Emotional Off-Switch

From: Sue	4/05/99 10:29:31
Subject: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9477
I might have said this before because Kosovo is in my head at the moment, but I am still absolutely confounded by the phenomenon of people being able to deliberately inflict atrocities on others, without any empathy for their victims, or regret afterwards. One rather well-worn example I keep coming back to is the hanging, drawing and quartering scene at the end of the film Braveheart. Yes, I have studied film and can dissect in detail the techniques used in that scene to play on the emotions of the viewers - but the fact remains that those kinds of things happened. And while the methodologies of torture might have changed, what's underneath the surface appears to be much the same. Can I not visualise that because I'm female and the whole thing of tolerating or even enjoying aggression and violence is essentially a biologically male thing with a large link to testosterone? That's one explanation I have heard. I'm not particularly comfortable with that explanation because I don't think women are intrinsically any more angelic than men and because I know that men exist who share my own sense of repulsion, but I'm bringing it up because I'd like to see what other people have to say. Also I realise that there is a large nurture component involved in gender differences in attitude towards violence and aggression. And of course, many women in the public hanging crowds cheered as loudly as any of the men! Before I leave that, though, in a discussion on the possible gender differences behind this, one male explained to me that he perceived himself as having a sort of emotional off-switch, which if activated could result in all sorts of things he wouldn't ordinarily do, and which would be at total odds with his own standards of behaviour. Any comments? My personal experience with that stuff doesn't give me a huge amount to draw from, but I've asked the question, and so it's only fair I contribute. Here goes. I have killed animals because I needed to eat or because they were terribly injured, but I certainly didn't get off on it, and it pains me to no end when there isn't immediate unconsciousness. I had to dispatch a tiger snake about a year back when it got hopelessly entangled in bird netting and I didn't want to leave it to die slowly. It turned out that the spade was blunt and the ground was soft, so it took three attempts at decapitation until the poor thing finally choked to death, and its eyes still haunt me. I feel physically ill at the recollection and will go to great lengths to make sure my own ineptitude isn't going to result in that kind of nightmare again. Yet there are many people in this world who derive pleasure from killing things and from inflicting pain on other beings, human or otherwise. I do not understand. It even beats me how people can watch violence, or simulated violence, for entertainment. Entertainment?! I did have one experience in my life where I got pushed to the very edge of what a human being is able to endure, and at the end of that I literally wanted to beat somebody's brains out on the pavement. It was like a thick red curtain coming over my senses and over my reasoning, and I was getting vivid images of neural matter splashing over the ground - kind of like the death of Piggy in Lord of the Flies, economically related as, His head opened, and stuff came out. That's totally unlike how I normally am, and seeing that capacity in myself absolutely shocked me! But is that part of the answer to my question? In that particular experience, the urge towards violence was totally instinctive, and I knew on rational consideration afterwards that had I ever got to that point I would have deeply regretted it immediately after the biological rage had worn off. However, I was also quite certain at that stage that this rage was repeatable given certain triggering factors, and I took great pains to remove myself from such factors. So I suppose I can empathise with spur-of-the-moment outbursts of violence. But do you have to have a strong sense of ethics to try to control such impulsive behaviour in yourself, should you be unfortunate enough to come across that? And where does that leave the premeditated variety of violence? Where does it leave unprovoked violence? Or is that redirected aggression? I am familiar with biological motivations for aggression, but I'm actually convinced we are the most sadistic species on the planet. What I see in our species, I don't see to that extreme extent in any other. This idea of taking pleasure in inflicting agony. I would welcome any input anyone has to offer. It's something I have struggled with for a long time. And I think this is a valuable place to ask that question, because I'm not going to get the shallow answers with which many people whose world is black and white like to explain these things away.

From: Mark Dawson	4/05/99 12:03:28
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9504
I recently made a new Mexican friend who was studying here in Oz. He commented to me how lucky we are as a society that we are still horrified by violent acts.

