So, when must I address my anger? Crucially, it's when the situation which led to it goes unresolved; eg: I work with someone who is bullying me, and I must resolve it because I'll see them every day. Or, I'm angry about something my spouse does, but I've never talked to her about it. In that case, "keeping it bottled up" is relevant because the conflict will be refreshed daily. ie, it's the externality of the stimulus which makes the "bottled up" metaphor relevant.
(Note - you want the referenced papers, not the actual paper itself, which I consider weak-ish)
This is, theoretically, part of becoming an adult: Becoming aware of your emotions, and learning to express them in a healthy way. (Not just anger). Our society spectacularly fails us on that subject. We do extremely little to even explain what emotions are and how they influence it. (There's a reason "Inside Out" was a huge hit - it's one of the few pop culture pieces trying to do that job)
Unconstrained expression of anger is usually a result of long term suppression and then falling into the trap that suppression doesn't work so modulation will also not.
Of course, people who aren't ordered to go there instead get to fall into the "admitting you're working on your emotions is weakness" trap. Shit's hard, for everybody. Men get larded with "tough it out", women get "you're too emotional" instead. Minorities get "you must be respectable". Majority folk get "you have it good, clearly it is impossible for you to suffer, and you have no right to complain".
I wish we were more supportive as a society, and more focused on helping people develop emotional skills.
Of course, sometimes how a preference is expressed for suppression or expression comes from an underlying personality type and philosophy— is a heuristic or justification for personal preference.
Many athletes and actors practice a brief expression of frustration followed by conscious breathing as a way to reduce and channel anger, rather than suppressing it or giving into a feeling of being out of control. Behaving from a place of being out of control tends to be where a lot of damage in life is caused.
Another popular point of view is someone who expresses anger saying it is truth, as Harry Truman responded to someone who said "Give 'em hell. Harry!", He replied "I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
A family member who has this issue has many stories such as this one: "I parked in front of the restaurant and before I could get out this guy I don't know was at my window screaming at me. I don't know why this always happens to me." When you spend some time with this person, you find that they have poor impulse control and lack of awareness of how their choices affect others. The reason these things "always happen to them" is because they cause it to happen through their behavior.
Now in our current world not every incidence of anger is because of a conflict but follows the same pattern. To talk about the bad weather is better than grumbling about it. Grumbling about it is better than grinding your teeth. And expression does not mean give in to the anger without awareness, so it is not okay to direct the rage one felt in the workplace to their family members or to kick the tyre of a car.
Anger is not a constantly accumulating waste product that must be regularly emptied out.
It goes away by itself if you wait a while.
No it's not
> bottled up anger/emotion is not good
Yes it is
It is tautologically obvious why expressing anger does not result in reduced anger in the long term, and why practicing subduing your anger is beneficial. Cathartic expression of anger is a long-debunked approach to coping with it.
It isn't obvious at all to me and doesn't match my experience.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582...
I agree, in the short term anger can have negative consequences. But longer term, as you ruminate on the causes of anger, you can be more objective and see that the reaction may have been an overreaction and unproductive. You might even have regret (I've certainly felt regret).
If I always subdued my anger, I'd probably end up like the dog in the this is fine meme (and I'm not an angry person!).
Aggressive expressions don't work long term because they reinforce the behaviour of outwardly and rapidly being angry.
I have embraced my emotions and I have never been more miserable. Verses when I was a practicing Stoic and ignored them.
When you embrace your emotions, your brain focuses on different things. If I ignored an emotion, I can go back to work. If I embrace an emotion, I might dig deep into a PTSD-style event, and be bummed all day.
I'm not sure where this idea to 'get your emotions out when they come', I'm not sure its scientific.
IME it's from people who have no idea how to do it any other way, unfortunately. They never experienced being capable of suppressing emotions and lack the imagination that it can be learned. (Or maybe it can't, but some of them end up getting medication and realize what they were missing.)
That's not what stoicism is about, at all
I didn't say it was. I was talking about how a philosophy was able to help me mentally.
I can explain Stoicism, I just didn't feel the need to. Other people can go google it.
You heavily implied it, and it's a very common criticism of stoicism, I don't want people to have such a negative view of it from the get go
Ignored, or acknowledged and prioritized?
Farnsworth in "The Practicing Stoic" Ch9:
So a first Stoic remedy for anger, as for other such problems, is a return to Chapter 1: recognize it as an option and let it go.
You might also try EMDR to reprogram the amygdala.
If people could stick to "I'm rather angry with you right now, so I'm leaving" then sure, by all means express your anger.