol consumption increased only in individuals with significantly reduced levels of serotonin receptor mRNA in the brain (and, as is known, the serotonin system is responsible for the function of the violence inhibitor). And in violent behavior resulting from alcohol consumption in humans, the level of psychopathic traits they possess plays an important role.

Current studies, conducted on criminals, reach similar conclusions when studying the influence of addiction to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine on the propensity to commit violent crimes. Elevated psychopathy scores explain a significant portion of this influence, and if their mediating effect is taken into account, such a link becomes weak.

We can indeed observe more frequent acts of violence by people taking psychoactive substances. However, it seems that they are not the primary cause of such behavior and do not make a person more violent in and of themselves, but may only act as a provoking factor in the case of those individuals who are already prone to committing violence but simply exercised better self-restraint before consumption. Therefore, any intervention aimed at reducing violence from substance-dependent individuals must focus not only on the therapy of the addiction itself, but also on the therapy of the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, as it is this that remains the root of the problem.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How repressive regimes and large-scale evil arise

Why does large-scale evil exist, encompassing entire societies and nations, such as dictatorships, repression, genocides, and wars? Psychiatrist Andrzej Łobachevsky, in his book “Political Penerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Applied to Politics,” concludes that mental abnormalities play a key role in its emergence. People with such abnormalities often attempt to make sense of their pathological perception of the world. Particularly dangerous are individuals with primary psychopathy, who, due to emotional deficits, lack a conscience and experience no guilt or remorse for harming others. Under certain circumstances, the small number of psychopaths with insane ambitions can strike at the vulnerabilities of a society and plunge it into conditions leading to large-scale tragedies.

At the same time, pathological ideologies such as fascism or authoritarian communism are often developed and promoted by schizoid personalities, although readers of “schizoid declarations” frequently fail to notice this. Psychopaths, meanwhile, join social movements that adhere to such ideologies, where they can hide their deficiencies and successfully pursue their lust for power. They easily pretend to be sincere followers of the ideology, perform all the dirty and cruel work for the movement that no one else would undertake, infiltrate its leadership, and eventually seize control. Psychopaths ultimately become the generative factor of pathocracy—a system of governance in which a pathological minority seizes control over a society of normal people.

To suppress resistance, they resort to terror and propaganda, eliminating individuals who are dangerous to them and forcing everyone else to adopt pathological patterns of thinking. Such patterns are especially readily accepted by approximately 6% of the population, who possess the least resistance to the influence of psychopaths. They become active supporters of the pathocracy and accomplices in its atrocities. War is also one of the tools for strengthening pathocracy, helping to redirect the population’s attention from important issues toward imperialistic ambitions and dividing them into parts loyal and disloyal to the regime. Furthermore, there is no avoiding the control of science, which is directed to serve the interests of the pathocracy.

Lobachevsky believes that the only means against evil is the knowledge of its existence and its true nature. Based on this knowledge, evil must be fought just like any other pathology—using medical and therapeutic methods, including mandatory therapy for primary psychopaths. At the same time, it is very important to mitigate punishments and forgive individuals who have committed evil. Before the public, they must be presented as suffering from an illness rather than as being guilty, because a punitive and vengeful approach does not allow people to understand the true nature of their behavior, and thus deprives them of the opportunity to effectively prevent such behavior in the future. By striving for retribution rather than cure, we will leave future generations with exactly the same problems we have now, including the problem of pathocracy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch