"Anger-Rage"

Brian Lynch

It was not too long ago that many thought that we all “learned” to be angry. That is it was supposed that it was theoretically possible for someone to develop without the capacity to get angry. Some people still believe this.

Intriguingly, it was Darwin that began to solidify the innate nature of anger and then was promptly ignored for some seventy years and, as I say, only recently has the notion taken hold. But then what can be said about anger?

I think many will agree that anger is problematic and maybe the most problematic of the specific emotions. Many think we should never express it while others think it should always be expressed. Many want us to “learn“ to control it.

Like so many things we seem to know so much less than we presume. Or at least if the knowledge is there it has not been widely disseminated.

It goes something like this: Anger can be triggered in essentially one of three ways. First, it is a survival mechanism that is triggered directly when the organism is threatened in such a way that it is in imminent danger. I would say “overwhelmed” but that is not necessarily accurate. That may be the case but it need not be the necessary condition in imminent danger to the point that a certain type of action need be taken.

It is thought that this is not based primarily on our cognition, that is our thinking but is “hardwired” and will take place on an individual basis based on our life experiences. The point is it is “automatic.” It is our body taking care of us.

A most important insight is that probably the great majority of anger comes secondary to the hurt after shame and humiliation or the hurt suffered after failing to reach a desired goal, not from being in imminent danger, a most important distinction.

These have been the most useful insights in helping people in understanding their relationships and their struggles with “anger” problems. It is my approach to “anger management.” I have said often elsewhere that “anger management” is wrongheaded in that it focuses on anger per se. The problem with this is that most anger is of this second type of being secondary to “hurt” and that it is like asking someone to hold a hot potato and “deal with it.” “Deal with your anger.” “Control your anger.” What is missed is any understanding of the origin of the anger that is that the person was “hurt” because they wanted something and did not get it. 

In labor and management problems, anger comes from desires being blocked. So too in marriage, and in friendship. The primary thing is a desire that is not achieved then ends in hurt and this ends in a type of confusion. Anger ensues. Simply telling the person or group to deal with the anger sets up a vicious cycle and deflects the issues and gets everyone off track. Those in power can easily use it to their advantage and hammer away at “anger control” issues and make it the “the” issue. “We will not discuss anything until you get your anger under control.” 

For example, in a relationship, the person getting angry quickly can get caught in a dependent position. The more controlled person can browbeat the other to no end and obscure and legitimate desire the partner started with that produced the anger. The more the desire is ignored the greater the anger because the more the anger is focused on the more it becomes the issue and the more the conversation is co-opted and the angry party becomes more confused and more shamed and humiliated and maybe now guilt-ridden because they now start to become convinced that they are wrong about everything and maybe start to doubt the worth of what they wanted in the first place. In the end, it will only lead to more anger because, of course, they are not wrong. Ok, the wish for desire might be unreasonable but it has to be respected and negotiated.

And yet none of this has to be “on purpose” by any party involved it is that we simply do not understand anger and we do not listen to each other. We are not listening to what the other person wants and are not trying to accommodate.

Much of this explains why in interpersonal relationships when anger flares we so rarely remember what the whole thing was about. Why is that, again, it is because there is going on a great confusion. Nothing is “pure.” We have “wanted” something and have not gotten it so we are in a state of at least momentary “shock”, cogitative shock, and confusion if you will. Due to earlier learning, we have “learned” that anger is an appropriate response in these situations. “I don’t get what I want so I throw a tantrum.” Or at least show my displeasure but in that state, I do not do my thinking neurons much good. I prolong the state of confusion and shock. The ability to store short-term memory is hindered and fragmented. The feeling/affect of “surprise” is involved which further hinders my later recall.                                  

Then there is a type of anger or any emotion that is in effect fairly purely “cognitive.” That anger that follows being “hurt”, is important to understand, but is not important for survival. It is “cognitive”, it is a “learned” response, a defense against a perceived “danger”. Remember where we started when we said that at one point most experts felt we all “learned” or did not learn to be angry? We can all “act” “as if” we are angry, a “third” type of anger.

None of this is to say that anger does not get out of control and is not often difficult to control. 

“"Surprise, surprise!”

Brian Lynch

                     

 

Surprise, is an ignored emotion or feeling or more accurately an obscured emotion due to its nature, and what is that? It is that surprise is not so discrete as some emotions as it is followed immediately by some other emotion such as joy or terror. For many of us, we are particularly conditioned for one or the other, and most unfortunate for those people who have been conditioned to always or near always associate it with fear or terror. I will often hear people say “Oh I hate surprises.” This is probably due to having a history of what amounts to childhood abuse: a sibling or parent who would scare the hell out of them, as opposed to your father surprising you with a gift when he came home from work for no particular reason.

 
 
 
 One sense of painful surprise that has stuck with me since I have begun my study of basic emotion is the all too oft occurrence of the mother or today, the stay a home parent who will say, “Just wait until X comes home then you will see.” Well X does not come home until late when the kids are asleep and X prances into the bedroom and gets the kids out of bed for their punishment. The kids suffer “surprise” and terror. And at this point have no idea what is going on.
 
