Friday, November 19, 2010

Controlling violent urges

A reader talks about "change" from a violent child, to a relatively in-control adult:
When I was young (Up until about Twelve years old) I had very little self-control with violent outbursts. I almost murdered a few of my peers, and was so alienated from this that no amount of charm or good deeds could win favor back into the affected parties. This greatly bothered me. I had been in fights all my life, yet I had never been in a situation where I was beyond social redemption. I noted this, and although I would still get angry, and still Want to maim them, I would not let myself cross the line of letting my instincts take over. The risk was just too great, and I was thankful that I had moved to another area where my slate was clean as far as the locals were concerned. This conscious choice to repress my violence evolved when I reached High School. The specific High School I went to would arrest all parties involved in violent activities (fights, usually) regardless of who the initiator was, and this could lead to time spent in a correctional facility and a juvenile criminal record. At this point, I had no desire to be seen off in a patrol car, as I had seen some of my peers arrested. Being a known criminal is crippling for your reputation, which is something I would kill for if needed to maintain. I made a conscious effort to alleviate tension before it could start, and managed to avoid physical altercations in High School almost completely, save one incident which thankfully was not brought to the attention of the authorities. I spread myself throughout the school, thanks to the segregation of various quads, and had a large network of 'friends' in multiple cliques. From years of experience, I had no problem quickly befriending dozens of classmates and was able to keep my list of so called enemies to an almost non-existent figure. If you will, I embraced the philosophy of 'Burn No Bridges', but not out of a notion of good, but practicality. Is this sort of behavior common? This, evolution from a violent sociopath to a non-violent one? It is easy to enrage me if done properly to this day, but I leave little opportunity for someone to even entertain the notion of it, and my intimidating physical features also discourage people from angering me.
I responded: One of my friends thinks socios can only go one way -- bad to worse. The idea is that once corrupted, we will always have that particular weakness or penchant for corruption. For instance, I talked recently about the potential for training myself to enjoy bloodlust. I wouldn't do that, though, because I'd be worried that it would become an addiction. But your transition from violence to peacefulness suggests otherwise, unless you just have a great deal of self-control or the violence never had a strong pull for you. What do you think?
In regards to your comment on violence, I find the explanation simple and sobering (for me). I am not an addict, I do not have an addictive personality, and never have. I have an extremely indulgent and obsessive one, though. Violence to me is not an involuntary reaction. I don't think it ever has been. I like it. I enjoy inflicting pain and seeing the terror, pain and or anger in the eyes of my enemy. It gets me off. But so does smoking, drinking, and seduction. It's different, of course, but it is one of several ways for me to derive pleasure. It never had its own little pedestal all to itself.
A simple example, minus the human element is this. Bugs, I really, really dislike them. If they get in my house, it annoys me. I don't always kill them. It's not that I don't respect them, I just don't need to kill them. There's no irrational fear behind an act of violence. If they're crawling on me, sure I'll probably squish them out of reflex, but virtually every person I've met seems to consider them Kill On Sight targets, even outdoors. If the spider is in a corner near my overhead light, he'll probably kill the moths that sneak their way in. If a silverfish crawled up the drain, I'll pour him back down with water (and maybe a little soap for shenanigans sake). If an ant finds his way in and I'm not busy, I'll watch his path and sees where he goes, in hopes of blocking their entry point, preventing my annoyance and their genocide.
I apply similar logic to People. If there is no need to be violent, then why be so? A broken reputation, trust, or image is is far more devastating than my fists will ever be. I don't really consider it channeling, so much as diverting my anger from the emotional dam. It either goes away soon, or has to be dealt with depending on the severity of the situation. I might plot someone's downfall, or blow steam killing people in a videogame. Thankfully, it rarely comes to that being a necessity.
I understand the lust for blood all too well. Hunting human prey is intoxicating, and I found sports such as Paintball and Airsoft to be extremely satisfying. Quick reflexes, stealth, and wit combine to let you hunt the most dangerous game, with virtually none of the consequences.
In terms of being peaceful, in an abstract way I am. All the anger is still there, but I know how to manipulate it before it gets out of hand. With childlike naivety gone, a sociopath can accomplish a great many things, especially in regards to our own so-called downfalls. Violence is but one of them.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

"Put on more weight"

I've always been really interested in torture methods. I heard a passing reference to the practice of "pressing," googled it, and found this:
Pressing, also known as peine forte et dure, was both a death sentence and a means of drawing out confessions. Adopted as a judicial measure during the 14th century, pressing reached its peak during the reign of Henry IV. In Britain, pressing was not abolished until 1772. Giles Corey, an elderly farmer in Salem, Massachusetts, was the only recorded incident of pressing to death in the United States. After eighty years in the settlement, most of them spend in hard work on his farm, he was still hale and healthy when the madness of 1692 started. He was subject to superstitions, as were most people in his day, and mentioned that he had observed his wife, his third, reading books. That was enough to bring her to the attention of the witch-hunters. His efforts to stop the insane persecution landed him in front of the judges. Giles was a crafty sort; he knew that his property might be confiscated by the state if he was condemned as a wizard. To avoid this and to ensure that his sons would inherit his land, he refused to plead. When asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, he stood mute. Under English law, he could be thrice asked to plead. After standing mute, he could not then be tried, but he could be, and was, subjected to the old punishment of peine forte et dure.... When the law was used against Giles Corey, he behaved with dignity. His last words were: "Put on more weight" (Engel 180-181).
I don't know why I find this passage so compelling.  I guess it's because even though Corey clearly recognized the lunacy of the witch trials (such a pristine example of mob mentality), when he was "caught" and tried he didn't seem to complain that the game of life was unfair, or that the people killing him were evil, or whine or preach.  He realized that you can't reason with irrational people, you just have to play the hand that you were dealt.  And he played his hand masterfully until the end.  He is basically a new personal hero of mine when it comes to focusing only on playing the game well and not stressing about the end results.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Self-gratification

From "Psychopathy: antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior," chapter 24 by Otto Kernberg:
The passive type of psychopath has been able to learn to deal with the powerful through pseudosubmission and through out-smarting them -- a passive, parasitic exploitiveness that at least implies the capacity to control immediate anger and rage, and to transform it into the slow-motion aggression of a "wolf in sheep's clothing." In the case of these patients, their own aggression can be denied, and the division of the world into wolves and sheep is complemented by the adapative function of the wolf disguised among the sheep.
Whether psychopaths are predominantly aggressive or passive, the gratification they seek is exlusively linked to bodily functions -- to eating, drinking, drugs, and alcohol, and to a sexuality divested of its object relations implications and thus devoid of love and tenderness. In the most severe cases of aggressive psychopathy, sexual sadism may become an invitation to murder, making these individuals extremely dangerous. Or else early aggression may dominate their emotional lives to the extent that even the sensuality of bodily contact and skin eroticism is eliminated. In this case, there is global extinction of all capacity for sexual gratification, which is replaced by senseless physical destrictiveness, self-mutiliation, and murder. 
I agree with about 60% of this. Does anyone completely relate?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Dealing with irrational people

Courtesy of a reader:

"Your father is being irrational and irrational behavior doesn't respond to rational arguments. It responds to fear." -Jack Donaghy, 30 Rock
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.