Тег: Violence

Carrying weapons is absolutely normal behavior, if it is not done for the purpose of committing crimes

Quite interesting results were demonstrated by studies examining the link between carrying and using weapons and a person’s psychopathic predispositions. For instance, high scores in callous-unemotional traits among adolescents are linked to more frequent weapon carrying, regardless of any extraneous factors, and its use in committing crimes. Additionally, the presence of certain psychopathic predispositions in an individual, especially emotional coldness and antisocial behavior, is linked to the illegal use of weapons and a tendency toward violent confrontations.

However, the first study notes that adolescents with low callous-unemotional trait scores may also be inclined to carry weapons, but this is not associated with committing armed attacks and often occurs simply because their peers also carry weapons—they are merely succumbing to their influence. The second study notes that legal weapon carrying, associated with legal motivations for such behavior (for example, ensuring self-defense), has no connection to psychopathic predispositions.

Such results lead to the conclusion that carrying a weapon not for the purpose of committing an attack is absolutely normal behavior, which does not indicate the presence of any mental abnormalities, including psychopathic predispositions arising from the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism that make a person capable of easily harming others. Therefore, there is simply no reason to fear a weapon in the hands of an average individual, if this suddenly causes anyone fear. Nor is there any reason to listen to those who will claim that a normal person has no need for a weapon.

Also, let us not forget that a mentally healthy person will try to possess a weapon legally, if possible. Here, it is worth noting a long-established fact immediately – weapon bans only affect law-abiding citizens, depriving them of the ability to effectively defend themselves against attacks. Such people will not be inclined to acquire weapons if there is no legal way to do so. At the same time, psychopaths will prefer illegal weapons regardless, which they will obtain on the black market or manufacture themselves. Think about it – it is unlikely that a person who anticipates that they might commit a violent crime with some probability, or has even planned it in advance, will use legal weapons that can be traced. And with illegal weapons, a psychopath will be able to easily attack ordinary people if those people do not have a legal right to armed self-defense.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How they try to deceive us into thinking that humans are supposedly cruel by nature

Once, Mexican anthropologist Santiago Genovés decided to conduct an experiment that journalists dubbed the “sex raft.” Along with himself, he placed on a small raft intended to cross the Atlantic Ocean 5 men and 6 women, who were strangers to one another and belonged to different races and social classes. The stated goal was to study the behavior of people placed in an extreme situation.

However, Genovés was convinced that humans are extremely aggressive by nature and expected an outbreak of cruelty and debauchery during the experiment. Not waiting for this to happen, he began to stage provocations himself. For example, he repeatedly tried to turn the crew against a specific individual, or publicly announced details from the questionnaires previously filled out by the participants, which he considered embarrassing and provocative. He even documented non-existent cruelty—for instance, he described the participants’ hunt for a shark to prepare food as “mob madness.” There were also constant various problems on the raft, such as leaks, a broken compass, and a lack of radio communication for several weeks. Nevertheless, no real violence occurred, and the people did not fight with one another. If the experiment participants hated anyone during this time, it was only Genovés himself, who remained extremely dissatisfied with the results of the experiment.

Another interesting story concerns a group of 6 Polynesian boys who, through foolishness, spent 15 months on a small uninhabited island. This story was discovered by writer Rutger Bregman, who did not like the gloominess of William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies.” In that novel, children stranded on an uninhabited island quickly reverted to a savage way of life and even began killing other children who disliked what was happening. Bregman decided to look for similar stories, but in real life, and reality turned out to be much more optimistic. The Polynesian boys on the uninhabited island were able to establish a system of relationships that precluded conflict and worked together to ensure survival.

