Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some would say the posses all that matters.
Indeed, the posse is all that matters.
s/the/they/
it was a typo. why mock a comment like that?
How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
111–120 of 161 posts
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are describing moral outrage. The other poster is talking about what academics associate with the fight or flight instinct. I agree with the other poster anger and other extreme emotions are usually negatively correlated with long term success. Extreme emotions engages our primal brain which prevents our more advanced brain from engaging.
> You are describing moral outrage. That's simply a fancy label for a particular kind of anger, as one might be able to tell from the literal definition of outrage: an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation. In my opinion there are few things quite as pathetic as people who twist themselves into pretzels to avoid acknowledging their emotions for what they are. Certain emotions are "bad" (anger, jea…
> there are few things quite as pathetic
I very much agree with your overall point. But it's literally the opposite of pathetic to elide one's own pathos. I'm actually a bit sad that such as useful word as "pathetic" was literally reversed in meaning to become a disparaging epithet.
All personality types have their own blindspots.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
"At times it is only the angry who are in a position to apprehend the magnitude of some injustice. For they are the ones willing to sacrifice all their other concerns and interests so as to attend, with an almost divine focus, to some tear in the moral fabric. When I am really angry, it is not even clear to me that I can calm down—the eyes of the heart do not have eyelids—and the person making that request strikes me…
Although I am not a violent person, I think some people only respond to violence. They cannot be reasoned with.
Those people are best dealt with by calm force. Or controlled aggression if that suits you better. Random violence is just stupid and wrong.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#114One of my proudest parenting moments: my 9 yo was crying around noon, I was trying to comfort him and he slapped me in the face with anger.
“Are you slapping me because you’re hungry?”
“Yeah”
“You want a banana?”
“Yeah”
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say irrational. They are inexperienced. They don't know the risks, and they don't know what they are risking with some kind of behavior. If you place someone who never set foot outside of a major urban center and place them in a forest, they will do a lot of stupid things that can get them killed. If you take someone who always lived in a temperate climate and place them in either subzero temperatures then…
> I wouldn't say irrational. They are inexperienced. They don't know the risks, and they don't know what they are risking with some kind of behavior. “Inexperienced” is the wrong word. That suggests that what they lack is experiential knowledge. That’s incorrect. Instead, children and adolescents have lower capacity for acting rationally even based on the same knowledge, because the frontal cortex isn’t fully develop…
> "Inexperienced” is the wrong word. That suggests that what they lack is experiential knowledge. That’s incorrect.
For your hypothesis even to begin to hold water, first you would have to prove that babies are fully aware of facts such diving in freezing water can cause sudden death, drowning, or hypothermia. Only then would you be in a position to even start claiming that they are not ignorant and just have poor judgement.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see you've never had a young child. Thank you for pointing out a series of facts that are only obvious to those who have direct or indirect contact with children. It boggles the mind how some naive people believe you can have nuanced conversations enumerating risks and tradeoffs with kids who are just starting to count to 10, and refuse things like changing a diaper. Some kids don't even grasp the connection betw…
On the contrary, I was forced to raise two that were constantly indulged and lied to (and despite my protestations was required to cave constantly) to humor them and it made them a nightmare to deal with while also severely hampering their development. Then it became a constant danger about them finding out the truth which we would be brutally punished if that happened because the child would throw a fit due to the a…
> On the contrary, I was forced to raise two that were constantly indulged and lied to (and despite my protestations was required to cave constantly) to humor them and it made them a nightmare to deal with while also severely hampering their development.
I fail to see how your personal anecdote refutes the facts pointed out by the OP. The only way you could possibly refute OP's point would be by proving that you can hold nuanced discussions between abstract and hypothetical risks and their tradeoffs with children who barely have any ability to express themselves.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (...) and it gives us the energy and courage to do what must be done. I don't think that's true. Anger, by definition, is a primal/emotional response that leads people to act abruptly without any semblance of reflection on the potential impact of their actions. The expressions "acted in anger" does not mean "acted with courage to do what needed to be done". It actually means someone screwed up badly without thinkin…
Anger does literally give a person energy and what can be labelled "courage" beyond their norm. That it is still up to the human being with a fully functional brain to figure out whether or not to use that energy (and, if yes, what exactly to do with it) doesn't change that fact.
> Anger does literally give a person energy and what can be labelled "courage" beyond their norm.
Getting angry is renowned for leading people to do very stupid things that they would otherwise never do, because even themselves are fully aware it's stuff only an idiot would do.
> That it is still up to the human being with a fully functional brain to figure out whether or not to use that energy (and, if yes, what exactly to do with it) doesn't change that fact.
The original claim was "do what needs to be done" and now you backtracked to claim that instead the idiot who gets angry needs to control himself to not do stupid stuff that angry people do. What point do you think you're making?
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are describing moral outrage. That's simply a fancy label for a particular kind of anger, as one might be able to tell from the literal definition of outrage: an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation. In my opinion there are few things quite as pathetic as people who twist themselves into pretzels to avoid acknowledging their emotions for what they are. Certain emotions are "bad" (anger, jea…
> there are few things quite as pathetic I very much agree with your overall point. But it's literally the opposite of pathetic to elide one's own pathos. I'm actually a bit sad that such as useful word as "pathetic" was literally reversed in meaning to become a disparaging epithet. All personality types have their own blindspots.
> But it's literally the opposite of pathetic to elide one's own pathos
...a rather important part of the overall point is precisely that the people in question are not elid[ing their] own pathos.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are few things quite as pathetic I very much agree with your overall point. But it's literally the opposite of pathetic to elide one's own pathos. I'm actually a bit sad that such as useful word as "pathetic" was literally reversed in meaning to become a disparaging epithet. All personality types have their own blindspots.
> But it's literally the opposite of pathetic to elide one's own pathos ...a rather important part of the overall point is precisely that the people in question are not elid[ing their] own pathos.
Saying it's not really anger is at least the attempt to not consider it. But yes, verbal elidation is probably more correct.
Re: How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger (2019)
#120I'm with the Inuit and Jedi on this one: anger is pretty useless[0], and if you must[1] take revenge, that's best served cold. Sometimes I wonder if the typical Hollywood W-plot, in which the hero's best friend/significant relation is shown partying/getting the girl/otherwise living well at the top of the middle ∧ then killed by the villain at the bottom of the right ∨, after which the hero gets angry and wins the da…
The problem is that there's about equal amounts of malice as stupidity in the world, so you never really know why. Assuming stupidity by default doesn't always make you feel better and may still lead to an emotional reaction you don't want to have. The better solution is to not care why, and do what ya gotta do. Usually that's creating distance from the source of problems and you and your work.
> The problem is that there's about equal amounts of malice as stupidity in the world
Also, they are often connected. People who don't know something often refuse to learn it or even to hear about it. Not knowing something is stupidity, but refusing to learn is a conscious decision to be stupid in harmful ways, and that is a form of malice.