Тег: Violence

Why the achievement of voluntary free relationships is impossible in a society where too many people are capable of committing violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a view that the only essential condition for achieving freedom of activity, agreement, and association is the creation of significant costs for criminals. Allegedly, it is sufficient that any harm inevitably requires compensation, and that everyone owns weapons, which would make attacks unprofitable (do not think that we are against gun ownership – it is useful for evolutionary selection, but right now we are talking about something else). In such a case, even if everyone were a psychopath, significant violence would not arise in practice. Moreover, some might say that aggressiveness is even necessary for a free person, for example, to easily kill for any encroachments upon oneself and to carry out violent revenge (on the principle of “an eye for an eye”). But we can easily dispute this position and prove why freedom is possible only in a society of peaceful people.

First, it would be foolish to believe that people always act rationally and accurately assess benefits and risks. Even in societies where fingers and hands were cut off for theft, thieves did not disappear completely. This is even more true for psychopathic individuals. As research shows, they concentrate too heavily on their goals, missing important details. For example, in a task where they had to navigate a maze by manipulating levers and avoiding those that delivered painful electric shocks, they handled the first condition well, but were worse than ordinary people at the second. In gambling, they were poor at learning long-term strategies; it was important for them to quickly hit a huge win, even at the risk of putting themselves in the negative. Likewise, psychopathic pilots in World War II would easily chase an enemy, forgetting to monitor fuel, the position of other aircraft, and other factors critical for victory.

Understanding this, would anyone still think that psychopathic individuals can be reasoned with or intimidated enough to ensure they definitely do not commit violence, do not organize criminal gangs, or even avoid trying to forcibly subjugate everyone and create their own power in a society where none exists? Let us not forget that current states arose precisely through the violent subjugation of people. And striving for the position of a “stationary” bandit, “nomadic” bandits ignored the risk of death at the hands of defenders and their competitors.

Second, there are many ways to cause harm to people without direct violence. Various kinds of manipulations, including gossip, blackmail, threats, pitting people against each other, provoking a hostile reaction (to make you look unstable to others), wearing someone down, psychological and economic violence, etc., which are often used by psychopaths in the pursuit of their own benefit. It will be impossible to write deterrent factors and punishments for all such scenarios. This means that the more psychopathic individuals there are around, the more such manipulations will be applied to you personally, and instead of productive activity, you will spend all your time defending yourself from attempts to walk all over you. Also, psychopathic individuals are prone to sabotaging collective work for personal gain.

Now imagine the opposite situation – psychopathic individuals are absent or negligibly few. In such a society, freedom of relationships would occur instantly and without additional requirements. At the same time, in a society of psychopaths, one could likely expect something similar to what is currently happening in Haiti or the scenario of the movie “New World,” where rapists sent to live on an island organized a mass slaughter, and at some point, a small portion of them even forcibly subjugated all the others and monopolized the possession of resources. And if you would not want to participate daily in a war of all against all in a “free” society, you should first think about eradicating such a pathology as the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, which makes some people psychopathically predisposed and capable of easily causing harm to other people.

Can psychopaths experience empathy and how does it differ from the empathy of normal people

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is a commonly held opinion that psychopathic individuals experience little empathy or do not manifest it at all. This, of course, makes them cold-blooded and callous, capable even of easily committing murder if there is a reason for it and no significant risks. But besides this, their lack of empathy has long cast doubt on the possibility of providing easy and effective therapy for their condition.

However, a study of psychopathic criminals found that they can experience empathy. Moreover, during the experiment, they exhibited the same level of activation of mirror neurons—which are responsible for the ability to learn through imitation of other people and are believed to be involved in the manifestation of empathy—as healthy individuals.

However, psychopaths have one very important difference. While empathy manifests spontaneously in normal people, regardless of whether the person wishes to experience it, psychopaths can intentionally control this process. Their normal state is switched-off empathy; they manifest it only when they want to. And within the experiment, normal activation of mirror neurons in psychopaths was observed only when the researchers explicitly asked them to show empathy.

