Comment by 082349872349872
1 year ago
(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?