Limits of Aggression

Government is necessary to protect your rights against violation by force (or fraud). It is only by those that your rights can be violated. My questions here are: "What is aggression? What is force?" (Are those two questions or one? See below.)

In the Anti-Discrimination topic in General, Luke Setzer asked Dean Michael Gores:

Dean wrote: There is a difference between insulting and "not hiring" a person because they are of a different race. Former could be considered harassment, an initiation of force, while the latter is simply non coercive.
Could you please elucidate in what way insulting a person constitutes an "initiation of force"?

If you mean threatening to kill them or inciting others to do so in a credible way, I agree.

If you simply mean calling someone a "dumbass," then I disagree.

Radical Muslims currently want to use "hate speech" laws to silence critics of their religion, so the idea of treating insults as legal acts of force has much danger in it.

I propose that there is a continuum of aggression. Calling someone a "dumbass" is low aggression, but it is aggressive, nonetheless. Five guys surrounding one and calling him a queer, etc., etc., is clearly an initiation of force.

The law recognizes "fighting words." Beyond the obvious threat - I'm am going to kill you - we know that words precede action and that a range of threat levels exists.

Consider, also, that "dumbass" has no objective meaning. There is no way to answer it. True story: My in-laws were refurbishing some rentals. Running the portable power saw, Lucy neatly sliced through Jim's new sawhorse. He could have said a lot of things - and probably thought of more than he said - but what would be the rational response? "I perceive an operational failure point." The woman was a lawyer: she knew a mistake when she made one. Why say more? Would calling her names with no meaning solve the problem in any way?

We all understand Jim's anger, as rooted in the loss of his work: the materials and labor - his time and effort - are lost. But, as understandable as the emotional response is, does it have objective merit?

In a casual conversation with my wife, a young newly wed said that she read that couples should get "strawmen" - dummies to whack when they are frustrated. (Japanese companies have them, also.) However, anger management professionals disagree: people who vent their anger on inanimate objects are more likely to strike another person. The way to deal with anger is to diffuse it, to identify its real source and address that. Find a quiet place inside your head and go there.

We accept violence, usually at some noisy level. In Bourgeois Virtue, Deidre McCloskey points out how common it is in the movies for a man to grab a woman by the arm to prevent her from leaving the room.

Luke asks, cogently, how, then aggressive speech could be different from charges of "hate speech" that prevent rational discussion? If saying that Islam is a primitive superstition with no place in the modern world is "hate speech" what was President Obama's denunciation of the rich in his April 12 speech at GWU? What are the ceaseless attacks on the wealthy, the bankers, the millionaires and billionaires, except hate speech, i.e., verbal aggression?

Ayn Rand's political philosophy was radical because it was rooted in an understanding that anyone who would tax the rich would put you in a labor camp... it is only a matter of degree.

So, with verbal aggression: it is only a matter of degree, not of kind.

Which leaves us with those pesky Muslims. It is possible to build sales by offering inducements, persuasions, incentives, and rewards, without mentioning the other brand by name. By arguing against Islam, you give it free rental space in your head. You elevate it to importance.

We speak here of "The War for Men's Minds." I think that is the wrong paradigm: aggressive, zero-sum, winner-take-all. I offer "The Market for Good Ideas."

Post 1

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 - 11:23am

Michael wrote, " 'What is aggression? What is force?' (Are those two questions or one? ...)"

No, they aren't the same at all. Force physically prevents the exercise of choice by the person being subjected to the force. Aggression is about the aggressor and it may or may not rise to level that would prevent another person from exercising their choice. Aggression is a movement toward a goal that is done with a disregard for the wishes of others - but that doesn't imply that it will violate the rights of others. I'm being aggresive in my answer to Michael's question, but not violating his rights. Aggression is attitude, force is measured in foot-pound of pressure.

Yes, there is a continuum of aggression, but not all aggression results in an initiation of force. In Michael's example he has five guys surrounding one person and calling him "queer" - and says that is an initiation of force. But it isn't the word "queer" that would make it an initiation of force because they could be calling him anything, it wouldn't even have to be an understandable word, it could be in a foreign language. It would be the body language, the numbers of attackers, and the emotional tone that would tell the person that there exists a threat to initiate force. The word "surrounding" implies blocking freedom of movement and that is violation of individual rights. If the victim here tries to get by and is blocked, that is an intitiation of force. If the person sees and hears anger and there is clenching of fists while moving towards him, that is a threat to initiate force. They could be moving towards him, saying, "Come on friend, we aren't going to hurt you" but not letting him escape between them and clenching their fists and be understood to be getting ready to hit him.

