3 ms·

Can't help but think the term "toxic," discredits the whole thing as a vehicle for something else. Aggression is natural and universal, but the tools for expres

Can't help but think the term "toxic," discredits the whole thing as a vehicle for something else. Aggression is natural and universal, but the tools for expressing and self-regulating it are not. One description of it that resonated personally for me was Robert Sapolsky's "depression is aggression turned inward," and while the phrase doesn't do the whole idea justice, it's more useful than hollow and seductive cliches like toxicity. Arguably, aggression is necessarily an artifact of ideas of self and how we relate to others, and "venting" aggression safely lets you accept it (and yourself) in its totality and gives you a sense of how to manage it, instead of suppressing it and fearing that it will be exposed, only to have it come out in perverse other ways anyway. What bothers me about a lot of psychology is it seems mainly like a critical theory for deconstructing mental suffering as a means to relieve it theraputically - which is noble and useful, but it has been adopted as a scheme for moralizing coarse political interests. Some years ago I turned a lot of my aggression outward and into disagreeableness, replacing a few intense relationships that enabled turning it inward with many new ones that did not, and it has made me more likeable, honest, trustworthy, reliable, fairer, and more sincerely compassionate, and as a result I have never been more content. It sets a healthy boundary where your natural aggression doesn't get triggered nearly as often, and you can manage it in other ways. Yes, some people will think you are an asshole, but the little bit of friction and occasional loss of a connection does not compare to relief and peace of just not caring what they think, and being free to engage people for only the enjoyment of it instead of some absurd sense of obligation. Or not.

eric-hu 5y ago
Did you apply this concept from a book or other set of writings? I’m just curious about this process and would like to learn more.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bduerst 5y ago
Maybe this is wrong, but it sounds like you were in toxic relationships, ones which you were able to escape by asserting your boundaries. Asserting yourself is a little different than being hostile and/or violent, which is what aggression is usually considered. In any case and semantics aside, congrats on removing relationships that were pushing you inwards and making you unhappy. Like the article mentions, brain pathways and behavior are like hiking paths, it's incredibly difficult to forge new ones and continually use them until it's normal.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  I have been reading a lot of books by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stoller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stoller and up until his late book Sexual Excitement: Dynamics of Erotic Life he uses the word Hostility to mean "desire to hurt others" whereas aggression is the desire to make your mark in the world (e.g. it is "aggressive" to try to put the soccer ball in the other team's goal.) By the time Excitement was written people started splitting the meaning of aggression to frame it as a bad thing (as Stoller said hostility was) and used assertion to describe the positive side of what Stoller called "aggression" and there is a short passage where Stoller talks about this change in terminology. Stoller uses the terms "hostility" and "sadism" for phenomena that are more common than people might think. If you ever get some pleasure out of causing somebody to suffer, even in some small way (e.g. flag somebody's post and imagine them suffering from the feeling they are being persecuted) you are being "sadistic."
Brian_K_White 5y ago
Crucially, it was probably better for everyone else too, not just yourself.
bob1029 5y ago
> Yes, some people will think you are an asshole, but the little bit of friction and occasional loss of a connection does not compare to relief and peace of just not caring what they think I have found deep joy in un-filtering myself. Not worrying about every syllable that comes out of my mouth for fear of retaliation, cancellation, et. al. My social circle had to shrink a bit, but the trade-off is that I am no longer suffering from a constant stream of cognitive dissonance. I stopped forcing myself to believe in ridiculous pop-culture/tech bullshit just to fit in with others. It was taking too much out of me to fake it for arbitrary social credits. The crazy thing is that I still have high quality social relationships despite my unfiltered expression. I'd rather have a few people I can actually trust with controversial ideas rather than an army of sycophants I have to pander to constantly.
- digisign 5y ago
  > I stopped forcing myself to believe in ridiculous pop-culture/tech bullshit Curious what this means?
  - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
    OP probably doesn’t want to answer this question for the exact reason he posted his comment. Your inquiry may be in good faith but it is 99% of how the cancel warfare begins: “Here let me ask a really introspective question to see exactly how badly I’m going to throw my code words at you in my response.”
    - digisign 5y ago
      Perhaps, but unfortunately there is not enough information to get even a toehold on an idea. Do people really go online to present a fake persona? Most embellish, and I bet some do, but does anyone else care enough to pay attention? For most folks I'd say no. If GP said, "politics" then I'd get the drift.
      - bob1029 5y ago
        > Perhaps, but unfortunately there is not enough information to get even a toehold on an idea. Imagine some position you personally find to be controversial/wrong/stupid but that everyone else around you agrees with (or vice versa). In my view, understanding what my position is on some arbitrary matter does not further this conversation in any meaningful way.
abyssin 5y ago
Can you expand on how an intense relationship can enable turning aggression inward? I’m genuinely curious about this idea.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I think by intense he implies with a lot of pressure from the other side. And like in most relationships we often try to internalise our stress in fear to make things worse and loose that relationship.If it's intense stress it's far more noticible.
mattgreenrocks 5y ago
Lots to think about here, thank you for sharing. I'm no stranger to depression, but thinking of it as aggression turned inward seems like a useful tool. Long term, I'd like to be able to befriend my aggression, or at least understand it, so it doesn't seem so inscrutable. First step is probably just to recognize and accept that part of me.
henrydark 5y ago
+1 for mentioning the ever enlightening Robert Sapolsky