These cases once again show that there are no grounds to consider humans to be creatures cruel by nature. We are often tried to be convinced of this by dubious personalities such as Henovés himself, but everything they say is simply a lie. Although, unfortunately, sometimes lies become popular. This refers to the Milgram experiment, which contained many methodological errors and had most of its results hidden from the public, yet what was actually published succeeded quite effectively in deceiving the public about the willingness of the average individual to inflict any pain on others at the command of an authority figure. It also refers to the Stanford prison experiment, which turned out to be a setup with a predetermined result from the very beginning, and the truthfulness of which the public believed for 50 years, until the archival data was thoroughly studied. Their organizers, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, also apparently seemed inclined, even before organizing their experiments, to believe that most people are easily capable of initiating violence. And their deception proved far more successful than the attempts to deceive everyone by someone like Henovés.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

If there were a person, AI would be found

It is hard to disagree that every person has broken state laws in their life, and often multiple times. Smoking in unauthorized areas, traffic violations, conducting business without a license or with other violations, selling personal belongings without declaring them to the tax authorities, and even simple verbal statements that the state deems illegal—these and other similar acts have been committed by many people. Moreover, some actions that do not imply a violation of the law at the time they are committed may, after some time, be interpreted as an offense—retroactively and without a statute of limitations, applying the highly controversial yet widespread practice of qualifying actions undesirable to the authorities as a “continuing offense.” For example, an administrative case was recently brought against a Russian woman for “LGBT propaganda,” triggered by a video recorded and published on VK back in 2010, where a friend kissed her on the lips for her birthday.

And it would be one thing if such violations were typically accidental, minor, and did not imply harm to people, meaning it would be unlikely that government authorities would even notice them. But modern and especially promising technologies will allow them to track any human activity. U.S. intelligence is already developing AI that will collect and analyze data about citizens and means of transport from surveillance cameras, drones, and even from webcams and smartphone cameras. In France, police have been allowed to remotely connect to the cameras and microphones of citizens’ smartphones. Roskomnadzor in Russia is actively testing AI to block websites and analyze materials published on social networks. As for China, there is nothing to say—total surveillance has long since become a commonplace there. And in Iran, AI is even used for religious repression—AI cameras recognize women who do not wear a hijab.

Of course, if a stationary bandit attempts to punish everyone for even the smallest violations, they will quickly become overloaded, and serious discontent may arise among the people. However, there is little sense in picking on everyone. The problem lies more in the fact that individual people can become victims of intentional harassment, both by the state as a whole and even by individual employees of government agencies. For example, someone might run a business that competes with the business of a civil servant’s friends or relatives, or the official might want to “provide protection” for someone’s business, or perhaps some girl rejected them in a relationship, or they have a conflict with a neighbor over a parking space—in such situations, a civil servant can easily ruin the life of a person who has displeased them simply by using information from surveillance systems. As we have already said, one can find at least minor violations for any person, and at the very least, they can be buried under fines.

A serious problem also lies in the fact that in such a scenario, the civil servant themselves will not technically be breaking the law. It is often argued that one can simply complain about any civil servant to higher authorities. But while such an argument might still be considered in cases of direct threats, abuse of power, or other similar actions, it becomes completely meaningless in the case of harassment following the scheme described above. Complaints against the systemic harassment of opposition members or other people undesirable to the state will also be rendered useless—by resorting to such a scheme, a stationary bandit can harass a person using perfectly legal methods.

As we can see, the power of the state in the age of high technology poses an enormous threat to the lives and well-being of people. Any person who becomes inconvenient to the stationary bandit or even just to his individual officials can be hounded in such a way that no laws are broken by the hunters—the person being hunted will be declared a malicious lawbreaker. Therefore, the “monopoly on violence” can no longer be called a system that works for the benefit of mankind.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Where all states failed

In the modern world, there is one problem that has not been solved by any state – the problem of declining birth rates. Its level is falling rapidly even in those countries where it still exceeds the population replacement level (equal to 2.1 – i.e., at least 210 children must be born per 100 women). Why this is a problem hardly needs explaining. But if someone still does not understand, we will only point to one consequence – a decrease in population will be followed by a decrease in production levels, economic decline, and a slowdown in technological progress. Industrial production, even of simple goods, involves a vast amount of labor, and there is nothing to say about technologically complex goods – their production chains involve millions of people from different parts of the world at once. Also, the more people there are, the more entrepreneurs, innovators, and creators there are, capable of significantly improving the lives of all humanity through their inventions.

