How do I control my anger outbursts?

BO-DACIOUS wrote:I was always taught that assertiveness is an alternative to aggression.

It's that and more, Bo: a way to build self-esteem, maintain personal boundaries, get your needs met and improve relationships. Facial exercises and counting to 10 won't do that for you, and the effort to deny your anger is likely to give you ulcers.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/assertiveness

If you aren't assertive, you do things you don't want to do, and resent it.
If you aren't assertive, you let people walk all over you. And you can't blame them; they don't know they're doing it because you haven't told them.
If you aren't assertive, the people around you won't know who you are and what you stand for.

It's definitely a skill worth learning. It has two main strands: letting people know their behaviour is unacceptable, and telling people what you want.

Feels strange if you've never practised it before, but the benefits are immediate.

Candid wrote:

BO-DACIOUS wrote:I was always taught that assertiveness is an alternative to aggression.

It's that and more, Bo: a way to build self-esteem, maintain personal boundaries, get your needs met and improve relationships. Facial exercises and counting to 10 won't do that for you, and the effort to deny your anger is likely to give you ulcers.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/assertiveness

If you aren't assertive, you do things you don't want to do, and resent it.
If you aren't assertive, you let people walk all over you. And you can't blame them; they don't know they're doing it because you haven't told them.
If you aren't assertive, the people around you won't know who you are and what you stand for.

It's definitely a skill worth learning. It has two main strands: letting people know their behaviour is unacceptable, and telling people what you want.

Feels strange if you've never practised it before, but the benefits are immediate.

Hi Jesse, Hi Candid,

Candid, you have always been confrontational. You think if you don't fight then you lose. The truth is that you don't have to do what you are told, you don't have to let people walk over you. How? Easy? At work you say "Yeah Boss" and and do whatever the idiot asks. You're an employee, not a Shareholder, and so why should you care? If the Boss is always telling you to work late on nothing, well, that is the oldest trick in the book for getting you to quit. he sort of has you over the barrel there, so make up a good reason to quit, smile, tell him he has been the perfect mentor, and like a Father, and then get a letter of recommendation and a new job. But there is no reason to be confrontational, and Angry. Now, about 'getting walked on'. Why, because you don't argue? At home 'the Old Lady' can scream all she wants, but you can keep on the sofa eating potato chips and drinking beer. You might have to turn up the TV to drown her out. But if an Angry Person puts his or her mind to it, many confrontations can be avoided by simply NOT engaging. Being Confrontational is really what we are talking about when we say "Assertiveness". Yes, the Sales Pitch for Assertiveness presupposes that the Assertive Person ALWAYS Wins and gets their way. That is really kind of Unrealistic, isn't it? What happens when the Blow Back is "No it's not". "That is really stupid". "Who's the boss here anyway". "if you really loved me you wouldn't argue all the time". Candid, all those are TRIGGERS. When a Confrontation turns sour, where else is there to go by to get ANGRY, right? Really, Candid, image how many people have lost jobs and ended their Relationships because they insisted on fighting every battle, and while winning is great, losing is a real ugly and angry beech, isn't it? Weren't you once an Angry Person? a lot of us Old Members were Angry, and we all have the Scars to prove it, right? Really, do you think I WASN'T Assertive. Being Assertive has been my biggest regret. Easy Going and Live and Let Live should be our enshrined Ideals. I would have been King of the World by now if only I had been Easy Going. Any body who really studies Office Politics will see that the people who move up aren't the most tightly wrapped and fanatically efficient. Efficient People are annoying. Most Corporate Cultures LOVE people who just smile and get along. Heck, that is what Most Assertive People complain about, isn't it? "Why did Bruce get promoted over me. I was clearly the Better Candidate". Right? You know what I mean. Most Career People have no idea what is REALLY important. And it is NOT being assertive.

Leo Volont wrote:Candid, you have always been confrontational.

Gentle readers, this is a good example of aggressive speech: a criticism that begins "you are" or "you have always been". It's a statement about the person, not the undesirable behaviour. Do you see the difference?

People who actually know me would laugh. Even when dealing with a parent, a partner or a child, "You are [undesirable quality]" is over the top. If this is what the person "is", there's no hope of change. It's just condemnation. And change, or personal growth (for both parties), is the aim.

The error is compounded when followed by telling the other person what he or she thinks or feels...

You think if you don't fight then you lose.

...and getting it wrong.

I don't fight. In the past I've been much more likely to leave without warning. If my rights and feelings are being ignored on a regular basis, that's usually the wisest course of action. If the relationship matters, and is more good than bad, it's worth trying assertiveness.

The simple formula is a statement of your own truth, NOT a judgement of the other person's character. It's about who you are, and what you think or feel.

"When you say/do A, I experience B", where A is the problem behaviour and B is how it affects the speaker.

