Yes, I guess so. I have focused on anger/annoyance in particular.

Extrapolating from 'fear' as a primary drive there are ways to 'cope' with fear. I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).

If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding).

I won't ask you again to explain. — Kenosha Kid

Good. Bye.

I don't think everyone reacted in that way. Like I said it was done on purpose to encourage a certain 'ire' in the reader or to just point out where 'ire' could exist. Some people didn't even bring up it. Those that did accepted that I did it on purpose.

I didn't generalise I to WE I put it forward that this is a human feature. If you don't agree you might get somewhere if you outline why rather than simply stating 'I disagree'. I have outlined why I am saying it seems to be true for everyone but it is an 'opinion' based upon looking at common features of human behavior - so it is general as it has to be.

the analogous empirical checks have proven negative. — Kenosha Kid

This is just an example of you not understanding and doubling down on what you think I mean even though I've literally said it doesn't matter if people cast an 'opinion' they care about and do so without anger/annoyance ... that wasn't at all what I was saying and I've stated it and explained it more than once now.

You seem to be rejecting pathology as the differentiator as you're sticking with generalising from a sample of 1 above by treating I and We interchangeably. — Kenosha Kid

This has nothing to do with anything here other than some weird obsession with you believing I am talking for you - kind of a small stench of annoyance here (as was admitted by the other poster on this subject). Why does it annoy you? You are annoying me right now a little (that's okay, I can be patient).

The question is extremely simple, and I feel you're evading it with verbosity. If you're sticking with that generalisation in spite of the evidence, how do you account for the evidence to the contrary? — Kenosha Kid

This question of 'evidence' is redundant as you're putting forward an argument against something I have no quarrel with. Your 'evidence' is that people here don't feel angry/annoyed when they express an opinion (or at least mostly don't feel this). I already said I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with my point at all as I was not talking simply about how people express themselves in the given moment I was also looking at where the 'opinion' comes from and how it arises. I have laid this out already but apparently it is too verbose so maybe your eyes glazed over whilst reading it.

? 'We' don't recognise it all the time. 'I' (you) recognise it, but 'We' don't, because it's subtle. If not that, what? — Kenosha Kid

This doesn't even make sense.

Given that I am putting forward the position there is actually nothing much wrong with saying 'we'. I am saying we do this and I have outlined why and how. If you can counter this with something more substantial than empty opposition we might get something from this.

Do I really need to spoon feed an example? here we go ...

I find myself on a cliff and I feel fear. I carry around a fear of heights but also find myself in a position in the future where something I want for requires me to climb to a height. I feel angry/annoyed at myself for being fearful and this anger/annoyance drives me on to achieve what I need to achieve to reach my goal.

There is a REALLY obvious counter argument to this that I would like to explore with someone other than myself. I am angry/annoyed at myself because I am currently unable to expand on this view.

Maybe this is too subtle for you - I say prodding you ;)

I think you are having a problem framing what I am saying - not surprising as it is not exactly perfectly expressed to say the least! :)

I thought wrote I wrote above was at least a much better way to express what I meant but obviously not by your response.

I take it this bit of your post is the bit that actually answers my question: if the majority believe they do not offer their opinion out of anger/annoyance, they are simply overlooking the fact, right? — Kenosha Kid

Fact? I am expressing an opinion and one that I am interested about (clearly). Am I angry about the replies? Not particularly. Am I a little annoyed? Yes, because I could've done a better job here and avoided misunderstandings.

What at the core do I care about here? I care about over rationalising, the potential detriment of cantankerous argumentation, the potential of such cantankerousness, and 'emotions' being framed as counterproductive in instances where they may be better viewed as productive.

Maybe working back from my minimal conclusion would make more sense? I summed up by stating that our irrational nature is the reason we're able to progress in any manner. If there is literally no benefit to 'anger'/'annoyance' in argumentation then do we really spend time telling ourselves that it is necessarily a detriment to discourse or could we perhaps question this absolutist position that 'anger'/'annoyance' in philosophical discourse is not actually such a detriment and can help us to understand why positions and arguments are formed and how best to wield such items.

