Anger (depression, voices, sleep, therapy)

[Sonic_Spork]

I actually have a different thought angle on this from having visited a thread I commented in a couple of months ago, because I got a rep that directed me back to it.

It was in Psychology and was about whether men or women are more "emotional." And we discussed what that even means, and came to the conclusion that men and women alike HAVE emotions, but men will generally try not to show them, especially to other men, because it makes them appear weak. Except perhaps for anger. Which is "allowed by society" (not really, and not always, as we've touched on here!)

What it goes back to is the bully mentality which demands a reaction from another person. The mild sauce version of it is stuff like internet trolling but in more severe cases of even that, they find a sufficiently vulnerable victim, like a teen who is clearly already suffering and seeking support, and they poke and prod hoping to cause a suicide perhaps, or at least a great big tearful explosion. What fun, and very harmless, yeah? Well. Some might think so.

At its core, it is unkind behavior towards others. And I don't give a pass to someone who does that for their own amusement and turn around and blame the victim for having buttons to be pushed in the first place. If someone is being an a-hole, they get to hold the bag for that behavior. But that's just like... my opinion, man.

Criminality does not form the line where things are ethical or not, and there are many instances even where something was criminal where "getting the police involved" is pointless or not possible. Victims have free will and a choice, in cases such as rape. One cannot force one to report. But also I direct you back to instances involving children who have no notion of who to report anything to or that the God-like personage of a parent has any authority they answer to at all. You're being a bit hidebound and lawyerly when I am talking about real world examples.

But to circle back to my concept lest I get lost in the weeds... It is a power game for those with a bully's mindset. If they can make another person react, and the other person cannot physically reach them, stop them, inflict any kind of consequences, so they can cause pain or fear or yes, helpless anger, then that is the entire objective for the bully. It makes them feel powerful. They can hurt other people and get away with it.

Why do men "not show emotions lest they be seen as weak?" What happens if other men see them as "weak?" Well? Isn't anger weak if it's not backed up by credible threats of violence or consequence?

I maintain that for a great many people in a vast array of circumstances, there is not recourse to any kind of constructive resolution, that is something that the fortunate, privileged, and mature people may have access to, but billions of people do not. If there was a functional and working mechanism of justice and orderly constructive resolution that actually worked for everyone and was accessible to everyone (in America alone let alone in the world) then maybe we could all just calmly fill out the correct form and address whatever matter was there to potentially upset us in a satisfactory way.

But I think of anger as a very natural thing when a lack of access to resolutions brings only frustration, or worse, despair, in a great many instances I can think of. And many of them begin with someone having a bully mindset.

Of course there are plenty of other instances of anger I've seen in others that strike me as less reasonable. When people feel entitled to something that they are not. When in fact they just are not able to keep calm enough to process something like frustration or fear. Sometimes when they know that they have in fact caused a big problem for themselves but they need to pin it somewhere else. I see a lot of people casting blame and expressing anger at others for problems truly of their own making. They tend to be the kind who believe so strongly in blame being equal to liability and only resolvable via punishment, that if they accepted their own level of responsibility for something then they'd crush themselves with it, rather than empowering themselves to change anything in their lives. They can't handle that, so they cast it outwards. Like a man who ruins his shot with a woman and then gets angry at women for his situation, for instance. Good ol' projection.

[CorporateCowboy]

The distinction needs to be made between an emotional reaction (anger) vs. constructive physical action (as a result of said anger), particularly relative to various deviation, as discussed in Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle). There are those who actually derive a certain pleasure from their anger i.e. an expectation of revenge. From my perspective, this is the mindset of a bully i.e. taunt, harass, lie and so on. It's the 'look at what you made me do' mentality i.e. not being accountable to (or taking care of) one's own feelings/emotion. It's our reponsibility to ourselves.

If the (philosophical, per the forum) goal is to live well i.e. happy, it's a no-brainer holding onto anger is the lock - not key.

[Sonic_Spork]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

The distinction needs to be made between an emotional reaction (anger) vs. constructive physical action (as a result of said anger), particularly relative to various deviation, as discussed in Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle). There are those who actually derive a certain pleasure from their anger i.e. an expectation of revenge. From my perspective, this is the mindset of a bully i.e. taunt, harass, lie and so on. It's the 'look at what you made me do' mentality i.e. not being accountable to (or taking care of) one's own feelings/emotion. It's our reponsibility to ourselves.

If the (philosophical, per the forum) goal is to live well i.e. happy, it's a no-brainer holding onto anger is the lock - not key.