So far, it is not possible to fully automate many production processes (and even for that, inventors are needed, of which there will also be few in a small population). And solving the problem through the encouragement of immigration has its own disadvantages (and it will not work in the future, with a global decline in birth rates). Therefore, the task of solving the demographic crisis has long been before government authorities. But so far, they have failed miserably! As studies demonstrate, almost all states pursuing “pronatalist” policies have not achieved their intended goals. Moreover, this costs enormous sums and is a burden on taxpayers, which only worsens the situation. The demographic crisis is definitely not solvable through state instruments, and statisticians who believe state intervention is the solution to all problems must recognize this.

What could be done is to reduce the level of state intervention. “First, do no harm” – this is exactly the principle that must be followed. And states certainly do cause harm. Through their restrictions and regulations, they reduce the housing supply on the market, which significantly increases its cost. And the increase in taxes, prohibitive regulations, and tariffs on construction materials only exacerbates this problem. Regulations, taxes, and tariffs also make many other goods necessary for having children significantly more expensive and inaccessible, including even most basic food. Similarly, this applies to education and medicine.

The hyper-regulation of life and economic activity makes having children an unbearable burden, for which even handouts in the form of financial assistance to parents are nowhere near enough to cover the costs (and such handouts themselves are a tax burden). The state also does harm by attempting to take matters into its own hands. For instance, in Hungary, infertility clinics were nationalized and subsidized at the government’s expense. However, this only led to a decrease in the supply of their services and an increase in waiting times. Ultimately, through its decisions, the state both restricts human freedom and exacerbates birth rate problems. And what will the statists say to this?

Also, many people usually forget about the psychological factor, where the stress of a regulated life suppresses reproductive function. Zoo workers know well that many animal species do not reproduce at all in captivity, regardless of how good the conditions are in terms of nutrition and care. Humans are one of the biological species and, accordingly, are also subject to this phenomenon.

Researchers believe that to solve the demographic crisis, it is necessary to look toward the deregulation of all aspects of life—labor, trade, medicine, education, housing, and security measures—to relieve the constant stress from interference in life and reduce the “cost” of having children. As long as the total fertility rate remains below the replacement level, statists have no moral right whatsoever to support any policy that restricts human freedom. Otherwise, they are essentially supporting the degeneration of the nation, something they need to be reminded of every single time!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How psychopaths manifest themselves in relationships

It would be quite obvious to say that maintaining any personal relationship with a person who can easily be ruthless, heartless, manipulative, deceitful, and unempathetic toward others is an extremely questionable venture. However, it is important to list specifically how psychopathic individuals manifest in relationships, as well as highlight some of their characteristics to support such a claim.