The results of this study align with what psychopaths often claim about themselves, for example, on question-and-answer websites like Quora. If you search there for questions asked to psychopaths about whether they are capable of experiencing empathy, you will see many positive answers, but with the note that they can literally turn empathy on and off whenever they want, as if they have a switch for it. However, there are also psychopaths who claim a complete inability to feel empathy. But, given the data already known to us, it can be suggested that they simply do not know how to turn it on within themselves.

Researchers do not yet know how to turn the empathy that psychopaths can manifest intentionally into the spontaneously manifested empathy characteristic of most people. However, the fact that psychopaths can show empathy, at least under certain conditions, gives therapists something to work with.

It is also worth hypothesizing that empathy can be made spontaneous quite easily by using certain agents that activate specific serotonin receptors and favorably influence the function of the serotonin system as a whole. Pharmacological activation of serotonin 1A and 1B receptors in animal experiments often leads to them ceasing aggressive attacks on their peers, or even becoming more predisposed to help them—for example, by sharing food, even if it brings the subject no personal benefit. This effect is linked to the activation of a violence inhibition mechanism, which in humans plays an important role in the development of empathy.

The results of this study provide an answer to another important question. Someone might easily find and point to individuals who, in their ordinary social life, are normal family men, good friends and colleagues, law-abiding citizens—that is, full members of society—despite the fact that under certain conditions, for example, while serving in law enforcement or as a soldier on the battlefield, they easily committed violence and even murder without feeling the slightest repulsion. As is known from a number of studies, including military ones, the ability to easily commit violence and murder in such conditions would still be a manifestation of an individual’s high psychopathy. But there is no contradiction here. For perhaps such cases are precisely explainable by the fact that psychopathic individuals can be empathic when they intentionally want to be, for example, wishing to have a full social life. However, it should not be forgotten that such individuals can decide not to experience empathy at any moment, and this carries certain threats to society.

How tears affect aggressiveness

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, we know that a healthy individual, when observing the suffering (distress signals) of another person, begins to experience a feeling of aversion and becomes predisposed to ceasing aggressive actions toward them. This effect is psychological; the neural pathways responsible for it are activated as a result of observing suffering as a social signal. At least, this is what we used to believe. However, some new discoveries indicate that the impact of certain distress signals on the violence inhibitor—specifically, crying—may be chemical in nature.

Several years ago, a study on rats revealed that rubbing female tears onto the face and other body parts of males, who played the role of “intruders” in the experiments, reduced the aggressiveness of the “residents”—the males whose cages they entered. Given that all necessary conditions of the resident-intruder paradigm are met, an aggressive attack by the resident on the intruder is expected. However, it was found that if the intruder smells of female tears, no aggression is shown toward them. At the same time, male tears do not possess this effect.

Recently, a similar result was reproduced in humans. To measure the aggressiveness of men, a money game was used involving provocations and the possibility to “get revenge” for them, without receiving any personal benefit from the revenge. Players were told they were playing against another person, although they were actually playing against a computer. Before the game, men were given 1 ml samples to smell 13 times at intervals of 35 seconds. The first three times it was a saline solution; the remaining ten were also saline solution for the control group and female tears for the experimental group.

As a result, aggressive gaming behavior (the desire to avenge provocations) in men who smelled female tears was 43.7% lower than in the control group. Additionally, MRI scans revealed that their prefrontal cortex and the anterior part of the insular cortex in the brain were not as strongly activated as a result of provocations during the game.

Of course, as psychologists note, certain questions may arise in real-life situations—for example, why tears, despite the remarkable results of the experiments, do not always play a significant role in stopping domestic violence. There is a suggestion that tears may not be significant in relationships between adults, and that the evolutionary role of their anti-aggressive effect is to protect children, who are unable to state that aggression must stop but will cry a lot if it occurs. Experiments with children’s tears are still planned. Research is also planned to find the specific component of tears that causes the anti-aggressive effect. This could help in the creation and production of a highly effective, humane means of self-defense that causes no harm to the attacker.