There's no need to fight. There's no need to criticise the person, or even the behaviour. It's just a statement of your own facts: "I don't like what you're doing."

Own your thoughts, your feelings, your liking for some things/people/behaviours and not others. Clarify any sticking point in any relationship.

Most people are good and well-intentioned, want to get on with others. If you tell them what you want and don't want, they'll do their best to comply.

A lot of people lack personal boundaries. If you tell them what you want and don't want, they'll try to comply at their own expense, and will ultimately resent it, blow up at you, or disappear from your life.

A tiny minority of people have no interest in getting on with others. Some are damaged in such a way that they get a kick out of provoking distress wherever they go. Don't bother telling them what you want and don't want, just STAY AWAY.

Personal boundaries are worth working for. They depend on clear "I" statements.
"I like this." [More, please!]
"I don't like that." [I'd prefer you didn't do it. Can you make a case for carrying on as if I haven't told you?]

And yes, in any relationship that matters, telling people what you DO like or love about them and their behaviours is more powerful than 10 statements about what you DON'T want.

Hi Candid,

Oh, I'm sorry that I miss-characterized you. I know so many people casually, that I must have mixed you up with somebody else who fits my sweeping generalizations. And, yeah, I can see how it is cautionary to 'never' use absolutes when speaking of people, but still, in terms of habitual personality traits, well, it is almost the definition of a habitual personality trait that they are predictably absolute: given A, then B will be the response.

Oh, I've heard it mentioned before, that unless one is assertive in confronting people with our lists of grievances concerning them, that we will eventually come to be "resentful". SO, the real issue here is personal resentment. You know, confrontation does not come without a cost, even if anger isn't triggered by opposition or insult. Think about what people feel and think when they are being 'corrected' and informed of their failures. It is a gesture that will inevitably create some distance, wouldn't it. When have you ever heard "It was when you were being so condescending to me that I thought we simply must be friends"? And, you know, If you appear to be so 'touchy' then people may simply determine to steer a wide berth around you. And all so you don't build up "resentment". We are talking about what other people think and feel about us, which, yes, might bother us just thinking about it in those terms, but, really, when considering the thoughts and feelings of other people, well, there is the matter of the intensity of their thinking and feeling. People mostly only feel strongly about themselves. When they have opinions and feelings for other people, they are fleeting and weak and just a notch above not caring at all. Even people in relationships, unless co-dependent, will be thinking of mostly themselves. "Honey, I've finally got that 13 Kobob Saint Barbara Stamp from Finland that I've been searching for all the last 30 years!" "That's wonderful for you Darling... have you seen my gloves." SO, if people are just the thinnest margin away from not even knowing we exist, than why should we ever "resent" them for their fleeting impressions of us, or their relatively automatic, responsive and unconscious behavior towards us. Clearly people have other things on their minds than us. If the Real Issue is Resentment, then we should deal with that, and not be going around giving people Bullet Lists of how to speak and behave when in our illustrious presence. Socially, our goal should be to just join in the joyful social dance as much as possible and treat all the negativity as stuff on the street that we would just simply step over and forget, and not fixate on all the rest of the day ("Somebody ought to clean that stuff up! I suppose I should file a complaint with somebody... If I don't I will be so resentful of it.") . But, yeah, you take care Candid. It's always a pleasure...

Leo Volont wrote:confrontation does not come without a cost, even if anger isn't triggered by opposition or insult. Think about what people feel and think when they are being 'corrected' and informed of their failures.

This is NOT the way assertiveness is defined.

Once again, then:
Assertiveness is a statement about yourself, not about the other person.
It is not confrontation, correction, opposition or insult, nor informing people of their failures. It is the beginning of negotiation.

It is a gesture that will inevitably create some distance, wouldn't it.

No. Assertive negotiation is intended to bring people CLOSER, and that's the effect it usually has. Without it, if someone is routinely crossing your boundaries and doesn't know because you haven't told them, the relationship is headed for trouble or dissolution.

When have you ever heard "It was when you were being so condescending to me that I thought we simply must be friends"?

This is the first time I've so much as seen it written, and once again you're confusing assertiveness with hostility, ie. a judgment ("condescending") about the other person.

Assertiveness is a statement about yourself, not about the other person.

Clearly people have other things on their minds than us. If the Real Issue is Resentment, then we should deal with that, and not be going around giving people Bullet Lists of how to speak and behave when in our illustrious presence.

And again:
Assertiveness is a statement about yourself, not the other person. It doesn't tell the other person what to do, much less tell them how to speak and behave around us.

To clarify, it's A STATEMENT ABOUT YOURSELF.

our goal should be to just join in the joyful social dance as much as possible and treat all the negativity as stuff on the street that we would just simply step over and forget

The "joyful social dance" does not constitute the bulk of human interactions. Nor do assertiveness, negotiation and attempts to understand each other constitute "negativity".