  1. Psychopathic individuals skillfully manipulate the feelings of others. To enter into relationships, they tend to resort to deception, demonstrating good qualities that they do not actually possess. Of course, to some extent many people are inclined to act this way, but psychopaths do so more intensely than others. They skillfully present themselves as attractive romantic partners, even if they are absolutely uninterested in “committed” relationships.
  2. Once psychopathic individuals get what they want, they can easily begin to behave cruelly. Psychopathic predispositions in a partner are the strongest predictor of long-term abuse in a relationship. Due to a dysfunctional violence inhibition mechanism, psychopaths easily ignore the suffering of their partners, except in cases where they can use it for their own manipulative purposes. For example, by manipulating fear, they may intimidate their partner, coerce them into sexual contact, or substance use. All of this easily leads to psychological trauma in victims of such treatment.
  3. In terms of relationships, psychopathic individuals more often prefer quantity over quality. On average, they have three times as many partners, but this occurs because their typical relationships are short-term, turbulent, filled with infidelity and jealousy; to keep partners, they resort to deception, manipulation, and aggression, which, of course, is hardly a strategy capable of leading to stable long-term relationships. Naturally, they are prone to risky sexual behavior, and their mental state is the root of a number of sexual crimes, including rape and serial killings on a sexual basis.
  4. Relationships with psychopathic individuals are usually rated as unsatisfactory. Among other things, their partners are more likely to indicate sexual dissatisfaction. Given that psychopaths often deceive, manipulate, cheat, or even commit violence against their partners, this is not surprising.
  5. As is well known, some people cannot easily leave psychopathic partners, even if they are completely dissatisfied with the relationship. This occurs primarily due to manipulation, suggestion, and threats. A person’s tendency to become attached to others over time may also play a role. Furthermore, a syndrome such as hyper-empathy can influence the situation, causing a person to feel sorry for their partner regardless of their behavior.
  6. Psychopathic individuals are prone to a form of relationship known as “sugar dating.” In these, one partner, who is wealthier and typically significantly older than the second, provides the other with money, privileges, status, and other material benefits in exchange for company or intimacy. Moreover, a willingness to engage in such relationships is linked to psychopathy regardless of which role the person plays in them. It was also found that dissatisfaction in relationships is caused not so much by the presence, but by the difference in psychopathic predispositions between partners. Obviously, a non-psychopathic individual will be dissatisfied with a relationship with a psychopath. But this can work the same way for the psychopath themselves. As researchers believe, people with high scores in “dark traits” (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) are more satisfied in relationships with individuals like themselves.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The problem of psychopathy in special forces

Some researchers are convinced that members of elite or special forces possess significant psychopathic predispositions. For example, as Kevin Dutton writes in his book “The Wisdom of Psychopaths,” selection for the SAS (UK Special Air Service) is brutal and savage. He cites one of the selection stages where a person, already exhausted by other trials, has a bag placed over their head, after which a truck drives up close to them and simulates a situation in which there is an alleged threat that their head might be accidentally run over. During such tests, candidates are specifically screened for qualities inherent to psychopaths. Individuals with these qualities are useful because they are capable of killing easily, without feeling even the slightest regret. Meanwhile, for a person without them, even mere participation in such selection would likely haunt their nightmares for a very long time.

One can also refer to an article by journalist Courtney Werleman. While in Israel and the Palestinian territories, he wanted to find out what psychological impact the first experience of killing at close range has on a soldier. And although for a number of reasons his study was never written, based on the evidence collected and materials from other researchers, he concludes that members of elite or special forces are “high-functioning” psychopaths.

Werleman gives an example of his communication with a former member of the US “Delta” special forces, who recounted that in Afghanistan he stabbed a 14-year-old boy, grabbing him and covering his mouth so that he would not make noise and disrupt the operation. When asked about his feelings afterward, he replied that he felt no regret because “it’s war and the operation was successful.” And judging by leaks of secret materials, such killings of civilians were not unusual for American special forces. One can also cite the example of special forces from Australia who, while in Afghanistan, openly demonstrated Nazi views and drove a patrol vehicle with a swastika. Of course, a person’s views are one thing, but killing innocent people who are not involved in hostilities and pose no threat to you is quite another. But as revealed by the leak of secret documents from the Australian Defence Force, the views of their special forces members corresponded to their actions—they deliberately killed unarmed men, women, and children, and then left weapons on their bodies to cover up their crimes.

Werleman also raises the topic of tyrannical and authoritarian regimes. Referring to the works of Professor Timothy Snyder, he notes that it is precisely people accustomed to committing violence abroad that such regimes later recruit to commit violence against the population within the country. Militarized formations consisting of psychopaths can be used, for example, for the brutal suppression of those protesting against corrupt authorities. It should be noted here that a “culture of impunity” is very common in such formations, and they treat the civilian population with complete cold-bloodedness.

