4 ms·

I don't doubt that people flip out. I don't even doubt that thousands of people among the millions who served in the military have flipped out. What I'm wonder

I don't doubt that people flip out. I don't even doubt that thousands of people among the millions who served in the military have flipped out. What I'm wondering about is whether otherwise undamaged people who repress their emotions eventually go nuts, or whether people who control their emotions end up in control of their emotions. People who eat small portions generally don't suddenly devour a turkey. People who only have one drink a night one night a month don't suddenly become alcoholics. Self-control doesn't necessarily mean that a problem compounds; it can be the solution to a problem, instead.

gruseom 17y ago
Unless I'm missing your point, the argument seems circular: if someone "flips out" then they must have been "damaged" in the first place. Aren't emotions part of being human? Long-term negation of one's being isn't likely to have zero consequences. I think a better analogy might be sex, repression of which certainly does mean that a problem compounds, at least for most people. But this discussion is possibly too abstract to be resolvable.
kareemm 17y ago
> What I'm wondering about is whether otherwise undamaged people who repress their emotions eventually go nuts, or whether people who control their emotions end up in control of their emotions. imho the opposite of repressing one's emotions is not controlling them; it's bottling them up. to me, controlling one's emotions means feeling the pain, happiness, sorrow, anger, whatever, and then choosing how you want to act based on feeling that emotion. most people assume that emotion dictates behavior, but you always have a choice about how to react. i.e. you can feel the sting when someone insults you, but you can choose not to punch him even though you're feeling hurt. bottling up one's emotions, otoh, represses them. you choose to ignore (usually negative) emotions. these are the ones that tend to come up in destructive ways later on.

gruseom 17y ago

Unless I'm missing your point, the argument seems circular: if someone "flips out" then they must have been "damaged" in the first place. Aren't emotions part of being human? Long-term negation of one's being isn't likely to have zero consequences. I think a better analogy might be sex, repression of which certainly does mean that a problem compounds, at least for most people. But this discussion is possibly too abstract to be resolvable.

kareemm 17y ago

> What I'm wondering about is whether otherwise undamaged people who repress their emotions eventually go nuts, or whether people who control their emotions end up in control of their emotions. imho the opposite of repressing one's emotions is not controlling them; it's bottling them up. to me, controlling one's emotions means feeling the pain, happiness, sorrow, anger, whatever, and then choosing how you want to act based on feeling that emotion. most people assume that emotion dictates behavior, but you always have a choice about how to react. i.e. you can feel the sting when someone insults you, but you can choose not to punch him even though you're feeling hurt. bottling up one's emotions, otoh, represses them. you choose to ignore (usually negative) emotions. these are the ones that tend to come up in destructive ways later on.