I think that the big skill here is not being offended. If someone can say something and control your emotions, literally make you feel something you had no intention to feel beforehand, then perhaps it’s time to start figuring out why you’re allowing people to do this to you.
At a basic level anything someone can say to you is either true or false. If it’s true then it’s something you should probably consider and accept. If it’s false then it’s false and you can safely ignore/gently correct/mock the person saying it to you. In any case there really isn’t any reason to be offended and especially there is no reason to allow the other person to provoke you to anger or acting without thought.
This isn’t the same as never being angry! This is simply about keeping control for yourself over when and why you get angry or offended, rather than allowing the world to determine that for you.
In any case there really isn’t any reason to be offended and especially there is no reason to allow the other person to provoke you to anger or acting without thought.
It seems really, really difficult to convey to people who don’t understand it already that becoming offended is a choice, and it’s possible to not allow someone to control you in that way. Maybe “offendibility” is linked to a fundamental personality trait.
What constitutes a “choice” in this context is pretty subjective. It may be less confusing to tell someone they could have a choice instead of asserting that they do have a choice. The latter connotes a conscious decision gone awry, and in doing so contradicts the subject’s experience that no decision-making was involved.
Good point. Reading my comment again, it seems obvious that I committed the typical mind fallacy in assuming that it really is a choice for most people.
I would at least hope that you are claiming that there is, in fact, a choice, whether the subjective experience of the moment provides indication of the choice or not.
Maybe stated differently you could be claiming that there is the possibility of choice for all people whether a person is aware or capable of taking advantage of that fact. That a person can alter his or her self in order to provide his or her self with the opportunity to choose in such situations.
Loqi’s feedback seems to me to be suggesting that individuals who do not have a belief that they have such a “possibility of choice” could have a more positive phenomenological experience of your assertion and as a result be more likely to integrate the belief into their own belief set and [presumably] gain advantage by encountering it.
That is me asserting that Loqi does not appear to be rejecting your assertion but only suggesting a manner by which it can be improved.
Of course, Loqi’s suggestion could contingently be less optimal than the less easy to accept presentation.
While the approach you suggest could provide a more subjectively negative experience, the cognitive dissonance could cause the utterance to gain more attention with the brain as a more aberrant occurrence in its stimuli and as a result be worthy of further analysis and consideration.
I am generally in favor of delivering notions I believe to be helpful in a manner which can/will be accepted. In some cases however, others are able and more likely to accept a less than pleasant delivery mechanism. This is contingent upon the audience, of course, as well as the level of knowledge you have about your audience. In the absence of such knowledge, the more gentle approach seems advisable.
It could be. It seems not just difficult but actually against most culture on the planet. Consider that crimes of passion, like killing someone when you find them sleeping around on you, often get a lower sentence than a murder ‘in cold blood’. If someone says ‘he made me angry’ we know exactly what that person means. Responding to a word with a bullet is a very common tactic, even in a joking situation; I’ve had things thrown at me for puns!
It does seem like a learn-able skill even so. I did not have this skill when I was child, but I do have it now. The point I learned it in my life seems to roughly correspond to when I was first trained and working as technical support. I don’t know if there’s a correlation there.
In any case, merely being aware that this is a skill may help a few people on this forum to learn it, and I can see only benefit in trying. It is possible to not control anger but instead never even feel it in the first place, without effort or willpower.
And yet, not to feel an emotion in the first place may obscure you to yourself—it’s a two-sided coin. To opt to not know what you’re feeling when I struggle to find out seems strange to me.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I said. I’m not obscuring my feelings from myself. I’m just aware of the moment when I choose what to feel, and I actively choose.
I’m not advocating never getting angry, just not doing it when it’s likely to impair your ability to communicate or function. If you choose to be offended, that’s a valid choice… but it should also be an active choice, not just the default.
I find it fairly easy to be frustrated without being angry at someone. It is, after all, my fault for assuming that someone is able to understand what I’m trying to argue, so there’s no point in being angry at them for my assumption. They might have a particularly virulent meme that won’t let them understand… should I get mad at them for a parasite? It seems pointless.
Well, it seems I misunderstand your statement, “It is possible to not control anger but instead never even feel it in the first place, without effort or willpower.”
I know it is possible to experience anger, but control it and not act angry—there is a difference between having the feeling and acting on it. I know it is also possible to not feel anger, or to only feel anger later, when distanced from the situation. I’m ok with being aware of the feeling and not acting on it, but to get to the point where you don’t feel it is where I’m starting to doubt whether it’s really a net benefit.
And yes, I do understand that with understand / assumptions about other people, stuff that would have otherwise bothered me (or someone else) is no longer a source of anger. You changed your outlook and understanding of that type of situation so that your emotion is frustration and not anger. If that’s what you meant originally, I understand now.
