9 ms·
People's sense of control over actions is reduced when angry or afraid: study
- bellerose 8y agoYou never have "real" control over your own actions because free will is an illusion. Thus, my emotional state tends to rarely get angry compared to when I thought free will was a possibility. Since understanding there isn't any control over anything makes me realize what can a person reasonably blame others or themselves if nobody has any choice over how they came to be or act. I don't necessarily gain control but I'm more functioning in society than before. That's typically the goal for everyone because than we have a better living experience.
- abtinf 8y agoWhy even bother trying to explain something to others if free will is an illusion? What are you relying on to persuade them if they don't have a mind capable of understanding you?
- bellerose 8y agoSome of HN understands hard determinism and once in awhile I see an interesting post. Otherwise it's just a comment triggered from reading the article. I enjoy it.
- colanderman 8y agoIt's not like they had a choice…
- bellerose 8y agoThis as well.
- Quekid5 8y agoIndeed. Even if you don't believe in it at a philosophical level, you don't exactly have any choice in the matter. We all behave as if we have free will -- the only alternative would be to just stop doing anything (e.g. being catatonic).
- bellerose 8y agoThat's an incorrect assumption because I can look at myself. I understand free will is an illusion and I don't have to stop doing anything.
- drak0n1c 8y agoI personally believe in free will, but persuasion and learning can still exist even if free will doesn't. It could be argued that people's deterministic reactions led to them reading something someone else posted and that leads to their mind changing. Memes and movements would exist even without free will. It happens in experiments on simple organisms that arguably lack free will (those with very narrow and predictable behaviors).
- gerbilly 8y ago> You never have "real" control over your own actions because free will is an illusion. This is facile, and you certainly haven't proven the absence of free will just bey stating it here. I believe the best assumption, since we feel as though e have free will, is to behave as though we and other people (and animals) have free will. But aside from that, the fine article isn't really saying anything new. It's a known thing that anger has a dis-inhibiting effect. IIRC, it bypasses the prefrontal cortex in favour of the limbic system. This is why so many religions and philosophies (esp Buddhism) warn us about the dangers of acting on our anger. Anger makes us do ill considered things, and we often harm people and regret it later.
- bellerose 8y agoOh, I thought the article was about psychology and where what we have studied illustrates determinism and where nothing has ever shown free will. I mean even what comes out of neuroscience shows how the brain reacts before we're even aware. Free will is an impossibility, how can oneself make choice or decisions that are unaffected by the external forces exerted upon oneself. One's birth being the "starting point" into reality is all that decides everything until the end.
- DataWorker 8y agoYou might be interested in Daniel Dennett’s thoughts on the matter, if you aren’t already familiar with him.
- viola77 8y agoHe should have just invented another word for his interpretation of what he defines as free will. Otherwise it creates confusion for people who assume they're making their own choice and without understanding the choice was derived from all the external forces upon oneself; where nobody has any control in what the future experiences shall be.
- pistachiopro 8y agoThere are some interesting arguments that we'd be better off not assuming free will. Yuval Noah Harari (of Sapiens fame) talks about it quite a bit. He mentions his stance briefly in this interview https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-free-information-extremely-dangerous-interview-21-lessons https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-h... , but he goes into it deeper in his books. One of his main points is that, as neuroscience and AI get better, external actors to you are able to "understand you better than you understand yourself" and basically start to program you. People are already concerned that this is happening to some degree (the Cambridge Analytica scandal, for example), and it's likely to get more and more severe as technology improves. And one of his big points is that the people who believe most in the sovereignty of their own will will be least likely to protect themselves from such outside influences.
- zrail 8y ago“People make bad choices if they’re mad or scared or stressed.” —Disney’s FROZEN (2013)
- pmiller2 8y agoPosted title is clickbait. Actual title: "People's Sense of Control Over Their Actions Is Reduced At A Fundamental Level When They're Angry Or Afraid." What the article actually says is that when people are angry or afraid, they don't believe as strongly that their actions are within their control. This seems like one of those "well, duh" kind of studies, but it's pretty interesting, because it lends credence to the "crime of passion" defense in law.