The limit to aggression is where it involves the initiation of force, or threat to initiate force - which is why it's good they aren't the same thing. Otherwise how could someone ever say or do anything that might be called aggresssive and therefore be treated as if it was force.

When Michael writes, "So, with verbal aggression: it is only a matter of degree, not of kind" I disagree totally. Since he implies that aggression and force are the same thing, this becomes a very dangerous form of subjectivism - it leaves no objective way to draw a line for using or delegating self-defense.

It is hard to believe that that a mob yelling, "Lynch the nigger!" as they run after him is only a difference in degree from someone that is an aggressive salesperson when they make their cold calls and don't take "no" for an answer.

Bottom line: I agree with what Luke said, "...the idea of treating insults as legal acts of force has much danger in it."
---------------------------

On a separate issue, Michael wrote about anger management professionals not recommending the whacking of inanimate objects because it makes it more likely these people would strike another person. I put that in the category of bad psychology, probably based upon bad research, which was probably paid for with tax dollars.

Good clinical psychology works from the assumption that people have choices, are aware of the difference between dummies and real people. Whacking dummies or sofa cushions or whatever is often prescribed for people who are afraid to experience healthy anger - people who are inhibited or repressed from healthy assertiveness when angry. These people usually wouldn't be in anger management classes. People who have anger management issues might or might not be given that prescription depending upon what defense mechanism is operating for them and what the underlying belief system is and what the therapist is attempting to accomplish. I've seen therapists use anger release techniques to help someone with impulse control issues discover the real source of their anger - something that has a real hope of effecting change... which going to a quiet place in your head wouldn't do.

Post 2

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 - 8:02pm

Verbal harassment could be considerred noise pollution.

On private property, it is the property owner's decision on what noise is created by humans.

On public property, it is the local government's decision on what noise is created by humans.

Similar issues with say the paparrazi and celebrities:
Light pollution: flash photography
Noise pollution: shouting by photgraphers etc
Obstruction of public transportation pathways: paparrazi cars, equipment, microphones, paparrazi themselves

Post 3

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 8:06am

DMG, interesting perspective. Given the political right to subjective values on your own property, much of this discussion might evaporate. It still leaves the question of what objective values would benefit the property holder.

Steve: I asked if aggression and force were the same. You asserted that I implied that they are. I specifically asked if they are. I did not imply anything. They are a symptoms of a syndrome - literally things that appear together. I asked how they could be differentiated. You gave some examples. That's fine. But do not put words in my mouth.

Similarly, in the example of 5-on-1, I did not say what actions were being taken. You made that your own scenario with them preventing their object from leaving. I could say that they want him to leave. They are around him, calling him queer to make him want to leave their social space. Either way, the basic scenario remains unanswered by your taxonomy. While not overtly physically forceful, they are nonetheless being aggressive and using force: aggression and force joined and engaged together, as they so often are.

So, too, with the aggressive salesman who will not take no. At some level, at some moment, that stops being a discussion and becomes defense-versus-offense: you either runaway (leave) or kick him out of your office, depending on who's turf it is. That is war, not business.

Shine a strong light that casts your shadow and you will see yourself perspire. Your "body" extends beyond your skin. I suggest that it may extend to the reach of your voice. Thus, from even 20 meters, you can harrass and assault someone. Therefore, "physical force" is not well defined. Perhaps we can define it well. I only note that we have accepted implicitly vernacular that is not rigorous.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/11, 8:06am)

Post 4

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 8:40am

Steve Wolfer wrote: On a separate issue, Michael wrote about anger management professionals not recommending the whacking of inanimate objects because it makes it more likely these people would strike another person. I put that in the category of bad psychology, probably based upon bad research, which was probably paid for with tax dollars.
Good clinical psychology works from the assumption that people have choices, are aware of the difference between dummies and real people. Whacking dummies or sofa cushions or whatever is often prescribed for people who are afraid to experience healthy anger - people who are inhibited or repressed from healthy assertiveness when angry.

Your groundless ad hominem about government funding aside, you conflate anger management with assertiveness training. They may be two sides of the same basic issue: lack of self-esteeem. Even so, the problem does have two different expressions, with two different therapies.

