Btw, if I had to hazard a guess, I would guess I would not label your current emotion as anger, because you’ve been far too reasonable and accommodating. That is, I would predict your facial expression markers to not inlcude those associated with irritation, zeal, rage, or contempt. (All of which I would expect to be associated with cognitive changes in reasoning capacity and active perceptual biases.)
If only I had known! I could have videorecorded myself to post to Youtube, and we would have a testable hypothesis! :P
That said: this remark constitutes definite proof of “different definitions” theory, because I would have said I was angry. And I am sure I would have had a difficult time being as carefully phrased were I responding in realtime—introspecting on my feelings, I think I can detect places where I steered away from the transition into what you have called anger in order to maintain the tone of the conversation.
Anyway—one of my few remaining “pet peeves” is the tendency many people have to treat emotions as something unequivocally good, while ignoring the fact that we already have science to show the physical and mental effects of emotion. You don’t really get to decide how or whether your emotions affect you—only limited options for preventing them in the first place, and for mitigating them after the fact.
This is true—and a lesson I need to put into practice, to be honest.
But I think I’ve gotten my reaction to that down to just a “peeve”, rather than something that provokes actual irritation. ;-)
I wonder if I would have provoked less of a reaction with “pet peeve” than “berserk button”? (:
(I think I would still use the latter were I writing it now—an intermediate term would be better, though.)
That said: this remark constitutes definite proof of “different definitions” theory, because I would have said I was angry. And I am sure I would have had a difficult time being as carefully phrased were I responding in realtime—introspecting on my feelings, I think I can detect places where I steered away from the transition into what you have called anger in order to maintain the tone of the conversation.
Is this a case of anger-on-the-Internet vs. anger in real life? There is an emotion on the Internet which I am sometimes inclined to identify as anger which is not at all the same as the real life emotion of anger which I have experienced in myself and others.
Real life anger is scary stuff, something that can result in you or others actually getting physically hurt. It is inseparable from a fear of physical harm. I don’t know where you draw the line between anger and rage but my physical-world experiences with either have been disturbing.
I sometimes read posts on the Internet which ‘make my blood boil’ but I don’t label it ‘anger’ because real-world anger is something far more frightening. A discussion mediated by the Internet can’t really invoke the implications of real-world anger.
I must admit to some bewilderment, because the way you and pjeby are talking, there seems to be some superpowered incensed fury that you reserve the term “anger” for that I am personally unfamiliar with. I can’t say my anger during this discussion was qualitatively different from my anger on other occasions, on and offline.
Edit: That is to say, I am quite familiar with alberzles, but not with bargulums, to extend that conceit.
If it helps clarify, I see anger as ‘the emotion that makes you want to hurt people’, either through physical or emotional violence. While I can appreciate the strategic value of such an emotion from an evolutionary point of view I find it hard to approve of it. Grudging respect is about the closest to a positive view of anger I can muster.
And I am sure I would have had a difficult time being as carefully phrased were I responding in realtime—introspecting on my feelings, I think I can detect places where I steered away from the transition into what you have called anger in order to maintain the tone of the conversation.
And this also supports what I’ve been saying, on two additional points:
FIrst, you appear to agree that actually entering into that emotional state is a mind-killer. And second, having buttons that pushed you in the direction of that state was not actually helpful to your considered goals.
I think this is sufficient to conclude the discussion; I feel like Albert and Barry, just having agreed on “alberzles” and “bargulums”. Yay, rationality! ;-)
[Edit: misspelled “bargulums”, not that anyone could tell.]
I think this is sufficient to conclude the discussion; I feel like Albert and Barry, just having agreed on “alberzles” and “bargulums”. Yay, rationality! ;-)
With the caveat that we haven’t decided which ones are fritzelnits yet. :P
[Edit: misspelled “bargulums”, not that anyone could tell.]
Wait, if no-one could tell, how did you? Paradox!
Okay, I need to go to bed. Catch you on the flipside!
If only I had known! I could have videorecorded myself to post to Youtube, and we would have a testable hypothesis! :P
That said: this remark constitutes definite proof of “different definitions” theory, because I would have said I was angry. And I am sure I would have had a difficult time being as carefully phrased were I responding in realtime—introspecting on my feelings, I think I can detect places where I steered away from the transition into what you have called anger in order to maintain the tone of the conversation.
This is true—and a lesson I need to put into practice, to be honest.
I wonder if I would have provoked less of a reaction with “pet peeve” than “berserk button”? (:
(I think I would still use the latter were I writing it now—an intermediate term would be better, though.)
Is this a case of anger-on-the-Internet vs. anger in real life? There is an emotion on the Internet which I am sometimes inclined to identify as anger which is not at all the same as the real life emotion of anger which I have experienced in myself and others.
Real life anger is scary stuff, something that can result in you or others actually getting physically hurt. It is inseparable from a fear of physical harm. I don’t know where you draw the line between anger and rage but my physical-world experiences with either have been disturbing.
I sometimes read posts on the Internet which ‘make my blood boil’ but I don’t label it ‘anger’ because real-world anger is something far more frightening. A discussion mediated by the Internet can’t really invoke the implications of real-world anger.
I must admit to some bewilderment, because the way you and pjeby are talking, there seems to be some superpowered incensed fury that you reserve the term “anger” for that I am personally unfamiliar with. I can’t say my anger during this discussion was qualitatively different from my anger on other occasions, on and offline.
Edit: That is to say, I am quite familiar with alberzles, but not with bargulums, to extend that conceit.
If it helps clarify, I see anger as ‘the emotion that makes you want to hurt people’, either through physical or emotional violence. While I can appreciate the strategic value of such an emotion from an evolutionary point of view I find it hard to approve of it. Grudging respect is about the closest to a positive view of anger I can muster.
And this also supports what I’ve been saying, on two additional points:
FIrst, you appear to agree that actually entering into that emotional state is a mind-killer. And second, having buttons that pushed you in the direction of that state was not actually helpful to your considered goals.
I think this is sufficient to conclude the discussion; I feel like Albert and Barry, just having agreed on “alberzles” and “bargulums”. Yay, rationality! ;-)
[Edit: misspelled “bargulums”, not that anyone could tell.]
With the caveat that we haven’t decided which ones are fritzelnits yet. :P
Wait, if no-one could tell, how did you? Paradox!
Okay, I need to go to bed. Catch you on the flipside!
Berserk button was the right phrase in the context.