Psychological effects of taking a human life. Personal question.

Moin. I got a bit of an, uncomfortable, question: Are there any resources out there, that can help a single person without a trainer or mentor, condition himself into being able to kill, without suffering the strong effects it has on his psyche? Even avoiding the most debilitating effects that are brought about by the initial shock of having taken a life, would be a great help, as the moment after taking a life are usually the most dangerous, even more so if one is dealing with more than one person. I know, that there are studies about soldiers being conditioned to shooting people, by using human-shape targets, but I was thinking about melee combat range, as the effects of melee kills are (as far as I'm understanding it) amplified by the sight of blood, the corpse, and the actual act of killing being more gruesome itself. >Why are you asking this? Are you some kinda edgy teen? It is a simple matter of security, which I see at risk in the current socioeconomic and political climate. Furthermore, I live in an area, where I'm at higher risk of being victim of a violent crime. The criminally active groups (whether they are of ethnic nature or purely organizational is of no relevance for the purpose of this question), are cohesive and are most likely to have a strong motivation to take revenge for killed members. Therefore, if I am confronted with the fact of my life being threatened, I do not wish to be unable to defend myself with lethal force. Specifically, if the need to kill arises, I wish to be able to kill all of my assailants, without needing to shake of the shock and risking to be killed. >Why not learn to evade attackers instead? This is a part of my training. I am learning to move in the urban und suburban environment without standing out like a sore, and avoiding conflicts. I do wish to not get into dangerous situations, although it is not always possible to do so. If I ever get into a situation, where I will have to fight and kill, I want to be able to do so. As one of my friends once told me: "if you know something, you may need it, or you may not. But if you don't know something, and you suddenly need it, you maybe won't be able to learn it anymore". I have had good experience in following this philosophy, which is why I'm asking this. I do not wish to end up like the pic related. Furthermore, feel free to discuss the psychology behind killing and its effects on the personality in this thread. Thank you in advance.

>>52801 Why do you have to kill someone? There's plenty of non-lethal methods of deterring assailants. If you're trying to avoid the strong effects on the psyche of killing, Occam's Razor says you shouldn't kill. Pepper spray, self-defense techniques, a taser. All those things can keep you safe without having a detrimental effect on your psyche, and will actually make you feel better than using a gun or knife. A friend of mine owned a gun, and lived in a dangerous area. Someone tried to mug him, he pulled his gun and they ended up in a standoff. They both just backed away and left. He told me he was terrified, and couldn't imagine what he would've done if he shot him. The assailant was a teenager. It's definitely best to avoid killing, lain

>>52807 Definitely true, and I have already made myself a weighted stick (as buying a dedicated weapon would attract attention to my person, and carrying anything other than a pepperspray or weak taser is illegal in my country), in order to defend myself, without risking to be caught with a prohibited weapon. Still, as I said in my opening post, I would prefer to condition myself to being able to kill someone and not be frozen up in a state of shock, or suffering any other negative psychological effects which could get me killed. Nonetheless, thank you for your answer

If you don't already have it then you desensitize through repeated exposure.

Protip: stab them when they aren't looking.

>>52801 There really isn't any way to condition someone to not feel anything killing someone. You just do it then deal with the lifelong mental effects I guess that's why soldiers have their worst PTSD years later.

>It is a simple matter of security, which I see at risk in the current socioeconomic and political climate. Most people don't need to be conditioned to defend themselves with lethal force when necessary. All the military training is so that soldiers are able to kill enemies who do not pose a direct threat to their lives. Just learn to fight. The thing is that lethal force is *almost never* necessary, and escalating is *almost always* a bad idea if your goal is self defense. >Specifically, if the need to kill arises, I wish to be able to kill all of my assailants, without needing to shake of the shock and risking to be killed. If you're outnumbered 2 to 1 you are unlikely to win a fight even if you're an expert in some martial art, being a stone-cold killa won't help.