Not all of us live with cats, Leo. Living, working and playing with Other People frequently involves negotiation -- ideally the kind that clarifies what the parties want from each other.

This is how we practice avoidance.
...

If avoidance works for you, I'm all for it. It seemed you were getting through to Bo-dacious, anyway.

I came to this thread only to correct the notion that assertiveness = any form of aggression.

Candid wrote:If avoidance works for you, I'm all for it. It seemed you were getting through to Bo-dacious, anyway.

I came to this thread only to correct the notion that assertiveness = any form of aggression.

Hi Candid, Actually, when a discussion goes to BOXES or BLOCKS of text, I've never figured out how to elegantly handle that. Yes, the BOXES are quotes from self, which I should hardly object to in principle, but it forces me to read again something I thought I was through with, and these BOXES are followed by commentary and then invitations to further discussion on those discrete points. Why not just write in paragraph form how you either agree or disagree with my argument. Why quote the person. Can't you assume the person will sort of remember what he or she had argued. And if it is such a small point that you think he or she may have forgotten, then it is probably not important enough to rake back up, right? It is not as though the BOX Format is indispensable and necessary, though for many people on line it seems Conventional, but I hardly ever use it. When somebody argues a point, I try to focus on the the BIG PICTURE of what they are saying. All of their Little Arguments, I assume, are intended to build to ONE SIGNIFICANT MONOLITHIC EDIFICE of TRUTH. and it is THAT is what I try to grasp and it is THAT which I reply to. SO, when I get back BOXES, well, it tells me that my interlocutor is just crawling around in the details hasn't bothered trying to discern the BIG PICTURE I was going for. When dealing with Intelligent People I can almost see this as passive aggressive. You know, REALLY!?, a person can actually read those Six Boxes of Text that that they selected and NOT know what point I was trying to make. It seems like a refusal to THINK about what I am saying. Oh, but there is the REMOVE A BRICK AND THE WHOLE WALL WILL FALL gambit. But that is like thinking that Raking Over the Leaves will change the Greater Forest? So, yeah, I don't mind a discussion when everybody stays focused on the Big Picture, but when the Boxes come out, well, if one allows oneself to be pulled into that, well, don't the boxes just metastasize like a cancer and multiply exponentially like colony of bacteria? It's no longer an intellectual argument anymore but who can outlast whom. Oh! Then there is the German Philosophy Gambit (background: the Germans in the 19th Century did not really have a Language, as all their 100 or so many little Duchies each spoke their own patois's, but that didn't keep them from writing Philosophy, but they did have to define every term so that Germans that lived more than 20 miles apart could 'come to terms'. Well, the French knew what was happening with "those stupid Germans", but the English, either reading the original 'German' or even Translating it why retaining all those stupid definitions ("when we refer to the word "existentialism" we mean the word "existentialism"), when the LOGIC of the situation would have been to do what the French did and leave out the Definitions because in France and England the people ostensibly already know what their Language means. BUT, the Legacy of this German Philosophy has been to interject into arguments the form "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WHAT YOU JUST SAID". Now, really, do you really owe it to anybody to continue on after getting one of those "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WHAT YOU JUST SAID" retorts, unless of course you are German and all your words are still up for doubt.

But, yeah, Candid, thanks for letting me off the hook. It wasn't you... it was the format that scared me away.

Leo wrote:Why quote the person.

It sure makes it easier for other readers to figure out what a particular post is about. Remember that you are on a public forum—it's not just the two of you.

And, those large blocks of text that you provide readers can be off-putting—if not HARD TO READ, depending upon the motivation of the reader. It's much easier to read shorter blocks of content. Just saying.

quietvoice wrote:

Leo wrote:Why quote the person.

It sure makes it easier for other readers to figure out what a particular post is about. Remember that you are on a public forum—it's not just the two of you.

And, those large blocks of text that you provide readers can be off-putting—if not HARD TO READ, depending upon the motivation of the reader. It's much easier to read shorter blocks of content. Just saying.

Hi Quiet Voice,

Yes, I can see the value of adhering to brevity. When I have time to edit, my stuff always gets shorter. But it takes three times as long to edit as to write. but my point was that in using Boxes, the Boxer is turning One Discussion into many discussions. Yes, to be thoroughly ASSERTIVE I suppose one would have to itemize every possible way the person you are having a conversation with can be wrong, or unclear, or might have to explain his or herself better. My way of just finding the salient points of the discussion and staying with the Big Picture actually would be more brief, if I weren't so wordy, wouldn't it?

Always a pleasure, Quiet Voice.

Leo Volont wrote:Yes, to be thoroughly ASSERTIVE I suppose one would have to itemize every possible way the person you are having a conversation with can be wrong, or unclear, or might have to explain his or herself better.