Also, I question whether the "healthy" expression of anger even for someone who needs assertiveness training is to strike things. What is next after pillows: pets? Are they cured when they can hold their own against a British Tar and strike a knock-down blow? (HMS Pinafore here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFpSItmUSs)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/11, 8:41am)

Post 5

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 1:43pm

Michael,

This is in response to post #3 where you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I looked and I just don't see it.

You wrote, "What is aggression? What is force?" (Are those two questions or one? See below.) This implies that aggression and force might be the same. And in the rather fuzzy material that followed in your post it appears that you think that aggression does become force.

You said, I propose that there is a continuum of aggression. Calling someone a "dumbass" is low aggression, but it is aggressive, nonetheless. Five guys surrounding one and calling him a queer, etc., etc., is clearly an initiation of force."

You seem upset because your scenario of the 5 on 1 where the bullies are yelling "queer" at the person they surround could be interpreted as trying to drive the person away, whereas I mentioned that they might be blocking him from leaving... Well, that's not any real difference since forcing a person to leave by threats of violence is a just as much a violation of his individual rights as preventing him from leaving. And I did use the word "if" in front of the part that indicated a threat of violence ("If the person sees and hears anger and there is clenching of fists while moving towards him...")
--------------------

I wrote, "It is hard to believe that that a mob yelling, 'Lynch the nigger!' as they run after him is only a difference in degree from someone that is an aggressive salesperson when they make their cold calls and don't take 'no' for an answer."

You replied, saying, "While not overtly physically forceful, they [the five bullies] are nonetheless being aggressive and using force: aggression and force joined and engaged together, as they so often are. So, too, with the aggressive salesman who will not take no. At some level, at some moment, that stops being a discussion and becomes defense-versus-offense: you either runaway (leave) or kick him out of your office, depending on who's turf it is. That is war, not business."

Notice that my sales person is on the phone ("cold calls"). Hanging up the telephone on a sales person that won't accept 'no' for an answer is NOT akin to war. Only a person who is intensely adverse to conflict and comfortable with sloppy reasoning would group those together as the same thing.
---------------------

You wrote, "Shine a strong light that casts your shadow and you will see yourself perspire. Your "body" extends beyond your skin. I suggest that it may extend to the reach of your voice. Thus, from even 20 meters, you can harrass and assault someone. Therefore, "physical force" is not well defined."

Only if you want to use words in ways that violate their meaning does that your assertion mean anything. "Body" is a word with a meaning. But you extend the meaning to include the sound of voice. I don't know why you bothered. Then you wrap your argument in an unnecessarily vague understanding of the word "assault". When you use words in such a sloppy fashion anything can be asserted.

I mentioned in my post that the difference between the initiation of force (including the threat to initiate force, theft, and fraud) versus aggression lies in the violation of choice.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man�s capacity to live." [Galt's speech]

"Man�s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment." [Virtue of Selfishness]

"There are only two fundamental methods by which men can deal with one another: by reason or by force..." [Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels]

I don't think that you have made a case that physical force is inadequately defined. Your argument involves too much ambiguity in the terms deployed. The definition of the physical force seems more than adequate for the context where it is required and the courts have methods for applying the laws based upon prohibition of force and they have established case law to further define the application of the law.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 2:41pm

Michael,

This is in reply to post #4.

I said that that the bad research you mentioned was probably government funded. You called that observation "groundless." Are you saying that it wasn't government funded? Or that you think there is no qualitative differences to be expected over time between government funded research and privately funded research?

I suspect that you were looking at one of Baumiester's papers on aggression. They are mostly tax-payer funded and most of them are an offshoot of his hatred for self-esteem.

"For decades, psychologists believed that low self-esteem was an important cause of aggression. One of us (Baumeister) challenged that notion in 1996, when he reviewed assorted studies and concluded that perpetrators of aggression generally hold favorable and perhaps even inflated views of themselves. Take the bullying that goes on among children, a common form of aggression. Dan Olweus of the University of Bergen was one of the first to dispute the notion that under their tough exteriors, bullies suffer from insecurities and self-doubts. Although Olweus did not measure self-esteem directly, he showed that bullies reported less anxiety and were more sure of themselves than other children. Apparently the same applies to violent adults, as Baumeister discussed in these pages a few years ago"

Baumiester doesn't understand self-esteem and uses self-reports about whether the individual believes they have self-esteem (and other absurd 'measurements' to measure the level of self-esteem.
---------------------------------

I don't conflate the differences between anger management and assertiveness training - my post pointed out the differences. Lots of people engage in simple counseling or 'training' and use common techniques without understanding the deeper levels of motivational psychology. In that area, where some defensive behaviors can be seen, that aspect of the personality is layered like an onion and to do good work requires more of an understanding than is usually seen.
---------------

You wrote, "I question whether the 'healthy' expression of anger even for someone who needs assertiveness training is to strike things. What is next after pillows: pets?"