Well that is interesting. Most of the instances of bully behavior I've run into were not a person acting in anger at all, they were usually laughing, high on the rush of power they were getting from harming someone else.

And I agree that holding onto anger is not necessarily healthy. But I don't think that the only options are to find a way to resolve a situation (which won't always be possible) or to exercise the emotion in some kind of cathartic manner (to, in other words, express it outwardly)...I think that for some people and instances, the best one can hope for is to shove it aside and try to deprive it of daylight, to avoid the instigating person or situation and attempt to get above it, so to speak.

Many say that if you bottle things up, one day you will explode. I don't know about that. There have been things I've kept to myself for many years, and I don't think that I'm at any risk of exploding. I'm not really a very demonstrative or "explody" kind of a person.

And I don't know what the alternative is for me, because confrontation brings no solutions if it's even possible and trying to just redirect a manufactured outburst does nothing for me either. (the old, "you should hit this pillow" just feels pointless and stupid.) Those feelings just fizzle down to a memory within me, rather than boiling and making pressure.

And yet, my life is very happy, at least most of the time.

However, I have felt a need to try and bring out some of the memories I did not have the space or time to deal with at points in the past, and try to be more honest with myself about them. I am, in a deep sort of way, letting myself feel some honest anger that my father endangered my life and that of my baby brother driving drunk all those years ago. Even if there isn't much I can do about it, not like screaming at him would get me anywhere other than being called "emotional" and "irrational." I'm not interested in expressing it outwardly. And it's not a hot anger anyways. It's just more acknowledging that someone wronged me and I have a right to look at that memory and say, "You know what? That really wasn't OK. I don't have to be warm and fuzzy about that."

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Well that is interesting. Most of the instances of bully behavior I've run into were not a person acting in anger at all, they were usually laughing, high on the rush of power they were getting from harming someone else.

I don't agree bullies are 'laughing on the inside'; their (perceived) 'power' is based on a house of cards (and often as part of a group) i.e. insecurity about themselves or feeling threatened - much in the same way anger may be evoked. Additionally, those who hang on to anger may wind up being bullies themselves i.e. they feel justified in 'seeking revenge'.

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Many say that if you bottle things up, one day you will explode. I don't know about that. There have been things I've kept to myself for many years, and I don't think that I'm at any risk of exploding. I'm not really a very demonstrative or "explody" kind of a person.

When people 'bottle up' anger, it's more likely they are harbouring resentment, a grudge or hatred; because anger is an acute response.

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

I am, in a deep sort of way, letting myself feel some honest anger that my father endangered my life and that of my baby brother driving drunk all those years ago. Even if there isn't much I can do about it, not like screaming at him would get me anywhere other than being called "emotional" and "irrational." I'm not interested in expressing it outwardly. And it's not a hot anger anyways. It's just more acknowledging that someone wronged me and I have a right to look at that memory and say, "You know what? That really wasn't OK. I don't have to be warm and fuzzy about that."

Nods. It goes without saying you aren't going to feel 'warm and fuzzy' about it. Not trying to negate your feelings, but 'constructive resolution' doesn't mean you have to be happy about it or push your feelings aside. That said, I agree screaming at him wouldn't accomplish anything for anyone, but think in terms of speaking to him calmly (not aggressively) i.e. telling him how you feel/felt, if you've never done that. If that's not possible, you still have to resolve it for yourself; because harbouring anger/resentment/rage, no matter how 'righteous', only hurts the person who is hanging onto it.

Does a feeling of luck/happiness (you and your brother survived) ever overshadow your feelings of anger? Perhaps that's something to feel 'warm and fuzzy' about.

[Consultant Psychologist]

The main reason why people get angry is because of frustration: they want to attain some goal, but there are hinderances, and this leads to anger, which can unfortunately lead to aggression. You are right, holding anger in causes emotional and physical excitation, which can lead to mental or physical ill health. You would need to plan a way of dealing with the problems one stage at a time, to reach the desired goal(s): this would be your path. One way to deal with the anger is to channel it into any reasonable physical activity, like sport, or even a simple walk will do. Too much anger (arousal) can cause inefficiency in day to day tasks, and general activity, which is why you need to keep your arousal level lower. You can choose a deep breathing exercise to help:

https://www.wikihow.com/Breathe-Deep...0feel%20calmer.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Consultant Psychologist

The main reason why people get angry is because of frustration: they want to attain some goal, but there are hinderances, and this leads to anger, which can unfortunately lead to aggression.