 For one thing, one attribute of surprise is that it “clears the circuits.” It wipes out everything that goes before it. Here the kids are in a deep sleep and are awakened, their memory banks are cleared and their Adrenalin starts pumping and they now can try and escape the intruder that came into the camp. There is no reason at all for them to be remembering that they were jumping on the sofa 10 hours previously and did not heed the pleas to stop.
 
 Surprise has much to do with trauma. But first, let me say that I want you to appreciate that pure surprise, I believe, is never pleasant. That is the initial jolt is a painful shock, it is only made worse or ameliorated by interest and or joy that might flow so the odds are weighted against coming out with a lifetime average of good experiences with surprises.
 
 But back to trauma; so logically when bad things happen surprise is likely to be involved and whether we are a “good” guy or a “bad” guy the emotion is almost impossible to control. Again, when it happens, and especially when we are a “good” guy when we are blindsided our memory banks are wiped clean, at least for the moment. This means that memory can and tends to be fragmented. Not repressed but fragmented and associated with fear-terror and shame. When we are small do we have power? Not likely, we therefore feel helpless. If we are subjugated to this trauma repeatedly we might turn to anything at hand to soothe ourselves sleep, food alcohol, incest, cutting. Each of these will bring on new experiences of surprise and new experiences of secondary feelings and some relief of interest and joy but of course, interest and joy will come at a very high price later on of shame and guilt.
 
 Much of sleep problems are due to childhood traumas such as those just described. A famous case is that of Michael Jackson. Michael was not shy about talking about his father terrifying him and his brothers at least once. One night in a dormitory arrangement when his father came in an open window dressed in a frightening costume. Michael seemed to be tracing his sleep problems to that incident. His father, of course, was, “teaching them a lesson.” A lesson that ended in his son’s death some fifty years later and a murder charge for Dr. Murray.
 
 How do we fix things? As always not easily done and too much to do justice here but it is but certainly not by ignoring things. It is essentially by reconstructing and bringing into consciousness the sequence of events, i.e. learning and then deconstructing what has been reconstructed so that we can have control over those feelings, and affects that are controlling us.
 
 So surprise at its core is a painful experience and its evolutionary role is essential to our survival. It is meant to clear the circuits so that we might forget entirely what was going on just before the event that is now taking place so that we can put our full attention to it. We are out gathering mushrooms in the jungle and a Bengali tiger catches our eye. No matter how good the treasure trove of mushrooms we want to clear our minds of dinner and focus on the tiger.
 
 As culture has become more sophisticated, unfortunately, so have the various ways feelings can become complicated. Surprise is primary for survival that then leads to joy.
 
 I want to thank Jim Duffy, psychologist, and Melvin Hill, therapist for much of my understanding of the above.
 
 

"Therapy"

"Therapy"

Brian Lynch

"I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in." 

Kenny Rogers

I am a person that talks to people with the hope that through a good conversation, we will come to some conclusions about their lives that will help them move forward. Through serendipity, it often happens, I learn something and I move forward. That is we both learn.

So what have I learned recently? It is this, that therapy itself can be used for many purposes. Or let us say not “used” or ok “used” but unconsciously used for various purposes not all of them “good.”

People supposedly come to therapy to solve problems. But it is obvious that maybe the stated purpose and the subconscious one may be very different. It may be the proverbial one step forward and two or three back as I have mentioned before. Once that first step has been taken then fear and shame take over and progress is inhibited. It is well known that patients often will have a period of worsening symptoms before real improvement is seen.

If indeed this is the case, the case that they take a step backward, then what would be the characterization of that step backward?

I think both the patient and therapist have to be very vigilant for a time. For what? For one a physical or emotional form of “withdrawal”:

Is this person coming to me to “escape” the outer world and establish a fantasy world that is in effect one of dissociation? A world in which I ( the patient) don’t learn much about life and how to carry what I learn into the world?

Or do I use the session as another kind of “withdrawal” which is a bit more subtle and that is like a drug? I simply lose myself in the process. I become “addicted” to the process of therapy. The therapist for example becomes the only person I talk to. Then I can actually “withdraw” by not coming to the sessions. Or be “withdrawn” in the sessions.

Finally, I can spend the time in the session in various ways of “attacking” myself or the therapist.

All of this is to say that therapy is a microcosm of life, as it should be but it is one where the stakes are supposed to be a bit out of the ordinary. It is everyone’s job to come back to the straight and narrow, to the problem at hand a bit quicker than we do in normal life, that is “to solve the problem.” But “quicker” in therapy even with something as useful as these explanations can and often is nothing akin to “quick.”

Brian Lynch

I want to thank Jim Duffy, psychologist, and Melvin Hill, therapist for much of my understanding of the above. 

