A few days ago I posted, "you may have had your anger stolen from you as a child.

@artemis

Anger exists because it's useful for evolution. At the individual level because it helps fulfilling one's needs, keeping would competitors away. At the group level because it helps all individuals to sort of keep each other's boundaries and setting theirs. Outwards signs of anger were essential before language.

But evolution isn't tending towards optimal conditions, just survival. So the more angry individual gets more resources for themselves...

@artemis

But if this one individual's anger is out of control, or if all individuals are angry too easily, the survival of the group is threatened, and the group won't survive. Or this animal will evolve to become solitary... think most cats, big and small, and polar bears, which is better for predators where there's a scarcity of food.

But let's stick to humans. Some angry ones gets more resources (good on them) but threatens the group (fuck 'em). Why They're like this?

@artemis

Remember: either neurology or experience. They were sort of born this way, in a normal setting with enough of what they needed, but the anger trigger much more sensitive than needed. Or lived in a shitty economic or social context where what they needed was scarce and anger meant survival. Or even encouraged because it made them rich because they were coming from a materially rich, socially poor context.

@artemis

And that's where "controlling" anger (outwards signs of anger, because anger cannot be controlled) becomes significant. And not all measures of control are equal.

So people try to control/suppress anger in others either because they want to keep power over them (since anger is a reflex to protect one's boundaries, which is bad news for those outstepping them), or because they fear they'll become angry pricks who will take over and monopolise resources, becoming a threat to the group.

@artemis

Without any understanding of neurodiversity and psychology, the latter well intentioned tendecy of controlling anger in others is blunt as fuck.

But psychology and understanding of neurodiversity happened an eye blink ago in the timeline of human evolution. Controlling anger with anger has been the norm. It kinds of work to keep social cohesion, although imperfectly. Evolution doesn't tend towards optimal conditions and people cannot know what they haven't had the chance to learn.

@artemis

But another source of anger is when reality doesn't match preconceived ideas. That's when one gets angry at their computer when it glitches, or when something isn't where it should be.

That's the most dangerous form of anger, yet the easiest one to control, if one is willing to.

We all have in our mind an idea of how things *should* be. This is usually learnt (through exposition to patterns, observation, reflexion, teaching).

@artemis

Nothing makes me more angry than when my teenage son answers rudely. Why? Because he's not usually rude. Because I don't expect the topic of discussion to trigger a rude reaction.

So when things don't match my expectations -> anger.

If i ask him though to do his homework, I expect pushback. If he answers rudely in this context it doesn't make me angry.

Things match my expectations -> no anger.

@artemis

Okay, need to wrap this somehow...

One must ALWAYS AT ALL TIME make the effort to understand what is going on, why things are the way they are. Being aware that there's a long chain of cause and effects leading to how things are right now, even if you cannot understand all the links. Knowing it's there is often good enough (being WOKE).

One must ALWAYS AT ALL TIME look at their preconceived ideas and stick to them if they're good, ditch them if they're not (Being WISE).

@artemis

If one is woke and wise (*tending* to be woke and wise: remember, we all have limits in our knowledge and our capacity to reason), the anger arising from things not aligning with our preconceived ideas will not be "controlled", it will stop existing when it is not justified, less burning when it *is* justified because the element of confusion is removed.

This allows breathing room to act more efficiently and rationally.

@artemis

Anger, when we remove confusion, becomes useful in unfairness, calling for action.

Why it makes me angry?
- A small group puts me or other in danger and I care about other people because I have empathy

Why it happens?
- The people doing it were radicalised and were taught to devalue empathy. Some didn't have the neurological capacity for empathy in the first place.

What can I do?
- [insert many actions taking into account your situation, strengths, weaknesses skills and resources]

@artemis

Back to the "reflex" type of anger.
There's the question of control of outwards signs in oneself and in others (say your kids or schoolkids when you're a teacher). Suppressing it or not?

What anger is for? It's a crude instrument from before language to protect boundaries. In this case one must acknowledge it while training oneself to be more efficient at expressing themselves in making other respect those boundaries, or teach kids those skills. It doesn't supress anger, it redirects

@artemis

But there are those whose anger is the thing outstepping other's boundaries.

Those who never been taught more appropriate ways to make others respect their boundaries.
Those whose boundaries are unreasonably wide.
Those whose anger is triggered too easily.
Those who have learning difficulty making it difficult, by definition, to learn ways to better protect their boundaries.

And this could be oneself.

As an educator, the cases above are difficult. Like really difficult.

@artemis

Even the well intentioned and informed adults can make the wrong call when it comes to anger in kids. Being aware the wrong call can be made reduces the chances of making the wrong call.

So is left the reflex anger in oneself.

One needs to know and accept anger cannot be controlled, that it usually comes from a need to protect one's boundaries, while at the same time be aware anger can be triggered unwarrantedly due to various reasons (unreasonably large boundaries or sensitivity).

@artemis

When one is dealing with their anger and care about not being an abusive prick, one need to accept their feelings, question whether their feelings are triggered by a real case of someone outstepping their boundaries or not, and deflect their actions to act more appropriately to meet their needs. The choice of actions is:

- Fight
- Scream
- Shout
- Talk
- Withdraw and wait for it to pass

These aren't good or bad by themselves, only better adapted to a given situation.

@artemis

Acting appropriately when feeling anger is not natural in most people. Remember: we're trying to channel hundreds of millions years of evolution using a tool, language, that appeared only thousands of years ago.

It needs education.
It needs discipline.

It's fucking hard.

I say that just to link it with the anger when reality doesn't match our expectations of how things should be.

Okay, I need to wrap it!

@artemis

What's missing in this thread is FAULT.

Why?

Simple. Fault does not exists. Fault is an illusion, hard to define and is useless as a concept. Faultlessness is unattainable (remember evolution doesn't tend to optimal states but only survival, and cause and effects chains). Cinging to it creates warped expectations which impossible to attain. Thus creating permanent anger.

We can explain reality without ever, not once, referring to fault.

@artemis

In sum...

We are the result of a cause and effects chain, as well as evolution, that gave us an emotion, anger. Evolution isn’t optimal, but we can imagine optimal situations, or what we wrongly think is optimal.

Understanding what anger is, how it arises, how it can be useful and how it can be detrimental, guides us on how to deal with anger in ourselves and in others, assuming we want the best for ourselves and others.

This leaves no room for the concept of fault.

END