Chapter 7: Anger and Aggression

Ah, then you get into the assertive realm, Dr.Clay :-) I think the anger (good thing) is in assertion, and agression is their bad-mannered cousin, related to "acting out" (kind of opposite to being assertive in my mind). While it's true one can be verbally aggressive, I think of aggression as taking over the other guy's country :-) Must have something to do with my history degree. I see nothing "good" about aggression, at its best it's bad manners/minor boundary crossing; at its worst, abuse/assault. Anger is merely a feeling and one learns to express it either in the positive assertion or in aggression.

Good to see you too.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Innate, genetic, hormonal & physical factors Freud came to believe in a death or aggressive instinct because he saw so much violence, sadism, war, and suicide. Konrad Lorenz (1966) believed that species, both animal and human, survived by having an aggressive instinct which protected their territory and young, and insured only the strongest individuals survived. The sociobiologists, noting the frequency we go to war, also suggest that we have inherited an aggressive nature, a tendency to lash out at anything that gets in our way, a need to dominate and control.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
http://www.psychologicalselfhelp.org.../chap7_24.html

<font color="blue"> I am personally reading The Lucifer Effect (why good people become evil.) I'm halfway through the book and already I am convinced that the above idea might not be totally true. (ref the frequency we go to war....)

I am wondering if it is the environment of war that makes people aggressive, and not any innate desire? The military uses a uniform, commanders, protocol to cause a change in their forces. They "become" soldiers. It's all part of the plan to create machines that can protect others and put themselves in the way of death. When the "soldier" is no longer needed in the military, the uniform comes off, the environment becomes the safety of home and no longer is the need and training to kill in effect.

<font color="blue"> I've finished the book, The Lucifer Effect. drclay has asked me to give a synopsis review of it here.

I think one thing I would say as a precursor to my review is that I think the idea that "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch isn't true." This research is showing me that it's the "bad barrel that creates the bad apple." It's the system or the environment that forms who we are and what we do, if we aren't aware and allow it.

[b]<font color="blue">In The Lucifer Effect. How Good People Turn Evil by Dr Philip Zimbardo he relates for the first time the minutia regarding the SPE (Stanford Prison Experiment) he conducted during the times of the Vietnam War.

Since then he has continued to study the psychology of evil. Most recently he has spoken to the defense of an Abu Ghraib soldier explaining all the mitigating circumstances leading to the abusive behavior. The details of what led up to that incident are reported on. The book also addresses human rights around the world and the need for a torture "watch."

Dr. Zimbardo writes that a full understanding of these dynamics of such human behavior requires us to realize "the extent and limits of personal power, systemic power, and situational power."

For those needing a fuller explanation of the origin of evil, and Dr Zimbardo's book title reference, let me give some background. Lucifer was named so (the "light bearer") by God, as he was the shining example of the most powerful angels in heaven. It went awry though as Lucifer plotted with a third of the angels to overcome God Almighty and rule instead.

Of course, God being omniscient, and omnipotent, HE cast Lucifer and his angels out of heaven to earth. Lucifer became named Satan, the epitome of evil. From thence Satan and his following fallen angels plot to avenge themselves against God by corrupting God's creation: us here on earth. He began in the garden of evil, and I think most know the story from there.

So here we are, with the propensity to do evil, but with the capacity of doing good.

"Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy others, or using one's authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf." (p 5) Dehumanizing. That is key. When someone deems another as nothing worthwhile (p 222) then they have de-humanized them.

How does this relate to anger and aggression? When someone dehumanizes another the gate is opened for aggressive actions where anger can be exhibited without guilt. Rationale of the concept that "it doesn't matter as the other is less than human" lays the foundation for such exhibition for aggressively acting out the anger by inflicting evil upon innocent people through acceptable means defined by the situation or the environment.

Ervin Staub, a psychologist who survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary writes, "Evil that arises out of ordinary thinking and is committed by ordinary people is the norm, not the exception..." (p286)

It is said that a large body of evidence in social psychology supports the concept that situational power triumphs over individual power in given contexts.

So how do we change or prevent undesirable behavior, change the result of the ruling power? How do we not become evil but perform different than the rest and be the hero? Dr Zimbardo says by our resistance of the situational influences. By changing environmental /situational surroundings directly influences the demeanor of the personnel and the outcomes of their relationship. Thus the statement that opposes that “one bad apple spoils the bunch” to “one bad barrel spoils the apple.”