>>52801 Ask Germans, they have perfected this. > In the most sophisticated of killing centers like Auschwitz, elaborate acts of deception could secure victim docility and greatly aided in maintaining killing efficiency. But it was equally important that such techniques also enabled perpetrators to generally avoid the great psychological stress that they were killers of defenseless civilians. For the most directly involved Germans, techniques of victim deception also served as tools of self-deception so that the killing of other human beings felt to them like a humane and gentle experience. > The Nazi regime’s pursuit of a method of killing capable of destroying large numbers of civilians gradually moved in a direction that allowed German perpetrators to emotionally distance themselves from their victims. By the time Crematorium II was completed at Auschwitz, the Germans most directly involved in the killing process need not touch, see, or hear their victims die. According to German political prisoner Karl Lil, once victims of Auschwitz were trapped in the hermetically sealed gas chambers, little of their fate could be detected by those outside. “A few seconds later a cry, muffled, stifled by the concrete walls. And then, a few minutes afterward, a brownish-yellow vapor poured out of the chimney.” Because the most directly involved Germans could be, if they so chose, physically and emotionally distant from the act of killing, they tended to perceive this method as a more humane and gentle experience (again, for them).

>are there any resources out there, that can help a single person without a trainer or mentor, condition himself into being able to kill, without suffering the strong effects it has on his psyche? Yes. It's called tactical military training. You numb yourself into violence of all sorts till you become an efficient killer. Killing some thug may actually be a relief after all, specially if you're in a tactical group. Anything can be done when social positive reinforcement is intense enough, no matter how despicable. But no, it does not make the psychological damages less damaging over time, you'll retire to be a very unhappy person and if you're religious or have any consciousness left, you'll find yourself deep in your personal hell. Killing people is plain wrong, man, it disturbs your soul.

Does not the reaction depend on the person? Be real here: are you unironically, seriously feeling a sort of fear/remorse at the idea of killing someone? Anything beyond mere excitement makes me think that you will have problems even with training- and you don't always need to kill outright for self-defense, if the assailant was incapacitated by your waving that big stick around.

Most of the time killing someone even in self defence can be overkill. It's far better to just rely on something that can disable someone enough they are no longer a threat or you have time to get away, not necessarily leave them dead so you will have no inclination to hesitate if action needs to take place. This also helps avoid the possible legal repercussions.

>>53603 I thought about this too, and i honestly do not feel much beyond a slight disgust. I had problems with handling meat, because i disliked the feeling on my hands, and the sight of it. I got used to it after a while, preparing BBQ and helping my friend cutting up sheep carcasses. Incidentally, this also helped me stand the sight of gore videos. I guess it does come down to the individual, if one is fine with killing in general. What applies to sheep, applies to humans. I butchered chicken before, i guess it's not much different for people, besides the fact that people put up more of a fight. OP, killing is a matter of the brain first and foremost. If your brain is dulled in a certain way, it doesn't really care for what you kill. You can be born with it and still require some getting used to, like me, or you can be very reluctant, not wanting to take lifes. If it is any help, handling meat and carving animal carcasses seems to help with the more physical aspect of the deal. cutting, stabbing, breaking bones and ripping tendons are physical activities, and i learned to do all of them very quickly, efficiently and cleanly, without shaking or much thinking. If you put your mind to it, you can do it. As for the brain part, i dunno, try becoming a butcher, or help people who keep chicken or other animals for meat, with butchering. It's not that big of a step up, i think.

Without getting too much into it, I happen to know a little about this subject. Depending on what questions you have I may elaborate a little. 1-Short of being a psychopath and feeling no remorse naturally, you will have some attachment to having taken a life 2-looking at it scientifically can make it seem more clinical. A matter of fact. The idea that It was absolutely necessary. 3-Don't be a little bitch. People think too much about the idea of if the killing was necessary. If you train yourself to kill only when necessary, then you never have to worry about if you were justified or not. Killing is part of nature, trying to avoid it means you are literally running away from nature for some silly moral reason. Always remember that if you aren't willing to kill, then a greater force that is willing to kill will have power over you. Having to take a life is a simple matter. That does not mean it is the best option. Or that it is an easy option. I am not advocating glorifying killing or violence. In fact, be more of a pacifist. However, if the need to kill arises, do not hesitate. Hesitation will cost you your life, or the life of those you care about. This is even more important if you have a weapon, because hesitating will possibly enable your attacker to take control of your own weapon against you. >the effects of melee kills are (as far as I'm understanding it) amplified by the sight of blood, the corpse, and the actual act of killing being more gruesome itself. Matter of factually, these are all necessary to ensure your own survival. If you want a real mind-fuarrrk, learn about the idea of excessive deadly force. >Specifically, if the need to kill arises, I wish to be able to kill all of my assailants, without needing to shake of the shock and risking to be killed. This is where training takes over and muscle memory becomes a natural movement. Pulling a trigger or stabbing a knife in a rehearsed and intentional fashion to effect a desired outcome. This is however a last resort. Another thing that affects this is when people will stab or shoot one time, and realize their target did not stop. If you must kill, then let the act be absolute. Do not stop until the threat is gone. >>52982 lmao, but then hes going to remember it more than the other guy... >>52807 Less lethal options are for deterrence only where you are not justified in killing, and in many cases will end in an escalation of violence in a more heavily armed assailant. >>52896 This is not true. Context is key to killing. Repeated exposure can have a traumatizing effect, as with content moderators. >>53058 having a strong support network can counteract this. In fact, a great number of people with PTSD have it because they are wondering if they were justified in their actions. >>53062 > All the military training is so that soldiers are able to kill enemies who do not pose a direct threat to their lives. Wrong, training teaches people to show no fear, and act mechanically when presented with a severe threat of harm. Most people when stressed will engage in a flight response, either hiding or running. Few will act with a fight response, and fewer will act appropriately with that fight response. An uncoordinated and impulsive action can get you killed in a frenzy more easily than taking conscious actions like identifying the threat, formulating a counterattack, and surviving the engagement.