This is what I have done and I have come to see that every 'opinion' and 'drive' I have in life is due to an underlying feeling of 'anger'/'annoyance' brought about by the unavoidable confliction existence brings with it. We are 'roused' to respond and such arousal is 'anger'/'annoyance' after fear slips into the recesses. The age old 'flight or fight' point but viewed on the level of cognition.

Another look would be to answer what interests you? Clearly enough things that we care about and we care about them because they interest us. Why though? Do we care about things that are generally classed as bad or good? A silly question as we care about what is good and what is bad necessarily by how those terms are used. Some things we don't really care about much if at all. Some things that we once never cared about we grow to care about more and more or less and less. How does this variable attitude of caring change? Primarily 'fear' which is followed up by 'anger'/'annoyance' as we attend to the negative experiences more than the positive ones.

I didn't say 'anger' for a start. I framed it, and have remained constant in framing it, as 'anger'/'annoyance'.

If we care about something we are emotionally vested in it. There is a cost and potential loss in caring about something. When met with any form of opposition we will not simply give way if we care about it. The opinion is formed based on a conflict we recognise and feel something towards. If we are all bubbles of joy and happiness about a new 'opinion' expressing it means it is an antidote to something without bubbles of joy - it is a reaction against something. If we oppose something we do so from a fundamentally emotional position and the base of this is 'anger'/'annoyance'.

What is more anyone who offers a counter to what we say is breaking the opinion up because it counters, or could counter, their own opinion that they care about.

Why don't we recognise this most of the time? It can be subtle. We make up reasons for our thoughts/actions all the time for various reasons. Often this is precise where we are not happy about having the rug pulled out from under us so we're talking mostly about fear in respect to the reason for denying our irrational and/or questionable opinions.

Maybe think of 'bravery' as being what I am talking about here. But I think the term 'bravery' is merely one of those trick words used to cover up a base emotional feeling - 'anger'/'annoyance'.

Would you agree that the things we care about the most have the greatest potential to make us express anger? If not explain how if you can. If you agree run with that in terms of what I've been trying to say and see if that is of any use.

And? Still not what I said. I would agree with what you say though.

What next? Are you trying to convince us that we _should_? — Kenosha Kid

Read the rest of the opening post and see what the conclusion is and tell me if it is worthy or not.

I never said that. I am saying they cast out opinions they care about because of anger/annoyance (directed either at themselves, others or something in general).

If you (anyone) are expressing an opinion you care about I am stating that it is due to 'anger/annoyance'.

Why do you post anything that you care about? To share it? Why? What is the underlying point of sharing something you care about?

I think it is clear enough that you would share something you care about because you expect it will challenge others and because you are looking for conflicting opinions. you might well say that doesn't mean it is posed in 'anger/annoyance' which is NOT what I saying at all.

I am saying that we are at odds with something and believe that our 'opinion'/'view' expressed opens up a path of investigation or even offers a potential solution. Without 'anger'/'annoyance' we wouldn't even recognise a problem. We are not robots operating under some logical method to sustain ourselves in life. We are emotional beings.

Often people put a lot of weight in 'fear' as an orientating force (and I would agree), but it is inhibiting where 'anger'/'annoyance' is not merely inhibiting it is also a drive to act against something.

I think some people express opinions to solely rile people up and some do it because they believe they can teach or educate or help others and some people offer opinions to both educate and irritate/anger simultaneously. (Those aren’t the only reasons, imo, either, just some common ones.) — laura ann

And my point is that underneath it is essentially about 'anger/annoyance'. This my be self directed.

Good point. We could maybe add the suffragette movement to this as a means of helping women gain status.

It is my opinion that dark gray and black cars look the best. If you think light colored cars are better, that really wouldn't matter to me. — Hanover

Then you wouldn't post this as an argument in an OP would you. I am not talking about some mere whimsical 'opinion'.

