Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence

[Juany118]

I think part of the problem is that most folks don't see a difference between Psychology and Psychological/Psychiatric treatment. There's a definite lack of science (but not evidence) behind treatment. In fact, what rigorous research we do have suggests that most kinds of treatment are effective for the right people, when delivered by the right professional. Of course, that may be as close as we ever get, since the variables are as wide-ranging as those surrounding self-defense.

Exactly. I think another problem is that people first see Psychology and treatment as the same and then, to top it off, don't know and/or understand the importance of Evidence Based Practices vs others types of treatment. Such practices are supported by multi-year studies involving thousands of patients.

 

[Juany118]

I don't think this can be understood in a vacuum. There is always going to be some kind of context

Agreed. One of the reasons I went down the psychological route is because the reasons for violence (criminal or not) is incredibly variable and revolves around the Psychology of the person performing the act and that Psychology is a product of a miriad of factors.

 

[JowGaWolf]

yall, are making my brain hurt, lol ive been in heavy thought about this all day and my brain is tired. im probably going to make some nonsensical posts here that i will regret later. but i dont want to stop.

You asked for it. lol.. But I'm right there with you on the brain hurt.

If I was forced to do a research paper on this, I would probably start with the most "simple" insect or life form as possible. This way you could avoid being tangled in complexities that are often found in larger life forms. I would also probably wouldn't pick a social animal. Things like ants and bees probably should be avoided. Maybe pick a solitary insect and take note of things the violence that insect does.

You have territorial violence, self-defense violence, and mating violence (that I can think off the top of my head). There may be some fungus type violence, where a fungus causes the insect to loose its mind, but double check on that. There may be chemical violence where a chemical makes an insect aggressive. Looking at a solitary insect will help you narrow things down. To where you can focus on the same areas of where a solitary insect is violent or aggressive.

 

[hoshin1600]

Agreed. One of the reasons I went down the psychological route is because the reasons for violence (criminal or not) is incredibly variable and revolves around the Psychology of the person performing the act and that Psychology is a product of a miriad of factors.

At the moment I disagree with this premise. On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.

Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post. Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired

 

[Juany118]

At the moment I disagree with this premise. On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.

Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post. Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired

Well I suppose it depends on your outlook. If you are simply looking at broad strokes I would agree with you. Say something as simple as just saying "toxic masculinity with potential accompanying trauma."

The thing is, at least imo, the greatest value in studying such a topic is when you get "into the weeds" so to speak. The origins and expressions of toxic masculinity can be different depending on socioeconomic and cultural background there are clearly different types of trauma and understanding the differences can be useful in understanding the pathology of violence. As an example some can lead to "generic" aggressive/violent tendencies, where as others can result in the aggression/violence being largely limited to the domestic front and then yet another combination of factors can result in the "violence" being focused on a near compulsion to compete (either in combat sports or simply aggressive sports in general) etc.

To clarify something. The term "toxic masculinity" can be seen as "loaded" because some people immediately jump to the conclusion that it is saying "masculinity in general is toxic" this is not the case. The term is very specific and address dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions. The surrounding behaviors make the men more likely to suffer from depression, stress, body image problems and engage in substance abuse. For an extreme, non-crime related, example think of the guy you see at the gym who is roiding up and dating a different girl every month with 3 different child support cases with 3 different women because he has profound self esteem issues surrounding the idea of what "being a real man" is. Of course it can reveal itself in more subtle ways, but it is the way that it damages not only the individual but society around them that the science is trying to address.

 

[Martial D]

"toxic masculinity"

Oh brother.....

 

[drop bear]

At the moment I disagree with this premise. On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.

Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post. Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired

If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.

 

[Juany118]

"toxic masculinity"

Oh brother.....

That's the term used in psychology. It actually has NO origin in Feminism believe it or not but rather the Mythopoetic men's movement. It is about what is harmful to men, and how that spirals out. This is the best explanation I have seen.

...I’d say the verbiage isn’t exactly nailing it from a marketing/branding perspective at this point in history. But the concept itself is crucial.

Here’s toxic masculinity as I understand it:

Toxic masculinity is a set of myths that society tells boys and men about what it means to be a “real man”, with implicit threats to their worth and identity if they don’t meet those expectations.