What to do if you do not want to repeat Navalny’s fate

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In connection with what has happened, I would like to express my own opinion. Of course, many are grieving and expressing their condolences. However, now would be the time to talk about what this story can teach us. The point is that opposing the established system—moreover, in many countries of the world—absolutely openly, playing by its own rules and resorting to standard and well-known practices, as the tragically deceased Alexei did, can be very dangerous and ultimately unproductive. But in the modern world, it is possible and necessary to resort to alternative approaches that, in principle, do not involve direct confrontation.

As a good example, I would point to how a certain anonymous individual (or group of anonymous individuals) under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto destroyed the “sacred” monopoly of stationary bandits (states) over money by creating Bitcoin. He was never reliably deanonymized, and his tool was designed so that even in the event of full deanonymization, or even the physical liquidation of the creator, it would not cease to exist and function, as it is decentralized. Meanwhile, the anonymous and state-uncontrollable payment methods and electronic currencies that existed before Bitcoin, such as E-gold and Liberty Reserve, were destroyed by the US government due to their centralized structure and the presence of specific, non-anonymous creators and managers, who ultimately received very long prison sentences.

Ideally, stationary bandits should not even be aware that someone is opposing them, and should not have the ability to track down those who are doing so. The methods of opposition should be extremely unconventional and non-traditional, most likely relying on modern technologies. Here, one could also mention current wars—with the popularization of modern drones, states have lost the ability to effectively destroy the production of high-tech weaponry when attacking someone. No matter how well-protected or hidden a large centralized military plant producing traditional weapons by traditional methods is, sooner or later it will be bombed. But with hundreds of small private enterprises producing thousands of drones a day and not united by any single management structure, absolutely nothing can be done. Such a modern, non-traditional approach to the production of high-tech weaponry is capable of providing protection even to those facing an enemy vastly superior in strength.

Exactly which methods can be proposed is for those who possess the necessary competence in a given field to decide. But we, within the framework of our project, can put forward one approach relying on science and modern technology. Understanding that the ability to commit intentional, planned, and targeted acts of violence without experiencing any internal repulsion or resistance is the result of an individual having a disorder—a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism—makes clinical therapy of violent behavior possible using means that enhance the function of this mechanism. And in the event of a threat of violence from certain private individuals or representatives of some organized structure, it would be worth considering the creation of a combat version of such a biological solution. You can always find more details about the violence inhibitor concept in our materials.

Cheap AI drones are one of the most dangerous weapons of the future

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When discussing what weapons could be extremely lethal yet very cheap and accessible for creation by almost any group of people or even a single individual, viruses likely come to mind. Given the rapid development and decreasing cost of biotechnologies, there is a threat of “basement laboratories” that can be easily opened and moved from place to place. However, the list of lethal and accessible weaponry does not end there. As noted in Alexander Rozov’s “LiveJournal,” AI-powered drones could become such weapons.

To provide context, it is first worth quoting a comment from user alekseymeeres, to which Rozov was responding:
Light drones have changed the battlefield. Today, this is a flying sniper that terrorizes everyone—people and even armored vehicles. The cost of a kamikaze drone is 1,000 dollars (approximately), which is practically one enemy soldier. A million dollars is a thousand enemy soldiers. A billion dollars is a million enemy soldiers. Even by WWII prices, this is dirt cheap.

Further, based on technological patterns, Rozov makes predictions that:
– light drones costing 100 dollars and produced at 100,000 units per day will appear, which is entirely realistic;
– drones for destroying drones will appear as the only possible defensive measure against drone attacks; however, manual control of them will be impossible due to such a complex target, making them autonomous, which will also make them resistant to signal jamming;
– the decision-making barrier will disappear; humans will no longer make decisions about whether to launch an attack or in which direction to conduct it if the drones are already in the air.

But what is more important to us is not how drones will be used by states in wars. We are concerned with the consequences for society as a whole:
– due to the simplicity and low cost of the technology, it cannot remain a secret; any extremist or mafia group with any political or economic goals will be able to use it;
– no civilian object in the world will ever be safe again;
– the boundary between peace and war will disappear.

