Antiagressivity and superempathy

Human agressivity is the biggest hindering to full cooperation. Without it, rational mind logically expressed by means of the language would be more than enough to organize the productive effort of human beings, thereby any economical target would be reachable: limits of technological capacity are beyond imagination even at short term; as an example of it, struggle for survival (housing and food), that occupies the near totality of the vital effort of non-human animals, today, with the current technology, would occupy just 1 % of the human beings effort, and probably much less with a future technology. The fact that today we need just a minimal effort to secure our physical survival at the same time that they continue existing millions of people still living in the absolute scarcity is an evidence of the still existing irrational factors hindering human cooperation and that the main goal of science today should be to eradicate these factors. However, in the present historical period, human agressivity and irrational cultural behaviors are not considered problems to solve: they are just assumed as a given social background.

  Agressivity means a pattern of instinctual behaviors originated from evaluating other people as a straight threat against each one´s vital interests and therefore to make him any kind of suffrance. After these agressive behavior (or exaggeratedly defensive ones) every kind of risky activities plus every kind of preventive security controls in which vital interests of every one intend to prevail through fighting and cheating.  War and criminality are the most notable social deployment of agressivity, but these are only extreme cases patterned according the social conventions of each time. As an example, to beat someone´s wife is not considered criminality in many cultures, the same way that looking at someone in an insulting way or denying financial help are not criminality in our liberal-democratic culture either, in spite of not existing any doubt that acting so we are harming others on purpose.

About agressivity, we know that it provides pleasure to those executing it, which is logical in the case of an instinctual impulse. That´s why that, in order to control it, several methods in order to alleviate it in an inoffensive way are looked for; things like competitive sport and violent spectacles. Of course, necessity of agressivity of each individual depends on the particular psychological traits corresponding to each personal case (temperament).

  In general terms, most of scholars and scientists consider that agressivity can not be totally controled, and even less probably being erradicated, and they name “violence” only to a “excessive demonstration of agressivity”. Which would be the limit of that “excess” could be given only by the cultural convention of the social period, no one being able to learn what could be the future limit to the social acceptance of violence.

  We know less about “antiagressivity”. In behavioral psychology are named this way those patterns of behavior appeasing the violent instincts. Antiagressive patterns of behavior are consolation, compassion and showing of empathy by means of the language (verbal and non-verbal) and acting (for example: economic help or sexual comfort). In extreme cases, it is possible to get antiagressivity by means of several pharmachological products (drugs).

    Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen writes about “super-empathy” in case of meassurable attitudes of behaviour characterized by antiagressevity and affection. Empathy could be defined as “our capacity to identify what other person thinks or feels and responds fore those thoughts and feelings with an adequate emotion”. Super-empathy would be an extreme demonstration that we could describe as proper of someone feeling pleasure from other people´s pleasure, the same way that the aggressive one gets pleasure from other people´s suffrance. 

    Behavior of antiagressivity and superempathy are as real as those of agressivity, and all of them are instictual the same way. The book of Steven Pinker “The better angels of our nature” informs us about the cultural changes occurred in the historical period, showing how the most notable demonstrations of social violence (wars and criminality) are lessening as particular cultural changes are taking place. These cultural changes use to be related to cultural demonstrations of empathy, as art (it is very interesting the case of passion for reading novels from XVIII century on) or political concepts as welfare, human rights or democracy.

  As the words “antiagressivity” and “superempathy” are fairly new, that makes think that they are not very well studied phenomena in spite of their practical value seeming inmense as long as it is possible to keep developing knowledge about the future control of violence and agressivity, whose limits seem also impossible to calculate. Societies with less agressivity (less wars and criminality) are those, of course, technologically advanced at the most and those with a higher level of cooperation.

 Karen Armstrong described a trend of cultural evolution by means of the development of the so-called “compassionate religions” appearing with the urban expansión two thousands and five hundred years ago. The first religion totally compassionate would have been Buddhism, adapted in the helenistic philosophy by stoicism that, at the same time, would influence decisively in Christianity. It is still discussed if the advance in antiagressive behavior and in cultural antiagressive conceptions are related with the gradual developmente of the ideas of the compassionate religions (and particularly with the Christian religions, as this is the religión of the nations that finally have worldwide culturally prevailed).