Thanks for the not-particularly-annoyed-by-”he” datum—but I worry that you imply Alicorn should not be annoyed. Even if this is not your intent, I think it’s a good idea to support the right to have a berserk button.
I think it’s a good idea to support the right to have a berserk button.
I don’t, and here’s why: having a negative emotional response to something kills rationality dead. It causes people to forget their well-thought out goals and engage in compulsive, stereotyped behaviors attached to the specific emotion involved, whether it’s going off to sulk in a corner, flaming, plotting revenge, or loudly lecturing everyone on proper behavior… ALL of which are unlikely to support rational goals, outside the evolutionary environment that drove the development of those emotions.
(And let’s not even get started on motivated reasoning… which, AFAICT, is motivated almost exclusively to avoid negative emotions rather than to obtain positive ones.)
Anyway, if you allow yourself to have a “berserk button” that hijacks your rationality on a regular basis, (and aren’t doing anything about it), you’re only giving lip service to rationality. Okay, modify that slightly: maybe you don’t know HOW to get rid of or work around your button. But you sure as heck shouldn’t be arguing for a right to keep it!
(I expect that objections to this comment will largely focus on individual boo lights that people will put forth in support of the idea that some things should be allowed to set off “berserk buttons”. But I hope that those people won’t bother, unless they can explain why their particular boo light requires them to have a compulsive, fixated response that’s faster than their conscious minds can consider the situation and evaluate their options. And I also hope they’ll consider why they feel the need to use boo lights to elevate their failings as a rationalist to the status of a moral victory! Lacking a compulsive emotional response to a boo light doesn’t alter one’s considered outlook or goals, only one’s immediate or compulsive reactions.)
With all due respect, I (not at all calmly) disagree. The mistakes that you can make by being emotional are not inevitable, and they are not mistakes because of your emotion—a true emotion is true—they are mistakes because you didn’t say, “I can feel my heart racing—did this person just say what I thought they said, or am I misreading?” And so forth.
But if you’re right? And if your response is proportionate? Your anger (or ebullience, or jubilation, or bewilderment, if you really want to be rational about analyzing the effects of emotion on rationality) is your power. Do you think Eliezer Yudkowsky works as hard as he does on FAI because, oh, it’s a way to spend the time? Do you think that his elegy* for Yehuda Yudkowsky was written out of a sedate sense of familial responsibility? Do you somehow imagine that anything of consequence has ever been accomplished without the force of passion behind it?
I pity your cynicism, if you do.
Edit: I will concede instantly that “berserk button” is a deceptive term, however—what I am discussing is not an instant trigger for unstoppable rage, but merely something which infuriates.
* Edit 2: The term “cri de coeur” was suggested over the message system in place of “elegy”—I think it may well hit nearer the mark as a description.
The mistakes that you can make by being emotional are not inevitable, and they are not mistakes because of your emotion—a true emotion is true—they are mistakes because you didn’t say, “I can feel my heart racing—did this person just say what I thought they said, or am I misreading?” And so forth.
If your heart weren’t racing, you wouldn’t have needed to ask the question.
Meanwhile, “true emotion” is rhetoric: the feeling of fear as the hot poker approaches is not rational, unless blind struggling will get it away from your face… and mostly in modern life, it will not… which means you’re simply adding unnecessary insult to your imminent injury.
Do you somehow imagine that anything of consequence has ever been accomplished without the force of passion behind it?
Passion != anger. If it feels bad, you’re doing it wrong.
What I am discussing is not an instant trigger for unstoppable rage, but merely something which infuriates.
Doesn’t matter to my argument: at least a rage trigger is over relatively quickly, while being infuriated over a principle can ruin your life for days or weeks at a time. ;-)
Bad feelings feel bad for a reason: they are actually bad for you.
In regards to the right to have a berzerk button: This depends at least partly on what you mean by a right.
People do have berzerk buttons. I hear “don’t have the right to have a berzerk button” as “should make it go away right now—shouldn’t have had it in the first place”. On the other hand, “do have the right to have a berzerk button” is problematic in the sense that it can imply that berzerk buttons are a sort of personal property which should never be questioned.
It occurs to me that this is a problem with English which is at least as serious as gendered pronouns. A sense of process isn’t built into the language in some places where it would be really useful.
The problem is there in the word “can”. Does “you can do it” mean you can do it right now, perhaps if you just tried a bit harder? If you tried a lot harder (and you really should)? After ten years of dedicated work? Something in between?
You’re right—I tried to reread byrnema’s comment to avoid that kind of error, but I must have missed that sentence twice. I should not have been so pointed. Thank you for catching my mistake.
Truthfully, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to a specific sentence as a defense in my reply.
However, what I was explaining was that while I don’t question that Alicorn should feel the way she does, I have a tendency to overly reduce problems (which feels like I’m trivializing them) and that’s probably what you were reading. I didn’t intend to do that, but since my friends say I always do that, that’s probably what I did. (Outside view.)
On the other hand, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to that sentence in my reply.
I would question whether it doesn’t count—I believe your statement was sincere, and that counts for an awful lot—but the feeling and tone was definitely what I responded to. On the gripping hand, I was being quite precise when I said “should not have been so pointed”—I think emphasizing the right to be angry is important in several contexts (example), and I would want to have still said something about the right to a berserk button … but not the slanted “even if this was not your intent”.
(Incidentally, I appreciate the degree of nuance you’ve been employing in your replies—I suspect this is one of the more valuable benefits you gain from your penchant to reduce problems!)
I hope that my comment wouldn’t be interpreted that way—I support how Alicorn feels about the issue even if I don’t feel the same way. (I might anyway if my handle name was Alicorn—or Cerise.)
However, I’ve been told by close friends that the most annoying trait about me is that I’m a “spin doctor”—that I think that problems can be ‘fixed’ just by framing them differently.
Y’know, given the quote wedrifid pulled out, I don’t think it should be except by a careless reader—mea culpa.
That “spin doctor” thing makes me wonder, though: is there some substantial variance* in the ability of people to reframe their way away from berserk buttons? It would explain some comments I have received if I personally am lacking in that attribute.
Recognizing that a berzerk button (I had to google that by the way, not everyone is a tvtropes fanatic contrary to what seems to be a common assumption here) is a fact about you and not a flaw in the external world is probably part of it. From an instrumental rationality point of view it is often easier to control or adjust your own reaction than it is to change the world to avoid your triggers.
Recognizing that a berzerk button (I had to google that by the way, not everyone is a tvtropes fanatic contrary to what seems to be a common assumption here)
It’s on TvTropes? I just assumed “less stigmatised way of saying tantrum” based off context.
From an instrumental rationality point of view it is often easier to control or adjust your own reaction than it is to change the world to avoid your triggers.
The thing is that these triggers exist only for the purpose of changing the world. The most significant emotions are a way to have a credible precomittment to do a mutually destructive thing if the other(s) do(es) not comply. For example, by damaging one’s own body with excess adrenalin and cortisol while causing similar distress to those who defected in your constructed game.
Quite often the triggers are actually well calibrated to serve our interests and it isn’t always wise to mess with them.
Good, but let me fix it further to what I really mean, ancestral environment included. ;)
The triggers are typically well calibrated to serve our genes’ interest in the environment of evolutionary adaptation. Sometimes, but not always, these interests overlap with our own interests here and now and it isn’t always wise to mess with them.
Sometimes, but not always, these interests overlap with our own interests here and now and it isn’t always wise to mess with them.
In the specific case of our socially-driven negative emotions—those associated with status and status threats, especially—they rarely overlap with our considered interests, unless we either
already have high status, or
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
In most other situations, actually having a negative emotional reaction will not serve our goals.
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
This is probably why sociopaths are especially effective in the corporate tribal jungle, but I’ve also known a few very nice, non-sociopathic company presidents who had no problem yelling when something needed yelling about… without actually being angry about it.
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
That one is complex. A small status threat does not, in itself, threaten survival, but a large number of status threats may well affect one’s chances of making money, getting medical care (or getting decent medical care), or being attacked by police and/or imprisoned—these are a matter of physical survival.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful. It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
This I have to concur with:
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
I find that a lot of people (over the age of three) who use the ‘berzerk button’, particularly those who do it effectively, are using it strategically rather than merely being at the mercy of their emotions.
I also agree that negative emotional reactions are more useful for those who already have high status than those who do not.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
I was using ‘useful’ to mean ‘fulfills their predominately status oriented agenda’. How to relate people’s ‘considered preferences’ with well, the unconscious preferences that they actually act on is a somewhat different question. We probably do agree once we have people take a step back and realise status isn’t necessarily what will maximise their eudomonia in this day and age and for them rather than their genes. But that’s a rather huge step of personal development to overcome and I’m not quite willing to assume it into my usage of ‘useful’.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
Those do seem to be useful for most part. Although even then it can be useful to accept the compassion, suppress the instinctive reaction and, as they say, shut up and multiply. Even compassion is misguided at times.
It’s on TvTropes? I just assumed “less stigmatised way of saying tantrum” based off context.
I guessed at the meaning but it sounded like a specific reference to me, TVTropes is the first hit on Google.
The thing is that these triggers exist only for the purpose of changing the world. The most significant emotions are a way to have a credible precomittment to do a mutually destructive thing if the other(s) do(es) not comply. For example, by damaging one’s own body with excess adrenalin and cortisol while causing similar distress to those who defected in your constructed game.
True, the tactic can also backfire however. I respond badly to such tactics, presumably partially an evolved defense to their widespread use.
True, the tactic can also backfire however. I respond badly to such tactics, presumably partially an evolved defense to their widespread use.
Absolutely, and so do I. In fact I am myself emotionally precommitted to not be swayed by the implied threat of ‘berzerk buttons’ even though the immediate payoff structure may make submission have a lesser penalty to me than the mutually destructive punishment. This seems to work for me on net.
I apologize for not defining the term—links to TV Tropes spell trouble for a lot of people.
From an instrumental rationality point of view it is often easier to control or adjust your own reaction than it is to change the world to avoid your triggers.
True—but I prefer to advocate for adaptive behavior, rather than altered emotional response, in many cases. Pronouns is one such.
True—but I prefer to advocate for adaptive behavior, rather than emotional response, in many cases. Pronouns is one such.
The problem with that is that the behaviour that needs adapting is that of other people (in this case, to a first approximation, all English speakers). The emotional response is ones own and therefore easier to change.
You might continue to lobby for others to change their behaviour once the emotional response has been brought under control but unless you think the emotional response is actually the optimal way to change the behaviour of others it is not desirable.
The problem with that is that the behaviour that needs adapting is that of other people (in this case, to a first approximation, all English speakers). The emotional response is ones own and therefore easier to change.
Not what I meant, surprisingly! The example I had in mind was someone changing their macroscopic reaction from “VERBAL HULK SMASH” to “icy courtesy” in order to leave a better impression without compromising the fervor of their principle. If you want to change the behavior of those around you—and you’re right, sometimes you don’t—then the emotional response is a good source of motivation.
If you want to change the behavior of those around you—and you’re right, sometimes you don’t—then the emotional response is a good source of motivation.
That depends on what you define as “good” and “motivation”. Most kinds of negative emotional responses don’t promote taking positive actions, and they’re strressful and harmful to the body as well.
The example I had in mind was someone changing their macroscopic reaction from “VERBAL HULK SMASH” to “icy courtesy” in order to leave a better impression
Note that this ignores the ongoing personally detrimental effect on the person having the reaction, which is unchanged by the change in external behavior. Even if nobody knows you’re angry, you still get to keep the health detriments (and reasoning deficits) of being angry.
without compromising the fervor of their principle.
Most people who are using the fervor of principle to motivate themselves would be better off having goals, instead. The distinction is that a principle’s Platonic purity can never truly be satisfied in an imperfect world, but goals actually have a chance.
Fervently-held principles are also often a convenient excuse to avoid doing the sometimes-difficult job of thinking about what results one would like to have existing in the real world, and what tradeoffs or compromises might have to be made in order to create those results.
In effect, I see “fervent” principles as a form of wireheading… one that, not incidentally, wasted many more years of my life than I care to think about.
(This should not be construed to be against acting on reasoned principles, just to choosing one’s principles based on fervor.)
Reading this comment this instant, I think we are talking past each other to some degree. I argue for two related propositions:
On occasion, anger is an appropriate response to a stimulus.
It is the right and responsibility of each person to determine what stimuli deserve to be responded to with anger.
I will grant that anger has negative effect on quality of life, but I maintain that anger is effective on many occasions, and can be wielded without compromising the powers of rational reason. And I argue that it is the right of the individual to decide when to do so.
Edit: If we agree on these propositions, whatever remains is minor.
I maintain that anger is effective on many occasions, and can be wielded without compromising the powers of rational reason.
This is a true statement for some definitions of its terms, and false for others. I maintain that actual anger is both less-than-effective for one’s considered goals and cannot be “wielded” because actual anger is something that wields you… and this applies as much to ongoing low-level infuriation as to a moment of rage.
(Strategic anger is only a simulation of anger: physiologically, it is not the same thing.)
I argue that it is the right of the individual to decide when to do so.
Sure it’s their right… as an individual. My argument is that they’ve got no business trying to claim that as a social right in a community of rationalists, without displaying major fail by doing so.
Otherwise, for example, I could demand the right to go berserk any time anybody spoke in favor of negative emotions. ;-)
This isn’t a hypothetical example, actually; I used to actually do that here. (Go berserk, I mean, not demanding the right to do so.)
But instead of demanding the right to my berserk button(s) I did the rational thing and got rid of them… which now allows me to be merely passionate in my response to you, rather than actually upset or frustrated or infuriated or any of the other buttons that I used to get pushed in circumstances like these.
And as you can see from my comment volume in the last hour or two, abandoning those feelings hasn’t hurt my motivation in the slightest. ;-)
(It also seems to have somewhat improved the humility and courtesy of my writing in this context, with a corresponding improvement in karma… though of course the latter can still change at any moment.)
If you want to change the behavior of those around you—and you’re right, sometimes you don’t—then the emotional response is a good source of motivation.
It can also cloud judgement and lead to responding in a way likely to alienate your audience. I’m not convinced it is a net win in general, though it might be in the right circumstances / given the right audience.
It can also cloud judgement and lead to responding in a way likely to alienate your audience. I’m not convinced it is a net win in general, though it might be in the right circumstances / given the right audience.
And I am in complete agreement. My only caveat is that I grant each person the right to make that judgement call. ;)
I agree that everyone has the right to get angry if they wish. What I really don’t like is the extra step that is often taken to claim that because someone else’s behaviour angers or offends you, it is therefore your right to enforce different behaviour on them. The example that perhaps most annoys me is when some religious group claims that because they are so deeply angered / offended by the behaviour of some other group (homosexuals, atheists, Belgian cartoonists, etc.) that it is their right to demand that the other group refrain from the offensive behaviour. I think the right to offend is just as (if not more) important as the right to take offense.
Let is return to the specific, then: I would suggest using the gender-neutral singular they not because I or Alicorn or anyone else is offended, but because it reinforces the idea that everyone, not just men, can contribute to the conversation. Saying “he” by default reinforces the idea that everyone is men here, a condition which is usually associated with an uncomfortable environment for women.
It is the latter that leads to the former and the latter that should be discussed.
I don’t object to gender neutral pronouns when they don’t seem forced. That’s obviously a bit of a subjective call but I’m happy to use ‘they’, ‘one’ or ‘you’ when they fit the context. I actively try to use ‘one’ rather than ‘you’ when I’m saying something that could be seen as attacking a particular person rather than being a general comment after being made aware of the distinction in previous discussion.
I believe it is a fact about the English language that ‘he’/‘his’/‘him’ are the most natural pronouns to use in many contexts when gender is indeterminate however and I’m not willing to twist the language to use gender-neutral alternatives or subvert my meaning by using ‘she’/‘hers’/‘her’ when it doesn’t fit the context.
I also think that it is not an accident that certain gender assumptions are made in life. I don’t subscribe to the view that gender is a cultural concept. I believe that the gender discrepancy observed on lesswrong is more due to biology than culture and do not believe that if we all observed politically correct pronoun usage that the discrepancy would evaporate. I think our language reflects our biology. That is inconvenient for individuals who fall outside the norm but life is inconvenient for such individuals and I’m sure everyone who finds their way here has suffered in some way from lying in the tail of a distribution.