>>53725 >Wrong, training teaches people to show no fear, and act mechanically when presented with a severe threat of harm. I was talking specifically about the parts of military training focused around getting people to kill. Obviously when you are trained in any kind of combat techniques you will have a better chance of acting effectively when your life is actually threatened, but in that case you don't need to condition yourself to be a killing machine.

>>53604 There are very few ways of decisively disarming or disabling an assailant which do not involve potentially lethal force.

>>53728 Carrying around a man sized fishing net is perfectly legal

>>53726 Soldiers are not murderers, In the case of conscripts even, they are not normally turned into death squads gunning down innocents before lunch. The importance of a mechanical mentality is because unlike the normal population, soldiers are usually put directly into positions where someone wants to kill them. Their lives are put on the line with or without their consent. The art of war even talks about convincing your troops that they are already dead, and they will fight without fear and won't hold back.

>>53732 >soldiers are not murderers Yes of course. During WW1 it was noted that most soldiers didn't shoot on target at all, because they didn't perceive their targets as a threat. This is considered a problem by most generals and modern training tries to associate "the enemy" with danger and threat. Snipers are basically professional assassins, though, and most of the guys in mercenary outfits are essentially murderers.

>>52801 Long term torture, deprivation, and alienation is the only way to strip someone of the moral notions are taking life. You need to break someone down to the point where all that's left is apathy and a vague sense that nothing that is done or not done truly matters. I am hurting, so you will hurt. You all deserve this, and so on. It is important that you have a strong sense of an "other"m whether that be a group or literally anything that is not self.

>>53880 >are taking about taking

>>53731 >Carrying around a man sized fishing net is perfectly legal I don't know why this made laugh. Seems impractical. >>53728 What do you have in mind? Krav maga if I recal correctly trains how to disarm someone with a gun or knife. I've heard if someone is trying to mug you it's good to throw your wallet in the air where they can't quite caitch it and become distracted by it so you can run so I'm thinking maybe carry a decoy wallet with a prepaid debit gift card in it that can be tracked loaded with just enough money to keep it active and fake info it's registered with so if they try to buy anything they can potentially be later tracked down so they wont bother you again. Problem with mace is you're down wind you nay get it too so Im wondering if that stuff they market to people in the UK that is this sticky goopy spray that shoots out like silly string but thicker and helps blind someone till they rub it out of their eyes is more effective for some situations than something like mace especially if they are on some drug that will make them not respond to pain much. Hits to the liver also can momentarily disable someone from pain because it is so painful which is why you see a lot of boxers aim for there. A head hit only gets someone if you cause a concussion and is a harder target to get right so I think liver makes more sense. Liver also is only organ that can repair itself so even if serious damage is done it can be recoverable which helps avoid any hesitation knowing that. However it requires a left hand punch if you're facing someone unless you have something to swing at them or can get to their side. I think there are some blunt force projectiles as well which can be fatal close range but are okay at proper distance if aim is on point enough.

