People's sense of control over actions is reduced when angry or afraid: study

Posted title is clickbait. Actual title: "People's Sense of Control Over Their Actions Is Reduced At A Fundamental Level When They're Angry Or Afraid."

What the article actually says is that when people are angry or afraid, they don't believe as strongly that their actions are within their control. This seems like one of those "well, duh" kind of studies, but it's pretty interesting, because it lends credence to the "crime of passion" defense in law.

Anger is such an interesting experience in that (if this study is correct) we tend to actually lose agency while angry, but internally I think we actually believe we have dramatically increased agency in the moment. That's part of what makes anger so dangerous. We're basically at maximum stupid while angry. Do you ever get angry and suddenly feel a loss for words? Difficulty articulating arguments? Resorting to less effective and more hurtful strategies? Regretting it later? Anger, for the most part, is useless in most modern human interactions. I think it's the sort of thing that's good at convincing a brain that horrible acts are justifiable in the moment, such was killing in war or serious altercations. Anger and fear both seem like tools for survival in a world most of us no longer live in.

As for the ethical aspect... I've dealt with an ill temper my entire life, although not many people who know me would think so. As a kid I was bullied a lot (both of these are likely direct products of me having ADD), and I used to get in a lot of trouble because my reaction was to let my rage boil over and fight these bullies. The best advice anyone ever gave me (Thanks Mr. McAneny) was that we aren't a tool of our anger, but instead, it's a tool of our creation. We're responsible for what we do with our anger, even if we're not the instigators. Anger typically leads to brutal solutions, both emotionally and physically, and it's so rare that this is necessary or remotely helpful. That really stuck with me.

I grew up with so many people telling me to use my anger against the bullies, and I think that reflects our cultural belief (or desire to believe) that our anger is justified, and what we do when we're angry is as well. I believe the truth is that it's almost never the correct response. The adults and peers around me who told me to embrace my anger probably didn't have a good understanding of why they believed that or perpetuated that belief.

All that is to say: We should stop believing in our anger so much, and start being responsible for what we do when we're angry. That seems like the most ethical solution.

Ive read some of the book "The Art of Empathy", in which the author describes anger as "the prideful sentry." I like this way of thinking about it.

Clearly, any emotion when taken to the extreme is bad, and anger is perhaps the most obvious example -- yet I would hesitate to call its existence useless, even in a modern context. Anger & pride both have functions as "alarm systems" for circumstances which would be detrimental to certain things we value.

EDIT: I now realize that your original comment was not presenting such a black-and-white view of the subject as I originally perceived. Keeping my comment above in tact for historical purposes

I agree. No emotion or sensation is 'useless', because they all serve to tell us about what's going on inside and around us. I suppose that's the key here. We can listen to anger and fear all day, but we don't have to connect that high-charge wire to whatever machine it's telling us to. It's really important to observe the feelings and not let it get out of control. It's also critical to understand why the feeling came, how it developed, and what it means about ourselves. I think those two parts are often ignored.

The same can even be said for attraction which can lead to crazy infatuation, or the desire to relax which can lead to chronically getting nothing done. Mostly these are very positive thoughts and feelings in moderation, so it's also difficult to observe and reconsider in the moment. Fear and anger are very important as well, but the product of both can be devastating when unregulated.

This is hard to teach to kids. I have kids, and one of them actually gets angry far too easily - maybe even more than I did as a kid. Trying to explain the idea of being responsible for what his anger leads to feels like a Sisyphean task at times. It's so important to me though to have them understand that ultimately, they decide how they react to what happens to them or around them. And of course the same applies to all those other feelings. People are complicated.

From the first paragraph: "...they often say that... they didn’t feel responsible for those actions – they “lost control”.... In the UK, under certain circumstances, a person accused of murder can even claim that this “loss of control” led to them killing their victim. If successful, this defence can reduce charges to manslaughter."

I am surprised at this line defense (not a lawyer, of course).

At the risk of creating a falsely binary division, either we are (at least most of the time) responsible adults or we are not. If we are, then we are responsible for our actions - even if our faculties are temporarily impaired, at least by virtue of actions we took. For example, driving while under the influence.

If we are not, then why do we have other privileges, such as voting, being able to care for children, etc?

Of course, there are middle grounds of various kinds and the law must find and work with these. Any sort of diminished capacity defence, e.g., by virtue of illness (e.g., depression), by virtue of mental disability, etc.

It seems to me that these middle grounds arise because there are discernible pathologies that give rise to diminished capacity. That seems reasonable.

Where the UK defence seems odd, seems to fly in the face of responsibility, is that there is no pathology. Someone got angry and lost control.

But anger is a choice. With the possible exception of the immature, of the previously mentioned disabled, and of cases involving actual physical contact (where someone isn't respecting your boundaries and your expressed wish that they back off), we choose anger as our response. It can be very hard to control this choice, but we are choosing to allow anger to rise.

Once we make that choice, we are responsible for what comes next. IM(NS)HO. YMMV. IANAL. Etc.