I don’t come here to bond over how unfair the world is however and I don’t think that is a productive avenue for discussion. The Internet abounds in venues to bitch about how stupid the rest of the world is. I come here in the hope of being less wrong, not to list the many and various ways in which the rest of the world is more wrong.
As for the rest: I don’t know if you were around during the PUA mess, but there were not a few comments suggesting that this community was obviously offputting to women. I can’t tell you what factors contributed to that with complete confidence, but given how many people have told me that they find improper pronouns irritating, that’s a place I would start.
The singular they may be a bit more subtle than you realize. I agree with linguist Geoff Pullum: it’s ok to use ‘they’ as a singular bound pronoun (someone lost their wallet) but not as a singular referring pronoun (Chris lost their wallet).
In this case, the blogger that Alicorn complained about needed a singular referring pronoun, since a specific person, namely Alicorn, was being referred to. I think all things considered, ‘he or she’ would have been most appropriate.
I’ll grant that “Chris lost their wallet” is a distinctly modern usage—if you prefer “Chris lost his or her wallet”, please use the latter. I think the extension of singular they is the more elegant solution to the problem of unknown genders (particularly in communities where the answer to “he or she?” is sometimes “no”—I have visited such online), but I’ll grant that it is a judgment call.
I think there can be no complete solution to the gendered language problem, since it comes down to respect and status, which is something people will always fight over. For example, if I start using an ungendered pronoun to refer to everyone I know, then some people might be offended because they think I don’t care enough about them to refer to them using the correct gendered pronouns (which takes more effort and therefore signals caring).
I disagree that it’s a more elegant solution. Suppose I say “While on vacation with a bunch of friends, Chris lost their money.” I bet almost everyone would interpret “their” to mean “Chris and friends’” instead of “Chris’s”. Even when the meaning can be correctly deduced from context, using “they” in place of “he or she” as a singular referring pronoun would probably cause a significant delay in reading as the reader tries to figure out what “they” might be referring to, and whether it’s an unintentional error.
In communities of people who prefer not to use either “he” or “she” to refer to themselves, they can set whatever community-specific rules they want. I have no objection to using “they” in that context, but it doesn’t seem like a good general solution for the problem of unknown genders.
Natural languages are full of ambiguity, and yes that use sounds wrong cause your talking about a particular person.
And if you really wanted to say that it was Chris’s money, how about “Chris lost Chris’s money.” It sounds awkward to me cause my English only allows use of they in the singular if it is an abstract person, not a particular real person.
I mean its not like “Chris lost his money” is unambiguous, it is not at all clear to me weather the he refers to Chris, or someone else. That would probably be clear in discourse because of context.
Do you agree that using ‘they’ as a singular referring pronoun is not yet a part of natural English (i.e., a majority of English speakers do not naturally use it that way, nor expect it to be used that way), but that usage is being proposed by some as a useful reform, while others oppose it?
My point is that making this change involves a large cost, including a period of confusion as some people start using ‘they’ as a singular referring pronoun while others are not expecting it to be used that way. And we can foresee that it will increase the amount of ambiguity in English even after this period of confusion is over. Is ‘he or she’ really so bad that this costly reform is worthwhile?
Most of the people I talk to accept ‘they’ as natural English. My highschool English teachers would probably be an exception, as was I until I decided to let it go. Wnoise probably has a point that ‘singular they’ is a matter of dialect, with most, perhaps unfortunately, having lost some of the more elegant subtleties.
And we can foresee that it will increase the amount of ambiguity in English even after this period of confusion is over. Is ‘he or she’ really so bad that this costly reform is worthwhile?
A good question. I’m happy to leave it with ‘singular they’ for most people but ‘he or she’ for people who want to signal sophistication (by speaking correctly). It is probably too late to hope to gain much relief from ambiguity except when you are familiar with your audience’s manner of speech.
EDIT: I missed the great, great grandparent about singular bound vs singular referring. Thanks Wei.
As wedrifid suggests, I think you overestimate the cost. Heck, English allows the verbing of nouns—screwing around with grammatical number is chump change.
I do not agree that there is a singular “natural English”, but rather many overlapping dialects and gradients. In many of them, some usages of “singular they” are completely accepted, in others, next to no usage is.
I mean its not like “Chris lost his money” is unambiguous, it is not at all clear to me weather the he refers to Chris, or someone else. That would probably be clear in discourse because of context.
In proper English, that would not be ambiguous; pronouns always refer to their antecedents, and no other applicable noun can come between the pronoun and the antecedent.
This causes a problem with “they” in this case; “Chris and Pat went to their car” becomes unambiguously “Chris and Pat went to Pat’s car” if “they” can refer to “Pat”, leaving us with no pronoun for “Chris and Pat”.
In proper English, that would not be ambiguous; pronouns always refer to their antecedents, and no other applicable noun can come between the pronoun and the antecedent.
nolrai explicitly specified “natural language,” not your “proper English.”
This causes a problem with “they” in this case; “Chris and Pat went to their car” becomes unambiguously “Chris and Pat went to Pat’s car” if “they” can refer to “Pat”, leaving us with no pronoun for “Chris and Pat”.
It sounds like all these (counterfactual?) people who speak “proper English” need to adapt their language.
I disagree that it’s a more elegant solution. Suppose I say “While on vacation with a bunch of friends, Chris lost their money.” I bet almost everyone would interpret “their” to mean “Chris and friends’” instead of “Chris’s”.
That particular case could be reworded with “Chris lost some money”. On the other hand, that doesn’t convey that Chris had no money left, so I don’t know.
It is always possible to create ambiguity if ambiguity is what you seek—“they” is no richer a source of such than any other. I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other to change their mode of speech (no flaunting of my particular preference intended).
Edit: How did you find out that Chris lost their money without finding out Chris’s gender, anyway? I don’t advocate singular-they in cases where you know the gender.
You’re not flaunting your preference (at least not to me), since the “their” in that sentence is a singular bound pronoun, not a singular referring pronoun.
How did you find out that Chris lost their money without finding out Chris’s gender, anyway?
Perhaps Chris wrote a blog post about it?
I don’t advocate singular-they in cases where you know the gender.
I prefer to advocate for adaptive behavior, rather than altered emotional response, in many cases. Pronouns is one such.
And instrumental rationality suggests that a non-berserk advocate is a more convincing advocate… so often the best way to successfully get people to change their behavior is to first get rid of your button(s).
(Being happily married to a fellow mindhacker, I have much experience with this phenomenon, as both the advocate and advocatee. ;-) )
Which brings me to the other part of this little rant: Why atheist anger is not only valid, but valuable and necessary.
There’s actually a simple, straightforward answer to this question:
Because anger is always necessary.
Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it… all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.
I mean, why the hell else would people bother to mobilize social movements? Social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would fucking bother if they weren’t furious about something.
So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or a person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence, telling us to disempower ourselves. You’re telling us to lay down one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You’re telling us to lay down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able to do without. You’re telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when history shows that polite diplomacy in a social change movement works far, far better when it’s coupled with passionate anger. In a battle between David and Goliath, you’re telling David to put down his slingshot and just… I don’t know. Gnaw Goliath on the ankles or something.
I’ll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it’s valuable, it’s necessary… but it can also misfire, and badly.
But unless we’re actually endangering or harming somebody, it is not up to believers to tell atheists when we should and should not use this tool. It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we’re going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it’s up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it’s not helpful. It’s patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it’s just going to make us angrier.
It is a fact of the matter—and this is me, RobinZ, speaking now—that “anger is false power” is a popular cached thought. (Those exact words are used in a bus advertisement in my area.) What I am telling you is that you should question that one—it is less general than is commonly supposed.
I posted a link to Greta Christina’s “Atheists and Anger” elsewhere in this thread
What you quoted isn’t really relevant to my point, which is that anger over a principle is not very beneficial to you as an individual, vs. passion or even faked anger in the pursuit of your concrete goals.
(I’d also strongly question whether e.g. Gandhi and MLK were motivated by anger over a principle, or the passionate pursuit of concrete goals.)