The existence of such a problem once again raises the question of how we should view cold-blooded, heartless, and ruthless individuals capable of easily harming others—that is, individuals with a clear dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism and psychopathic predispositions. Obviously, they represent an incredibly high danger to society. People with malevolent intentions, such as corrupt politicians, can use them to carry out violence against ordinary, innocent people as efficiently as possible. This shows once again that we must unequivocally treat such a state of the individual as a pathology and a disease that must be eradicated.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Review of Mikhail Pozharsky’s video about how he grew to love war

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Mikhail Pozharsky released a video in which he began to justify violence and war as entirely normal human phenomena and tools for solving problems, while insulting opponents of war in every way and accusing their position of being untenable. Of course, it is first and foremost the position of Pozharsky himself that can be called untenable, which we will now examine in more detail.

He started well by criticizing the works of Steven Pinker, who claims that the level of violence has decreased throughout history, and that prehistoric humans suffered from chronic wars that could claim the lives of the majority of the population. Pinker was indeed wrong; he drew conclusions by considering only examples that were convenient for his argumentation. But if one considers all archaeological and anthropological evidence, we see that prehistoric populations did not suffer from wars—only 2% of representatives of past hunter-gatherer tribes died as a result of violence. After the agrarian revolution and the emergence of states, the level of lethal violence rose to 5%, after which it began to decline, amounting to only 3% for the 20th century (and this including the bloody conflicts that occurred within it). As anthropologist Douglas Fry believes, the level of violence in history changed according to an “n-type curve.” Pozharsky does not mention these data at all, and they do not align with his argumentation.

Instead, he decided to talk in detail about the violent nature of chimpanzees and cite primatologist and anthropologist Richard Wrangham, who believes that humans have an innate predisposition to cruelty, which he explains as an evolutionary legacy. But as Robert Sussman and Donna Hart write, the evolutionary paths of humans and chimpanzees diverged 8 million years ago. Meanwhile, the paths between chimpanzees and bonobos diverged only 2.5 million years ago, which did not prevent the latter from being peace-loving creatures. Pozharsky also mentioned bonobos, but spoke only of the aggressiveness of their females, failing to mention that their aggression is predominantly defensive, as well as the fact that they fundamentally do not have killings. Furthermore, many researchers, including anthropologist Brian Ferguson, believe that most violence in chimpanzees is provoked by human interference in their habitat, and that they have no innate predisposition to commit murder, just as humans do not.

Pozharsky also cites the Dani people as an example, among whom wars and killings are quite common. However, one could with equal success cite examples of the Paliyar, Semai, and many other peoples who are complete pacifists. Moreover, as Douglas Fry notes, research data shows that the majority of cultures (376 out of 590 studied) were either absolutely non-warlike or not inclined toward war (participating only in minor military actions). And only a third of the cultures participated significantly in wars, pursuing specific political or economic goals.

Next, Pozharsky provides individual examples of violence in history, which is an approach similar to that of Pinker (using episodes convenient for one’s argumentation while ignoring the full picture), claims that war can be just if a set of rules is adopted to reduce the harm it causes (but only suggests following them, without guaranteeing their execution in reality), and also attacks pacifists, portraying them as literally the worst people in the world by groundlessly attributing to them practices that only promote violence, such as appeasing the aggressor or waging war against a proclaimed “evil” without sparing any effort and ignoring the rules.

Of course, Pozharsky never once mentioned the position of anthropologists who quite reasonably do not consider war to be something natural for humans, or the position of military experts, according to which most healthy people possess a strong internal resistance to committing murder (or as researchers of human psyche and neurophysiology call it—the violence inhibition mechanism), and only a tiny fraction of individuals with high psychopathic predispositions are capable of engaging in such activities easily. All of this was ignored.