Funny. I use anger/annoyance to drive me to look further into topics I wouldn't usually go for. I get angry/annoyed with myself often enough.

When it comes to arguing with others I lean towards viewing my position as being wrong and any annoyance I feel as a sign there is something important afoot.

This is why I say expressing an 'opinion' is rooted in this.

The replies you are giving here I would call expressing an opinion and I am sure you have vested emotions in your responses and thoughts. I am also sure they are not concrete and where anything isn't concrete we're open to error and missing certain items.

I also understand that we may choose to tell ourselves there is more benefit in understanding what someone is saying, why they are saying and investigating how they arrived at that point. Somewhere in the differentiation there is a drive that shifts us to dismiss some part of their point or question our own. This is necessarily an unpleasant experience. As with physicists who have followed a theory for decades on end putting all their effort in to and then finding out it was completely the wrong path, we too are not simply joyed by the discovery of error we have to let our beliefs die and this is equivalent to mourning.

I believe there are different stages of mourning (or grief) that might point at what I mean more readily. I am talking about 'opinions' that bear some weight to them not some whimsy - certainly things like 'it is my opinion that chocolate tastes good'.

Let's move on. Is there are benefit to being annoyed/angered by something (in terms of philosophical discourse)?

You'll probably get more helpful advice from people in a similar situation to you. Seek out as many forums as you can more related to this topic and they might be able to point you to some resources available in your area.

Failing that simply sit her down and talk to her when she is in a lucid state and ask her what she wants. For her general health it is known that irregular sleeping patterns are usually a sign of an upcoming episode. Regular exercise, meals and routine could help you all out an awful lot.

Note: If you know of any dietary issues in your immediate family (allergies and such) avoiding these foods could be worth a try too.

Overall focus on the bold text above ^^ Good luck to you and your family. Hope for the best but expect the worst and you'll all get through it somehow :)

Stating others' opinions for them without surveying them at all, even to bolster your argument, is dismissive. It also shows a lack in theory of mind. — Kenosha Kid

To repeat ... this was a conscious choice to make a point about people getting annoyed and being dismissive. That is was a carefully laid trap is also part and parcel of my point about being 'angry'/'annoyed'.

If you view some ideas as 'abhorrent' then are you absconding from reason by doing so? Of course I think some ideas are terrible too in life but as an item for philosophical discussion I tend to look at why I feel that way as a point of interest if I can manage it.

Postmodernism has its positive quirks I think :D

Not to interrupt too much but I have remined constant by framing 'anger/annoyance' rather than just plain 'anger,' and when going to an extreme used 'blind fury'.

That makes no sense.

In addition it would be more helpful is I made some distinctions between 'opinion,' 'view' and 'belief'. :(

you are pre-emptively dismissing the opinions of others by replacing them with your own. If you're against dismissing opinions, why not find out what they are, rather than deciding what they are? — Kenosha Kid

I was putting forward an argument.

It is up to me to convince you that you do cast out opinions due to anger/annoyance and if I cannot convince you then my argument needs work in some way.

When I create a thread here, it's principally to survey critique. I'm inviting difference of opinion, the benefits of which are: 1) if my thinking is crap, friends here will demonstrate that, saving me from wasting more time on it; 2) if it's solid, I can demonstrate that to myself by defending it (like a thesis defense); 3) if it's kind of there but flawed, discussion will help develop the bits that need developing. — Kenosha Kid

That is standard. I am looking to rock the boat. If you are convinced you cannot fall out so be it.

I am inviting conflict with what I have put out. I want conflict. I don't see how anyone can be motivated to cast out an opinion without understanding that it is meant to cause conflict. If it doesn't it is going nowhere fast. If no one cares it is frustrating (annoying) as one puts out opinions to test them.

Perhaps I am just being too liberal with the term anger/annoyance for your liking. That is annoying and I can look to correct it.