In general, fervor over principles is perhaps the most anti-rational emotional response that human beings have… and there’s an evolutionary reason for that. Our genes need a way to get us to do things that are stupid for us as individuals, but good for our relatives and descendants or as moves in iterated PD.
In general, fervor over principles is perhaps the most anti-rational emotional response that human beings have… and there’s an evolutionary reason for that. Our genes need a way to get us to do things that are stupid for us as individuals, but good for our relatives and descendants or as moves in iterated PD.
I don’t care about evolutionary reasons. If I want to wreck my health for a cause, you can advise me on how to be more effective in my tactics or you can advise me on how much of an effect is possible, and either of these things may mean choosing equilibrium over anger … but I have the right to calculate the cost-benefit ratio myself, and if you disagree about the terms in my equation, I have the right to tell you to shove it.
And you have the right to shake your head and say I’m a fool. All I claim is that we have the right to draw our own conclusions, and that sometimes the correct conclusion is be angry.
I have the right to calculate the cost-benefit ratio myself … All I claim is that we have the right to draw our own conclusions, and that sometimes the correct conclusion is be angry.
And all I claim is that if you’re actually concluding things, you’re not angry, and if you’re angry, you’re not currently drawing rational conclusions.
If your anger actually serves a useful purpose, you probably got lucky.
Why? Because people rarely self-modify in the direction of anger by actually weighing the costs and benefits.
I can’t speak about Gandhi, but a case could be made for MLK
As far as I can tell, your link supports passion, not anger, as I would define the words. The letter speaks of “passionate yearning for freedom”, “tears of love”, “courage”, “discipline” and many other things which don’t sound like anger to me at all.
So, perhaps you are using “anger” to refer to a broader range of emotions than I am?
I don’t think there is quite a ‘True Scottsman’ in here, but I sure feel his shadow looming over me as I read it.
That’s just an artifact of the lack of precise terminology for emotions, outside of say, Ekman’s facial coding system. In any case, as you’ve by now seen in the rest of the thread, we got this down to specific predictions about observable behavior, and successfully dissolved the illusion of disagreement.
Although, strictly speaking, my “fritzelnits” comment was a glance in the direction of this question—I’m not convinced that the Ekman’s-facial-coding division coincides with this particular discussion’s alberzle-bargulum split. I suspect that was the idea wedrifid was looking at.
I’m not convinced that the Ekman’s-facial-coding division coincides with this particular discussion’s alberzle-bargulum split.
Me either, but it’s a great example of the sort of thing I’m talking about: hardwired physiological reactions leading to biased mental processing. (IIRC, one of Ekman’s studies, btw, actually involved connections between the “anger” facial expression and immediate damaging effects on the heart.)
Anyway, Ekman coding is one of the very few tools we have for being precise about emotions. The original developers of NLP trained people to observe the external physiology of emotional responses, and noted the consistency of physical response to the same thought or stimulus over time within a single individual. But they mostly avoided codifying or labeling these responses across persons, in order to prevent observer projection and definitional arguments like the one we’re having. (And of course, the one thing they did code turned out to be a lot less rigorously specified than they thought it was.)
So, perhaps you are using “anger” to refer to a broader range of emotions than I am?
This is consistent with my observations of your remarks in this thread modulo the imprecision of the English language. There probably is a fact of the matter when it comes to which usage is more accurate, but I doubt we’ll settle it by posting comments on LessWrong. (;
This is consistent with my observations of your remarks in this thread modulo the imprecision of the English language. There probably is a fact of the matter when it comes to which usage is more accurate, but I doubt we’ll settle it by posting comments on LessWrong. (;
I expect, however, that Ekman facial coding would show visible, measurable distinctions between the set of emotions I’m grouping under “anger” and “zeal”, and the emotion(s) being used by the writers of the letters you linked to. (Which might be more aptly described as “determination”, “resolve”, “passion”, etc.)
At that point, it’s less a question of what terms are “correct” than simply what predictions we are making about thought processes, facial expressions, and behaviors.
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.)
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.
But I think I’ve gotten my reaction to that down to just a “peeve”, rather than something that provokes actual irritation. ;-)
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.
Just so long as we don’t end up with a bias towards dividing emotions down the ‘negative/positive’ line and classify all the ‘negative’ ones as ‘just leftovers from the EEA’ and all the positive ones ‘happy good joy right’. There is a certain correlation to be sure, but the dark side turns out to be useful more I would prefer to admit.
There is a certain correlation to be sure, but the dark side turns out to be useful more I would prefer to admit.
As I mentioned before, I’d want to see a specific reason why the pre-conscious reaction(s) brought about by a particular, genuine negative emotion would be more useful than the same behavior executed by conscious choice or strategically trained reaction.
(After all, if we’re really talking “dark side” here, then I would expect a sociopath—i.e., someone who’s lacking most negative emotions—to perform even better than someone who’s under the influence of a negative emotion.)
As I mentioned before, I’d want to see a specific reason why the pre-conscious reaction(s) brought about by a particular, genuine negative emotion would be more useful than the same behavior executed by conscious choice or strategically trained reaction.
The same behavior is the key. Working out the right emotional displays and social strategies applicable to various situations is an extremely difficult task, as many with an Asperger’s diagnosis can attest to. Anger (and related emotions) allow people to take actions that are appropriate to certain situations where analytic, conscious thought would be complex and require strong theoretical understanding of the dynamics in question. More importantly, it means that you actually have to admit to yourself what you really want. This isn’t something most people are willing to do.
The interesting part of you comment to me ‘strategically trained reactions’. Emotional, instinctive reactions are often useful but I would expect them to be seldom optimal. There is huge scope for improvement and fine tuning of both the emotional experience and the external behaviors.
If everyone had the time and inclination and motivation to become perfectly controlled, calm yet fast acting under pressure jedi types then could well come a time where emotional reactions are not useful. But until that time emotional reactions tend to be a good baseline to start from. Then, in those instances in which they don’t work satisfactorily, debug them with conscious intervention.
(After all, if we’re really talking “dark side” here, then I would expect a sociopath—i.e., someone who’s lacking most negative emotions—to perform even better than someone who’s under the influence of a negative emotion.)
We may have a different idea of which emotions sociopaths experience. My understanding (and observation) of sociopaths suggests that they don’t feel shame, guilt or remorse are are terrible at picking up fear, sadness and contempt in others. But they do seem to feel anger or something like it whenever their grandiose ego is threatened.
If everyone had the time and inclination and motivation to become perfectly controlled, calm yet fast acting under pressure jedi types then could well come a time where emotional reactions are not useful. But until that time emotional reactions tend to be a good baseline to start from. Then, in those instances in which they don’t work satisfactorily, debug them with conscious intervention.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that you would have to be “controlled”, but what I’ve been talking about is eliminating the need for control, by simply altering whatever mental association is making you have something to control. Emotions aren’t something that just happen due to environmental conditions; mostly, they require a learned pairing to be triggered, and those pairings can be altered.
For example, if you thought that Santa Claus existed, and then later realized he didn’t, a whole bunch of emotional triggers got switched off automatically as soon as you realized this. You did not need to become a “trained jedi” to stop the emotion of wanting to wait up and see Santa—you simply didn’t have the reaction any more.
I’m going to stop the discussion here, though, because you still haven’t identified with any specificity whatsoever what sort of situations you’re talking about. I have only the vaguest idea, and assume you are talking about some sort of corporate-politic machinations, so I’m using my own experiences as a guide.
In my own experiences, however, I cannot recall any situation where someone was positively served by an immediate negative emotional reaction to anything—the game always went to people who could calmly spin any situation to their strategic advantage.
However, I’m also thinking of situations primarily where objective standards of performance were also involved, and were ultimately the most important thing. I could imagine that in situations of total politics and no objective standards, perhaps some other case could exist. I just cannot (yet) imagine what that would look like.
So, that means we’re going to keep talking past one another in this area unless you give me a specific example of a situation where you think an instinctual negative reaction would help a person’s real goals. Otherwise, we’re just handwaving different priors.
More importantly, it means that you actually have to admit to yourself what you really want. This isn’t something most people are willing to do.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
On this we are in total agreement!