" Email II"

Brian Lynch

Revised

There is a television show called “Lie To Me.” It is quite remarkable and I have written about it elsewhere. It uses the work of Paul Ekman who is its resident expert and who was mentored in part by Silvan Tomkins my theoretical mentor. The idea of the show is that an Ekman-like character runs a consulting firm that helps solve crime and other cases by figuring out if people are lying based on facial expressions amongst other psychological and physical attributes.

The idea is that in part if you are skilled enough you can tell a high degree of certainty a person is lying by the way they express emotion in the face and by the position of the body and its parts, “tells.” If they are lying it does not tell you why they are lying. They may have a good reason

This is true in other areas of life. Take email for example. In the show they also look for and use other clues, as I have said, other psychological attributes such as tone of voice and body posture. Are they aggressive or evasive? Do they demonstrate guilt in their response?

These fall in what we call the “Compass of Shame.” If you are not familiar yet with it is what Donald Nathanson devised to pigeonhole our four habitual responses to the sting of “hurt” and “confusion.” We can 1) Withdraw from the scene. 2) we can attack or blame ourselves for the situation. 3) We can “avoid” the situation by for example using drugs. 4) We can “attack others” or blame others for the problem. If there is nothing we can do by our hand or mind to raise our self-esteem we will lower the self of someone else. -Nathanson. This of course can trigger a back-and-forth of each trying to win and thus improve their self-esteem.

So it occurs to me that we are getting adept at interpreting all kinds of behavior. So the “Compass of Shame” makes even more clear the tools Dr. Ekman uses and if we were to apply them to email we might all 1) be a lot more aware of what is going on and 2) be a lot more honest in our dealings in email as one’s action in such a direct and personal act are open to direct analysis.

That is to the attack of self and others are pretty oblivious.

What is rampant in email is avoidance. We need connection and yet cannot find a way to converse so we send every manner of creation by others without ever revealing ourselves; jokes, pictures, videos and we will continue to create derivatives. And the easiest avoidance is simply not to answer the question asked, and pretend it never happened. How many pages have I written seemingly to the ‘Gods.’

What is more frustrating than something sent that can be interpreted in various ways by someone that has not revealed themselves to you for a very long time and yet they give no hint of their feelings about the piece or comment written by someone else?

Finally, there is a simple “withdraw.” No response whatsoever. From the beginning of my studies of these issues, it has seemed to me email was an excellent contemporary example to teach the shame response. I invest my “interest” in this project, large or small, and send it out into the world. I “want” and “desire” a response. I either receive one or I don’t. In the case of the former, albeit it might not consciously register we are going to feel at least a twinge of joy and in the latter shame.

Of course, why someone does not respond is another matter. How many times have I thought it was some strange animosity towards someone only to find out to my shame that some misfortune had delayed the other party? Nevertheless, this is by far not the rule.

Brian Lynch

"Email I"

"Email I"

Humans have always had to deal with non-response, or to put it bluntly humiliation, which I have dealt with in other places. Here I explore non-response and humiliation vis-a-vis emails. Your first reaction might be to think that I am overreacting. 

 I am confident that instead what is amiss is that we are desensitized to the social violence we wreck on each other all the time. We have to suffer more and more of it not only from non-response but from the attacks of the inundation of all the input we do not want from solicitations and other busybodies.

But we have always had to deal with unanswered letters and telephone calls. What is the difference with email? It is that we now, for one, have multiple ways of communicating and numerous more opportunities. It matters not for one, the quality of the opportunity so much as that they are all opportunities to be disappointed.  Each time we desire a connection with others there is a chance that it will not happen and thus a chance for disappointment, for shame.

But I would like to turn my attention more immediately to what I have found to be a common occurrence, whether it with a friend or a supposed colleague or within a group of common interest, and that is the unanswered plea request or comment. I am limiting the correspondence to that akin to a personal letter.

Whether we “missed the boat” as a society about establishing email etiquette or not I think it is beside the point. I think we are missing the boat period in paying attention to each other in terms of common courtesy. Email seems to have empowered an overall majority with a sense of entitlement to anything that comes their way with not a thought of hitting the “reply” button and even saying “thank you,” It is all the more ironic since it could not be easier to do. It is almost as if we perversely do not do it since we can so easily say “thank you” or “I will get back to you?” And we puff ourselves up saying we are “too busy.” “How important I am!” “Busy beaver I am reading my email!” And or a private indulgence in what we have called “passive-aggressiveness.” If we can read it we can hit the reply button?

Of late I have followed up on several exchanges where I have been left on the short end letting the others know that I felt “hurt.” The responses were interesting. So far there have been responses. At first somewhat conciliatory but in the end a need on the other's part to “win,” shame is always interesting. It is painful; we want the pain to go away and for it to go away we often blame the messenger. 

I am not ignoring the fact that those of us that use email constantly and are thus exposed the most to the danger of being hurt by it need to stop and realize that still after, well only 15, years many people, still use email in very personal ways. Some people only check their mail very infrequently or think nothing of neglecting it for a week or two. Some still only have access at work and for many, it is becoming more expensive to have access instead of less so. 

Brian Lynch