- karmakaze 8y ago> they don't believe More specifically, they act in a manner of not believing rather than merely stating as much.
- steve_adams_86 8y agoAnger is such an interesting experience in that (if this study is correct) we tend to actually lose agency while angry, but internally I think we actually believe we have dramatically increased agency in the moment. That's part of what makes anger so dangerous. We're basically at maximum stupid while angry. Do you ever get angry and suddenly feel a loss for words? Difficulty articulating arguments? Resorting to less effective and more hurtful strategies? Regretting it later? Anger, for the most part, is useless in most modern human interactions. I think it's the sort of thing that's good at convincing a brain that horrible acts are justifiable in the moment, such was killing in war or serious altercations. Anger and fear both seem like tools for survival in a world most of us no longer live in. As for the ethical aspect... I've dealt with an ill temper my entire life, although not many people who know me would think so. As a kid I was bullied a lot (both of these are likely direct products of me having ADD), and I used to get in a lot of trouble because my reaction was to let my rage boil over and fight these bullies. The best advice anyone ever gave me (Thanks Mr. McAneny) was that we aren't a tool of our anger, but instead, it's a tool of our creation. We're responsible for what we do with our anger, even if we're not the instigators. Anger typically leads to brutal solutions, both emotionally and physically, and it's so rare that this is necessary or remotely helpful. That really stuck with me. I grew up with so many people telling me to use my anger against the bullies, and I think that reflects our cultural belief (or desire to believe) that our anger is justified, and what we do when we're angry is as well. I believe the truth is that it's almost never the correct response. The adults and peers around me who told me to embrace my anger probably didn't have a good understanding of why they believed that or perpetuated that belief. All that is to say: We should stop believing in our anger so much, and start being responsible for what we do when we're angry. That seems like the most ethical solution.
- marviel 8y agoIve read some of the book "The Art of Empathy", in which the author describes anger as "the prideful sentry." I like this way of thinking about it. Clearly, any emotion when taken to the extreme is bad, and anger is perhaps the most obvious example -- yet I would hesitate to call its existence useless, even in a modern context. Anger & pride both have functions as "alarm systems" for circumstances which would be detrimental to certain things we value. EDIT: I now realize that your original comment was not presenting such a black-and-white view of the subject as I originally perceived. Keeping my comment above in tact for historical purposes
- mirimir 8y agoFrom William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch: > I am never here …. Never that is fully in possession, but somehow in a position to forestall ill-advised moves…. Patrolling is, in fact, my principal occupation….. No matter how tight Security, I am always somewhere Outside giving orders and Inside this strait jacket of jelly that gives and stretches but always reforms ahead of every movement, thought, impulse, stamped with the seal of alien inspection…. http://www.madnessandliterature.org/literature.php?id=26&resultpage=1 http://www.madnessandliterature.org/literature.php?id=26&res... The "alien inspection" reference is about Scientology, I think.
- isoskeles 8y agoI wonder what reduced William S. Burroughs' sense of control over his actions that one time when he accidentally murdered his wife.
- mirimir 8y agoAlcohol, probably. Maybe also/or heroin. And he'd just returned from South America, where he'd been chasing (unsuccessfully, I've read) some young guy. And where he did, I gather, ayahuasca, maybe a few times. So he was probably crazier than usual. But anyway, it was indeed horrible that he shot his wife. But for whatever it's worth, it was a formative event in his career as a writer. As I recall, he credited it as the formative event in his career. And to your point, it was arguably one of the things that he had in mind when writing that.