It’s a matter of controlling anger before it controls you. Acute anger in and of itself is a normal, healthy emotion in response to not only frustration but rejection, loss, an injustice or a threat. Subconsciously, it can be a way in which to avoid vulnerability and protect the self. Have you ever had someone explode with anger when you were the one who was wronged and subsequently thought, ‘what the - heck’. I know I have; hence, it’s often misplaced as well i.e. ‘the best defense is a good offense’.

Originally Posted by Consultant Psychologist

One way to deal with the anger is to channel it into any reasonable physical activity, like sport, or even a simple walk will do.

Whatever floats your boat, as long as what caused the anger is ultimately addressed/resolved; else, you’re simply allowing it to simmer (and later resurface) i.e. not working through those feelings. Conversation/reasoning tends to go much further to resolution of such; and hopefully, one is participating in daily physical/sport/exercise anyway.:-)

[Sonic_Spork]

So CorporateCowboy, what if you attempt to have a calm, reasonable conversation with someone who angered and wronged you somehow, and they get angry at you for bringing it up, or dig in their heels and there is no resolution possible?

Then what?

Be more rational? Have more conversation? Is there ever a limit to the time one is expected to waste when two people are solidly holding their own positions in a conflict, and continuation only makes you feel less heard and more angry?

Because I can tell you, most of the time, I would feel less angry feeling if I never started such a conversation in the first place, than if I pointlessly argued it with someone who feels that they have never done anything wrong in their lives, and who either does not care how I feel about anything, or who only wants to bait me and see how much they can stir me up for their own fun.

You speak as though engagement is ultimately the solution, which I guess makes sense in a world of litigation where ultimately a judge or jury will pronounce a winner and a loser. But in real life, it's rarely like that. Especially in the many cases where there is no impartial party to mediate. In the real interactions I've lived through, it is not the most rational or the most right person who gets to be heard or who gets any kind of resolution. It's the most stubborn, loud, or aggressive person. I'm usually better off just not engaging them in the first place.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

In the real interactions I've lived through, it is not the most rational or the most right person who gets to be heard or who gets any kind of resolution. It's the most stubborn, loud, or aggressive person. I'm usually better off just not engaging them in the first place.

Sad but true. It helps to be in a situation where you hold some cards though. As a software developer people often have to deal with me whether they like it or not because they need the software. My usual technique is some variation on listening impassively to their fulminations (typically, wanting something complex yesterday for free) and then quietly saying words to the effect, "you can have it fast, cheap, or correct ... pick any two."

[thinkingandwondering]

Haven't read the thread, but very interested in this issue.

I learned yesterday I have "infantile rage" (Klein). This happens when the infant is a few months old and is not getting its needs met. The infant internalizes the abandonment/neglect and splits the mom off into "good breast" and "bad breast." Good breast is when all needs are fulfilled. Bad breast is when they aren't.

If you have no hope of getting your needs met and have had this experience described above as an infant, you can still have the "infantile rage." I think Klein calls the stage Paranoid/Schizoid.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

So CorporateCowboy, what if you attempt to have a calm, reasonable conversation with someone who angered and wronged you somehow, and they get angry at you for bringing it up, or dig in their heels and there is no resolution possible?

Then what?

Be more rational? Have more conversation? Is there ever a limit to the time one is expected to waste when two people are solidly holding their own positions in a conflict, and continuation only makes you feel less heard and more angry?

Except the point is not to waste your time chasing/expecting someone to change (particularly through more anger, lol); the resolution is for yourself (regardless of what the other person does/doesn’t do). It’s a matter of knowing who/what you’re willing to invest in with your time/energy/need to be heard.

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Because I can tell you, most of the time, I would feel less angry feeling if I never started such a conversation in the first place, than if I pointlessly argued it with someone who feels that they have never done anything wrong in their lives, and who either does not care how I feel about anything, or who only wants to bait me and see how much they can stir me up for their own fun.

Is that your perception/frustration speaking, or did someone (bizarrely) communicate he/she has ‘never done anything wrong in their lives’? Either way, a rational resolution would be to turn your attention (albeit anger) elsewhere. Why give this person any thought, particularly if you feel the intent is to ‘bait’ you; simply stop speaking. Problem/anger solved.

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

You speak as though engagement is ultimately the solution, which I guess makes sense in a world of litigation where ultimately a judge or jury will pronounce a winner and a loser. But in real life, it's rarely like that.

Problem-solving and taking necessary action (relative to what caused the anger) is the solution, rather than suppressing it (or allowing it to control you) long-term. It certainly doesn’t mean it will always be resolved in agreement or in a positive way.

In ‘real life’ (and relative to my point/the thread), the person who hangs onto their anger is the loser. I like the quote, ‘Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.’