News Can Ptsd Be Linked To Violence?

[jaccat]

I see a link between non-combat PTSD and violence, but then I grew up in a violent household. Violence was my normal. And much of it was born from the uncontrollable rage nearly everyone in my family suffered, myself included. Fortunately most of us now have that rage under control, otherwise I've no doubt more than one of us would be in prison. I'm not afraid of violence, I know I can be violent if the need arises, sometimes I want to be violent, but that's more because it's what I know. There was one occasion when I lost it with a school bully. She was expecting me to get upset, instead of which she got the shock of her life when I attacked her with a tennis racket. I know I could have killed her then and not cared, that's how powerful the rage was.

 

[Upside Down Eagle]

I don't think the same link exists for non-combat related PTSD.

What makes you think that you have to be trained officially in violence in order to become violent? I was never trained by an official group. I was trained by my abuser: she was my example par excellence. She taught me, from an earliest age, that beating up people and beating up me was an okay way to deal with things. Lots of kids who grow up to be violent come from abusive backgrounds.

In my flashbacks, that thankfully I don't have anymore and I hope they don't come back, I was violent, and when I woke up from nightmares, I was violent. I beat my whole apartment up because of it. You should have seen the doors, the chairs, I didn't beat up the wall because they were concrete, but I ended up walking with clutches. The only reason that I didn't beat up someone else is I had the clarity of mind that I would end up in jail if I did, and it would make my symptoms so much worse.

I am not saying that every kid who has been beaten up becomes violent, I did, but I was able to "control" it in the sense that I directed the violence towards myself (and my apartment), and I think lots of sufferers do. But it is violence all the same. I still wanted to punch the teeth out of people who came too close to me. Still wanted to hurt random people on the street.

I also think that not every sufferer of combat PTSD becomes violent. So it can be applied to both cases.

End of argument :p

 

[anthony]

I still wanted to punch the teeth out of people who came too close to me.

But is that PTSD to blame, or behavioural conditioning + PTSD? Trained in violence is trained in violence, IMHO...

 

[Upside Down Eagle]

isn't the army also a kind of behavioral conditioning? My behavioral conditioning happened while I was being beaten up -ergo, while the trauma happened. So I have always seen it as a part of PTSD. But it's a good question.

 

[anthony]

Military is exactly behavioural conditioning. Behavioural conditioning by itself is not all that bad, its when you put that conditioning into practical application that the conditioning is reinforced. This applies across all behavioural conditioning.

IMO, PTSD is linked to violence, but only linked, does not cause. I do believe if you have underlying conditioning for violence, then that + PTSD equals a disaster in the making. Saying that, that still only applies to a percentage, certainly not all. People react in different ways.

I don't believe PTSD by itself causes violence... I think you need that underlying traumatic conditioning. I also think this should be differentiated from a one-time outburst, whether loss of control is present or not, as PTSD can certainly do that. So I guess even then... that begs it's own question that if a person can have a manic episode of complete loss of control... is that just PTSD or something underlying combined with PTSD?

A very interesting issue... I think PTSD is part of an explanation to explain some really bad behaviour, not I also believe it is mitigating only, and should not ever be the reason a person does something. I guess it comes down to the argument of whether choice is present or not.

Even more interesting... hmmmmmmmm.

 

[scout86]

I guess it comes down to the argument of whether choice is present or not.

Interesting question all by itself. If a choice is present and you can't see it, does that count? I had a version of that conversation yesterday with my T. Mostly about how interesting it is that we can totally miss things that we don't have the vocabulary to name. His admonition was to pay close attention in the search for better choices.

 

[Anarchy]

@anthony, Who was the American author from about 10 years back, who maintained that up until recent decades, around 75% of soldiers throughout history would absolutely not use their weapons on another human being, they could be extremely brave in terms of looking after their comrades, but just would not kill?

He maintained that newer training methods have broken down that inhibition.

I've absolutely zero military experience (I always promised myself that if I was ever conscripted, I would go down shooting ruperts), but was beaten up or had stones thrown at me on an almost daily basis as a child.

 

[Ronin]

Interesting question all by itself. If a choice is present and you can't see it, does that count?.

Ditto, and a rather important question IME. In some ways choice always is present, but when it's a non option & couple of paths that just aren't imaginable at the moment? It's as good as not being there, because it's not reachable, hence not doable until it becomes an option.

 

[SeaQuel]

@anthony @Radise The idea of behavioral conditioning and choice vs. no choice are two very interesting observations, and I will attempt to keep running with it.

@Radise as you pointed out in your own situation, you were able to exercise a choice by controlling your own violence. I think in some cases of combat PTSD it's possible individuals do not have that same "choice" based on their direct trauma/behavioral conditioning + a whole bunch of unidentified factors (again, not recusing anyone based on PTSD, just discussing one variable when examining violent reactions). In hindsight, I do think it's possible this extends to those with non-combat PTSD who have similarly experienced the same type of conditioning + a whole bunch of unidentified factors.

Perhaps there could be more valuable subsets than "combat" and "non-combat" PTSD in order to better understand this.

What makes you think that you have to be trained officially in violence in order to become violent? I was never trained by an official group. I was trained by my abuser: she was my example par excellence.

I never said that you had to be trained in being violent in order to be violent, and I was definitely not commenting on/tackling the issue of violence writ large... now that would be one helluva topic!

 

[Neverthesame]

@Anarchy Made me think of something, I wish I could remember where I read it. It something about how common it was for soldiers during wars past, to intentionally aim thier rifles too high. The idea was of course to miss the enemy, while minimizing the risk of being accused of treason by their superior officers/political officers.

Similar to the idea of telling a firing squad that one of their rifles is loaded with blank rounds. To assuage the guilt of executing someone.

My question regarding this is. Does the person with ptsd who chooses to commit a violent act. Does the guilt that often goes with the disorder, have an impact on the decision to commit violence?

Could it in a strange way, make it easier? Could the pre-existing guilt, initiate a thought process of "since I am already going to hell for the things I have done. What does it matter if I do one more?"

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[anthony]

I think earlier wars were different, in that training wasn't of such a repetitive nature with instilled discipline. Vietnam onwards, sure... but even that had holes with anyone conscripted to short duration training then put into a battle environment. Saying that... soldiers quickly stop all nonsense after a few times and get serious due to watching their mates die. Soldiers today still panic in contact, its natural.... some freeze and such, but others will typically help them beyond it, and conditioning in situ also helps them move beyond it.

 

[scout86]

"since I am already going to hell for the things I have done. What does it matter if I do one more?"

Although I can see the logic of that, personally, I've never thought that clearly in that kind of situation. My own experience is more that of perceiving a direct threat and reacting to it. In that situation, I don't think "consequences" has ever directly crossed my mind. In the situation where I nearly threw my hammer at the guy,. what stopped me was the thought "Wait! It's not ok to kill him." Which was fine,as far as it went. My T later pointed out that I had a lot of options between killing him and doing nothing. Which I could see, when he pointed it out. I DIDN'T see that at the time, and I'm not at all sure what would have happened if his stupid and dangerous behavior wasn't a one shot deal.

Different people react differently. I can definitely see where training is a factor, and earlier experiences would be a factor too. Some people, I'm sure, are highly unlikely to react to something with violence, whether they have PTSD or not. But I can definitely see where PTSD can affect your perceptions in a way that makes violence more likely than it would be without it.