Animal cruelty, violence against people, and psychopathy

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Actions that are cruel to animals or lead to their death without a justifiable reason—for example, torture, torment, mutilation, poisoning, or abandonment—will seem to many as a clear sign that the person resorting to them has psychological abnormalities and could very well be just as capable of committing violence against humans. In fact, many studies have found a link between animal cruelty and various forms of violence. One of them also investigated the connection with the level of psychopathy in detail.

As demonstrated by one Swiss study, people who were cruel to animals in childhood are 3 times more likely to commit serious acts of violence, such as robbery, kidnapping, or assault, throughout their lives[1]. Another study conducted on two samples of women showed a link between the propensity for such treatment and proactive aggression, sadism, psychopathic predispositions, and traits of callous-unemotionality[2]. About 60% of individuals who state that they witnessed or participated in animal cruelty in childhood also report experiences of child abuse or domestic violence. As it turns out, animal cruelty is a “red flag” for domestic violence[3]. Finally, according to various studies, between 23% and 77% of households where intimate partner violence occurs also exhibit the presence of animal cruelty (and if threats to resort to it are added to actual cruelty, this figure becomes 21% to 89% of such households)[4].

People who are cruel to animals have, on average, higher scores for psychopathy. At the same time, the use of torture on animals is most strongly associated with psychopathy. The average score for individuals who committed such actions on the PPTS test was 13.04 points, while for those who did not, it was 10.19 points (an average difference of 2.85 points). The next strongest connection is the killing of animals (average difference of 2.65 points), followed by harming animals (average difference of 2.34 points)[5].

It can be confidently asserted that animal cruelty is indeed linked to a greater propensity for a person to commit violence against other people. There is also a significant link with psychopathic predispositions, which may indicate the presence of psychological abnormalities. Particular attention should be paid to impairments in the mechanism of violence inhibition, which some researchers use to explain the inability of certain individuals to perceive the suffering of animals, as well as a callous and dismissive attitude toward them[2].

How corporate psychopaths affect working conditions and the long-term success of a company

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In businesses with high staff turnover and relatively superficial assessments of personality traits when appointing employees to various positions, unscrupulous and deceitful corporate psychopaths often find opportunities to promote themselves. Such characteristics as ultra-rationality and a lack of emotional distress and empathy for other employees may even initially seem useful in activities aimed at generating profit. However, in the long run, the actions of corporate psychopaths can lead to catastrophic consequences.

To begin with, many employees cannot psychologically endure being their subordinates. Under psychopathic managers, staff turnover increases significantly. Additionally, they cause a decrease in the level of cooperation between different departments within the company. For example, psychopathic managers may order employees not to interact with other departments in any way except through their mediation. This is done to hide the fraudulent schemes they are implementing. Another management trait of corporate psychopaths is the bullying and intimidation of subordinates to draw them into their schemes, as well as the forced dismissal of anyone who refuses to obey them unconditionally.

At the same time, as counterintuitive as it may sound, psychopathic managers appear to be excellent employees to senior management, as they are proficient at reducing the company’s monetary expenses. Of course, in reality, this is not their own achievement; they appropriate it from other managers whom they have forced to participate in their schemes. They are adept at deceiving senior management and concealing the bullying they inflict on their subordinates.

Of course, in the long run, such manipulations and the creation of unbearable working conditions only cause harm. It is believed that corporate psychopaths are often the cause of company bankruptcies. Talented and skilled good people resign under their leadership, the company’s ethical reputation plummets, and product quality declines, leading to the loss of customers. Furthermore, through deception and manipulation, corporate psychopaths obtain positions for which they are unfit, while “silencing” truly experienced employees for the sake of their own personal interests.

