this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
7 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
54273 readers
526 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anger notifies you that you're sad, but also that you are too afraid to show weakness by expressing sadness so you express anger as it trades weakness for strength (perceptually).
I dont think thats correct, anger is generally more when you feel violated or in danger -> activate aggression -> take action to resolve
A lot of different things can produce anger. Frustration can produce anger. Stress can produce anger.
Often things that may be no one's fault (or no ones but your own) and yet it's often a natural reaction to direct that anger at whoever or whatever it's in front of you.
Right but I think their def is not robust or close enough. Anger is based on activating you to focus on someone or something hurting you or causing danger for you
I would just make the general comment, in response to reading the various exchanges in this thread, that there is a lot of theory around this stuff, and yes there are studies that support some of it, but these theories are by no means something that should be taken as 'fact.' To the extent you find them useful in navigating the terrain they attempt to map, great, but I would avoid getting locked into these ideas in figuring out how to deal with emotions (your own or others) in real life.
Anger is regarded as a secondary emotion.
There's no universal explanation for what provokes anger in a person, it's generally underlying, unprocessed feelings unique to the individual.
Was it meant by that, like does it constitutionally require a primary emotion and what are those?
Emotions are somewhat intangible sensations that you can observe within some perceptive core of your being. We call that our consciousness. Typically the various types of emotions are governed by your body's systems using chemical signaling. Most emotions felt in the consciousness also express themselves through various sensations in different areas of the body. For example, face getting flushed, frowning, clenched fists, dilated pupils, changing heart rate, tingling sensations, etc. So in a sense it's very real to say that one can feel one's feelings.
It's fair to say that anger requires a primary driving emotion that is not processed or expressed well. Anger is somewhat of a maladaptive process within the human psyche.
Reasons for anger can be various, some examples are feelings of powerlessness, fear, resentment, jealousy, uncertainty, abandonment. One positive thing anger can do is act as an indicator that there is some underlying feeling that should be explored.
Anger is a composite emotion that is the combination of several emotions, a blend of a brief period of time and social conditioning. It is not pure.
The root of all anger is typically sadness, or fear. It's been well studied that in the US, boys are taught from an early age to "man up", "quit being a sissy" and other silly things after they show an emotional response. Boys don't cry, boys are tough. Showing sadness or fear is a sign of weakness. So boys (and girls also) are taught and the lesson is reinforced when they are made fun of for being sad or fearful. They are also taught that where sadness is weakness, anger is strength. If something bad happens to you, crying is passive, submissive and everyone hates a pussy. When you get angry, you take action, you hit things, break things, hit people, lash out verbally, curse, call them mean things. Now others are scared of you or at least unwilling to engage--this is now control and control is a means to taking power.
Anger is learned, it is taught. It is not an instinct. Anger is not required to respond under duress. In a fight or flight situation, neither require anger. You can be scared and still fight. Anger is just what we are taught by a culture that prizes power and strength to be required in order to fight.
How does fight not require anger like if you're not necessarily afraid of whatever the stimulus but you're annoyed or contemptuous of it encroaching on you?
I feel like I can be pissed about something without necessarily feeling "sad" or "fearful". Its more of a "lets nip this in the bud now so it doesnt fuck with me again"