Most likely, many will be able to create drones at home simply by following instructions from the internet; it will not be much harder than making a children’s electric toy. Ensuring autonomous control resistant to EW suppression is also not a problem at the current level of AI development. And any person with a dysfunction of the violence-inhibiting mechanism and psychopathic predispositions will easily use such drones to commit violence. Moreover, tracking and punishing the perpetrator will be extremely difficult, unless they decide to openly release a swarm of drones in broad daylight, which would encourage an even greater number of psychopathic individuals to commit violence. What the drones are equipped with is also unimportant, even without access to explosives or their components. For example, they could carry flammable substances, and if the target of the attack is just one person, a swarm of drones might be able to beat them down by brute force. In such a world, there would be no possibility to engage in full productive activity, to develop, or even just to live peacefully. Perpetrators will establish total terror for both each other and ordinary peaceful people.

As some researchers believe, avoiding irreparable harm in the future will only be possible either through a complete renunciation of freedom and the introduction of a totalitarian system of round-the-clock surveillance of every person, or through “moral bio-enhancement.” To implement the second scenario, it would be sufficient to develop and distribute a therapy that restores the full functioning of the violence-inhibiting mechanism in psychopathic individuals. Only this way can the threat they create in the violent pursuit of their goals be reliably eliminated. Furthermore, even politicians, who will not soon have the technical capability to monitor what every single citizen does behind closed doors, should consider the idea of moral bio-enhancement, as they too will not be safe.

The question of the monopoly on violence

Recently, I came across an interesting criticism of ancap. The gist is: you believe that the market will solve everything, and that monopolies shouldn’t be touched because they are inefficient and always eventually collapse. So why are you picking on the monopoly on violence? It will collapse on its own too. Either admit that monopolies aren’t collapsed by the market themselves, or that violence is a special, separate type of service that should only be managed by the state.

Is there any answer to this argument?

Querens

Monopoly in conditions of free market entry is a rather conventional concept; everyone tries to establish their own arbitrary criterion for what percentage of the market should be considered a monopoly. Again, the boundaries of the market are also taken from thin air. For instance, on the scale of Montenegro, if you try hard enough, you can see a monopoly on violence held by the Montenegrin state. But on a planetary scale, you can’t see one even with superpowers.

Therefore, it seems more convenient to me to speak not of monopolies, but of the optimal size of an organization. In given conditions, there is always a certain size of organization (determined by the technologies it uses and those used by others, population density and characteristics, landscape, history, and a host of other factors), beyond which the organization is forced to spend disproportionately large resources to maintain its own structure and activity; conversely, if the organization is smaller than the optimal size, growth proves beneficial because the organization’s activity brings a greater effect with relatively lower resource expenditures.

A hairdressing business has its own optimal size, as does a business producing microchips or airliners. Similarly, in these specific conditions, the business of organizing coercion will have its own optimal size. God is on the side of the larger battalions, but the technology of assembling large battalions is a very non-trivial thing.

The Neolithic agricultural revolution made it possible to coerce the inhabitants of fertile lands to grow grain, deliver it to state granaries, and then assemble into large battalions that could eat this grain on the march and crush small barbarian tribes by sheer mass, turning them into slaves or subjects who became new farmers. But on barren lands where grain does not grow, the state did not take root, and various highlanders are still considered less civilized—that is, less shaped for state needs (this was a brief summary of James C. Scott’s book “The Art of Not Being Governed“).

Nowadays, the financial system plays the role of grain. Whoever’s economy allows for the extraction of more resources for state needs can afford more expensive military toys, as well as fashionable soft-power tools—and that party secures that very monopoly on violence in a more complete volume and over a larger area.

Libertarians are a modern remake of those same barbarians described by James Scott, who sought to retreat to areas where grain doesn’t grow and where the hand of the state—in the form of censors, tax collectors, recruiters, and other unpleasant types—hardly reaches. Only now, instead of potatoes and other yams, they grow their bitcoins, which are useless for state needs, cook up their tokenomics, which are useless for the state, corrupt the tax collectors, refuse to work in the army or police, remain indifferent to patriotic slogans, but are keenly interested in all sorts of technological innovations useful to them, even if for some reason they are being banned.

Now, I will answer the question itself. Monopolies (including the monopoly on violence) do not collapse on their own; they are helped by the invisible hand of the market. But this hand consists of many elementary actions of all those for whom this monopoly is an inconvenience. And the invisible boot of the state consists of many elementary actions of those who profit from the monopoly on violence. The only thing that large battalions handle very poorly is guerrilla warfare, plus sabotage. This is a complex technology of decentralized resistance, and that is exactly what we are developing.