From: Cam (Avatar)	4/05/99 13:04:21
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9514
Interesting question Sue. I've sometimes pondered it myself, but I don't have any answers. Maybe we need a sociologist or behavioural psychologist. I have some observations though. There does appear to be a gender bias. It's usually (but not exclusively) males who commit acts of violence. How often do you hear of a woman going berserk with a gun? I dunno whether this is a learned response from socialisation or whether there is some neurological difference between sexes, as you seem to suggest with your reference to testosterone. Personally, I find cruelty more abhorrent than violence. I suppose that's because I can conceive of situations where violence may be justified (eg euthanasia, self-defence, or to stop someone on a shooting spree like those school kids in Denver) so it has some kind of limited acceptability in society. But I can't cope with cruelty. I can't see any possible advantage to the perpetrator apart form some kind of insane cowardly pleasure. I'm probably revealing some kind of psychological oddity here, but I find cruelty to animals more disturbing than cruelty to people. I'm not really sure why, maybe I just like animals a lot. I think I gravitate toward the conclusion that there must be some kind of mental disturbance (for want of a better term) going on when someone commits atrocities. This mental disturbance is either innate or induced. With individuals like Martin Bryant, one can easily say he has a particular psychological problem characterised by an inability to empathise. We can accept that sociopaths exist here and there in society, and given the right triggers, they can sometimes do horrible things. But with groups, or whole societies (as in wartime atrocities) it is much more difficult to understand. Obviously a whole society can't be made up entirely of sociopaths. The folks in Serbia or Indonesia are just like anyone else. So social pressures must induce the "mental disturbance". There must be some kind of mass acceptance that the goalposts of "normal" behaviour have been moved during times of conflict. Suddenly blind hatred and atrocious behaviour become OK.

From: Cam (Avatar)	4/05/99 13:04:35
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9515
Interesting question Sue. I've sometimes pondered it myself, but I don't have any answers. Maybe we need a sociologist or behavioural psychologist. I have some observations though. There does appear to be a gender bias. It's usually (but not exclusively) males who commit acts of violence. How often do you hear of a woman going berserk with a gun? I dunno whether this is a learned response from socialisation or whether there is some neurological difference between sexes, as you seem to suggest with your reference to testosterone. Personally, I find cruelty more abhorrent than violence. I suppose that's because I can conceive of situations where violence may be justified (eg euthanasia, self-defence, or to stop someone on a shooting spree like those school kids in Denver) so it has some kind of limited acceptability in society. But I can't cope with cruelty. I can't see any possible advantage to the perpetrator apart form some kind of insane cowardly pleasure. I'm probably revealing some kind of psychological oddity here, but I find cruelty to animals more disturbing than cruelty to people. I'm not really sure why, maybe I just like animals a lot. I think I gravitate toward the conclusion that there must be some kind of mental disturbance (for want of a better term) going on when someone commits atrocities. This mental disturbance is either innate or induced. With individuals like Martin Bryant, one can easily say he has a particular psychological problem characterised by an inability to empathise. We can accept that sociopaths exist here and there in society, and given the right triggers, they can sometimes do horrible things. But with groups, or whole societies (as in wartime atrocities) it is much more difficult to understand. Obviously a whole society can't be made up entirely of sociopaths. The folks in Serbia or Indonesia are just like anyone else. So social pressures must induce the "mental disturbance". There must be some kind of mass acceptance that the goalposts of "normal" behaviour have been moved during times of conflict. Suddenly blind hatred and atrocious behaviour become OK.

From: Cam (Avatar)	4/05/99 13:07:24
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9516
Oops! sorry about the double post. I must have caught Cass' twitchy finger disease.