On the other parts we would be rehashing the same old ‘built in instincts’ vs ‘learned emotional associations’ debate. We tend to agree that regardless of how they got there, the emotional triggers can certainly be modified by training (hacking).
We may have some difference in our predictions on how useful instinctive negative emotional responses to complex status risks can be for naive subjects. We seem to agree that there is always benefit to be had (neglecting opportunity cost) in replacing those emotional reactions with more finely tuned proactive habits. I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
(Naturally, this is my reading of our respective positions and subject to correction if I read you wrong.)
I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
And that’s mainly because I predict a much lower cost to changing than you do, as you seem to replace any mention of self-modification with references to “training”. Training, however, is an exceptionally costly form of self-modification by comparison.
Getting rid of a hot button does not require training; it simply requires awareness and reinterpretation of a situation, akin to my earlier example of realizing there’s no Santa Claus. When the right part of your brain “gets” that there’s no Santa Claus, the emotion simply stops. Training is not required, except for the one-time investment to develop the skill to intentionally perform such modifications.
Thus, I anticipate a much lower cost to changing responses than you. In fact, I consider it so much cheaper, that my routine attitude towards anything I feel bad about is to first remove that reaction.
And usually, the immediate result of removing the reaction is that I spontaneously think of a much better solution to whatever outside-world problem I’m encountering, than anything I could think of while still “under the influence” of the negative emotion.
And, this extends to people-problems as well as logistical problems: I find my brain models other people better when it’s not busy being obsessed with a perceived threat to me!
Anyway, given my extremely low cost to self-modifying, you can see why I’d view it as borderline insane not to do it at the drop of a hat (or the push of a berserk button).
(Of course, you could argue that I’ve already invested so much into becoming a person who can self-modify so easily, but then, it’s not as if there isn’t plenty of other payoff to even up that score.)
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!
Yes, reframing is a learnable skill. Family therapist Virginia Satir had a reputation as an exemplar of that skill. One book I’ve read, “The patterns of her magic”, goes a little into the details of how it’s done.
That “spin doctor” thing makes me wonder, though: is there some substantial variance in the ability of people to reframe their way away from berserk buttons?
I think so. It seems to depend on personality (innate emphasis on practical vs political thinking for example), education (cognitive behavioral therapy emphazises reframing things away from awfulising and suchlike) and status (‘berzerk button’ is a high status only option).
(I should note that I am not trying to label the berzerk button as defective by observing that it is trained away from in CBT. CBT is intended for people who’s existing thought process is not working for them. If going berzerk or otherwise allowing things to make you angry gets you what you want then CBTing it away is not advocated.)
I think that problems can be ‘fixed’ just by framing them differently.
Really, that’s the best way to fix problems. Funny enough, when our brains aren’t reacting to something as though it’s some kind of threat to our life or status, our higher reasoning actually functions and lets us change the outside world in a more sensible way.
I don’t think this makes you a “spin doctor”, unless you’re attempting to reframe others’ problems for your benefit at their expense.
Thanks for the not-particularly-annoyed-by-”he” datum—but I worry that you imply Alicorn should not be annoyed. Even if this is not your intent, I think it’s a good idea to support the right to have a berserk button.
I don’t, and here’s why: having a negative emotional response to something kills rationality dead. It causes people to forget their well-thought out goals and engage in compulsive, stereotyped behaviors attached to the specific emotion involved, whether it’s going off to sulk in a corner, flaming, plotting revenge, or loudly lecturing everyone on proper behavior… ALL of which are unlikely to support rational goals, outside the evolutionary environment that drove the development of those emotions.
(And let’s not even get started on motivated reasoning… which, AFAICT, is motivated almost exclusively to avoid negative emotions rather than to obtain positive ones.)
Anyway, if you allow yourself to have a “berserk button” that hijacks your rationality on a regular basis, (and aren’t doing anything about it), you’re only giving lip service to rationality. Okay, modify that slightly: maybe you don’t know HOW to get rid of or work around your button. But you sure as heck shouldn’t be arguing for a right to keep it!
(I expect that objections to this comment will largely focus on individual boo lights that people will put forth in support of the idea that some things should be allowed to set off “berserk buttons”. But I hope that those people won’t bother, unless they can explain why their particular boo light requires them to have a compulsive, fixated response that’s faster than their conscious minds can consider the situation and evaluate their options. And I also hope they’ll consider why they feel the need to use boo lights to elevate their failings as a rationalist to the status of a moral victory! Lacking a compulsive emotional response to a boo light doesn’t alter one’s considered outlook or goals, only one’s immediate or compulsive reactions.)
With all due respect, I (not at all calmly) disagree. The mistakes that you can make by being emotional are not inevitable, and they are not mistakes because of your emotion—a true emotion is true—they are mistakes because you didn’t say, “I can feel my heart racing—did this person just say what I thought they said, or am I misreading?” And so forth.
But if you’re right? And if your response is proportionate? Your anger (or ebullience, or jubilation, or bewilderment, if you really want to be rational about analyzing the effects of emotion on rationality) is your power. Do you think Eliezer Yudkowsky works as hard as he does on FAI because, oh, it’s a way to spend the time? Do you think that his elegy* for Yehuda Yudkowsky was written out of a sedate sense of familial responsibility? Do you somehow imagine that anything of consequence has ever been accomplished without the force of passion behind it?
I pity your cynicism, if you do.
Edit: I will concede instantly that “berserk button” is a deceptive term, however—what I am discussing is not an instant trigger for unstoppable rage, but merely something which infuriates.
* Edit 2: The term “cri de coeur” was suggested over the message system in place of “elegy”—I think it may well hit nearer the mark as a description.
If your heart weren’t racing, you wouldn’t have needed to ask the question.
Meanwhile, “true emotion” is rhetoric: the feeling of fear as the hot poker approaches is not rational, unless blind struggling will get it away from your face… and mostly in modern life, it will not… which means you’re simply adding unnecessary insult to your imminent injury.
Passion != anger. If it feels bad, you’re doing it wrong.
Doesn’t matter to my argument: at least a rage trigger is over relatively quickly, while being infuriated over a principle can ruin your life for days or weeks at a time. ;-)
Bad feelings feel bad for a reason: they are actually bad for you.
In regards to the right to have a berzerk button: This depends at least partly on what you mean by a right.
People do have berzerk buttons. I hear “don’t have the right to have a berzerk button” as “should make it go away right now—shouldn’t have had it in the first place”. On the other hand, “do have the right to have a berzerk button” is problematic in the sense that it can imply that berzerk buttons are a sort of personal property which should never be questioned.
It occurs to me that this is a problem with English which is at least as serious as gendered pronouns. A sense of process isn’t built into the language in some places where it would be really useful.
The problem is there in the word “can”. Does “you can do it” mean you can do it right now, perhaps if you just tried a bit harder? If you tried a lot harder (and you really should)? After ten years of dedicated work? Something in between?
It is hard to extract that implication given:
You’re right—I tried to reread byrnema’s comment to avoid that kind of error, but I must have missed that sentence twice. I should not have been so pointed. Thank you for catching my mistake.
Truthfully, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to a specific sentence as a defense in my reply.
However, what I was explaining was that while I don’t question that Alicorn should feel the way she does, I have a tendency to overly reduce problems (which feels like I’m trivializing them) and that’s probably what you were reading. I didn’t intend to do that, but since my friends say I always do that, that’s probably what I did. (Outside view.)
I would question whether it doesn’t count—I believe your statement was sincere, and that counts for an awful lot—but the feeling and tone was definitely what I responded to. On the gripping hand, I was being quite precise when I said “should not have been so pointed”—I think emphasizing the right to be angry is important in several contexts (example), and I would want to have still said something about the right to a berserk button … but not the slanted “even if this was not your intent”.
(Incidentally, I appreciate the degree of nuance you’ve been employing in your replies—I suspect this is one of the more valuable benefits you gain from your penchant to reduce problems!)
I hope that my comment wouldn’t be interpreted that way—I support how Alicorn feels about the issue even if I don’t feel the same way. (I might anyway if my handle name was Alicorn—or Cerise.)
However, I’ve been told by close friends that the most annoying trait about me is that I’m a “spin doctor”—that I think that problems can be ‘fixed’ just by framing them differently.