See the monopolist of violence? Can you hit them in the eye?

Pinker’s Error – has society become more peaceful because of the emergence of the state?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

One of Steven Pinker’s well-known works is the book “The Better Angels of Our Nature.” Based on it, societies that existed before the emergence of agricultural civilizations with cities and monopoly governments suffered from chronic violence and endless wars, and the level of violence has steadily declined over time, partly due to the monopolization of power and law. But has violence actually decreased, did the emergence of the state play an important role in this, and is man cruel by nature?

According to Pinker, for hunter-gatherer societies, the average level of lethal violence was as high as 14%. But where does this data come from? Analyzing it, anthropologists Douglas Fry and Brian Ferguson found that it is inaccurate and represents “cherry-picking”[1][2]. For example, Pinker provides homicide data for 8 tribal peoples, yet he does not mention that in the case of two of them (the Hiví and the Ache), all killings were related to the extermination of the indigenous population by border guards. Meanwhile, the tribes tried to live in peace with one another. Taking these and other similar cases explained by colonialism into account, Pinker’s estimate can already be reduced by half, to 7%.

But other data of his are also doubtful. Modern tribes have been “infected” by colonialists, slave traders, globalization, and simply farming. They have little in common with the tribes that lived thousands of years ago. Additionally, anthropologists may prefer to study more violent societies. 20% of Pinker’s data are provided by a single person—Napoleon Chagnon, who is criticized within the anthropological community, makes methodological errors, and was even exiled from one tribe due to intrusive interference.

Using a different approach, Fry reviewed a sample of 186 societies studied by anthropologists. Only 24 of them were hunter-gatherers, and only 8 had many mentions. In the case of 7 of these 8 societies, killings were reported as a rare or even entirely absent phenomenon. He also searched anthropological literature for cultures that never waged war. He counted as many as 70 such cultures.

As Pinker claims, citing 21 archaeological excavations, 15% of savages died from violence. However, some of this data is very limited and may also be misinterpreted. For example, burials of people with arrowheads may simply mean that they were hunters.

Can better evidence be provided? A study of up to 3,000 remains found in France showed 1.9% cases of lethal injuries. It is not on Pinker’s list. Nor are studies of 350 remains in Britain with 2%, 418 remains in Serbia and Romania with 2.3%, or 2,500 in Japan with 2% traces of lethal violence. A study of 1,107 remains in Europe showed a minimum estimate of 3.7% and a maximum of 5.5% lethal violence. Not even close to Pinker’s 15%.

Finally, all examples cited by Pinker are no older than 12,000 years, meaning they could have been influenced by the agricultural revolution. And as anthropologist Leslie Sponsel writes, “at the stage of hunter-gatherer cultural evolution, which dominated 99% of human existence… the absence of archaeological evidence of war suggests that they were rare or absent throughout most of human prehistory.”

Ultimately, the following data on the level of lethal violence can be derived: 2% for hunter-gatherers, up to 5% for societies after the agricultural revolution, 7% for modern hunter-gatherers, 5% for early states, and 3% for the 20th century. They confirm Ferguson’s theory that wars suddenly emerged in a world without war due to the complication of social structure, as well as Fry’s words that we are dealing not with a continuous decline in the level of violence, but with an n-type curve.

People in hunter-gatherer societies—a social structure closest to the natural state of man—lived in peace and solved many problems without violence long before the state imposed discipline upon them. There was no Hobbesian “war of all against all,” and the data indicating otherwise are inaccurate and selective.

Does alcohol consumption lead to violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Alcohol consumption is often linked to the manifestation of increased aggression in a person. Every third crime is committed in a state of alcohol intoxication, and in the case of violent crimes, such as domestic violence and murder, this figure can even reach 80%. It would seem that the link between alcohol and violence is quite direct. However, in this matter, as in many others, one should not make the survivor’s bias mistake—considering only the clearly observable results while ignoring those that we had no opportunity to observe. Not all people become more aggressive from alcohol. Of course, some of them may become angry under its influence, and we notice this well. But at the same time, others will begin to feel sad or exhibit some other emotions. And a very important role in what behavior can be expected from alcohol consumption is played by the person’s neurophysiology.