>>53890 >>53880 You don't need to break someones will to make them into a killer. Non-Lethal tactics are a gamble anyway. Sure, if someone just wants your money, the wallet trick might work, but there are a million other ways that it could still go wrong. Most muggers will probably not just warn you then take your money and leave. Krav Maga uses cheap shots to disable an opponent. Aiming for the groin and vital organs is effective at stopping an attacker. It is also effective at either enraging someone into using deadly force, or if you do it well enough, killing them. Pepper spray is a garbage weapon, that will generally not stop an intoxicated/drugged/commited criminal from harming you. Military and police often train for fighting while being pepper sprayed. If you must carry something, get a collapsible baton, and you can at least break bones and escape if you need to, it can kill with hits to the head, and it is concealable. Generally your best bet is avoiding conflict all together, I think OP is just worried about the psychological aspect of killing though. Some of the lains here have mistakenly placed too much value on vengeance killing, or a conditioned disregard for human life. If this were the only way to let people kill, then there would never be people who would want to put themselves in harms way to protect others. There is an altruistic aspect of killing, in that it is the final outcome where it becomes the only way to protect what you care about or what is important. I think this is mistakenly fostered by movies and media, because people cannot understand how someone can just kill someone without batting an eye. Killing someone is just as easy as getting in a fight. In fact, ideally you should avoid all fights unless you intend to kill someone, because there is a high chance of dying in any conflict. I want to make it clear that I am not against martial arts or competitive fighting, which have rules, I mean street fighting or other armed conflicts, where you have to worry about your life.

>>55003 >Generally your best bet is avoiding conflict all together, I think OP is just worried about the psychological aspect of killing though. exactly. I wish to be able to kill and not feel the negative aftereffects of it, if the need arises. I do not wish to die, because i had to defend myself with deadly force, which resulted in me killing one assailant, and then getting killed by his accomplices or members of his gang in the heat of the moment. I do train for flight and evasion, but sometimes it is just not possible to flee, when you're forced into a corner for example. This thread is not about avoiding killing, it is specifically about the psychological implications of having to kill, and the conditioning needed to do so without hesitation if the need ever arises (again, i hope it never does.) >>53725 thank your for the long and intricate post. Especially the point about training and muscle memory, i'll look into acquiring those. also, the mentality thing sounds pretty much like what i'm looking for. It's sounds like the same mental condition i developed with butchering and cutting up animals, just transferred to humans. Killing is indeed not the best option, i cannot stress it enough. But it is, as you said, a part of nature, and it's useless to avoid acknowledging it. I will repeat the final sentence of the OP, though: >"Furthermore, feel free to discuss the psychology behind killing and its effects on the personality in this thread." Which means, all the discussion already had ITT is perfectly valid.

>>55012 >I wish to be able to kill and not feel the negative aftereffects of it, if the need arises. I do not wish to die, because i had to defend myself with deadly force, which resulted in me killing one assailant, and then getting killed by his accomplices or members of his gang in the heat of the moment. I do train for flight and evasion, but sometimes it is just not possible to flee, when you're forced into a corner for example. If you have to fight, backing into a corner can be a benefit because you can't be attacked from behind. sidenote There are a few very good books on the subject of killing. Efficiency of killing is an art (or a science depending on your paradigm). But if you look at death from an artistic or a scientific standpoint, it becomes clear that there isn't a huge problem with it. You kill animals with no problem, so what makes humans any different? Bigger animal, bigger brain, but that just means they are more deadly than a chicken. As the saying goes: a sniper who was asked what he felt when he pulled the trigger for a kill shot, to which he responds "The weapon recoil." On a philosophical level, I would say that one must "kill oneself" In a sense ego death but that is a bit of a personal opinion I have. By that I mean that being prepared to die, the act of killing is not foreign to oneself, and since one cannot fear something that is so close to oneself, one cannot project that fear onto an act against another. This could just be my own rambling, but it has allowed me to cope with situations where I may have had to take a life. People used to call me a psychopath because I am not unwilling to kill, as if killing is some kind of obscene and mythical act. I have had many, one might say, negative experiences, but one way you might look at it: If your bodybuilder friend was drunk and beating another smaller friend with a pipe and he was on the verge of death, and you had a gun, and the first friend was beyond reason, and your reluctance to shoot would mean that the smaller friend and likely you would die, would you shoot? Certainly the small friend would appreciate you saving his life- Certainly there is a reason to the fight, but you are not there to decide IF the reason was valid, only that you must act. In the end, it goes beyond dealing with killing, but also knowing the right time to kill. If you focus on the "right time" to kill, you can also prevent regret about the "right reason," because the reason for killing was self understood. This can also lead to hesitancy (i.e. is NOW the right time to kill?). I can't say what the correct answer is to every situation, but that is the nature of life. By rationalizing the scientific nature of the act, you also begin to look at a different paradigm instead of the purely social one of "muh killing is ebil".

