4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIs there a scientific basis for saying that words spoken in moments of anger are actually the most truthful moments we go through in our lives? Is this statement even remotely true?
February 27th, 2013, 05:45 PM
Is there a scientific basis for saying that words spoken in moments of anger are actually the most truthful moments we go through in our lives? Is this statement even remotely true?
Not entirely sure about "most truthful", but one "explanation" could be that anger bypasses/ over-rides social niceties and you say things that politeness would normally circumvent.
Scientific? Not at the moment. Until we are able to apply rigorous observation to the great many factors that make up a mind, we cannot apply the scientific method properly on such subjects until we've progressed with our instruments far more than we have, yet.
I suffer from this problem, so I think I can give some input- even if not so scientifically.
Words spoken in anger are often spoken with the intent to hurt, not to give the truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts and that makes it effective... but not always. The truth does not always hurt and if it doesn't, then the angry mind won't validate it as a response and it will choose what is hurtful, instead.
The basic rule of thumb is not to assume that words spoken in anger are the hard truth, but are the most hurtful comment the other person could come up with. And while that may sometimes be the truth, it's a truth twisted by anger to be as mean as possible. The actuality of such a truth is probably more benign in the others mind when they are not so angry.
Truthful? I doubt it. Why do most people when enraged refer to either copulation, or passing a log. Those subjects aren't normally associated with rage.
I guess it depends on the person. My mother could never swear: her worst display (when her bike was stolen) was to scream "double bother" and kick-in a fishtank.
Your mom sounds adorable.Originally Posted by Pong
My personal favorite is the guy that screams "Bob Saget!" when he gets upset. lol.
I think you will find that the way people behave when angry isn't so generic when you observe intensely different cultures. It will probably vary greatly from one individual to the next as well. In my case, when I am a little irritated, I get mouthy, but when I am really really pissed off, I get quiet. And that is because I think better when quiet and I am likely planning a course of action to correct whatever I perceive the problem to be. Once I decide on a course of action, emotions will become almost undetectable in me. And that's when "things" happen.
So far, there isn't a scientific explanation for why or how you speak "truthful words" when you are in anger.. But, when as away from science, most people would say that when you have an emotional-overload your brain "losses" control over what it says and just speaks without thinking about it like when you do when you are calm or relaxed... It is somewhat similar to when people who are on the effect of drugs speak uncontrollably and say things without control.. Would it might be the same thing? I really don't know.. But as far as I know.. Try to avoid anger and stay in a calm environment so you can think before you say something you should not have said.
It wouldn't be difficult at all all to apply science to the question-- seriously accessments of anger would be easy to tell from physical changes, external evaluation or simply self-reporting. Varacity of statements would be a bit more difficult but not that hard to determine either from self-reporting of participants after the fact. Not aware of it being studied however. There is some research which suggest enhanced short term creativity boost from anger, and even more about long term effects on long term psychological heath of people who are frequently angry.
Hmm, I'd say no. Looking at the question while being familiar (but by no means and Expert) in Conflict Resolution Study, I'd suspect the opposite. When you're angry, you don't communicate in a healthy way - usually you're communicating with an emphasis on Relational, or Identity-based goal in mind. Relational - how you're being treated/how you want to be treated. Identity - how you perceive yourself, and your intent to preserve that perceived identity (Saving Face). So when you're angry, what you're usually trying to say is: I'm not being treated right -or- You're damaging how I perceive myself, I need to reaffirm my concept of self.
Anger is not a primary emotion, Anger tends to stem from other emotions such as sadness, or fear - and therefore usually results in actions that are not representative of what you truly feel about the conflict. This is how escalatory spirals form:
You Say: X
Angry me: Perceives X as Y (In relation to the Lens Model of Conflict), and so I respond as though X is Y (Defensively)
Angry You: Responds defensively
Angry me: Responds Offensively
And so we go until we're not really talking about how we feel, but are actually trying to achieve goals that protect us from the conflict.
Actually anger is a primary emotion in most advanced animals including humans. Anger can come almost instantly and before any others. It can also be triggered by others.
I'm inclined to disagree, but you very well may be right. My Prof said something about Anger not being a primary emotion the other day (The course is a single 3 hour session a week. So it is possible that by that point I wasn't paying too much attention) but that could have been something that was misunderstood. According to my textbook "fear and hurt underlie most emotions of anger. Fear makes human beings experience vulnerability that we then experience as anger, which is more socially aceptable for adults than is fear" (Wilmot and Hocker 202). This is what is known as the Anger-Fear Sequence.
Wilmot, William and Hocker, Joyce. Interpersonal Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Edit: I cede "not a primary emotion" and substitute as Anger usually being secondary to fear.
This might be an issue of debate in the community...not sure. The idea of anger as a primary emotion is still in relatively recent publications however. (e.g., (Adolphs et al, 2003,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262603000095
E Bal, E Harden, D Lamb, AV Van Hecke… - Journal of autism and …, 2010 - Springer, Emotion Recognition in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Relations to Eye Gaze and Autonomic State - Springer
My simple anecdotal are I can't ever remember a fear or shame response being associated with anger...what sets me off are being hurt and seeing another hurt....my cat goes into instant anger when hurt as well).
Thanks for the links Lynx. While I am still thinking that in the context of interpersonal conflicts anger tends to be secondary to other emotions - I do think you are right. It seems to be that anger is too a primary emotion. I'm reading into the OP as though it were a situation where two parties that are friendly, intimate, or related in some way were having a dispute. Personally, I find it very difficult to see such a circumstance to yield an immediate response of anger - but then again, that is not taking into account various other types of situations.
Last edited by stander-j; March 2nd, 2013 at 05:27 AM.
I have another question:
If I have sex with someone I don't like, I don't find attractive, not sexually attracted to at all. I just had sex with her because before I was angry at her for not allowing me to do something and while I am having sex I felt nothing, not a thing, not remorse, not the feeling that I wanted this, just nothing... does it mean that I really didn't want to have sex with her? That the sex is just a manifestation of the anger and nothing more? That the sex wasn't actually something I wanted deep inside me but just showed up as a manifestation of the anger?
Before I can even begin to contemplate an answer for this, I need to know something. Was she willing to have sex with you? Did she want to have sex with you?
Are you talking about hate sex?
Some people engage in hate sex, which occurs between two people who strongly dislike or annoy each other. It is related to the idea that opposition between two people can heighten sexual tension, attraction and interest.
Disclaimer, I didnt really actually do this to anyone honest to God
Well that's good to know because the only way I can perceive that one would have sex with someone they dislike, are not attracted to, and is angry with, is if they rape that person or they have some thing for self deprecation.Disclaimer, I didnt really actually do this to anyone honest to God
"Is there a scientific basis for saying that words spoken in moments of anger are actually the most truthful moments..." Interesting because the emotional reaction itself is truthful but not necessarily the words we use in its expression.
The discussion make me think of how animals will lightly 'punish bite' their young to correct a behavior. Is an emotional reaction an instinct to 'fix' the offender?
kabdoun,
If ones emotions brake down, anger controls you, not the truth. We all get angry and say words later we regret we said. I did and lost my grandson because of it. My emotions my mouth and my anger were the cause not the truth. I see that now, after it's to late to say I am sorry! Paul
| « Adrenaline dependence. | Terrified of school work » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