You put 'healthy' in quotes as if you don't believe there could be such a thing as a healthy expression of anger. I'd certainly challenge that idea. It is not healthy to be out of touch with, or to have difficulty expressing anger as a reaction to a threat to our values.

And the technique of striking a pillow is the use an safe, artificial environment to get the person to break through a defense that keeps them from expressing or even experiencing anger. It is used when the person represses their anger and is afraid of it. There is no correlation (much less a cause-effect connection) between this technique under those circumstances and later difficulties in managing anger where they strike others. There is a great fear of anger in a large segment of our population - the aversion is just another form of defense against feeling that emotion. I wouldn't be surprised if this research was done by individuals who themselves have some issues with fears of expressing anger.

What you are talking about with Anger Management is an inappropriate behavioral relationship to ones emotions. Any decent psychologist is going to perform a diagnosis before recommending that treatment: Is this behavior an organic-based issue (i.e, behavior arising from reaction to medications, dementia, bipolar disorder, schizoid, medical issues, etc.) If not is the behavior symptom of a wider psychological syndrome, say a diagnosis like antisocial disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc. There is a disorder that is a catch-all: Intermittent Explosive disorder. After the diagnosis it is often time to look at the different layers that make up the personality where defenses are being employed. And then the techniques employed will depend upon the goal sought - which will depend upon what subconscious belief is being defended.

Post 7

Thursday, May 12, 2011 - 8:21am

I never heard of Baumeister.

I agree that as you describe it his theory of self-esteem is lacking. I also met this in social psychology class, but not in abnormal psych. I see that as the problem Rand long ago and famously identified of confusing Nietzsche, etc., with egoism. Pushy people are seen as having high self-esteem because they are "assertive." That is shallow, of course. Since the works of Maslow, et al., and Nathaniel Branden, that facile treatment is exposed.

A lot of research is government-funded, so what? Private funding may or may not make any difference. In fact, I created a blog, CSIFlint2011.blogspot.com to support a presentation I delivered last week. The US Department of Health and Human Services has an Office of Research Integrity. Many universities do as well. Private companies have people for this, depending, but often it is weak. Thus, in the case of Jan Hendrik Schoen (Wikipedia here) Lucent/Bell Labs ate the losses: he was their problem and failed to monitor and manage. Just to say, government funding, private funding, that's an ad hominem argument. All that matters is the validity and falsifiability of the results.

I agree that you can hang up on a salesperson on the telephone. So, for "cold calling" I dismissed that and thought instead of in-person calls. I have done it: I put a dozen packets in my briefcase and headed out for an office building looking for likely prospects. That is cold calling, too. Being aggressive or forceful in not taking no for an answer is more real in person than being confronted on the telephone: <click>.

Re the 5-on-1, now you have them yelling. I never had that in the original scenario. Maybe they were whispering. As with not allowing him to leave or wanting him to leave, yelling or whispering are irrelevant. There is no need to add details. The scenario stands. Is it is aggression? Is it force?

SW in 1: No, they aren't the same at all. Force physically prevents the exercise of choice by the person being subjected to the force. Aggression is about the aggressor and it may or may not rise to level that would prevent another person from exercising their choice. Aggression is a movement toward a goal that is done with a disregard for the wishes of others - but that doesn't imply that it will violate the rights of others. I'm being aggresive in my answer to Michael's question, but not violating his rights. Aggression is attitude, force is measured in foot-pound of pressure.

Yes, there is a continuum of aggression, but not all aggression results in an initiation of force.

We were doing OK there. I can accept as a suggestion that "not all aggression results in an initiation of force" if we can clarify our examples.

As you note, you "aggressively" answered my question. Over the last couple of days, I thought of people "aggressively" writing sonnets or painting watercolors for several years before abandoning the projects. But those are analogies. Unless you are pressing hard on the paper and writing fast, it is not really aggressive writing. Of course, the content could be aggressive. That is more to the point. There is an essence to this that I am looking for.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/12, 8:22am)

Post 8

Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:05am