From: Chris W (Plebeian)	4/05/99 13:25:51
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9519
Cam espoused: I'm probably revealing some kind of psychological oddity here, but I find cruelty to animals more disturbing than cruelty to people. I'm not really sure why, maybe I just like animals a lot. I don't think this is an oddity at all. I think that it'd be a reasonably widely held feeling, if not the 'norm'. In theory at least, a human being has both the intellectual capacity to anticipate another's moves and the ability to fight back on equal terms. The animal has neither of these capabilities and is perceived as the innocent victim. The 'innocent victim' perception is a very strong one it also covers situations like children, elderly or infirm people being maltreated and institutional genocide etc. As for the 'off-switch': I served in the armed forces. Part of our training was the use of deadly (no other kind) weapons. I cannot imagine myself being in the situation of needing to use the weapon, nor can I tell you what I'd do in the situation. I can imagine that the small buzz you get from wielding the power could appeal to certain people. If faced with the option of killing or being killed... adrenaline and primal instinct to survive kick in at the expense of logic.

From: Michael Gunter	4/05/99 14:58:42
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9532
Everbody experiences violent imagery. Depression can be associated with an increased frequency and severity of such imagery. Kosovo and East Timor are depressing, so you're in good company (if depressed!) Depressed people may be able to use this forum as therapy to good effect, but face-to-face with a health professional would be a value-added experience! Depressing topics and amusing/cheerful topics all have a place in an uncensored forum. Testosterone has a bloody lot to answer for, especially in the violence being acted-out. that's my two-bob's worth (or is it still only 8 cents a day?)

From: Sue	4/05/99 16:10:17
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9550
Hi Michael People don't have to be clinically depressed to be upset with some of the things going on in the world, and the discussion of such things is not necessarily cathartic. The discussion doesn't help the people currently affected, but maybe in some small way it can do something to get people thinking. Regards Sue

From: Michael Gunter	5/05/99 10:12:52
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9650
So the emotional off-switch must be a cognitive process, not related to sociopathy, psychosis or depressive mental disorder in the individual. It would seem likely that it is controlled (and controllable) by social processes, prejudices and hatreds such as racism and homophobia. The trick in the future is to not take for granted that social conditions, including the political "flavour of the month" cannot unravel all the achievements of Australian policies such as multiculturalism. We should be exporting multiculturalism to the world, in cases where other countries are not already embracing the concept. International law is increasingly institutionalising a lot of human rights issues. This should make it impossible in the long run for leaders of sovereign states to get away with genocide or lesser forms of institutionalised prejudice. Minimising the development of prejudice among individuals is a long-term educational and social policy goal. A job, a sense of being valued, and a sense of belonging would greatly help vulnerable individuals to keep out of trouble: unfortunately "rationalist" economics is, for the most part, giving the less fortunate in society the opposite message. A new social and economic paradigm based on long-term environmental sustainability might be a useful counter-measure. Having a real say in a future Australian republic would be nice, too: like a popularly elected non-executive, ceremonial head of state, just like the Irish Republic. Somehow, I don't think this helps Sue with the immediate problem of violent, distressing mental imagery. So I lay myself open (yet again!) to being "off topic". Unless it is her feelings of being totally disenfranchised in corporatised 1990's Australia that are the root cause of the problem!

From: Michael Gunter	5/05/99 10:23:33
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9652
Maybe the provocation episode is relevant: Sue said (seeing red) "..I got pushed to the very edge of what a human being is able to endure....." I'm just a little curious. If it's not relevant, or appropriate here, forget it...................

From: bob s	6/05/99 7:42:11
Subject: re: Emotional Off-Switch?	post id: 9785
all humans except identical twins are unique genetically. There is possibly a genetic aspect to the attitude to violence. There are plenty of examples of female total disregard to the plight of others so they are not exempt from acts of cruelty but there does seem to be gender bias. Hitler was able to emotionally turn off a whole nation or most of it. Molosivic seems to have Serbia with a one eye view and even Serbs in Australia who can see the plight of the refugees are still one eyed about the situation. The refugee situation is in itself atrocity enough to enrage without the additional stories of rape murder and plunder. The term ethnic cleansing is an inexcusable euphamism for murder. The pressure of population is a contributing factor in the present Kosovo situation I think??

This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.