As studies on primates have revealed, differences in the functioning of the serotonin system and the negative influence of the environment are important factors in alcohol-induced aggression. In rhesus macaques, stressful circumstances, such as separation from parents and social isolation at an early age, led to the suppression of the serotonin system’s work, increased aggressiveness, and excessive alcohol consumption when it was freely available. However, it is very important to specify that the negative influence did not have such an effect on all monkeys—only carriers of the short allele of the serotonin transporter gene were susceptible to it. At the same time, carriers of the long allele were more resilient and did not experience the negative consequences of such influence. It can be concluded that a genetic predisposition to greater sensitivity to stressful circumstances, which causes disruptions in the functioning of the serotonin system, leads to increased alcohol consumption and aggression.

Increased alcohol consumption was observed also in mutant mice lacking the serotonin 1B receptor gene, while stimulation of the serotonin 1A receptor can lead to a decrease in its consumption. Additionally, studies on mice confirmed that not all individuals become aggressive from alcohol consumption. Increased aggression was observed only in individuals who had significantly reduced (by 49-76%) levels of mRNA of all serotonin receptors (except 3A) in the prefrontal cortex of the brain and some other abnormalities in serotonin function.

It is also worth highlighting that empathy is an important mediating factor in this matter. Thus, men (but not women) with low levels of empathy exhibit increased aggression from alcohol consumption. Furthermore, in two samples (a clinical sample consisting of 703 psychiatric institution patients, and a community sample consisting of 870 students), it was shown that the level of psychopathic traits mediates the influence of alcohol dependence on the commission of violence against romantic partners. At the same time, alcohol dependence on its own, separate from psychopathic traits, showed an insufficient link with violence to be considered a predicting factor. As noted, research on violence against romantic partners should take into account the potential role of psychopathy, especially if the influence of alcohol consumption is being studied.

Of course, consuming large quantities of alcohol entails many negative consequences for a person. However, in the case where a person exhibits violent behavior under alcohol intoxication, we cannot place all the blame solely on alcohol. It is merely another provoking factor, not the cause of the violence, for which the therapeutic solution must be sought. The root of the problem of violent behavior and the increase in the level of psychopathic traits in an individual lies in the disruption of the violence inhibition mechanism, the functioning of which is handled by the serotonin system. In the case of violence, it is the dysfunction of this mechanism that primarily requires therapy.

How cooperation between members of different groups arises

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is generally believed that purely human phenomena, such as culture, traditions, and social norms, are necessary to make cooperation between different societies possible. At the same time, animals that lack such phenomena are typically considered social only in relation to their own group and hostile toward members of other groups. Of course, the importance of these phenomena should not be underestimated, but they may well be unnecessary for the emergence of cooperation between groups.

As demonstrated by research on pygmy chimpanzees, or bonobos—humans’ closest genetic relatives—they exhibit high levels of tolerance between members of different groups. They can travel, rest, and feed together. Resource exchange between groups is not uncommon among bonobos. Moreover, it has been noted that individuals who exhibited more pro-social behavior within their own group were also more pro-social toward members of other groups. At the same time, such cooperation does not arise under the influence of any culture or social norms. One could say that this is simply a natural state for bonobos.

It is also worth comparing bonobos with common chimpanzees. The latter are quite hostile to strangers; in their case, intergroup clashes can even end in lethal violence. Why does such a difference arise? If one compares the neurophysiology of common and pygmy chimpanzees, the latter are found to have twice the density of serotonergic neurons in the amygdala of the brain. Additionally, it is worth noting the relationship regarding aggression between serotonin, oxytocin (a hormone that promotes only intra-group pro-sociality, or so-called parochial altruism), and testosterone (a sex hormone). Common chimpanzees exhibit high testosterone reactivity, which reduces their tolerance and provokes a drive to fight for higher status. And as is known from studies, the function of the serotonergic system (which is more pronounced in bonobos) includes inhibiting the pro-aggressive influence of testosterone. Pro-sociality is also stimulated by oxytocin, and it should be noted that the serotonergic system can exert an influence on its release.

