Comment by filleduchaos
1 year ago
I don't know how else to tell you that anger very, very, very literally gives a person energy. Amongst other emotions (like fear as I have already mentioned, but also e.g. excitement), part of its arousal is your body being flooded with epinephrine et al, which provokes a significant boost in cardiovascular performance.
> The original claim was "do what needs to be done" and now you backtracked to claim that instead the idiot who gets angry needs to control himself to not do stupid stuff that angry people do.
The original claim (not by me, mind you) was that "When we witness injustice, when our loved ones are threatened or harmed, when someone treats us with contempt or disrespect, anger is our signal that we must take action, and it gives us the energy and courage to do what must be done."
Again, I don't know how else to tell you that this is a plain fact. This is something that anybody with even a surface-level understanding of neuroscience and psychology should know. Fear and anger are both emotions that are triggered by perceived danger/threats and that prepare a person to respond to said danger. Pointing out that it is still up to you as a person to choose when and how to use that elevated state of readiness is not "backtracking", it is basic emotional intelligence. If you aren't able to regulate your emotions - all of them, not just the ones labelled negative - then that's on you, not on the sheer existence of your limbic system.
But then again I can see how this would be a confusing concept for anyone stuck in an "anger = bad" thought-terminating loop.
(a) recall that I made a utility judgement, not a value judgement: "anger = useless"
(b) That an adrenaline dump provokes a significant boost in cardiovascular performance is true. We are neither fighting anachronistic saber-toothed tigers, nor are we in the wild west, we are in civilised countries in the 21st century. When should improved cardiovascular performance improve any outcomes?
I'm very happy for you that you're so privileged as to have never faced the threat of violence in your life, but consider sparing a thought for those who have.
And, again, if you don't have the emotional regulation to not fly off the handle at things that aren't actually dangerous or threatening, that's a you problem not a problem with the existence of your limbic system.
Regarding your assumption: I've been assaulted, battered, (both successful) and mugged (only attempted). Anger wouldn't have helped; applying a full nelson and dragging the miscreant into a shop did.
To be explicit: had I acted out of anger, I might've tried to fight the guy, and (especially if he had had friends), it would not have ended well. Having instead used my neocortex: his initial advantage lay in choosing the time, manner, and place; time there was nothing to be done about; manner I negated by switching first to grappling, then to grappling in a situation where I had the cardiovascular advantage; and place I negated by moving to a location where there were other people.
(in retrospect, if I'd just not tried to shortcut through an alleyway at night in a strange city, I would never even have had to make use of my normal cardiovascular capacity)
When was the last time you faced a threat of violence for which increased cardiovascular performance improved the outcome?