Violence is an emotional disorder for anger.

Just as every emotion has a kindred mood in it, for every emotion there is also a related psychopathological state in which this emotion plays an important role. The common phrase “emotional breakdown” just reflects this fact. For sadness and grief, such a disorder is depression. When depression occurs, these emotions overwhelm a person, he cannot regulate them, and they affect all aspects of his life. The disorder in which anger is so out of control that it becomes a hindrance to a person’s normal life is manifested in those who demonstrate certain forms of violence.
There is no consensus about what violence is. Some scholars attribute verbal attacks, insults and ridicule to violence, and thus, in their research, they do not distinguish between those who confine themselves to verbal insults and those who do not stop being physically abused. It is also possible aggressive forms of behavior that do not imply physical violence, such as showing excessive perseverance and a desire to dominate, and many scientists do not separate aggressiveness from physical violence or verbal abuse. In addition, there are people whose object of violence are various objects: chairs, dishes, etc. We do not know whether all these forms of violence occur for the same reasons, for example, due to the same upbringing, or are caused by the same brain signals. If this were the case, we might expect that people prone to verbal abuse will also be prone to aggressive behavior and physical violence, but although it is possible, there are still people who show only one form of violence and never do not show others. It follows that at this stage of our investigation of violence, it would be wise to individually study those who resort only to verbal abuse, those who behave aggressively, but not insulting others (which is not always easy to distinguish), and those who resort to physical abuse.
Even if we limit the focus of our research to physical abuse, we will have to consider many different types of behavior, only a part of which can be symptoms of emotional disorder. Society considers some acts of violence socially beneficial. All but pacifists are convinced that sometimes war is justified. There are also cases in which the violence carried out by the individual is justified. When a policeman kills a person who threatens to take the lives of children taken hostage by them, few will object to such violence, especially if the shot terrorist has already killed one of the children. But not only a policeman who commits such a forced murder can be justified; most of us would agree that anyone can be violent in order to save the lives of his family or even strangers. Violence, which does not prevent even more terrible violence, but is motivated by a thirst for revenge, is also understandable, although in most cases we do not approve of it.
When I discussed these ideas with my friend and colleague evolutionist philosopher Helena Cronin, ^[125] she noted that in all cultures and in all periods of history, some forms of violence were considered justified. Infidelity, suspected infidelity, the threat of failure or the actual failure of a partner to continue to live together are the most common causes of murder, with men killing women more often than women men. Cronin, along with other evolutionary scientists, attributes this to the almost inevitable uncertainty of a man that he is the father of his children. In full accordance with this point of view, the results of one of the largest studies of serious crimes showed that every sixth murder is the murder of one spouse of her spouse, and that three-quarters of the victims of such murders are women. To my surprise, such marital murders were observed with equal probability in officially registered couples at all stages of married life and in all social and economic groups. ^[126]
Men are also much more likely than women to kill their bosses in retaliation for unfair treatment, since for men the issues of career advancement are most important. Before we move too far away from the main topic of my research - what types of violent behavior are the result of emotional disorders, let me explain that evolutionary thinking can help us understand why certain forms of violence arise, who commit the corresponding acts of violence and why these acts approved by society. Such forms of violence can be regrettable and even prosecuted, but violence that has an adaptive value throughout our evolution is unlikely to be the result of an emotional breakdown.
The main difference between acts of violence is whether they can be premeditated or impulsive. Both can be considered normal and even approved by society. Consider a person who is held captive by a gangster who knows that this gangster has already killed another prisoner, and therefore carefully plans an attack on his potential killer. Such violence is premeditated, but not pathological and is justified by society. The possibility of social approval for impulsive violence seems less obvious, but it is also likely. When my daughter Eva only learned to walk, she often ran out into the street, not paying attention to the cars. I warned her about the danger of such behavior many times, but she, I think, perceived it as a kind of game, as a way to tease her father. One day, only my quick reaction allowed me to pull it out from under the wheels of a truck. Without thinking, acting impulsively, I spanked her and in an angry voice demanded that she never again behave. It was the first and last time I raised my hand to her. Although someone could have condemned my cruel actions, but since then Eve has never run out onto the roadway. More than 90% of parents report that they physically punish their young children. ^[127]
I gave examples of normal deliberate violence and impulsive violence, but there are also abnormal versions of each of them. Murderers, kidnappers and sadists can plan their intentions in advance, carefully choosing their victims, time and method of attack. But there are also impulsive lovers of family quarrels, striking blows without warning and prior deliberation of their actions. A study of character traits ^[128] and a study of brain activity ^[129] found differences between impulsive and deliberate violence. Obviously, it is necessary to consider both, although some studies did not reveal differences between them. Despite the importance of finding out the type of violence, this knowledge itself will not be enough to limit abnormal violence.
A necessary sign of such violence is its anti – sociality, which is not approved by society, but it may not always imply the presence of a mental disorder. Some people argue that antisocial violence committed in adolescent groups should not be considered a manifestation of mental disorder, and the available data does indicate that many adolescents who demonstrate this behavior do not show an inclination to violence as they become adults. ^[130] By itself, antisocial behavior is not always a sign of any mental disorder, even when it occurs in adulthood. Violence with the use of technical means, for example, to obtain money, although it violates the law, may not be a sign of what is called antisocial personality disorder ( APD ), if a person belongs to a subculture that supports this behavior. I am sure that the antisocial nature of violence is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the identification of violence, carried out under the influence of emotional disorder. I would add here the not always easily defined demand for the absence of social support from violence (in order to exclude from consideration violence in gangs) and the absence of disproportionate cruelty in reaction to the action that provoked violence (or the complete absence of any factor provoking violence).
Antisocial violence, carried out under the influence of emotional disorder, may be chronic or occur only once in a lifetime. The perpetrator may then experience or not experience remorse. The perpetrator may act in cold blood or in a fit of anger. The object of violence can be chosen carefully or simply at random. Violence may or may not be accompanied by agony. I believe the study should consider all of these factors to find out if there are other risk factors and other causes for these diverse forms of antisocial violence. Unfortunately, this was not done, as can be seen from the fourth volume of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases ( DSM – IV ), which identifies Intermittent Exposure Disorder ( IED ) as including “several discrete episodes of unsuccessful attempts to resist aggressive impulses that cause serious aggressive actions or lead to the destruction of property; the degree of expressiveness during these episodes is disproportionately high compared to any rapidly occurring psychosocial stress ... An individual may describe episodes of aggression as “delusions” or “attacks” in which explosive behavior was preceded by a feeling of tension or activation, and after this behavior a feeling of relief appeared ” . ^[131] Although I’m willing to praise this definition of a specific type of violence — a chronic, serious and disproportionate event that provoked it — it would be a mistake to combine violence against people with the destruction of objects without evidence that both these types of behavior are caused by the same reasons. There is no way to find out if this is the case when both types of behavior come together.
Although studies of violence usually do not reveal the subtle differences that I spoke of, there is evidence to suggest that there are a variety of reasons for the propensity for violence. Environmental impacts in the first years of life, insufficient attention of parents, head injuries and poor heredity - all these factors, as it turned out, are associated with different types of violence. ^[132] What is most important for each type of violence is that it is too early to speak. It is likely that even when the differences are clearly defined, more than one reason may be found. For example, even if we were to limit ourselves to studying only chronic, antisocial, not involving the torture of the victim and consisting of a single manifestation of the cruelty of physical violence, which is impulsively committed by one angry individual with a weak provocative event against a specially selected victim and subsequently causes remorse, then we probably would have found several reasons for it.