Aggression, as many New Age bataca-bat-wielding psychologists proclaim, is not all bad. Chimpanzees and other monkeys use aggressive behavior to compete and negotiate their status within groups. Primates use aggression to create social systems by establishing status. (1). Fighting actually appears to bring some primates closer: apes and monkeys tend to make up by hugging and kissing, and tend to later seek more frequent contact with those they have fought with. (1). Chimpanzees also fight before becoming friends. Human children display this behavior, though in my experience boys usually physically fought while girls tended to be catty. Female chimpanzees, however, unrepressed by human gender roles, have no qualms about getting physical. They fight to renegotiate ongoing relationships, not to end them. Primatologists suggest this may also be true of humans. Certainly, this explains some aggressive human behavior. We tend to get most angry with those we most love, and healthy conflict is a means of negotiation. But does this explain all human conflict? Some conflicts end in severed relationships; communication and negotiation often fail. Are most conflicts intended as negotiations, but some go awry? Hate usually springs from love, because if we didn't love someone first, we wouldn't care enough to hate. But what about when human aggression becomes violent? Murder doesn't renegotiate relationships meant to last; it ends them. This doesn't rule out the possibility that in a murderer's misconstrued logic, the murder could be an attempt at reconciliation, but how does a human aggressive instinct become violent and destructive? Some violent characteristics can be inherited, such as a propensity for impulsivity or low IQ. (3). Genes can influence oppositional temperament (vindictive, angry, control-resistant, deliberately annoying, blaming others, unempatheric or callous