Within the book Dr Zimbardo gives us a ten-step program to resist unwanted influences. (p 451) I’ll merely list the headings here: “I made a mistake,” “I am mindful,” “I am responsible,” “I am Me, the best I can be,” “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,” “I want group acceptance, but value my independence,” “I will be more frame-vigilant,” “I will balance my time perspective,” “I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security,” and “ I can oppose unjust systems.”

I now believe that it is only when a person creates a foundational concept that all peoples are human beings deserving of equal treatment can they rally that inner force to be altruistic and counter the evil that is sure to ensue otherwise. It is truly how we allow situational forces affect us that determines whether we will be the hero. Dr Zimbardo states that this perception implies that any of us could as easily become heroes as perpetrators of evil. (p 486)

He began by informing us that we are innately evil, and ends by giving us a method and hope to be heroes.

His parting message quotes the Russian poet Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The line between good and evil is in the center of every human heart.” (p 488)

I know the above post is a lot to read, and even more to ingest. I'd like to repost one key paragraph, the one on his 10 steps to being the hero, rather than the evil doer.

Within the book Dr Zimbardo gives us a ten-step program to resist unwanted influences. (p 451) I’ll merely list the headings here:<font color="blue"> <ul type="square">[*]“I made a mistake,”[*]“I am mindful,”[*] “I am responsible,”[*] “I am Me, the best I can be,”[*] “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,”[*] “I want group acceptance, but value my independence,”[*] “I will be more frame-vigilant,”[*] “I will balance my time perspective,”[*] “I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security,” and[*]“ I can oppose unjust systems.”[/list]</font>

I'm interested in hearing (and know drclay is also) which of these you do easily and/or which of these are the most difficult for you. If you haven't happen to have worked on any of them, being the first time to see them, why not share which one you think is most important for you to work on first?

I'll begin I think the one I need to work on is "I will be more frame-vigilant."

Wow!

Zimbardo book, The Lucifer Effect, is complex but on target, I think. It is perhaps biting off more then we can chew. But _Sky is starting to cut it into smaller pieces when she asks which steps or processes in the 10 step program are easier and harder for each of us.

For me it might be easier to say "I made a mistake," to feel and say I am responsible, to respect just authority and rebel against unjust acts, and to want group acceptance and also want my independence and being aware of how a situation is framed by me or someone else.

It is probably harder for me to stay mindful, to say "I am me, the best I can be," hard to try to appraise all three past, present and future perspectives, I might give up my freedoms in order to have the illusion of protection, it is hard to oppose unjust systems because I don't recognize them or personally benefit from them and hard to see the influence of another person's frame of reference.

It is hard for me to say I want to change my ways of resisting bad influences, partly because there are too many things to lead you astray...there are so many ways of being influenced. I'll mention a couple that stands out during the election debates: (1) the situation of debating (in contrast to a careful discussion) leads all the candidates to draft overly certain solutions to the major problems--immigration, health care, taxation, peace, etc. There is almost no emperical evidence that any candidates ideas will work in the real world or that unwanted consequences will not occur over time. Our solutions, to be a practical, honest approach, should be more tentative and should call for more experimentation along the way.

(2) This over-confidence can be seen in their frequent phrase of "when I am president I will do so and so." That is a stupid statement because every one knows how difficult it is for anything to be done, even for the president. The founding fathers were probably wise to build in so many checks and balances. But candidates deny reality and pretend they would be all-powerful. And we buy their delusions (which they don't truly believe.

Ideas like Zimbardo's are very complex...and I think very important but very hard to teach people to recognize and control.

drclay

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
list the headings here:
“I made a mistake,”
“I am mindful,”
“I am responsible,”
“I am Me, the best I can be,”
“I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,”
“I want group acceptance, but value my independence,”
“I will be more frame-vigilant,”
“I will balance my time perspective,”
“I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security,” and
“ I can oppose unjust systems.”

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
<font color="blue">
Now that is interesting. My biggie is frame-vigilance. I'm working hard on it nearly constantly. LOL goodness, the concert choir director was impressing upon us tonight about the song we were learning, about "all we like sheep" have been led astray... how sheep are some of the dumbest animals on the earth ( No offense muffy. ) and how if one went off the cliff, the others would follow...

and what did I do? Gave the positive side of being a sheep! (Figuratively speaking that is.) I reframed it for everyone... how God is our shepherd, and if we would just "blindly" follow HIM we wouldn't have to worry about being so stupid!