- PeterWhittaker 8y agoFrom the first paragraph: "...they often say that... they didn’t feel responsible for those actions – they “lost control”.... In the UK, under certain circumstances, a person accused of murder can even claim that this “loss of control” led to them killing their victim. If successful, this defence can reduce charges to manslaughter." I am surprised at this line defense (not a lawyer, of course). At the risk of creating a falsely binary division, either we are (at least most of the time) responsible adults or we are not. If we are, then we are responsible for our actions - even if our faculties are temporarily impaired, at least by virtue of actions we took. For example, driving while under the influence. If we are not, then why do we have other privileges, such as voting, being able to care for children, etc? Of course, there are middle grounds of various kinds and the law must find and work with these. Any sort of diminished capacity defence, e.g., by virtue of illness (e.g., depression), by virtue of mental disability, etc. It seems to me that these middle grounds arise because there are discernible pathologies that give rise to diminished capacity. That seems reasonable. Where the UK defence seems odd, seems to fly in the face of responsibility, is that there is no pathology. Someone got angry and lost control. But anger is a choice. With the possible exception of the immature, of the previously mentioned disabled, and of cases involving actual physical contact (where someone isn't respecting your boundaries and your expressed wish that they back off), we choose anger as our response. It can be very hard to control this choice, but we are choosing to allow anger to rise. Once we make that choice, we are responsible for what comes next. IM(NS)HO. YMMV. IANAL. Etc.
- baybal2 8y agoAbout jurisprudential tool from modern Russia's early years: An interesting solution to the dilemma in your last paragraph was invented by people who wrote first laws after USSR collapsed. While any kind of self defence was forbidden by law, moreover lethal one, it was expected that in a moment of mortal danger, a person temporarily looses his mental fitness for legal purposes, thus having no responsibility for his actions during that.
- Sharlin 8y agoIsn't there a distinction between manslaughter and a premeditated murder in most jurisdictions? Where I'm from, impulsively killing someone in a burst of anger ("a crime of passion") is definitely different from a cold-blooded murder in the eyes of the law.
- maxxxxx 8y agoIn Buddhism anger is one of the five poisons. It clouds your ability to see the world as it is so you actions probably won't be wise.
- rosser 8y agoWhen you're stuck in your amygdala, you kinda necessarily can't be operating from your cortices.
- qwerty456127 8y agoIs it just sense of control or actual control reduced? E.g. I generally am very mindful, calm and kind person but I can remember a couple of times in my life when I was driven so mad (e.g. when guys were bullying me at school I could go "berserk" and attack) or so scared (e.g. I once walked a bad city district at night alone and 2 zombies approached, kind of junkies perhaps, looked like real ghouls, so I ran away) that I was acting unconsciously and impulsively. From the consciousness point of view it felt like it was turned off and I wasn't in control any more, like in a non-lucid dream.
- jacquesm 8y agoAdvertisers have exploited this particular bit of knowledge since the 30's of the previous century.
- btrettel 8y agoI'm a cyclist. This study might explain the sheer number of drivers who tell me that they passed me dangerously because I gave them "no choice". When stopped at stoplights, I've told some of these drivers that they always can choose to wait until a safe time to pass, but many drivers scoff at this as if it's not a realistic option. Perhaps 95% of the time when I'm riding a driver wouldn't have to wait more than 30 seconds. (Maybe longer for other cyclists since I try to minimize this.) The fact that I so frequently catch up with these drivers at stop lights should be a clue to them that I often do not slow them down (i.e., stoplights are the bottleneck), but in my experience mentioning that tends to make an already angry driver angrier. So far I don't think I've made much progress convincing dangerous drivers to drive better by talking to them, but I now have a much better understanding of their concerns.
- koonsolo 8y agoIf you are from US, I'm guessing the real problem is that most of those drivers never take the bicycle, and so have no clue of what it feels like. I had the reverse. I drove my bike a lot when I was a teenager. Once I started driving at 18, I realized I did a lot of dangerous things with my bike. The best thing is such situation is let the other person experience what it's like. I'm guessing you also drive a car, so you know both situations. But from what I can tell, US drivers have no real experience with riding bicycles in traffic. And the times I was in US, I certainly don't want to ride a bike on most of those roads.