eric-hu 5y ago

Did you apply this concept from a book or other set of writings? I’m just curious about this process and would like to learn more.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bduerst 5y ago

Maybe this is wrong, but it sounds like you were in toxic relationships, ones which you were able to escape by asserting your boundaries. Asserting yourself is a little different than being hostile and/or violent, which is what aggression is usually considered. In any case and semantics aside, congrats on removing relationships that were pushing you inwards and making you unhappy. Like the article mentions, brain pathways and behavior are like hiking paths, it's incredibly difficult to forge new ones and continually use them until it's normal.

PaulHoule 5y ago
I have been reading a lot of books by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stoller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stoller and up until his late book Sexual Excitement: Dynamics of Erotic Life he uses the word Hostility to mean "desire to hurt others" whereas aggression is the desire to make your mark in the world (e.g. it is "aggressive" to try to put the soccer ball in the other team's goal.) By the time Excitement was written people started splitting the meaning of aggression to frame it as a bad thing (as Stoller said hostility was) and used assertion to describe the positive side of what Stoller called "aggression" and there is a short passage where Stoller talks about this change in terminology. Stoller uses the terms "hostility" and "sadism" for phenomena that are more common than people might think. If you ever get some pleasure out of causing somebody to suffer, even in some small way (e.g. flag somebody's post and imagine them suffering from the feeling they are being persecuted) you are being "sadistic."

Brian_K_White 5y ago

Crucially, it was probably better for everyone else too, not just yourself.

bob1029 5y ago

> Yes, some people will think you are an asshole, but the little bit of friction and occasional loss of a connection does not compare to relief and peace of just not caring what they think I have found deep joy in un-filtering myself. Not worrying about every syllable that comes out of my mouth for fear of retaliation, cancellation, et. al. My social circle had to shrink a bit, but the trade-off is that I am no longer suffering from a constant stream of cognitive dissonance. I stopped forcing myself to believe in ridiculous pop-culture/tech bullshit just to fit in with others. It was taking too much out of me to fake it for arbitrary social credits. The crazy thing is that I still have high quality social relationships despite my unfiltered expression. I'd rather have a few people I can actually trust with controversial ideas rather than an army of sycophants I have to pander to constantly.

digisign 5y ago
> I stopped forcing myself to believe in ridiculous pop-culture/tech bullshit Curious what this means?
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago
  OP probably doesn’t want to answer this question for the exact reason he posted his comment. Your inquiry may be in good faith but it is 99% of how the cancel warfare begins: “Here let me ask a really introspective question to see exactly how badly I’m going to throw my code words at you in my response.”
  - digisign 5y ago
    Perhaps, but unfortunately there is not enough information to get even a toehold on an idea. Do people really go online to present a fake persona? Most embellish, and I bet some do, but does anyone else care enough to pay attention? For most folks I'd say no. If GP said, "politics" then I'd get the drift.
    - bob1029 5y ago
      > Perhaps, but unfortunately there is not enough information to get even a toehold on an idea. Imagine some position you personally find to be controversial/wrong/stupid but that everyone else around you agrees with (or vice versa). In my view, understanding what my position is on some arbitrary matter does not further this conversation in any meaningful way.

abyssin 5y ago

Can you expand on how an intense relationship can enable turning aggression inward? I’m genuinely curious about this idea.

hirako2000 5y ago
I think by intense he implies with a lot of pressure from the other side. And like in most relationships we often try to internalise our stress in fear to make things worse and loose that relationship.If it's intense stress it's far more noticible.

mattgreenrocks 5y ago

Lots to think about here, thank you for sharing. I'm no stranger to depression, but thinking of it as aggression turned inward seems like a useful tool. Long term, I'd like to be able to befriend my aggression, or at least understand it, so it doesn't seem so inscrutable. First step is probably just to recognize and accept that part of me.

henrydark 5y ago

+1 for mentioning the ever enlightening Robert Sapolsky