If I were going to pinpoint some of the central lies of toxic masculinity, here are a few:

• A real man has the ability to stay in control of every situation (although no points off for succumbing to uncontrollable lust as long as it’s red-blooded hetero lust).
• A real man never shows any sign of weakness (and emotional vulnerability is always weakness).
• A real man is powerful enough to take, have or achieve whatever he wants (either for himself, or to provide for others).
• A real man uses his wits and abilities to consistently succeed—needing little-to-no help from others, and exudes that success continuously as he walks through life.
• The most personally dominant individual in any given group is the most masculine individual, as well as the best and most natural leader.

I don't think anybody here would deny that these myths exist and that many people are influenced by the minute sometimes to the point of doing harm to their psychological well-being.

 

[Juany118]

If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.

Not really. The lymbic system isn't done developing until the mid 20s so an infant is largely an instinctual machine. An adult who engages in violence in an anti-social manner will this have different reasons for engaging in violence usually a byproduct of trauma or organic damage. As examples, someone who suffered from domestic abuse as a child is far more likely to commit such abuse themselves (trauma) and people suffering from Alzheimer's can become violent due to the fact that the disease causes organic damage to the lymbic system. They are even discovering from various medical scans that long term abuse/psychological trauma can have an effect of brain development.

The reason proposed for this is that a lymbic system that is not fully developed is an evolutionary method of encouraging risk behaviors as such behaviors seem to have a connection to learning specific tasks, especially those related to memory. Once you are past the "core" learning phase the pathways "solidify" as learning A LOT in a relatively short period of time is no longer necessary.

 

[Martial D]

That's the term used in psychology. It actually has NO origin in Feminism believe it or not but rather the Mythopoetic men's movement. It is about what is harmful to men, and how that spirals out. This is the best explanation I have seen.


I don't think anybody here would deny that these myths exist and that many people are influenced by the minute sometimes to the point of doing harm to their psychological well-being.

This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.

The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

At the moment I disagree with this premise. On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.

Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post. Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired

It sounds like you're working toward a model, rather than a full explanation. A model is intended to try to cover a group of behaviors or processes, but usually not all (ignoring outliers keeps it simpler, so long as you identify what makes it an outlier). It purposely ignores nuances, to get to a base process that appears to affect most of the interactions. This is used a lot in Psychology, because brains are too variable to be universally covered by any single detailed explanation. A model of cyclic anger won't accurately cover every person, but does a pretty good job of covering "people". I think you can do the same with your model. For now, that means you'll want to start identifying what isn't covered by the model. When you find something, you either adjust the model, or identify that circumstance as an outlier not covered by the model. The fewer instances you have to resort to classifying as outliers, the stronger the model is.

 

[Juany118]

This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.

The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.

You must love a rather charmed life then because I see that kind of behavior all the time, not just the people I arrest but the "hyper" alphas I work with, heck people in my Martial arts school (especially one Marine). While the term is "new" it has been something addressed for decades in the psychology and criminology field as a reality with SOME men.

You also raised SJWs and Feminists, which I think reveals a bias on your part because the term was coined by neither.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.

Probably especially true among those adults who tend to hit other adults. I'd have to ponder whether it's equally true for those less prone to hitting - it probably is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really. The lymbic system isn't done developing until the mid 20s so an infant is largely an instinctual machine. An adult who engages in violence in an anti-social manner will this have different reasons for engaging in violence usually a byproduct of trauma or organic damage. As examples, someone who suffered from domestic abuse as a child is far more likely to commit such abuse themselves (trauma) and people suffering from Alzheimer's can become violent due to the fact that the disease causes organic damage to the lymbic system. They are even discovering from various medical scans that long term abuse/psychological trauma can have an effect of brain development.

The reason proposed for this is that a lymbic system that is not fully developed is an evolutionary method of encouraging risk behaviors as such behaviors seem to have a connection to learning specific tasks, especially those related to memory. Once you are past the "core" learning phase the pathways "solidify" as learning A LOT in a relatively short period of time is no longer necessary.

There are a lot of people who fail to exert (or cannot exert) control over their impulses, and strike out nearly like a child. I think DB's point is that at the moment an adult strikes, they are likely under control of that same limbic system (it's the executive center - what gives us control over the limbic system - that develops late, IIRC).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.

The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.

I disagree. There are people who grow up learning to suppress emotions because "boys don't cry", and this learned suppression has significant links to depression and other issues. The extreme self-reliance can lead to lacking a social support structure, which has implications in an even broader area. Note that the idea is that these ideals can be toxic in the extreme, though in lower "doses" they may not. And the effect is pretty individual (again, that high number of variables).