I am mindful. My therpist and I worked on that years ago, and continue but...especially with my chronic pain I have to be mindful of what I'm doing, and why, and weigh the results... and when pain flares, to again know it doesn't last forever (the flare) and that by good self-care I will get through is the best I can, etc.

Anyone else out there want to share?

Page 25

[b]Aggression may also have a chemical, hormonal, or genetic basis too. Steroid users sometimes have intense anger while taking the drug and for a long time afterwards, called “steroid rage.” Of course, emotions and behaviors are to some extent learned but genes play a role in this complex matrix of causes.

A large survey of adopted children has found that living with an adoptive parent who committed crimes is less risky than merely having the genes from a person who committed crimes (Mednick, Gabrielli & Hutchings, 1984). The power of human genes is discussed in chapter 4, but, obviously, within animals certain breeds of dogs, like Pit Bulls, are more vicious than others.

More aggressive breeds can be developed, e.g. rats or fighting bulls. Maybe we could and should develop kinder, gentler, smarter humans. One may frequently hear that people with serious mental illness are not more dangerous than the general population.

That is good to hear because there is such a stigma against mental illness. However, according to Janssen (http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/2013_pnt), institutions that treat the seriously disturbed, e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar, character disorders, and substance abuse, report more violence during treatment and during follow-up. As you might expect, patients who are hostile-suspicious, agitated, and delusional are the most likely to be violent. Often the target is a family member.

Over half of Mental Health professionals have been assaulted by a patient at least once (that wasn’t true in my case). As more studies of genes are being done, a complex interaction is being found of specific genes with specific neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, or with enzymes, such as monoamine oxidase A, which regulate mood and aggression.

Moreover, researchers believe they have found that traumatic life experiences, such as being abused, have an impact on specific genes which, in turn, increase the likelihood of anti-social behavior (Terri Moffitt, King’s College London; Evan Deneris, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine).

Such findings are not useable now but they suggest future treatment possibilities. Other physiological factors may be involved. Possible examples: high testosterone (male sex hormone) is associated with more unfaithfulness, more sex, more divorce, more competitiveness, and anti-social behavior.

Remember too that in the Introduction to this chapter it was mentioned that the amount of testosterone available to the fetus influenced the length of fingers which is related to physical aggressiveness. It is also known that a viral infection, called rabies, causes violent behavior (pain causes aggression). About 90% of women report being irritable before menstruation.

Furthermore, 50% of all crimes by women in prison occur during their menstrual period or premenstrual period. By chance only 29% of crimes would have occurred during those eight days. Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) increases during the premenstrual period and it too causes irritability. Reportedly some women have a stronger sexual attraction to masculine men when they are ovulating. About 3 times in a 1000 a male inherits an extra X or Y chromosome, so they are XYY or XXY, instead of XY. At one time it was thought that XYY and XXY males committed more violent crimes. Now it appears that this isn't true but these males are arrested earlier and more often. So we can't forget our inheritance.

There is so much we do not know yet.

I am particularly keen to this excerp:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Over half of Mental Health professionals have been assaulted by a patient at least once

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I have my own thesis on this, but why do you think this occurs?

bump

I'm wondering about the psychopathology behind a patient attacking the (maybe) one person who is caring about them?

If anyone finds something wrong in my book about contentment, please let me know. Mistakes can be corrected. If the contentment is the result of denial, then contentment may be consider "wrong."

I'm deep into Personality Disorders now...and hope to be done in a month or two.

drclay

Dear Sky and Dr. Clay,

I would like to offer my sincere thanks for posting so much information regarding anger and aggression. I have a situation regarding a family member and am trying to see where she fits in and believe that I am a little lost. Perhaps I just need to re-read your post. I am most interested in your comments and/or theories.

Here is some background...