It should also not be forgotten that cooperative-communicative skills, which emerged in the early stages of human evolution, were key to the emergence of various forms of human cultural cognition, including language. Therefore, it is entirely possible to assume that pro-sociality and cooperation arise not simply because of culture. Rather, all these phenomena have common evolutionary roots. The basis for their emergence may well be the development of a violence inhibition mechanism and the strengthening of serotonergic function during evolution. Such adaptation is necessary for peaceful coexistence and the prevention of lethal violence, which in many circumstances is extremely detrimental to the entire population. Furthermore, the observation of such adaptation in an extremely strong form in bonobos indicates that “constant wars between neighboring groups are not necessarily a legacy of humanity and do not seem evolutionarily inevitable.”

The Typical Politician is a Psychopath

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is known that more than half of people will not score higher than 2 out of 24 on Robert Hare’s PCL:SV test. And only 1–2% of individuals will score 13 or higher, indicating a high level of psychopathy. But it is interesting to wonder how a “typical” politician would fare on this test? Based on the article “On Politics and Psychopathy,” let us conduct a thought experiment and assign a score from 0 to 2 points for each trait of psychopathy to his personality.

Let’s start with the first factor of psychopathy, which assesses an individual’s selfishness, callousness, and ruthlessness.
– Does a typical politician possess superficial charm? Of course, it is very important for him to present himself well in public. It should also be noted that he tends to pretend to be someone he is not and simulate emotions. On this point, he can certainly be given 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Does he consider himself better than everyone else, i.e., someone worthy of ruling others? He wants power, so he certainly gets 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Is he deceitful, insincere, manipulative, unscrupulous, and dishonest? Needless to say, 2 points.
– Does he lack empathy, sensitivity, and respect for other people? And we are speaking specifically about people as individual persons; we are not interested in his feelings toward a certain nation or political course, since empathy can only be felt toward individuals. Of course, he actually doesn’t care about individual people, except perhaps his friends and family members, so we confidently give 2 points.
– Does the politician evade responsibility for his actions? Naturally, he will cover up his wrongdoings and will only take responsibility if it brings him even more power, wealth, or fame, so we can confidently give 1 point, or even 2 points.
– Does the politician lack guilt and remorse, and is he cold toward others? Is he completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of the victims of his actions? Yes, he passes laws that cause people inconvenience, make them poorer, or violate their rights, so we confidently give 2 points.

Now let’s move to the second factor of psychopathy, which assesses how antisocial an individual’s lifestyle is.
– Is the politician impulsive, reckless, rash, and unpredictable? Not always, however, from time to time he may support extremely risky decisions, so we give 1 point.
– Is he impatient, unrestrained, and irritable? Also not always, but politicians often allow themselves sharp, “alarmist” appeals, so we also give 1 point.
– Is his lifestyle parasitic, does he have no long-term goals for the future? Of course he has goals, but these goals consist of achieving power, wealth, and popularity by worsening the situation of others. Also, a politician lives on taxes forcibly collected from people, so he is a parasite who receives 1 point.
– Is he irresponsible, unreliable, and fails to meet his obligations? A confident 2 points.
However, as for antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood, this is not typical for a politician, and if he did behave this way at some point, it would be hidden from the public, so a confident score cannot be given here.

In the end, a typical politician receives 9 to 12 points for Factor 1 (which is the maximum result) and 5 points for Factor 2. His total score is 14 to 17 points. It turns out that he confidently falls into the worst 1–2% of the population. He is not someone we would want to associate ourselves with, let alone vote for. And in a properly organized human society, he would simply be exiled; he would not receive the slightest share of power.

I would also like to add a comparison of a typical politician with war criminals. As research demonstrates, ordinary violent criminals have high total scores, but fairly balanced scores across the two factors of psychopathy, whereas war criminals, while having similar total scores, have higher scores on Factor 1 and lower scores on Factor 2. They are not overly antisocial personalities. At the same time, they are excessively cruel and callous, just like a typical politician.