>>55253 To elaborate on the "killing oneself," The rationale is >I am willing to die >I knew that it could come to this >By taking this action, he has acknowledged that it too could have come to this >There fore he must too be willing to die >Therefore by his actions, he-knowing or unknowing that he may die- has allowed things to come to this >I must counter with my own actions lest I be killed. I think that there is a lot more to be said about deescalation than learning to kill though. For example, I was once in a situation where a mentally unstable alcoholic who was on drugs started to threaten to kill me and my friends, my response was to posture myself so as to best strike a killing blow if he attacked. Fortunately, he got talked down by my friend who is a salesman by trade (made me think of all those books about making friends and influencing people). I was impressed, by the end of it, the mentally unstable man sat down and started crying because he felt so bad for us. I won't hesitate to kill, and I wouldn't have felt regret if I did, but it warms my heart that some people can solve problems without violence.

>>52801 You sound like someone who has never shot a gun or read a book about war from any era. Everyone is acting in this thread like killing someone is always going to leave you badly damaged somehow. If that was really true humanity would have never made it this far. People have been killing a long time. Somebody in your family tree probably killed, probably not that long ago either. I don't know how I'd feel after killing someone. Depends on how bad they deserved it in the self-defense situation. But I'm not really sweating it ahead of time. If you're trying to bust into my house or something, you just forfeited your right to live, sorry. Cause and effect.

>>55256 In OPs defense, he was trying to understand the WHY exactly because he is sweating it ahead of time. Most people on this board have probably never killed someone. I can't say that a great deal of them have never contemplated it though, but I would say that most of them are probably privileged enough to be able to comfortably post on a 2D Lain simulator. You do get it a little, but I think that part of really learning to kill involves not lingering on as you say "how bad they deserved it in the self-defense situation" Which is why many people struggle with the fact that they have killed (exactly what OP wants to avoid)

>>55256 >Everyone is acting in this thread like killing someone is always going to leave you badly damaged somehow. If that was really true humanity would have never made it this far. Why not? Most people who have ever lived never needed to kill anybody, even most soldiers. And just because some proportion of those who do kill have psychological scars doesn't mean it would have any negative effects on all of society. WW2 left an entire generation haunted and society didn't fall apart, people just buried it deep down.

>>53735 >most soldiers don't shoot SLA Marshall's ratio of fire stuff is probably BS, as are other things based on it like the book On Killing. There are a lot of reasonable efforts to discredit it, and the actual origin of his figures seems very sketchy. >>53604 >Most of the time killing someone even in self defence can be overkill. This is not the attitude of many cops I have heard, though maybe this says something about cops. Leaving someone alive, but disabled, is often legally more dangerous than a justified killing. This may be special to cops. Also better judged by twelve than carried by six. >>53587 >Yes. It's called tactical military training. This is dumb. If that soykaf works then why do we have so much PTSD today. Its just as likely that it makes it worse as makes it better, though there are other things that may more likely contribute. OP: don't worry about it. That is to say, don't worry about it. Killing and death happen, its sad, sure, but it happens. If it was in self defense its obviously justified. Just don't get turned into a McMichael. For a healthy perspective on wartime killing I reccommend the book Storm of Steel, by Ernst Junger. Junger has a pretty positive attitude, and he's certainly no psychopath. He holds no particular grudges, against his enemy, in fact sometimes he's quite sympathetic to them, but is reasonably capable of killing them when called for. I imagine this attitude, or one like it, is the one you should try to cultivate in your situation, too.

>>55261 >If that soykaf works then why do we have so much PTSD today It doesn't work, dummie, never gonna work. That's the whole point. Killing people for whatever reason will bring sadness, sorrow, trauma and all sorts of inner disorder. Notice that manifesting some disorder is not equal as suffering from it, people can pretend during their whole lives. The scars will always remain.

>>55282 >Killing people for whatever reason will bring sadness, sorrow, trauma and all sorts of inner disorder. This isn't true. In fact, you can easily kill someone while respecting them. PTSD has a lot of other factors besides "I just killed a man." I know a lot of people who were in war and have PTSD even though they never carried a gun or were civilians. Ernst Junger as >>55261 said is a good author on the subject.

