5 ms·

I disagree with the assertion that it's impossible to overreact without "deliberately" exaggerating for effect. People overreact all the time without meaning to

I disagree with the assertion that it's impossible to overreact without "deliberately" exaggerating for effect. People overreact all the time without meaning to. Anyone who works with children can tell you that putting things into perspective is a learned skill: we are born overreactors, every one of us. Going too far is, as it turns out, the natural thing to do.

mtrimpe 14y ago
Except that it's equally likely that you are the one who has a skewed perspective which causes the reaction to seem overly strong.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Equally likely? I doubt it. People overreact all the time, and realize it themselves when they cool down. It's not about the different opinions of different people, it's about the heat of the moment causing a temporary distortion in what seems reasonable.
  - unalone 14y ago
    If the only distortion possible was "heat of the moment", then yeah, the more emotional person in this situation would be overreacting. Unfortunately, there are systematic and structural faults in the way our society is constructed, which in many situations are invisible to the people who benefit from those faults and enormously apparent to the people getting screwed over by them. When an argument breaks out among those faultlines, the person getting emotionally charged may be doing so simply because they understand this argument from a context which the calmer participant doesn't see or refuses to acknowledge.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      Or it may be just that the calmer person has a rationality 101 failure. I see the "overreacting" phrase used quite often against a person who raises a legitimate complaint. It's easier to say "you're overreacting" than admit that there's a problem here that might need to be solved. Bottomline, there's no way in which telling someone they're overreacting is going to lead to a productive conversation. It's a nasty way of dismissing someone.
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        Legitimate complaints are not usually extremely emotional. I still think the odds are better than 50% that a very angry-acting person is overreacting. It's obviously not always right or always wrong but I really don't think it's close to 50%. Whether it is polite to tell someone they are overreacting is a completely different issue. Also if someone is reacting to faults in society.. they may be right but why are they getting angry now, specifically? They might be 'overreacting' to a current event which is equivalent to reacting to something they experienced at a different time instead. Is that legitimate? Well, sometimes. The answer isn't always clear. But that's not an excuse to go '50/50'.
        mtrimpe 14y ago
        Not to make an ad-hominem, but are you by chance a middle- to upper-class, straight, white male? To be more precise, is there any area in your life where you are fully aware of systematically having the deck stacked against you and are repeatedly and painfully confronted by it?
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Look, I'm not trying to say such anger isn't legitimate. I'm only saying I think legitimate very angry shouting in public is some amount less common than illegitimate very angry shouting in public. Especially when you consider the contribution of children to the latter. Let me put it this way. I understand that the world 'overreacting' is heavily abused. It is very often wrong. We need to fight the abuse of the word 'overreacting'. But don't counter it by being wrong in the opposite direction, and assuming that every single time someone is very upset that there is a good reason for it. Also I'm prone to a pretty cold anger.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- Millennium 14y ago
  If you take reactions out of their given context, then this holds: without knowledge of the situation, all the given parties are indeed equally likely to be overreacting. But real-world situations don't work that way. They bring their own context, and in doing, so they break the symmetry: unless all parties are reacting in the same way, it becomes possible to determine which party is more likely to be overreacting to that situation, often with shocking ease. From there, of course, one can and should dig deeper. It's in the nature of probability that sometimes, reality will go against the likely outcome. But it's also in the nature of probability to hold often enough to be useful.
raganwald 14y ago
I have two children. My five year-old recently was tired and hungry, and had a fit when presented with a croissant to eat because it was slightly crushed where I held it too tightly. Overreacting? Well, that is what I would call an inappropriate reaction, and of course it's part of my job as a parent to provide some guidance. But it's still 100% the genuine emotion of the moment, and for that reason I'm not going to use the word "overreacting" with a child or an adult. I'm going to say (as I said, roughly) "I understand this isn't what you'd like, however..." Which is roughly what I'd say to an adult too.
- circlefavshape 14y ago
  I have 2 children too, and this made me chuckle Of course in this situation what I'd want to do is roar "AAAARGH! WHY CAN'T YOU BE REASONABLE?", but, alas, that doesn't work.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    In the fullness of time, the roles will be reversed. "Daddy, you're OVERREACTING to my genetic modifications. IT'S UNREASONABLE to demand that I go for a DNA scan before you let me go to the brain-rave!!!"
- Millennium 14y ago
  This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response? There is also a question of what makes the "genuine" qualifier necessary. It presupposes the idea of an emotional response that is not genuine: what would this mean? What would a "false" emotional response look like, to the one feeling it (and are they truly feeling it at all?) or to others?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response? It was from a five year old. Children haven't learnt how to regulate their emotions. That's part of the job of parenting.

mtrimpe 14y ago

Except that it's equally likely that you are the one who has a skewed perspective which causes the reaction to seem overly strong.