Research often cites the example of American turnaround manager Albert Dunlop, who specialized in “saving” companies, which consisted of bringing them into a saleable condition while completely ignoring their future. Many researchers believe he was a psychopath. On Wall Street, he was known for his ruthless and intimidating approach to cost-cutting and heartless indifference toward firing employees. After becoming the CEO of Scott Paper, he disposed of assets worth about 2 billion dollars, fired a third of the workforce, and successfully sold the company to a competitor a year later. However, the company proved to be non-viable, and its headquarters were closed. In the end, about 11,000 people lost their jobs. Dunlop, meanwhile, walked away with a 100 million dollar severance package. Dunlop acted similarly with the company Sunbeam. After a year of his management, the company reported a huge increase in sales, and its shares rose by 50%. However, it was later revealed that this was a deception. At the very beginning, Dunlop created the impression that the company was incurring huge losses so that it would later seem that its situation had sharply improved. In the end, he faced trial for fraud, and the company went bankrupt.

Executives who exhibit psychopathic traits, such as ruthlessness and heartlessness, create unbearable working conditions and, in pursuit of purely personal gain, may even destroy a company. Such individuals should be feared; they should never be given leadership positions, at least until they undergo therapy to correct the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, which is why they are ruthless psychopaths.

Why physical “punishments” of children are absolutely unacceptable

Voluntarist, Bitarch

So-called physical (corporal) “punishments” or spanking are a barbaric practice of applying violence to children in order to change their behavior. Unfortunately, there are still parents who consider such a practice acceptable, or even absolutely normal. It is also supported by some public figures with ultra-conservative and authoritarian views, such as the American psychologist James Dobson. He believes that gentle parenting methods alone are not enough—they must be mixed with inflicting pain on children for disobedience and challenging parental authority, as this is the best method for preventing bad behavior. Furthermore, in his opinion, authoritarian upbringing should contribute to the maintenance of public order and the prevention of social unrest similar to those that occurred in the USA in the 1960s. Most people will surely find Dobson’s position extremely cruel, misleading, barbaric, inadequate, or even completely delusional. Nevertheless, we will examine the specific arguments against the use of violence toward children.

First and foremost, it must be noted that corporal “punishments” simply do not work. We intentionally use quotation marks because abusive parents use the word “punishment” to mask their violence, to avoid accusations that they openly support causing harm to children. Thus, instead of establishing parental authority, spanking only demonstrates parental weakness and an emotional breakdown. Additionally, an analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children demonstrates that physical “punishments” do not eliminate undesirable behavior, but instead lead to 14 significant negative consequences:

– Impairment of the ability for moral reasoning;
– Increased childhood aggressiveness;
– Increased antisocial behavior;
– Increase in destructive or harmful behavior directed toward other people or objects;
– Increase in symptoms of anxiety or depression;
– Child mental health problems;
– Worsening of the relationship between parents and the child;
– Decline in cognitive abilities and worsening academic performance;
– Lower self-esteem;
– Greater likelihood of becoming a victim of physical violence;
– Antisocial behavior in adulthood;
– Mental health problems in adulthood;
– Problems with alcohol or drug abuse in adulthood;
– Support for violence against children in adulthood (here it is appropriate to recall Dobson once more, who was also beaten as a child).

The consequences of physical “punishments” are similar to those arising from trauma caused by other types of childhood experiences—physical and emotional abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, domestic violence, and the presence of mental illness in the family. Also, research has shown that when children encounter harmful experiences, they become hypersensitive to the emotional reactions of other people, as some of these, such as anger, begin to be associated with subsequent bad actions. In children subjected to physical “punishments,” the brain begins to function in the same way as in children subjected to other forms of violence. Moreover, negative childhood experiences may increase the risk of certain physiological problems, such as impaired muscle metabolism.

Finally, some researchers believe that a punitive political stance, including the endorsement of war as a tool of national policy and the death penalty, is a consequence of violent upbringing. Those who were beaten, intimidated, and shamed by their parents in childhood, and who did not overcome the corresponding psychological problems through psychotherapy, tend to project their childhood anger onto political views and other groups of people. There is an opinion that the widespread practice of cruel child-rearing methods in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century played a significant role in the subsequent growth in the number of supporters of Nazi views.