Y’know, given the quote wedrifid pulled out, I don’t think it should be except by a careless reader—mea culpa.
That “spin doctor” thing makes me wonder, though: is there some substantial variance* in the ability of people to reframe their way away from berserk buttons? It would explain some comments I have received if I personally am lacking in that attribute.
* Edited to add link.
Recognizing that a berzerk button (I had to google that by the way, not everyone is a tvtropes fanatic contrary to what seems to be a common assumption here) is a fact about you and not a flaw in the external world is probably part of it. From an instrumental rationality point of view it is often easier to control or adjust your own reaction than it is to change the world to avoid your triggers.
It’s on TvTropes? I just assumed “less stigmatised way of saying tantrum” based off context.
The thing is that these triggers exist only for the purpose of changing the world. The most significant emotions are a way to have a credible precomittment to do a mutually destructive thing if the other(s) do(es) not comply. For example, by damaging one’s own body with excess adrenalin and cortisol while causing similar distress to those who defected in your constructed game.
Quite often the triggers are actually well calibrated to serve our interests and it isn’t always wise to mess with them.
Fixed that for you. ;-)
Good, but let me fix it further to what I really mean, ancestral environment included. ;)
In the specific case of our socially-driven negative emotions—those associated with status and status threats, especially—they rarely overlap with our considered interests, unless we either
already have high status, or
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
In most other situations, actually having a negative emotional reaction will not serve our goals.
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
This is probably why sociopaths are especially effective in the corporate tribal jungle, but I’ve also known a few very nice, non-sociopathic company presidents who had no problem yelling when something needed yelling about… without actually being angry about it.
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
That one is complex. A small status threat does not, in itself, threaten survival, but a large number of status threats may well affect one’s chances of making money, getting medical care (or getting decent medical care), or being attacked by police and/or imprisoned—these are a matter of physical survival.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful. It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
This I have to concur with:
I find that a lot of people (over the age of three) who use the ‘berzerk button’, particularly those who do it effectively, are using it strategically rather than merely being at the mercy of their emotions.
I also agree that negative emotional reactions are more useful for those who already have high status than those who do not.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
I was using ‘useful’ to mean ‘fulfills their predominately status oriented agenda’. How to relate people’s ‘considered preferences’ with well, the unconscious preferences that they actually act on is a somewhat different question. We probably do agree once we have people take a step back and realise status isn’t necessarily what will maximise their eudomonia in this day and age and for them rather than their genes. But that’s a rather huge step of personal development to overcome and I’m not quite willing to assume it into my usage of ‘useful’.
Those do seem to be useful for most part. Although even then it can be useful to accept the compassion, suppress the instinctive reaction and, as they say, shut up and multiply. Even compassion is misguided at times.
I guessed at the meaning but it sounded like a specific reference to me, TVTropes is the first hit on Google.
True, the tactic can also backfire however. I respond badly to such tactics, presumably partially an evolved defense to their widespread use.
Absolutely, and so do I. In fact I am myself emotionally precommitted to not be swayed by the implied threat of ‘berzerk buttons’ even though the immediate payoff structure may make submission have a lesser penalty to me than the mutually destructive punishment. This seems to work for me on net.
I apologize for not defining the term—links to TV Tropes spell trouble for a lot of people.
True—but I prefer to advocate for adaptive behavior, rather than altered emotional response, in many cases. Pronouns is one such.
The problem with that is that the behaviour that needs adapting is that of other people (in this case, to a first approximation, all English speakers). The emotional response is ones own and therefore easier to change.
You might continue to lobby for others to change their behaviour once the emotional response has been brought under control but unless you think the emotional response is actually the optimal way to change the behaviour of others it is not desirable.
Not what I meant, surprisingly! The example I had in mind was someone changing their macroscopic reaction from “VERBAL HULK SMASH” to “icy courtesy” in order to leave a better impression without compromising the fervor of their principle. If you want to change the behavior of those around you—and you’re right, sometimes you don’t—then the emotional response is a good source of motivation.
That depends on what you define as “good” and “motivation”. Most kinds of negative emotional responses don’t promote taking positive actions, and they’re strressful and harmful to the body as well.
Note that this ignores the ongoing personally detrimental effect on the person having the reaction, which is unchanged by the change in external behavior. Even if nobody knows you’re angry, you still get to keep the health detriments (and reasoning deficits) of being angry.
Most people who are using the fervor of principle to motivate themselves would be better off having goals, instead. The distinction is that a principle’s Platonic purity can never truly be satisfied in an imperfect world, but goals actually have a chance.
Fervently-held principles are also often a convenient excuse to avoid doing the sometimes-difficult job of thinking about what results one would like to have existing in the real world, and what tradeoffs or compromises might have to be made in order to create those results.
In effect, I see “fervent” principles as a form of wireheading… one that, not incidentally, wasted many more years of my life than I care to think about.
(This should not be construed to be against acting on reasoned principles, just to choosing one’s principles based on fervor.)
Reading this comment this instant, I think we are talking past each other to some degree. I argue for two related propositions:
On occasion, anger is an appropriate response to a stimulus.
It is the right and responsibility of each person to determine what stimuli deserve to be responded to with anger.
I will grant that anger has negative effect on quality of life, but I maintain that anger is effective on many occasions, and can be wielded without compromising the powers of rational reason. And I argue that it is the right of the individual to decide when to do so.
Edit: If we agree on these propositions, whatever remains is minor.
This is a true statement for some definitions of its terms, and false for others. I maintain that actual anger is both less-than-effective for one’s considered goals and cannot be “wielded” because actual anger is something that wields you… and this applies as much to ongoing low-level infuriation as to a moment of rage.
(Strategic anger is only a simulation of anger: physiologically, it is not the same thing.)
Sure it’s their right… as an individual. My argument is that they’ve got no business trying to claim that as a social right in a community of rationalists, without displaying major fail by doing so.
Otherwise, for example, I could demand the right to go berserk any time anybody spoke in favor of negative emotions. ;-)
This isn’t a hypothetical example, actually; I used to actually do that here. (Go berserk, I mean, not demanding the right to do so.)
But instead of demanding the right to my berserk button(s) I did the rational thing and got rid of them… which now allows me to be merely passionate in my response to you, rather than actually upset or frustrated or infuriated or any of the other buttons that I used to get pushed in circumstances like these.
And as you can see from my comment volume in the last hour or two, abandoning those feelings hasn’t hurt my motivation in the slightest. ;-)
(It also seems to have somewhat improved the humility and courtesy of my writing in this context, with a corresponding improvement in karma… though of course the latter can still change at any moment.)
If the state of our conversation after this reply is not sufficient to justify dropping this thread, please let me know.
It can also cloud judgement and lead to responding in a way likely to alienate your audience. I’m not convinced it is a net win in general, though it might be in the right circumstances / given the right audience.
And I am in complete agreement. My only caveat is that I grant each person the right to make that judgement call. ;)
I agree that everyone has the right to get angry if they wish. What I really don’t like is the extra step that is often taken to claim that because someone else’s behaviour angers or offends you, it is therefore your right to enforce different behaviour on them. The example that perhaps most annoys me is when some religious group claims that because they are so deeply angered / offended by the behaviour of some other group (homosexuals, atheists, Belgian cartoonists, etc.) that it is their right to demand that the other group refrain from the offensive behaviour. I think the right to offend is just as (if not more) important as the right to take offense.
Let is return to the specific, then: I would suggest using the gender-neutral singular they not because I or Alicorn or anyone else is offended, but because it reinforces the idea that everyone, not just men, can contribute to the conversation. Saying “he” by default reinforces the idea that everyone is men here, a condition which is usually associated with an uncomfortable environment for women.
It is the latter that leads to the former and the latter that should be discussed.
I don’t object to gender neutral pronouns when they don’t seem forced. That’s obviously a bit of a subjective call but I’m happy to use ‘they’, ‘one’ or ‘you’ when they fit the context. I actively try to use ‘one’ rather than ‘you’ when I’m saying something that could be seen as attacking a particular person rather than being a general comment after being made aware of the distinction in previous discussion.