Dylan16807 14y ago
Equally likely? I doubt it. People overreact all the time, and realize it themselves when they cool down. It's not about the different opinions of different people, it's about the heat of the moment causing a temporary distortion in what seems reasonable.
- unalone 14y ago
  If the only distortion possible was "heat of the moment", then yeah, the more emotional person in this situation would be overreacting. Unfortunately, there are systematic and structural faults in the way our society is constructed, which in many situations are invisible to the people who benefit from those faults and enormously apparent to the people getting screwed over by them. When an argument breaks out among those faultlines, the person getting emotionally charged may be doing so simply because they understand this argument from a context which the calmer participant doesn't see or refuses to acknowledge.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    Or it may be just that the calmer person has a rationality 101 failure. I see the "overreacting" phrase used quite often against a person who raises a legitimate complaint. It's easier to say "you're overreacting" than admit that there's a problem here that might need to be solved. Bottomline, there's no way in which telling someone they're overreacting is going to lead to a productive conversation. It's a nasty way of dismissing someone.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      Legitimate complaints are not usually extremely emotional. I still think the odds are better than 50% that a very angry-acting person is overreacting. It's obviously not always right or always wrong but I really don't think it's close to 50%. Whether it is polite to tell someone they are overreacting is a completely different issue. Also if someone is reacting to faults in society.. they may be right but why are they getting angry now, specifically? They might be 'overreacting' to a current event which is equivalent to reacting to something they experienced at a different time instead. Is that legitimate? Well, sometimes. The answer isn't always clear. But that's not an excuse to go '50/50'.
      - mtrimpe 14y ago
        Not to make an ad-hominem, but are you by chance a middle- to upper-class, straight, white male? To be more precise, is there any area in your life where you are fully aware of systematically having the deck stacked against you and are repeatedly and painfully confronted by it?
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Look, I'm not trying to say such anger isn't legitimate. I'm only saying I think legitimate very angry shouting in public is some amount less common than illegitimate very angry shouting in public. Especially when you consider the contribution of children to the latter. Let me put it this way. I understand that the world 'overreacting' is heavily abused. It is very often wrong. We need to fight the abuse of the word 'overreacting'. But don't counter it by being wrong in the opposite direction, and assuming that every single time someone is very upset that there is a good reason for it. Also I'm prone to a pretty cold anger.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
Millennium 14y ago
If you take reactions out of their given context, then this holds: without knowledge of the situation, all the given parties are indeed equally likely to be overreacting. But real-world situations don't work that way. They bring their own context, and in doing, so they break the symmetry: unless all parties are reacting in the same way, it becomes possible to determine which party is more likely to be overreacting to that situation, often with shocking ease. From there, of course, one can and should dig deeper. It's in the nature of probability that sometimes, reality will go against the likely outcome. But it's also in the nature of probability to hold often enough to be useful.

raganwald 14y ago

I have two children. My five year-old recently was tired and hungry, and had a fit when presented with a croissant to eat because it was slightly crushed where I held it too tightly. Overreacting? Well, that is what I would call an inappropriate reaction, and of course it's part of my job as a parent to provide some guidance. But it's still 100% the genuine emotion of the moment, and for that reason I'm not going to use the word "overreacting" with a child or an adult. I'm going to say (as I said, roughly) "I understand this isn't what you'd like, however..." Which is roughly what I'd say to an adult too.

circlefavshape 14y ago
I have 2 children too, and this made me chuckle Of course in this situation what I'd want to do is roar "AAAARGH! WHY CAN'T YOU BE REASONABLE?", but, alas, that doesn't work.
- raganwald 14y ago
  In the fullness of time, the roles will be reversed. "Daddy, you're OVERREACTING to my genetic modifications. IT'S UNREASONABLE to demand that I go for a DNA scan before you let me go to the brain-rave!!!"
Millennium 14y ago
This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response? There is also a question of what makes the "genuine" qualifier necessary. It presupposes the idea of an emotional response that is not genuine: what would this mean? What would a "false" emotional response look like, to the one feeling it (and are they truly feeling it at all?) or to others?
- DanBC 14y ago
  > This holds that "genuine" emotional reactions are all equally valid. What makes rage over a slightly-crushed croissant a valid emotional response? It was from a five year old. Children haven't learnt how to regulate their emotions. That's part of the job of parenting.