My aunt lost her ownly child, N., to a man who basically murdered her and her boyfriend. She and her boyfriend were 20 yrs. old and students at Purdue. N. decided to come home one afternoon during the week to surprise my aunt and to introduce her boyfriend to her. N. decided to drive "into town" to buy some lunch before driving back to where my aunt worked as an office manager at a vet clinic. N. was in the turn lane and did make a left turn when the light turned green. Unfortunately, she must not have guaged the speed of an oncoming, loaded, lumber truck being driving by a man who was witnessed to have accelerated and ran the red light and veered his loaded semi into N.'s car hitting the passenger's side. N. was Lifelined by helicopter to a hospital in Indianapolis. I am not sure how her boyfriend arrived to the hospital. The driver was interviewed by the Indiana State and local police and admitted that he intentionally steered his truck to hit the car because "the big rigs own the road". He also commented that "it was like squashing two bugs. I couldn't have been easier". He also reiterated his comments while giving his deposition. He was never charged for any crime nor even cited for running a red light. We have learned that he does have an IQ that noted him as being mildly, mentally impaired. The documentation actually reads retarded but I feel that is a "loaded" term. In addition, he did now own a license to drive a semi outside of his own state.

Yes, I probably have some anger and aggression issues myself as she was very special to me and was my flower girl at my wedding several yrs. ago. But, I choose to practice positive affirmations and utilize spiritual support and guidance to help me. On the other hand, my aunt is so very angry at the driver, the police, the Indiana laws, the driver's employers, and now her attorneys. The anger is also self imposed as she feels that it was her responsibility to protect her daughter, even at the age of 20. She does not self injure per se, but she does over eat, as a coping method she claims, and has gained over 150 lbs. She has also claimed that she eats to punish herself and that it is the one way she has any control in her life. Then perhaps obviously, she had made homocidal comments. She will look at the names, etc. on the various semis that drive thru the area in hopes that she finds the driver. Thankfully, she does have an excellent therapist and psychiatrist which has been of considerable help. She does have the diagnosis of Depression and PTSD.

I am trying desperately to put into words the level of her anger and aggressiveness. These are areas which she will not or does not seem to want to address. The anniversary of the event is always very emotional for her and understandably so. N.'s birthday is always remembered but she will not acknowledge any holiday or her birthday. Furthermore, she has turned her back on her spiritual beliefs and blames God for the accident, or rather, she has now decided that there is no God or Guardian Angels because N.'s life would have been saved. No one can broach the subject of God or religion with her without inducing her becoming immediately insulted and livid.

Maybe she is acting as most any other mother would. I have a 10 yr. old son and can not begin to imagine how I would feel should the same happen to him. I am lost in a bit of confusion of how best to support her without inciting her anger which is not necessarily directed toward me.

She and I have become quite close and have adopted her in a way. I just know my boundries. I have been grappling with how to categorize her anger and aggressiveness issues for some time now so that I can become a better support system for her. She really is more like a mother to me than my own (mine was abusive).

Have I missed a basic element in what you both have taught, or am I trying to put a puzzle together with a missing piece? In having studied similar cases, she seems to be holding so much more anger and aggressiveness.

Thank you in advance for any insight you may have.

Thank You for Your Work,
Peacemaker
Sherri

My apologies for not replying. I am still not quite with enough time to do your question justice, imo. Bear with me?

Sheri, it sounds to me like the over anger and aggressiveness is a defense against the anxiety and "helplessness" of your aunt's situation.

I use to have rescue fantasies where I was in desperate straits and pulled through and I figured out from them that when I'm feeling cornered or helpless, thoroughly depressed and defeated (I think of it as being "painted into a corner") I get angry. I'm not normally an angry person so when I get road rage going and notice it, I know to immediately stop and think what is making me anxious, where I'm feeling helpless. The anger "motivates" me and keeps me going until I can get "help".

I wonder if talking about and remembering your cousin in positive ways would ease some of your aunt's "obsession" with the driver and accident and her guilt. If you can, "wishing for" your cousin to be there. . . because of her sense of humor, or helpfulness, or kindness or some other positive attribute of hers that would be good to have in a certain situation, might help your aunt "reclaim" that characteristic. When we love another, we invest ourselves in them and death is death also to our investment of ourselves which is part of why mourning is so painful and difficult. If you could "model" good mourning perhaps she could learn from you or "use"you as a temporary holder of her investment in her daughter, etc.

Anyway, that's what I would try; anytime the accident or driver, trucks, etc. gets mentioned I'd try to change the "subject" so it is more on the positive attributes of the daughter and "sweet" remembering/mourning.