
Anger, Anxiety, Resentment, Stress, and Basic Humanity - tim_sw
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201708/anger-anxiety-resentment-stress-and-basic-humanity
======
grondilu
The ancients thought a lot about what makes a human "good", and they came up
with the notion of virtues[1]. If I'm not mistaken, none of them was
particularly oriented towards altruism. It seems to me altruism was very much
introduced by Christianism. I vaguely recall that Nietzsche analyzed the
subject in details, for instance in ''On the Genealogy of Morality''[2].

Now, I'm not saying one of this point of view is right and the other is wrong,
but at the very least there is a debate to have. Therefore it seems
presumptuous to me to call one of them "basic humanity".

Philosophy, or in the present case psychology, should use accurate words as
much as possible. IMHO "Basic humanity" is not satisfactory in that regard.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality)

~~~
quickben
They are valid points, but in his case, after a PhD and 3 decades working with
people, the phrase ' basic humanity' is a lot more memorable than, '12 things
that will define you: here they are'.

At some point, the knowledge is too dry unless transferred and having impact.
People that want to change will look into what basic human virtues are, and
more.

The rest will remain adamant no matter how appealing the approach is.

Sometimes professionals sum up things for the audience.

The more professional they are, and the less time they have, the more one
hears : maybe, most likely, etc.

It's not that they don't evaluate the cases, it's the realization that a
complete educative list will bore out the audience, and they will miss other,
more basic, points.

------
roceasta
I've come to realise that if I'm run down or hungover or guilty in some way
then my mind automatically starts to relive old resentments. I think it's a
form of projection. There's a bad feeling internally and so memories are
activated to 'explain' the badness and direct blame elsewhere.

~~~
ASpring
This is 100% real and everyone experiences it. Academics talk about it as mood
congruence; it's a well studied phenomenon in psychology and some work I've
done in the past has touched on it. Basically you're more likely to recall
past events that match your current mood.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_congruence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_congruence)

------
ams6110
I think if we could get to the point where we admit that racism (or more
generally, bias against or fear of those outside our group) is a normal human
trait, and not something deliberately chosen by hateful people, then we could
more effectively discuss how to counter it.

------
discreteevent
I like the article. He keeps it simple and the advice matches my experience.
One nitpick though is that not being in touch with basic humanity is not the
only reason for anger. Even the nicest people will eventually get angry if
they are treated badly.

------
rdudekul
"The only significant and lasting improvement in life and relationships
results from becoming 'a better person.'

We become better persons by staying in touch with basic humanity, the
survival-based capacity for interest in the well-being of others.

Basic humanity motivates respectful, helpful, valuing, nurturing, protective,
and altruistic behaviors. In adversity it motivates sacrifice. In emergency it
motivates rescue."

Fantastic article. In essence when we dwell on ourselves or our insecurities,
we tend to get stressed out. When we act of out service mindset (give first)
doing good for all(much harder in practice), where our own good is included,
we will be more fulfilled in the long-term.

~~~
Noxchi
Agreed.

I found that a strong feeling of mortality brought upon me the basic humanity
described in the article.

I immediately noticed a difference in how others treated me (and how I treated
them) for the rest of the day.

------
chewz
I am a cynic. I do agree with compassion and kindness as basis of humanity.
Eudaimonia.

But I do reject shame and guilt as motivation. For me this is just a mechanism
of social coercion, especially for urban societies.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_\(philosophy\))

~~~
Chris_Jay
I would agree with the rejection of shame and guilt, they can certainly
catalyze action but that action usually carries a strong element of self-
sabotage along with it.

I'm intrigued by your mention of eudaimonia - I've been interested in the
concept since coming across it in a computer game in my early teens - but I
have a hard time finding discussions of it. Is there any reading material you
could recommend that looks at the concept in more depth?

~~~
chewz
Sorry for late reply. This book is pretty good introduction for modern reader.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13629522-philosophy-
for-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13629522-philosophy-for-life)

I am also close to epicureism (enjoying intellectual pleasure without
interacting with busy world) and stoicism (quieting one's emotion) and studied
buddhism for some time.

However I am impressed by how modern and contemporary are dilemmas brought by
Diogenes. He had been a sort of investment banker charged with debasement of
currency. He explained that he attempted to undermine the system (financial,
capitalism) from within.

He rejected purse of material stuff (broke a chalice when realized that he
could drink water from a his hands), real estate (living in a barrel), favors
from those in power ('Stand out of my sunlight'). But most of all he
criticized and ridiculed compromises and social mechanics of urban life. For
me this is quite relevant today.

------
RikNieu
After reading the first few paragraphs, it occurred to me he was talking about
what Buddhism calls metta, or loving-kindness practice.

------
Numberwang
Mostly nonsense said with authority. Psychology and dietary advice really are
crap sciences.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
So was medicine at one time... and all the rest. We got a lot of stuff wrong,
and a few things right and built on that.

Psychology isn't all bad, since a lot more folks with severe mental illness
can now go on to lead a much more normal life due to medication and coping
mechanisms. Same for folks that go through trauma and have after-effects. But
we are still refining this stuff, so some of it is going to be crap and there
are going to be lots of pseudo-psychology fed to the uneducated masses.

Nutrition is somewhat similar. We simply don't have the knowledge to
understand its complexities right now. But it isn't all crap: We understand
connections between malnourishment and stunted growth, for example. Understand
folic acid helps prevent birth defects and vitamin C helps prevent scurvy. To
confound matters more, we have a lot of misinformation, partially due to
politics and business practices. This isn't really confined to nutrition,
though. Society is prone to reject new ways of thinking. Heck, the US pushed
against modern "european-style" medicine back in the 1800's - they didn't
think they needed science in their medicine or something like that.

~~~
transman
(I have an undergrad degree in Psychology.) Psychology has the means to be a
proper science, but historically a significant amount of hasn't been. The
examples you present tend to come from neuroscience, which in turn tends to be
a much more empirically based field.

\- [http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-
studies-f...](http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-
reproducibility-test-1.18248)

\- [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychology-s-
cred...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychology-s-credibility-
crisis-the-bad-the-good-and-the-ugly/)

\- [https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/25/was-the-crisis-in-
socia...](https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/25/was-the-crisis-in-social-
psychology-really-that-bad-have-things-improved-part-one-the-researchers-
perspective/)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
_Disclaimer: I 've read the articles well because I just woke up, but I'll
read have the read in a bit (I like the subject)._

I do understand some of that, and probably see more of the psuedo-science
application than most: there is a psychological model of occultism folks
follow, some of it heavily leaning on Jung's work... who didn't have passable
education that we'd like now. And that was pretty common for early psychology:
It was more akin to basic philosophy and unbased theories than science.

But I realize that is changing and I realize the good the system really does -
my ex was schizo-affective (though he got diagnosed with regular schizophrenia
after we broke up). Without the whole system, both the stuff based on shaky
psychology and the more pure medical portion with the meds and psychiatrist,
he'd have died - no exaggeration.