Mostly I don’t even feel frustration, but instead sadness. I’d like to be able to help, but sometimes the best I can do is just be patient and try to explain clearly, and always immediately abandon my arguments if I find that I’m the one with the error.
I (really) like what you’re saying here and it is something I often recommend (where appropriate) to people that have no interest in rationality whatsoever.
Well, except for drawing a line at ‘true/false’ with respect to when it an be wise to take actions to counter the statements. Truth is only one of the relevant factors. This doesn’t detract at all for your core point.
I extend this philosophy to when evaluating socially relevant interactions of others. When things become a public scene that for some reason I care about I do not automatically attribute the offense, indignation or anger of the recipient to be the responsibility of the person who provided the stimulus.
The true/false isn’t the only line, but I feel that it’s the most important. If something someone says to or about you is true, then no matter what you should own it in some way. Acknowledge that they’re right, try to internalize it, try to change it, but never never just ignore it! (edit: If you’re getting mad when someone says something truthful about you, then this should raise other warning flags as well! Examine the issue carefully to figure out what’s really happening here.)
If the thing they say is false, then don’t get mad first! Think it through carefully, and then do the minimum you can to deal with it. The most important thing is to not obsess over it afterward, because if you’re doing that you’re handing a piece of your life away for a very low or even negative return. Laugh about it, ignore it, get over it, but don’t let it sit and fester in your mind.
If you’re getting mad when someone says something truthful about you, then this should raise other warning flags as well! Examine the issue carefully to figure out what’s really happening here.
When it comes to making the most beneficial responses feeling anger is almost never useful when you have a sufficient foundation in the mechanisms of social competition, regardless of truth. It tends to show weakness—the vulnerability to provocation that you are speaking of gives an opportunity for one upmanship that social rivals will instinctively hone in on.
In terms of the benefits and necessity of making a response it is the connotations that are important. Technical truth is secondary.
I didn’t mean to suggest that the truth/falsehood line was as usefully socially as I believe it is internally. The social reaction you may decide on is mostly independent from truth.
Internally, it’s important to recognize that truth, since it is vital feedback that can tell you when you may need to change.
Internally, it’s important to recognize that truth, since it is vital feedback that can tell you when you may need to change.
And, when false, when you may need to change what you do such that others don’t get that impression (or don’t think they can get away with making the public claim even though they know it is false).
I think that the big skill here is not being offended. If someone can say something and control your emotions, literally make you feel something you had no intention to feel beforehand, then perhaps it’s time to start figuring out why you’re allowing people to do this to you.
At a basic level anything someone can say to you is either true or false. If it’s true then it’s something you should probably consider and accept. If it’s false then it’s false and you can safely ignore/gently correct/mock the person saying it to you. In any case there really isn’t any reason to be offended and especially there is no reason to allow the other person to provoke you to anger or acting without thought.
This isn’t the same as never being angry! This is simply about keeping control for yourself over when and why you get angry or offended, rather than allowing the world to determine that for you.
Edit—please disregard this post
It seems really, really difficult to convey to people who don’t understand it already that becoming offended is a choice, and it’s possible to not allow someone to control you in that way. Maybe “offendibility” is linked to a fundamental personality trait.
What constitutes a “choice” in this context is pretty subjective. It may be less confusing to tell someone they could have a choice instead of asserting that they do have a choice. The latter connotes a conscious decision gone awry, and in doing so contradicts the subject’s experience that no decision-making was involved.
Good point. Reading my comment again, it seems obvious that I committed the typical mind fallacy in assuming that it really is a choice for most people.
I’d take this differently.
I would at least hope that you are claiming that there is, in fact, a choice, whether the subjective experience of the moment provides indication of the choice or not.
Maybe stated differently you could be claiming that there is the possibility of choice for all people whether a person is aware or capable of taking advantage of that fact. That a person can alter his or her self in order to provide his or her self with the opportunity to choose in such situations.
Loqi’s feedback seems to me to be suggesting that individuals who do not have a belief that they have such a “possibility of choice” could have a more positive phenomenological experience of your assertion and as a result be more likely to integrate the belief into their own belief set and [presumably] gain advantage by encountering it.
That is me asserting that Loqi does not appear to be rejecting your assertion but only suggesting a manner by which it can be improved.
Of course, Loqi’s suggestion could contingently be less optimal than the less easy to accept presentation.
While the approach you suggest could provide a more subjectively negative experience, the cognitive dissonance could cause the utterance to gain more attention with the brain as a more aberrant occurrence in its stimuli and as a result be worthy of further analysis and consideration.