The term has been co-opted by some feminists, but was not originated by them.

 

[jobo]

i find it ironic that people who have dedicated a big part of there lives to learning how to inflict violence in the most effective and efficient way, have such a down on people who use violence. Perhaps considering your own phycology would be illuminating?

 

[Juany118]

I disagree. There are people who grow up learning to suppress emotions because "boys don't cry", and this learned suppression has significant links to depression and other issues. The extreme self-reliance can lead to lacking a social support structure, which has implications in an even broader area. Note that the idea is that these ideals can be toxic in the extreme, though in lower "doses" they may not. And the effect is pretty individual (again, that high number of variables).

The term has been co-opted by some feminists, but was not originated by them.

I would also like to point out that toxic masculinity and patriarchy (as Martial D mentioned) are different concepts. When they are mentioned together it is typically within the context that specific aggressive/toxic behaviors are accepted, sometimes even applauded in men BUT when women engage in similar behaviors it is more often seen as inappropriate. The guy that sleeps around is a "stud". This kind of behavior (especially if performed in a high risk fashion) can be symptomatic of depression, yet much of society attaches the positive "stud" adjective to the activity. That in and of itself is part of the toxic masculinity concept when it stands alone. It doesn't enter the patriarchal realm until you compare that to the adjective that much of society would attach to a female engaging in the same behavior, "slut" which has a decidedly negative connotation.

Ultimately I wouldn't even say feminists co-opted the term. That infers that took a term and twisted it to a different meaning. What they have done is taken a now proven concept/term and then show how much of society views men who engage in such behaviors and then contrasts it with how society views women who engage in similar behaviors. "Stud" vs "slut", "strong" vs "beotch", "very focused" vs "control freak" etc.

Many elements in science, especially social science, appear "understood" even to be common sense by most people... right up until the element in question becomes part of an ongoing ideolological flash point. When that happens it all goes sideways.

 

[hoshin1600]

Can we not go down the divisive path of political thought. I understand that right and left have different views of the world that show up in psychology but I don't want this thread locked. It is my only vehicle to work this out with some peer review.

 

[Juany118]

Can we not go down the divisive path of political thought. I understand that right and left have different views of the world that show up in psychology but I don't want this thread locked. It is my only vehicle to work this out with some peer review.

Well here in lies the problem, whether you like it or not the minute that part of your initial proposal mentioned criminality and

All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.

Note I am not saying you proposal there is right or wrong but...

You entered today's political realm because anything having to do with stereotypical gender roles, criminality and the insentive behind criminality are political hot buttons. Hell I only used a term that is part of modern Psychology study and the response was "oh brother" and it went sideways from there because of ideological differences.

I LOVE what you tried to do here, but as much as I wish we were all Vulcans and that it could be a productive discussion, I don't see a way for politics, in our currently very divided society, to be avoided.

 

[jobo]

I would also like to point out that toxic masculinity and patriarchy (as Martial D mentioned) are different concepts. When they are mentioned together it is typically within the context that specific aggressive/toxic behaviors are accepted, sometimes even applauded in men BUT when women engage in similar behaviors it is more often seen as inappropriate. The guy that sleeps around is a "stud". This kind of behavior (especially if performed in a high risk fashion) can be symptomatic of depression, yet much of society attaches the positive "stud" adjective to the activity. That in and of itself is part of the toxic masculinity concept when it stands alone. It doesn't enter the patriarchal realm until you compare that to the adjective that much of society would attach to a female engaging in the same behavior, "slut" which has a decidedly negative connotation.

Ultimately I wouldn't even say feminists co-opted the term. That infers that took a term and twisted it to a different meaning. What they have done is taken a now proven concept/term and then show how much of society views men who engage in such behaviors and then contrasts it with how society views women who engage in similar behaviors. "Stud" vs "slut", "strong" vs "beotch", "very focused" vs "control freak" etc.

Many elements in science, especially social science, appear "understood" even to be common sense by most people... right up until the element in question becomes part of an ongoing ideolological flash point. When that happens it all goes sideways.

i think that's far to simplistic, in my experience other women are far more judgmental of girls that sleep around, just as other males are envious of males that do like wise, to say society as a whole views them differently, is just plain wrong