Sir, you feign an incapacity to distinguish assertiveness from hostility. I've made my point, and will continue to make it wherever I see genuine enquirers being deliberately led astray.

Candid wrote:

Leo Volont wrote:Yes, to be thoroughly ASSERTIVE I suppose one would have to itemize every possible way the person you are having a conversation with can be wrong, or unclear, or might have to explain his or herself better.

Sir, you feign an incapacity to distinguish assertiveness from hostility. I've made my point, and will continue to make it wherever I see genuine enquirers being deliberately led astray.

Candid, Honestly, I swear to God that I am not feigning. The way I see it, there is no innocent assertiveness. It is always self-seeking. it is always intrusive. It is NOT a social skill. It is setting ones self in opposition to the Social Group. Yes, I was not born yesterday. I have had Assertiveness explained to me dozens of times, and I can never see in those terms. I come away believing that these Advocates for Assertiveness have some kind of a Personality Disorder, that for some reason they are incapable of seeing how WRONG it is to insist that they themselves should always get their way, and everybody else should yield. I suppose it must be something that First Born Children go in for. Assertive People must feel this special sense of entitlement. but I was last born. I expect to fit in. If I push then I'm not surprised to get pushed back. I think it far better to learn to get along. So, yeah, Candid, I'm not faking it just to argue. I'm serious when I say that Assertive People really need to realize that they are in the same category as Salesmen and Lawyers. but I guess maybe assertive people wouldn't see the problem with that.

Leo Volont wrote:The way I see it, there is no innocent assertiveness. It is always self-seeking. it is always intrusive. It is NOT a social skill. It is setting ones self in opposition to the Social Group. Yes, I was not born yesterday. I have had Assertiveness explained to me dozens of times, and I can never see in those terms. I come away believing that these Advocates for Assertiveness have some kind of a Personality Disorder, that for some reason they are incapable of seeing how WRONG it is to insist that they themselves should always get their way, and everybody else should yield. I suppose it must be something that First Born Children go in for. Assertive People must feel this special sense of entitlement. but I was last born. I expect to fit in. If I push then I'm not surprised to get pushed back. I think it far better to learn to get along. So, yeah, Candid, I'm not faking it just to argue. I'm serious when I say that Assertive People really need to realize that they are in the same category as Salesmen and Lawyers. but I guess maybe assertive people wouldn't see the problem with that.

Perhaps, as in so much in our world, you were taught wrong. This world is rife with wrong teachings.

Nathaniel Branden in Six Pillars of Self-Esteem wrote:

Self-assertiveness means honoring my wants, need and values and seeking appropropriate forms of their expression in reality. . . .

Self-assertion does not mean belligerence or inappropriate aggressiveness; it does not mean pushing to the front of the line or knocking other people over; it does not mean upholdinig my own rights while being blind or indifferent to everyone else's. It simply means the willingness to stand up for myself, to be who I am openly, to treat myself with respect in all human encounters. It means the refusal to fake my person to be liked.

To practice self-assertiveness is to live authentically, to speak and act from my innermost convictions and feelings—as a way of life, as a rule (allowing for the obvious fact that there may be particular circumstances in which I may justifiably choose not to do so—for example, when confronted by a holdup man).

Leo, do you have the right to exist? (In a psychological and not political context)

Can you stand on a stage in front of a large audience and say "I have a right to exist" several times?

Nathaniel Brandon!?!? Wan't he the guy who was running around with that crazy fascist chain smoking chick Ayn Rand, right? So HE is the Apostle of Assertiveness! You want me to get my Social Behaviors from "Atlas Shrugged"!?!? Sort of proves my point that Assertiveness has to be screwed up, considering the source, doesn't it? Nathaniel Brandon! Next you'll be holding Freud up as Role Model.

Also look at his argument. By coming up with ten different ways of asserting that Assertiveness is NOT evil, and ten different assertion why we think it should be good, well, nothing actually follows. Just remove all the "NOTS" in statements like "Assertiveness is NOT hostile self seeking obnoxious aggression" and you are closer to getting the real truth. Brandon is not giving us Science. He was giving out an Ideology. All those Psychoanalysis were going for Ideologies. None of them were Science Based. Freud, Jung, Adler, Rogers, all of those guys were vying with each other trying to find Popularity and Market Demographics, so they could sell books and charge $2000 an hour and still fill their appointment books. Those guys had to find NEW and Revolutionary crap to sell. Much of it was Counterintuitive and designed to Capture the Attention. ASSERTIVENESS was basically "Arrogance is Good". That Ayn Rand harpi gave him the idea. Thanks, Quietvoice, you have dispelled all doubts, and now I'm truly convinced.

Leo Volont wrote: that crazy fascist

If you're serious, then there is no sense in me having talks with you. (Get your facts straight.)