Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Model under the one which is not increased the violence

- - category 2- -

In this category the conductor of the car2 does not answer in equal form, that is to say reacts without be annoyed (the reaction is smaller in violence terms) against the conductor of the carro1.

Drawing this reaction would remain thus:

Reaction car2 < Action car1

/R/</A/

For the independent witness the reaction of the conducting of the car2 has a sense that defers to the negative action of the car1. What the subject observes of part of the conducting of the car2 is an amiable reaction, smaller in negative actions content in comparison with the action expressed by the conductor of the car1. Imagining the conclusion of the event, the final balance possibly would be of two hurt vehicles, but not already two conducting fighting, a minor balance of aggresived and by smaller so much the probability of lost human.


Yet if the conductor of the car2 does not make express no response, and in his interior the reaction that stays hides tends to be smaller in negative action terms, almost nearby to zero violent actions. Of arriving to happen that therefore this reaction that was hidden is made express toward the conductor of the car1 as well as toward third parties, it should be to wait that it will be a reaction with trend to be smaller in negative action terms, almost nearby or equal zero negative actions.


In the reaction category tipe.2 response is different from the action that provokes it. The reaction is smaller in negative action terms. It is smaller the destructive load, the conductor of the carro2 to his level decrease at content of violent acts, by so much:

/R/ < /A/


In the category tipe.1 the reaction was equal to the action, that is to say -R = - A. Then in the category tipo.2 the reaction is smaller in negative terms that the action, that is to say (/ R / < / A /). Means this, that in the category tipe.2 something achieves to reduce the violent or negative actions.

The category tipe.2 could be expressed in the following way:

Reaction car2 = action car1 + Universal factor (U)

Reaction car2= -A + U


When it is mentioned that the reaction is smaller in term of negative acts in relationship to the initial action that provokes it, is not contradicted the principles of the third law of Newton. The one which demands that "by each action force there is an equal reaction force and in address opposite(4). In the category tipe.2 if it were not present the factor (U) the reaction of the subject would be equal to the action and in opposite address (- R = -A), fullfilling the principle of the law.


But upon being present the factor (U), this factor achieves to deaden the external negative action that affects to the individual. Consequently, in the subject is consummated the adding of these actions; the first is the negative external action that affects it (-A), more the second, it is the internal action in opposite sense (+U), producing as a result a smaller reaction in negative acts that the initial action (-A+U). This reaction constitutes what in physical is called the resulting force neta(5) or in the real life, final response of the individual.


If the value of the factor (U) that is present in the subject is positive, the reaction or response of this can be smaller to the initial action (-A), with trend to zero negative actions. The factor (U) would act of the same form as in physical is observed the forces encounter, that is to say" forces directed in opposite sense act an against other, being annulled partial or (if they are equal) totally a to the other; the forces that act in an address are combined in an alone force "(6).

If the impartial witness wanted to add the actions that saw, would say that observed two actions, a first negative action and the other with less negative load that the first, by so much the total sum is:

Total actions sum = Action car1 + Reaction car2

Total actions sum = (-A)+(-A+U)

Total actions sum = 2(-A) + U


As is observed the universal factor (U) is constituted in an element or essential antidote in the reduction of the negative actions level, or in the reduction of the social degradation level.

The process through the one which can be attempted to reduce of the social degradation level, it can be outlined in the following way:

R = A + factor (U)



It is possible to reduce the violence levels?

It more common in the treatment of the social relationships is to observe than before a provocation action the reaction tends to be equal to the action, either toward the same person that cause the action or toward other, the slogan as a rule it is the same,"like they treat me, i will treat the same". It is less common to observe relationships where is answered with a positive action before a negative action. Though that no mean that who answer thus they enjoy in the wrong dealing, if it can show that by some reason some subject do not answer in equal form as the try. We watch the equation that continues forward:


Reaction = Action + factor (U)

R = A+ U

If the factor (U) tends to zero, the reaction of the individual go to seem more to the action than provokes it. But when the factor (U) is different of zero, it is positive and is going increasing, then the reaction tends to be differentiated and to be less and less similar to the provocative action, could be said then that response or reaction tends to zero negative actions.


Then "heureka, heureka!"(7), if the purpose is to reduced number it of negative actions or to reduce the social degradation level, it can be then count on a form of proceed to achieve it. Formulates it outlined in previous lines is an equation that facililates to think about response to the problem. If than what is tried is reducing the violence in a social space, will be observed less violent answers before aggressive actions when is present the factor or antidote.


4.Eugene Hecht, Ibid, pg 114

5.Eugene Hecht, Ibid, pg 108

6.Eugene Hecht, Ibid, pg 108

7 James R. Newman, The world of the mathematics -Sigma S. Spain: Grijalbo, Volume 1, 1985, pg 113. Expression of Arquímedes when found the form of solving the problem of the adulterated wreath.