I believe it is a fact about the English language that ‘he’/‘his’/‘him’ are the most natural pronouns to use in many contexts when gender is indeterminate however and I’m not willing to twist the language to use gender-neutral alternatives or subvert my meaning by using ‘she’/‘hers’/‘her’ when it doesn’t fit the context.
I also think that it is not an accident that certain gender assumptions are made in life. I don’t subscribe to the view that gender is a cultural concept. I believe that the gender discrepancy observed on lesswrong is more due to biology than culture and do not believe that if we all observed politically correct pronoun usage that the discrepancy would evaporate. I think our language reflects our biology. That is inconvenient for individuals who fall outside the norm but life is inconvenient for such individuals and I’m sure everyone who finds their way here has suffered in some way from lying in the tail of a distribution.
I don’t come here to bond over how unfair the world is however and I don’t think that is a productive avenue for discussion. The Internet abounds in venues to bitch about how stupid the rest of the world is. I come here in the hope of being less wrong, not to list the many and various ways in which the rest of the world is more wrong.
The singular they doesn’t actually constitute “twist[ing] the language”—it is as valid as “everyone knows each other”.
As for the rest: I don’t know if you were around during the PUA mess, but there were not a few comments suggesting that this community was obviously offputting to women. I can’t tell you what factors contributed to that with complete confidence, but given how many people have told me that they find improper pronouns irritating, that’s a place I would start.
The singular they may be a bit more subtle than you realize. I agree with linguist Geoff Pullum: it’s ok to use ‘they’ as a singular bound pronoun (someone lost their wallet) but not as a singular referring pronoun (Chris lost their wallet).
In this case, the blogger that Alicorn complained about needed a singular referring pronoun, since a specific person, namely Alicorn, was being referred to. I think all things considered, ‘he or she’ would have been most appropriate.
I’ll grant that “Chris lost their wallet” is a distinctly modern usage—if you prefer “Chris lost his or her wallet”, please use the latter. I think the extension of singular they is the more elegant solution to the problem of unknown genders (particularly in communities where the answer to “he or she?” is sometimes “no”—I have visited such online), but I’ll grant that it is a judgment call.
Indeed—I dislike “he or she” because it makes assumptions about gender and just puts off the “gendered language” problem.
I think there can be no complete solution to the gendered language problem, since it comes down to respect and status, which is something people will always fight over. For example, if I start using an ungendered pronoun to refer to everyone I know, then some people might be offended because they think I don’t care enough about them to refer to them using the correct gendered pronouns (which takes more effort and therefore signals caring).
I disagree that it’s a more elegant solution. Suppose I say “While on vacation with a bunch of friends, Chris lost their money.” I bet almost everyone would interpret “their” to mean “Chris and friends’” instead of “Chris’s”. Even when the meaning can be correctly deduced from context, using “they” in place of “he or she” as a singular referring pronoun would probably cause a significant delay in reading as the reader tries to figure out what “they” might be referring to, and whether it’s an unintentional error.
In communities of people who prefer not to use either “he” or “she” to refer to themselves, they can set whatever community-specific rules they want. I have no objection to using “they” in that context, but it doesn’t seem like a good general solution for the problem of unknown genders.
Natural languages are full of ambiguity, and yes that use sounds wrong cause your talking about a particular person.
And if you really wanted to say that it was Chris’s money, how about “Chris lost Chris’s money.” It sounds awkward to me cause my English only allows use of they in the singular if it is an abstract person, not a particular real person.
I mean its not like “Chris lost his money” is unambiguous, it is not at all clear to me weather the he refers to Chris, or someone else. That would probably be clear in discourse because of context.
Do you agree that using ‘they’ as a singular referring pronoun is not yet a part of natural English (i.e., a majority of English speakers do not naturally use it that way, nor expect it to be used that way), but that usage is being proposed by some as a useful reform, while others oppose it?
My point is that making this change involves a large cost, including a period of confusion as some people start using ‘they’ as a singular referring pronoun while others are not expecting it to be used that way. And we can foresee that it will increase the amount of ambiguity in English even after this period of confusion is over. Is ‘he or she’ really so bad that this costly reform is worthwhile?
Most of the people I talk to accept ‘they’ as natural English. My highschool English teachers would probably be an exception, as was I until I decided to let it go. Wnoise probably has a point that ‘singular they’ is a matter of dialect, with most, perhaps unfortunately, having lost some of the more elegant subtleties.
A good question. I’m happy to leave it with ‘singular they’ for most people but ‘he or she’ for people who want to signal sophistication (by speaking correctly). It is probably too late to hope to gain much relief from ambiguity except when you are familiar with your audience’s manner of speech.
EDIT: I missed the great, great grandparent about singular bound vs singular referring. Thanks Wei.
As wedrifid suggests, I think you overestimate the cost. Heck, English allows the verbing of nouns—screwing around with grammatical number is chump change.
I do not agree that there is a singular “natural English”, but rather many overlapping dialects and gradients. In many of them, some usages of “singular they” are completely accepted, in others, next to no usage is.
In proper English, that would not be ambiguous; pronouns always refer to their antecedents, and no other applicable noun can come between the pronoun and the antecedent.
This causes a problem with “they” in this case; “Chris and Pat went to their car” becomes unambiguously “Chris and Pat went to Pat’s car” if “they” can refer to “Pat”, leaving us with no pronoun for “Chris and Pat”.
nolrai explicitly specified “natural language,” not your “proper English.”
It sounds like all these (counterfactual?) people who speak “proper English” need to adapt their language.
That particular case could be reworded with “Chris lost some money”. On the other hand, that doesn’t convey that Chris had no money left, so I don’t know.
It is always possible to create ambiguity if ambiguity is what you seek—“they” is no richer a source of such than any other. I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other to change their mode of speech (no flaunting of my particular preference intended).
Edit: How did you find out that Chris lost their money without finding out Chris’s gender, anyway? I don’t advocate singular-they in cases where you know the gender.
You’re not flaunting your preference (at least not to me), since the “their” in that sentence is a singular bound pronoun, not a singular referring pronoun.
Perhaps Chris wrote a blog post about it?
Ok, I didn’t think that you did.
“Chris said on their blog that they lost their money while vacationing with friends.”
And instrumental rationality suggests that a non-berserk advocate is a more convincing advocate… so often the best way to successfully get people to change their behavior is to first get rid of your button(s).
(Being happily married to a fellow mindhacker, I have much experience with this phenomenon, as both the advocate and advocatee. ;-) )
Not always. I posted a link to Greta Christina’s “Atheists and Anger” elsewhere in this thread:
It is a fact of the matter—and this is me, RobinZ, speaking now—that “anger is false power” is a popular cached thought. (Those exact words are used in a bus advertisement in my area.) What I am telling you is that you should question that one—it is less general than is commonly supposed.
What you quoted isn’t really relevant to my point, which is that anger over a principle is not very beneficial to you as an individual, vs. passion or even faked anger in the pursuit of your concrete goals.
(I’d also strongly question whether e.g. Gandhi and MLK were motivated by anger over a principle, or the passionate pursuit of concrete goals.)
In general, fervor over principles is perhaps the most anti-rational emotional response that human beings have… and there’s an evolutionary reason for that. Our genes need a way to get us to do things that are stupid for us as individuals, but good for our relatives and descendants or as moves in iterated PD.
I can’t speak about Gandhi, but a case could be made for MLK. More to the point, these social movements have included more than two people—and some were quite explicitly angry.
I don’t care about evolutionary reasons. If I want to wreck my health for a cause, you can advise me on how to be more effective in my tactics or you can advise me on how much of an effect is possible, and either of these things may mean choosing equilibrium over anger … but I have the right to calculate the cost-benefit ratio myself, and if you disagree about the terms in my equation, I have the right to tell you to shove it.
And you have the right to shake your head and say I’m a fool. All I claim is that we have the right to draw our own conclusions, and that sometimes the correct conclusion is be angry.
And all I claim is that if you’re actually concluding things, you’re not angry, and if you’re angry, you’re not currently drawing rational conclusions.
If your anger actually serves a useful purpose, you probably got lucky.
Why? Because people rarely self-modify in the direction of anger by actually weighing the costs and benefits.
As far as I can tell, your link supports passion, not anger, as I would define the words. The letter speaks of “passionate yearning for freedom”, “tears of love”, “courage”, “discipline” and many other things which don’t sound like anger to me at all.