>>55282 >It doesn't work, dummie This is what I, the poster you are replying to, said. Glad we're on the same page. Your assertion that the 'scars will remain' is something I find dubious. There are people who end up apparently scarred, there are people who end up aparrently unscarred. You beleive those who seem fine are just hiding it, but I see no particular reason for this to be true, it seems just as plausible an explanation is that they're not manifesting problems because they just plain don't have those problems. If scarring actually exists, how can you measure it ? Can you show me scars on the psyche's of people who don't manifest symptoms ? Frankly if the scarring doesn't manifest symptoms to me that sounds like its not there. >killing people for whatever reason brings sadness, sorrow, trauma, internal disorder. Again, I liked the book Storm of Steel for a perspective on this. Mr. Junger (a German so maybe he's just a perfect killing machine) certainly feels a bit of remorse after killing, he doesn't do it entierly without sadness and regret. Seeing the faces of his victims he wonders wistfully about their families and girlfriends and comrades. In fact he gets a bit uneasy when he feels a few of his comrades are getting too personally vindictive against the enemy. Yet he still kills them and leads others to kill them. That doesn't significantly impact his effectiveness as a soldier, and though probably it affected his later outlook on life (is this perhaps scaring? If so isn't litterally any and every salient moment in a persons life scaring ?) it certainly didn't debilitate him, and really doesn't appear to have manifested significant symptoms, if any at all. There are certainly a lot of anecdotes by people who seem scarred. There are certainly a lot of anecdotes by people who don't. I'm inclined to beleive those who dont seem to be, arent, and sure likely those who seem to be, are. Maybe its just in their genes, but there are likely some helpful memes, peices of social technology, that can help one respond better (or worse) to these no doubt stressful circumstances of life and death fighting.

>>55289 Also should add in concurrance with >>55288 that I'm not of the belief remorse is a neccisary outfalling, but for what its worth Junger fairly often feels it.

>>55289 >Mr. Junger (a German so maybe he's just a perfect killing machine) Als ein Deutscher habe ich gekeked... >If so isn't litterally any and every salient moment in a persons life scaring ? Significant memories can have a profound impact, and vice versa, profound memories can have a significant impact. Not just those of terror, but those of embarrassment or happiness too. Part of fear conditioning and cognitive behavioral therapy is to normalize the trigger that produces an adverse response. There is a lot of speculation on "why" some people manifest different forms of fear, and there is actually a lot to do with someones optimism. Positivity and optimism are delusional, but there are other factors that can influence why someone might feel one way or another. In studies of combat troops, the amount of fear as inferred by stress in the clear face of death, was shown to be lowest in people who believed their fate was outside of their hands (i.e. god was watching over them), they overvalued their abilities (I am the best at running and shooting in my company and therefore can't be killed) or they rationalized the situation (i.e. the probability of me dying is less than 1%, therefore astronomically low compared to my chances of living). This means that people who literally laugh in the face of death and danger are much likely to not be traumatized. In fact, one consideration to be made would be the idea that people who "nearly die" and only find out about it after the fact might be even more traumatized (i.e. vehicular accidents) than had they knowingly survived (i.e. they now unrealistically believe themselves to be invincible); This is like how a pilot can be shocked that they survived and traumatized while the passengers blissfully ignorant of the situation think it was a neat experience that a bunch of birds hit the windshield.

>>55289 >>55288 If it's merely (or completely) psychic, then there is nothing to be perceived because it is unconscious, therefore, unknown. Maybe verifiable after 200 years of uninterrupted intense deep psychotherapy. I just can't think of reality without consequences. You do soykaf, you pay in matter or not, but then this starts to get very /x/ish. At least it's what I believe in, since I'm affected by it. Also I guess no effective killer would reveal their wounds, ever, so...how do you verify anything deeply personal about any psychopath ever? You just don't. >that doesn't significantly impact his effectiveness as a soldier If that's what's being considered here, then I'm taking a step back and reconsider tactical training as a viable option to be a remorseless killer, since I've met two guys that killed more than 10 people having normal lives and soykaf (I live in a 3rd world country, it's really easy to meet tactical cops casually). If the point is what is verifiable/measurable or not, anything goes, son. One can just never manifest in front of anyone. I myself am a complete traumatized lunatic but nobody alive can even notice that because I know my inner selves can't be unified with my simpleton norm1e persona, otherwise I would be seen as a weirdo, hence, I'd be a broke misfit and never achieve anything. If you have competence to hide forever, that's what you do. People can just split personalities, wear social masks, etc. A whole lot of things your psyche can do without needing external help, some of them are actually done like some sort of homeostatic mechanism. Some people just manage to never seek help or whistleblow themselves so their weaknesses are wide-open to everyone. I just tend to consider that God may cut you down someday.