3 ms·
(a) recall that I made a utility judgement, not a value judgement: "anger = useless" (b) That an adrenaline dump provokes a significant boost in cardiovascular
by 082349872349872 3y ago
(a) recall that I made a utility judgement, not a value judgement: "anger = useless"
(b) That an adrenaline dump provokes a significant boost in cardiovascular performance is true. We are neither fighting anachronistic saber-toothed tigers, nor are we in the wild west, we are in civilised countries in the 21st century. When should improved cardiovascular performance improve any outcomes?
- filleduchaos 3y agoI'm very happy for you that you're so privileged as to have never faced the threat of violence in your life, but consider sparing a thought for those who have. And, again, if you don't have the emotional regulation to not fly off the handle at things that aren't actually dangerous or threatening, that's a you problem not a problem with the existence of your limbic system.
- 082349872349872 3y agoRegarding your assumption: I've been assaulted, battered, (both successful) and mugged (only attempted). Anger wouldn't have helped; applying a full nelson and dragging the miscreant into a shop did. To be explicit: had I acted out of anger, I might've tried to fight the guy, and (especially if he had had friends), it would not have ended well. Having instead used my neocortex: his initial advantage lay in choosing the time, manner, and place; time there was nothing to be done about; manner I negated by switching first to grappling, then to grappling in a situation where I had the cardiovascular advantage; and place I negated by moving to a location where there were other people. (in retrospect, if I'd just not tried to shortcut through an alleyway at night in a strange city, I would never even have had to make use of my normal cardiovascular capacity) When was the last time you faced a threat of violence for which increased cardiovascular performance improved the outcome?