- bitcuration 8y agoIt's about energy. Anger and fear boost energy temporarily, probably evolved for survival. That's all there is to it, something to do with motivation. For example, when in anger you won't procrastinate which otherwise would be almost impossible to beat.
- dredmorbius 8y agoMore than that. Limiting sensory inputs -- eliminating distractions -- can also be useful.
- WheelsAtLarge 8y agoI've always thought that anger was a direct result of being afraid. When we are afraid we have a number of feelings that are put forth as a result. Depending on why we are afraid we then use anger as a tool to get past the situation. Also once we feel threaten and afraid we immediately fall into protection mode where our innate behavior is exhibited. You can think of our 4-5-year-old self as a sample. Things like selfishness, anger and doing what we can to get the upper hand, starts to be seen in us. If you think about it, it takes a lot of years of teaching by society and parents to keeps us from being selfish, angry and whatever basic instincts we have. But even with that, we all fall into those modes when threaten and we are afraid.
- samllhands 8y agorussia is indeed a scarey place to live
- fallingfrog 8y agoNow take 2 parts mass media profit seeking, incomplete information, and an fear inducing event and stir them together. It’s no wonder we panic and go to war so easily.
- mapcars 8y agoIf you pay attention to how you perform - it's obvious, you don't need the studies, lol. We perform at our best in most pleasant states of your mind.
- waterhouse 8y agoSince neither the article nor the comments have mentioned game theory, I will mention it. A game-theoretic threat is a statement that, if you do something that hurts me (and might benefit you), then I will do a thing that hurts both of us. It's clear why "hurting you" is a critical part of the threatened action; the reason "hurting me" is included is that if it benefited me, then we'd assume I would do it anyway. The puzzle of the threat is then, how can I convince you I'll do something that will hurt me? Well, if I could modify my brain such that I will be determined to do something violent to you even at great risk to myself, that would be a great solution. Anger is an emotion that does exactly this. Even better, if it is generally understood that any violations of my body (or whatever I want to protect) will trigger an anger response in me, then I don't have to make specific statements towards people I come across. One can imagine variations on this: (a) if you know someone else has an anger response, and you want to do something that you're worried might trigger it, then maybe you can do a light-touched version of it and see if you can detect the beginnings of their anger response; (b) if you get into fights too often, you might give a "warning" (growl) response first. It's interesting to think how these things might have evolved, because there are two sides to them. Anger is useless—counterproductive, in fact—if no one else understands before they act that you might become angry. And if anger doesn't exist, then detecting anger wouldn't be a useful trait. What came first, then? I would guess that some animals evolved a fight-or-flight response to deal with predators (because that increases survival chances), and the triggering mechanism was probably clumsy enough that it happened in non-life-threatening scenarios and caused needless violence (with negative expected value to all parties), and that led to animals either being able to see the early stages of fight-or-flight, or having a sense of what will trigger fight-or-flight and avoiding doing those things (unless they plan to win the fight). (The fight-or-flight response is probably reasonably obvious to observe—muscles tensing, freezing or making sudden movements, etc.—so at least predators should have gotten good at noticing it, to become more efficient.) I don't know what research has been done on the evolutionary origins of anger. But it makes so much game-theoretic sense—and I have the impression that mammals in general have an anger response; quick googling gives mixed results about reptiles—that I'm very confident that what we would call anger evolved because it was useful for backing up an implicit threat of "don't violate my body or other things important to me, or else I will become violent". Yet I didn't see any discussion of evolution or game theory in either the article or the study. Those would seem to be important for forming hypotheses and interpreting results. Anyway, for the threat to work, the "I will become violent" must be a strong compulsion (taking away the choice to not carry out the threat) and/or value-adjustment (so carrying out the threat now looks like the best thing to do). Either might subjectively feel like a loss of control, or not. Given that evolution has successfully implemented this feature, the subjective feeling seems like an implementation detail to me—maybe useful in learning to manage your own anger response.