It’s for brevity, one assumes, though you can always poke holes into any such generalized pattern that is being recognized in such manner - e.g. “people tend to eat food when they are hungry”, except people hooked up to an IV line, or those who eat on a schedule, or those who lack a proper hunger response pattern, etc. The presence of exceptions does not, generally, disapprove the “rule” (of thumb).
Does it? Are there people where anger is the best teacher? There are people it can be effective for, but it’s unlikely that it’s the most effective strategy for them. Seems like a lot of work to find out who those people are too. I’d rather find a teaching strategy that I can hone that is more universal.
Some people only respond to anger. Like, nothing will de-rail their non-sense version of (on-going)events until they are confronted with anger, and then they’ll just … do what the angry person says.
Its common enough that people should be aware of it, and sadly it seems far, far easier to accidentally traumatize/train someone into this patttern than to help them un-learn it.
When correcting error with expressions of anger, it helps to name/define the behavior or idea you wish to condition against, to demonstrate why it hurt you or is otherwise personal, to do so proportionately, then to stop being angry quickly after they apologize/acquiesce.
You didn’t read or understand what I wrote at all, did you? I have no problem communicating calmly even when very upset. The problem is there are a lot of people who will keep fucking up until someone yells at them, and suddenly, now their bullshit has been called out, they can do things the right way for a while with no further prompting or seemingly any extra effort. Shit that doesn’t fly in dangerous environments, for starters.
I get more worked up for having to yell at anyone than I do with whatever the original issue was; Unless lives are in danger: that gets me pretty worked up.
That really depends on the person.
It’s for brevity, one assumes, though you can always poke holes into any such generalized pattern that is being recognized in such manner - e.g. “people tend to eat food when they are hungry”, except people hooked up to an IV line, or those who eat on a schedule, or those who lack a proper hunger response pattern, etc. The presence of exceptions does not, generally, disapprove the “rule” (of thumb).
Does it? Are there people where anger is the best teacher? There are people it can be effective for, but it’s unlikely that it’s the most effective strategy for them. Seems like a lot of work to find out who those people are too. I’d rather find a teaching strategy that I can hone that is more universal.
Some people only respond to anger. Like, nothing will de-rail their non-sense version of (on-going)events until they are confronted with anger, and then they’ll just … do what the angry person says.
Its common enough that people should be aware of it, and sadly it seems far, far easier to accidentally traumatize/train someone into this patttern than to help them un-learn it.
When correcting error with expressions of anger, it helps to name/define the behavior or idea you wish to condition against, to demonstrate why it hurt you or is otherwise personal, to do so proportionately, then to stop being angry quickly after they apologize/acquiesce.
You didn’t read or understand what I wrote at all, did you? I have no problem communicating calmly even when very upset. The problem is there are a lot of people who will keep fucking up until someone yells at them, and suddenly, now their bullshit has been called out, they can do things the right way for a while with no further prompting or seemingly any extra effort. Shit that doesn’t fly in dangerous environments, for starters.
I get more worked up for having to yell at anyone than I do with whatever the original issue was; Unless lives are in danger: that gets me pretty worked up.