[infowarrior1]

(09-26-2016 02:56 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 01:39 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 02:51 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 02:24 PM)Thersites Wrote:  

^ In psychiatry, someone like Mr. Scott is group into Cluster B Personality Disorders, more specifically Antisocial Personality Disorders. They are pretty much sociopath with disregard of other people's right and rules in general. They only care about themselves. There is no treatment of a person with this personality disorder. Only option are jail and death for such a person.

Honestly speaking, death would be preferable, IKE above has inferred as much. Sociopaths are not nice people, they're horrible awful people who destroy everything the touch and bring suffering and pain in their wake. They are not cool or made for TV, they're not even human. If you have ever known a real sociopath (not in the way girls call their ex-bfs), a real stone cold sociopath, then you know the moment you realize they have no soul, no empathy, no normal human feelings. First you get terrified, like ice touches your spine, then fear is replaced by intense anger and a desire to destroy the sociopath. This reaction must be inborn and genetic. It's a kind of disgust like nothing else.

Europeans used to be a hell of a lot more violent just a few hundred years ago. This was solved by execution of violent criminals. After a few hundred years, so many sociopaths had been killed, the population as a whole became less violent. This is well documented.

Quote:

The war on murder – 12th to 17th centuries

Murder was normally a personal matter to be settled by the victim’s family, through vengeance or a cash settlement.

This situation began to change in the 12th century. One reason was that the State had become stronger. But there also had been an ideological change. The State no longer saw itself as an honest broker for violent disputes that did not challenge its existence. Jurists were now arguing that the king must punish the wicked to ensure that the good may live in peace. The Church itself was coming around to this view through what may be called a medieval synthesis of Christian morality:

[…] a reaction arose beginning in the 11th century against the previous system of monetary compensation. Henceforth, increasingly, it was felt that money could not be a sufficient compensation for such an infraction. The idea that the murder of a man is a crime too serious, an offence too manifest to the order of Creation, to be simply “compensated” by a sum of money was present from the early 11th century onward in the thinking of some bishops (Carbassse, 2011, p. 38)

And so began the war on murder. From the 12th to 17th centuries, capital punishment became steadily more prevalent. We see this in an increasing willingness to use it not only for murder but also for other crimes (rape, abortion, infanticide, lèse majesté, theft, counterfeiting, etc.). We also see this in the use of ‘exemplary’ punishment: drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel, and burning. Beginning in the 13th and 14th centuries, we see cases of a murderer being buried alive in a casket placed underneath the victim’s casket (Carbasse, 2011, p. 53).

Then, after the 17th century, the war on murder began to go into reverse. It had been largely won, and public sympathy now shifted to the condemned man. In England, the homicide rate fell by over a hundred-fold between 1300 and 1900 (Eisner, 2001). Europeans were becoming kinder and gentler, and this pacification of social relations would make possible much of what we call modernity: the expansion of the market economy; a growing freedom to live among total strangers; the rise of the individual as an autonomous, self-maximizing being, and so on.

But this pacification also had a down side. We now take it for granted. If people act violently, to the point of committing murder, we assume there must be a very good reason. Otherwise, why would they have done it?

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2013/...ntler.html

And so we enter human biodiversity territory. Is violence an inherited trait? Sociopathy?

An experiment was done with silver foxes:

So if humans are animals then what we are seeing is male domestication demonstrated in history. Which is also reflected in this study when human civilization started to flourish:

Quote:

Although humans have been around for 200,000 years, they didn't develop the makings of modern society -- culture, art and advanced tools -- until about 50,000 years ago.

Could lower testosterone levels have helped make the difference? A study published in the journal Current Anthropology finds that human skulls changed shape at about that same point in time -- physical changes linked to declining testosterone levels. The researchers say that suggests lower levels of the male hormone could have helped bring about modern civilization.

"The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament," lead author Robert Cieri, a biology graduate student at the University of Utah, said in a press release.

The research is based on measurements of the skulls of more than 1,400 modern and ancient humans. Begun as a senior thesis at Duke University, Cieri's research compares the brow ridge, facial shape and interior volume of 13 human skulls order than 80,000 years old; 41 skulls from 10,000 to 38,000 years ago; and more than 1,000 20th century skulls. A reduction of the brow ridge and a shortening of the upper face became apparent over time.

The changes in the skull structures -- heavy brows being replaced with rounder heads -- are evidence of decreasing testosterone levels acting on the skeleton, Cieri says.

Similar changes have been seen in animals. In a study with Siberian foxes, animals that were less wary and less aggressive toward humans developed a more juvenile appearance and behavior.

Around 50,000 years ago, humans underwent a drastic change, producing tools out of bone and antler, making projectile weapons and showing command of fire. Cieri argues that living together and cooperating rewarded lower aggression, allowing for societies to develop.

"If prehistoric people began living closer together and passing down new technologies, they'd have to be tolerant of each other," he explained. "The key to our success is the ability to cooperate and get along and learn from one another."