In development of the psychoanalytic thought subsequent to Freud 4, the hypothesis of the instinct of death faced the life instinct generally was not accepted, and it became to consider the aggressiveness as fundamental impulse of the man, with an instinctive base but also, and mainly, with a necessary function for the conservation of the life. According to these investigators, the aggressive instinct does not have anything to do with the instinct of death of Freud, but it forms the base of all human aspiration to independence and the individual affirmation. More than to a specific instinct, the aggressiveness is related to the typical needs of exploration and movement, as much of the man as of the animal. It represents a way and means through what the man tries to extend his dominion on the reality, to protect its security and to affirm its own identity. The aggressiveness is really the expression of one more a more general tension of the man to dominate the atmosphere and car-to realise, and its transformation in destructiveness or violence is synonymous of a lack of adaptation to the reality. The destructiveness and the violence would not comprise therefore of the nature of the man, but they would be rather the result of a certain type of education and learning, the symptoms of maladaptation to the reality. According to this theory, this lack of adaptation has its roots in the childhood and it is worsened with the development of the person, due to the absence of compensations (or satisfaction to its requirements) and by intolerance before the frustrations.
We do not conclude that the aggression in the human being is not, then, autodestructivo instinct, nor is an impersonal instinct either. Human the aggressive answer occurs in two circuits: Conscious the neurophysiological circuit infra and the circuit conscious car. In a healthy person, the automatic physiological answer to the threatening stimulus is subordinate, integrated in the conscious answer and still modulated by her.