Please write a thoughtful one to two-page, double-spaced reflection about the topic below the reasons of violence in relationships.
“A starting point to the problem of explaining the causes of human violence can be made with evolution and how it has impacted our propensity for violence. While much about our origins is unknown or disputed, what we do know is that we have evolved to inhabit a world in which violent behavior has often proved necessary for survival. Of course, the lives of other animals that inhabit our planet are also characterized by a great deal of violence. We can see this when we examine the types of aggression in which animals routinely engage.
Looking at the listed motivations for aggressive behavior exhibited by animals in Table 2.1, it is easy to relate most of these to human aggression and violence. Intermale aggression, for example, is something that we can easily recognize among young men who sometimes struggle and compete for status by being the toughest and strongest. Territorial aggression, on the other hand, concerns animals that fight to control a piece of land they have marked or defined as their own. Is this so different from what people often do? Think about street gangs that use violence to protect their turf or some of the territorial wars and border conflicts between nations. Over the course of their history together, India and Pakistan have been fighting an on-again/off-again limited conflict because each nation disputes part of its shared border in the high Himalayas. The irony is that the mountainous terrain is so elevated, isolated, and remote that it is virtually uninhabitable, and more soldiers have died from altitude sickness, avalanches, and falling into glacier crevasses than from enemy action. Territorial aggression, even within the human species, is not always completely rational or useful.
In the brain, data messages are transmitted between nerve cells via a synapse, a small gap between the nerve cells or neurons. Serotonin is a substance that helps relay those messages over the gap and allows them to proceed. Without serotonin, data messages don’t make it across the gap or, if they do, they tend to be incomplete and garbled. Behaviorally, deficiencies in serotonin have been linked to a wide variety of disorders, such as depression, suicide, and anxiety. Importantly, they have also been linked with impulsive acts of aggression. People with low levels of serotonin appear to be more likely to engage in violence because their ability to control their aggressive impulses is diminished. Serotonin acts as an impulse inhibitor, and lower levels of this neurotransmitter hamper a person’s ability to stop and think.24 We need to understand, however, that while this may help explain certain types of impulsive violence that are essentially overreactions to some sort of provocation, serotonin levels do not help us to understand how other, more calculated forms of violence are perpetrated. At the risk of sounding redundant, we also need to remember that a low level of serotonin is not sufficient, in and of itself, to produce violence. Serotonin deficiency is only one of many possible contributing factors that help explain the puzzle of violence.
Interesting work has been done recently focusing on a gene that produces an enzyme known as monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which breaks down brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin. Some people have a variation of the gene that results in decreased levels of this enzyme. A growing body of research suggests that this warrior gene, as this genetic polymorphism is sometimes referred to, correlates with higher levels of delinquency; antisocial, impulsive, and aggressive behavior; and hypersensitivity to real or imagined slights. These qualities are especially pronounced for those who have experienced some level of abuse while growing up.25 Such research highlights the complicated interplay between genetics, biology, and environment in making certain types of violent and aggressive behavior more likely.
Other biological research on violence, rather than focusing on hormones and neurotransmitters, has examined brain function by looking at things such as lesions in the brain caused by injuries, tumors, and other kinds of trauma to the head. This avenue of research was spurred by the University of Texas tower shooter, Charles J. Whitman, who in 1966 killed 14 people and wounded 32 others before being gunned down by police himself.33 His autopsy revealed that he had a glioblastoma tumor growing in his brain. A commission formed to find out why Whitman perpetrated this crime concluded that the tumor could have contributed to his decision to commit this mass murder. Although not everyone agrees with this assessment, it nevertheless helped spark interest in brain lesions and trauma to help explain some violent offending.
We also know that certain toxins in the environment affect our genetic makeup and increase the risk of aggression and violence. For example, recent research has found that children exposed to high levels of lead not only have serious health consequences but also have an increased risk of behavioral outcomes such as aggression. Evidence for this relationship is fairly convincing. For example, lead emissions from cars using leaded gasoline rose steadily from the 1940s through the early 1970s, until vehicles were required to use unleaded gasoline, after which lead emissions plummeted. About 20 years later, when the children who had ingested all of that lead moved into early adulthood, which is typically when offending peaks, there was a huge increase in violent crime. This relationship between lead emissions and crime has also been found at the city level and across different countries. This is a very convincing example of how our environment impacts our physiology, which ultimately influences our behavior
Research shows that morality develops best when young people are shown how their actions affect others, but individuals with this disorder show an impaired ability to empathize. Simply put, they can’t process the pain and fear of others. In addition to this, they also have a reduced ability to process fear, which means that the punishments and negative consequences that often prevent the majority of us from engaging in criminal acts don’t act as a deterrent to these individuals. Punishment doesn’t scare them. These factors are combined with a tendency for them to be extremely self-centered, seeing others as a means to an end. As such, they do not hesitate to employ violence to fulfill their selfish goals. They act out of pure self-interest, without reference to a moral or ethical compass. In fact, historically, this kind of disorder was originally defined as a kind of “moral insanity.” This does not mean that they don’t understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, they are fairly well grounded in reality and understand right from wrong; they simply don’t seem to care.
People with this disorder are consequently marked by a high likelihood of engaging in instrumental forms of violence, which makes sense since instrumental violence is a means to an end. In fact, some contend that individuals such as Bernie Madoff, the operator of the Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars and who showed little remorse, are as likely to have an antisocial personality disorder as those who kill. In fact, it is important to underscore the harm produced by people like Madoff; many of his victims lost their entire life savings and at least one committed suicide. Of course, others with this disorder may resort to aggression to help them get their way or acquire something they want. The underlying mechanism in both cases is the fact that they seem incapable of caring that their behavior harms others. In short, they lack empathy.
Antisocial personality disorder is most commonly associated with serial killers, but this stereotype is not based on empirical facts. Not all serial killers suffer from this disorder and, importantly, not everyone with this disorder is a serial killer. In fact, most of us have some antisocial tendencies, although not to the same degree as individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that between 1% and 3% of the U.S. population can be categorized as having this problem”.