I am generally in favor of delivering notions I believe to be helpful in a manner which can/will be accepted. In some cases however, others are able and more likely to accept a less than pleasant delivery mechanism. This is contingent upon the audience, of course, as well as the level of knowledge you have about your audience. In the absence of such knowledge, the more gentle approach seems advisable.
It could be. It seems not just difficult but actually against most culture on the planet. Consider that crimes of passion, like killing someone when you find them sleeping around on you, often get a lower sentence than a murder ‘in cold blood’. If someone says ‘he made me angry’ we know exactly what that person means. Responding to a word with a bullet is a very common tactic, even in a joking situation; I’ve had things thrown at me for puns!
It does seem like a learn-able skill even so. I did not have this skill when I was child, but I do have it now. The point I learned it in my life seems to roughly correspond to when I was first trained and working as technical support. I don’t know if there’s a correlation there.
In any case, merely being aware that this is a skill may help a few people on this forum to learn it, and I can see only benefit in trying. It is possible to not control anger but instead never even feel it in the first place, without effort or willpower.
Edit—please disregard this post
I imagine you wouldn’t have lasted long in tech support if you hadn’t learned that skill. :-)
And yet, not to feel an emotion in the first place may obscure you to yourself—it’s a two-sided coin. To opt to not know what you’re feeling when I struggle to find out seems strange to me.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I said. I’m not obscuring my feelings from myself. I’m just aware of the moment when I choose what to feel, and I actively choose.
I’m not advocating never getting angry, just not doing it when it’s likely to impair your ability to communicate or function. If you choose to be offended, that’s a valid choice… but it should also be an active choice, not just the default.
I find it fairly easy to be frustrated without being angry at someone. It is, after all, my fault for assuming that someone is able to understand what I’m trying to argue, so there’s no point in being angry at them for my assumption. They might have a particularly virulent meme that won’t let them understand… should I get mad at them for a parasite? It seems pointless.
Edit—please disregard this post
Well, it seems I misunderstand your statement, “It is possible to not control anger but instead never even feel it in the first place, without effort or willpower.”
I know it is possible to experience anger, but control it and not act angry—there is a difference between having the feeling and acting on it. I know it is also possible to not feel anger, or to only feel anger later, when distanced from the situation. I’m ok with being aware of the feeling and not acting on it, but to get to the point where you don’t feel it is where I’m starting to doubt whether it’s really a net benefit.
And yes, I do understand that with understand / assumptions about other people, stuff that would have otherwise bothered me (or someone else) is no longer a source of anger. You changed your outlook and understanding of that type of situation so that your emotion is frustration and not anger. If that’s what you meant originally, I understand now.
Mostly I don’t even feel frustration, but instead sadness. I’d like to be able to help, but sometimes the best I can do is just be patient and try to explain clearly, and always immediately abandon my arguments if I find that I’m the one with the error.
Edit—please disregard this post
I (really) like what you’re saying here and it is something I often recommend (where appropriate) to people that have no interest in rationality whatsoever.
Well, except for drawing a line at ‘true/false’ with respect to when it an be wise to take actions to counter the statements. Truth is only one of the relevant factors. This doesn’t detract at all for your core point.
I extend this philosophy to when evaluating socially relevant interactions of others. When things become a public scene that for some reason I care about I do not automatically attribute the offense, indignation or anger of the recipient to be the responsibility of the person who provided the stimulus.
The true/false isn’t the only line, but I feel that it’s the most important. If something someone says to or about you is true, then no matter what you should own it in some way. Acknowledge that they’re right, try to internalize it, try to change it, but never never just ignore it! (edit: If you’re getting mad when someone says something truthful about you, then this should raise other warning flags as well! Examine the issue carefully to figure out what’s really happening here.)
If the thing they say is false, then don’t get mad first! Think it through carefully, and then do the minimum you can to deal with it. The most important thing is to not obsess over it afterward, because if you’re doing that you’re handing a piece of your life away for a very low or even negative return. Laugh about it, ignore it, get over it, but don’t let it sit and fester in your mind.
Edit—please disregard this post
When it comes to making the most beneficial responses feeling anger is almost never useful when you have a sufficient foundation in the mechanisms of social competition, regardless of truth. It tends to show weakness—the vulnerability to provocation that you are speaking of gives an opportunity for one upmanship that social rivals will instinctively hone in on.
In terms of the benefits and necessity of making a response it is the connotations that are important. Technical truth is secondary.
Very true.
I didn’t mean to suggest that the truth/falsehood line was as usefully socially as I believe it is internally. The social reaction you may decide on is mostly independent from truth.
Internally, it’s important to recognize that truth, since it is vital feedback that can tell you when you may need to change.
Edit—please disregard this post
And, when false, when you may need to change what you do such that others don’t get that impression (or don’t think they can get away with making the public claim even though they know it is false).