So, perhaps you are using “anger” to refer to a broader range of emotions than I am?
I don’t think there is quite a ‘True Scottsman’ in here, but I sure feel his shadow looming over me as I read it.
That’s just an artifact of the lack of precise terminology for emotions, outside of say, Ekman’s facial coding system. In any case, as you’ve by now seen in the rest of the thread, we got this down to specific predictions about observable behavior, and successfully dissolved the illusion of disagreement.
Although, strictly speaking, my “fritzelnits” comment was a glance in the direction of this question—I’m not convinced that the Ekman’s-facial-coding division coincides with this particular discussion’s alberzle-bargulum split. I suspect that was the idea wedrifid was looking at.
Me either, but it’s a great example of the sort of thing I’m talking about: hardwired physiological reactions leading to biased mental processing. (IIRC, one of Ekman’s studies, btw, actually involved connections between the “anger” facial expression and immediate damaging effects on the heart.)
Anyway, Ekman coding is one of the very few tools we have for being precise about emotions. The original developers of NLP trained people to observe the external physiology of emotional responses, and noted the consistency of physical response to the same thought or stimulus over time within a single individual. But they mostly avoided codifying or labeling these responses across persons, in order to prevent observer projection and definitional arguments like the one we’re having. (And of course, the one thing they did code turned out to be a lot less rigorously specified than they thought it was.)
This is consistent with my observations of your remarks in this thread modulo the imprecision of the English language. There probably is a fact of the matter when it comes to which usage is more accurate, but I doubt we’ll settle it by posting comments on LessWrong. (;
I expect, however, that Ekman facial coding would show visible, measurable distinctions between the set of emotions I’m grouping under “anger” and “zeal”, and the emotion(s) being used by the writers of the letters you linked to. (Which might be more aptly described as “determination”, “resolve”, “passion”, etc.)
At that point, it’s less a question of what terms are “correct” than simply what predictions we are making about thought processes, facial expressions, and behaviors.
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.)
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.
But I think I’ve gotten my reaction to that down to just a “peeve”, rather than something that provokes actual irritation. ;-)
Just so long as we don’t end up with a bias towards dividing emotions down the ‘negative/positive’ line and classify all the ‘negative’ ones as ‘just leftovers from the EEA’ and all the positive ones ‘happy good joy right’. There is a certain correlation to be sure, but the dark side turns out to be useful more I would prefer to admit.
As I mentioned before, I’d want to see a specific reason why the pre-conscious reaction(s) brought about by a particular, genuine negative emotion would be more useful than the same behavior executed by conscious choice or strategically trained reaction.
(After all, if we’re really talking “dark side” here, then I would expect a sociopath—i.e., someone who’s lacking most negative emotions—to perform even better than someone who’s under the influence of a negative emotion.)
The same behavior is the key. Working out the right emotional displays and social strategies applicable to various situations is an extremely difficult task, as many with an Asperger’s diagnosis can attest to. Anger (and related emotions) allow people to take actions that are appropriate to certain situations where analytic, conscious thought would be complex and require strong theoretical understanding of the dynamics in question. More importantly, it means that you actually have to admit to yourself what you really want. This isn’t something most people are willing to do.
The interesting part of you comment to me ‘strategically trained reactions’. Emotional, instinctive reactions are often useful but I would expect them to be seldom optimal. There is huge scope for improvement and fine tuning of both the emotional experience and the external behaviors.
If everyone had the time and inclination and motivation to become perfectly controlled, calm yet fast acting under pressure jedi types then could well come a time where emotional reactions are not useful. But until that time emotional reactions tend to be a good baseline to start from. Then, in those instances in which they don’t work satisfactorily, debug them with conscious intervention.
We may have a different idea of which emotions sociopaths experience. My understanding (and observation) of sociopaths suggests that they don’t feel shame, guilt or remorse are are terrible at picking up fear, sadness and contempt in others. But they do seem to feel anger or something like it whenever their grandiose ego is threatened.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that you would have to be “controlled”, but what I’ve been talking about is eliminating the need for control, by simply altering whatever mental association is making you have something to control. Emotions aren’t something that just happen due to environmental conditions; mostly, they require a learned pairing to be triggered, and those pairings can be altered.
For example, if you thought that Santa Claus existed, and then later realized he didn’t, a whole bunch of emotional triggers got switched off automatically as soon as you realized this. You did not need to become a “trained jedi” to stop the emotion of wanting to wait up and see Santa—you simply didn’t have the reaction any more.
I’m going to stop the discussion here, though, because you still haven’t identified with any specificity whatsoever what sort of situations you’re talking about. I have only the vaguest idea, and assume you are talking about some sort of corporate-politic machinations, so I’m using my own experiences as a guide.
In my own experiences, however, I cannot recall any situation where someone was positively served by an immediate negative emotional reaction to anything—the game always went to people who could calmly spin any situation to their strategic advantage.
However, I’m also thinking of situations primarily where objective standards of performance were also involved, and were ultimately the most important thing. I could imagine that in situations of total politics and no objective standards, perhaps some other case could exist. I just cannot (yet) imagine what that would look like.
So, that means we’re going to keep talking past one another in this area unless you give me a specific example of a situation where you think an instinctual negative reaction would help a person’s real goals. Otherwise, we’re just handwaving different priors.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
On this we are in total agreement!
On the other parts we would be rehashing the same old ‘built in instincts’ vs ‘learned emotional associations’ debate. We tend to agree that regardless of how they got there, the emotional triggers can certainly be modified by training (hacking).
We may have some difference in our predictions on how useful instinctive negative emotional responses to complex status risks can be for naive subjects. We seem to agree that there is always benefit to be had (neglecting opportunity cost) in replacing those emotional reactions with more finely tuned proactive habits. I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
(Naturally, this is my reading of our respective positions and subject to correction if I read you wrong.)
And that’s mainly because I predict a much lower cost to changing than you do, as you seem to replace any mention of self-modification with references to “training”. Training, however, is an exceptionally costly form of self-modification by comparison.
Getting rid of a hot button does not require training; it simply requires awareness and reinterpretation of a situation, akin to my earlier example of realizing there’s no Santa Claus. When the right part of your brain “gets” that there’s no Santa Claus, the emotion simply stops. Training is not required, except for the one-time investment to develop the skill to intentionally perform such modifications.
Thus, I anticipate a much lower cost to changing responses than you. In fact, I consider it so much cheaper, that my routine attitude towards anything I feel bad about is to first remove that reaction.
And usually, the immediate result of removing the reaction is that I spontaneously think of a much better solution to whatever outside-world problem I’m encountering, than anything I could think of while still “under the influence” of the negative emotion.
And, this extends to people-problems as well as logistical problems: I find my brain models other people better when it’s not busy being obsessed with a perceived threat to me!
Anyway, given my extremely low cost to self-modifying, you can see why I’d view it as borderline insane not to do it at the drop of a hat (or the push of a berserk button).
(Of course, you could argue that I’ve already invested so much into becoming a person who can self-modify so easily, but then, it’s not as if there isn’t plenty of other payoff to even up that score.)
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.
Yes, reframing is a learnable skill. Family therapist Virginia Satir had a reputation as an exemplar of that skill. One book I’ve read, “The patterns of her magic”, goes a little into the details of how it’s done.
I think so. It seems to depend on personality (innate emphasis on practical vs political thinking for example), education (cognitive behavioral therapy emphazises reframing things away from awfulising and suchlike) and status (‘berzerk button’ is a high status only option).
(I should note that I am not trying to label the berzerk button as defective by observing that it is trained away from in CBT. CBT is intended for people who’s existing thought process is not working for them. If going berzerk or otherwise allowing things to make you angry gets you what you want then CBTing it away is not advocated.)
It would surprise me if there were some psychological trait which didn’t show a lot of variance.
We probably wouldn’t even call it a trait.
Really, that’s the best way to fix problems. Funny enough, when our brains aren’t reacting to something as though it’s some kind of threat to our life or status, our higher reasoning actually functions and lets us change the outside world in a more sensible way.
I don’t think this makes you a “spin doctor”, unless you’re attempting to reframe others’ problems for your benefit at their expense.