I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. — Kenosha Kid

I think there is a problem here with referring to some ideas as 'horrible'. I don't see ideas as 'horrible' they are just ideas. Some have more use than others. Ideas that have no use are not 'ideas,' but there are certainly people out there who put forward things they call 'ideas' that I don't call 'ideas'.

Either way, I never stated that ideas are the source of anger. I stated that expressing an opinion is due to anger/annoyance. This doesn't have to be external and I'd suggest that is could be more commonly inward anger/annoyance (hence the need to get feedback).

If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me. — Kenosha Kid

When people have strong personal opinions they are blind to reason quite often. We are all prone to this in day-to-day life and it is something we're meant to guard against on forums like this (but there are plenty of instances where this doesn't happen I'm sure you'd agree).

Extending to this extreme I concluded that out rational inclination are due to our irrational nature.

Look at this in the light of the first sentence that has bothered people (as it was meant to):

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed. — I like sushi

The 'something' not necessarily a 'someone'. As the strain increases the so does annoyances and frustrations - be they directed where here or there. When the opinion held matters more and more to us then the price and tension is higher. Necessarily that which matters most to us will, inevitably, hold us in place because of a 'something' we will defend to the death (so to speak):

We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed.

Given that being logic and rational is something we often hear as being productive in argumentation this begs the question as to why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality. — I like sushi

I think I could have written this much better in hindsight (as I knew would be the case). I did to make a delineation between a mere whimsical 'view' and a strong 'view'. Whimsy has it's place, but I wouldn't really call an 'opinion' a 'whimsy'. Throwing out some random thoughts is not he same as casting out an 'opinion' don't you think?

It is conflict of a sorts no matter how you wish to frame it. It may be for fun but someone will be annoyed/angered to some degree if they find it wanting. If we express an opinion surely we are looking for conflict?

What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with. — I like sushi

Thanks for trying the charitable perspective though :)

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker.

The technical difference here being he was provoked then retreated to his car to get a gun with intent of getting his rifle and shooting the other person. He was not initially armed with a gun and attacked.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts.

So we're on the cusp of dismissing each other. That is not a pleasant experience.

How do we not dismiss each other's positions/ideas/beliefs OR how do we dismiss each other and move on without loss?

We can call someone a crackpot theorist and ridicule them but that will openly encourage anger/annoyance. Ignoring/dismissing them will also cause anger/annoyance. If anger and annoyance are generally counterproductive to rational discourse and rational thought how can we trust our own opinion? If we can to what degree?

My minimal conclusion here is that being completely rational beings would make us stagnated and unable to move forward or backwards. The rational mind without an irrational nature is utterly useless. — I like sushi

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of.

A seventeen year old walking around with a gun in The Netherlands isn't legal is it? I think part of the ire involved is that many think he shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a gun - myself included - yet the law there doesn't disallow it. On top of this, as we all know, the law isn't a simple universal formula.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult.

The big question is will we see a change in the law for youngsters carrying weapons? I am pretty sure Rittenhouse would have taken a different course of action if he'd known exactly what would happen to him. If so are we likely to see him backing laws to prevent people like himself from having their life and other lives turned upside down due to naivety, stupidity, and/or immaturity?

Will there be a law that states carrying firearms during a protest is illegal? This would make some fear the police perhaps so how about during protests having both the citizens and police disarm themselves as standard procedure? Then if any bad element of the protesters cause damage to property then call in clearly marked police who are armed to deal with them and keep 'regular' police unarmed.

That is just off the top of my head and I'm not saying it is ideal by any means but I think something like that is at least a step in the right direction.

You seem to suppose that a relaxed resting state is abnormal and that we generate tension to enliven ourselves and our social scene. Conflict, intense emotion, tension, etc. make us feel better. — Bitter Crank

Not sure I would frame it like that. I was perhaps thinking as simple resistance to items that are our ‘axis mundi’ (the core of our existed experience). Maybe such opposition and strong feelings towards something hit at some underlying hidden aspect of us?

There is some validity to your view. In times of danger and threat we are on high alert, physically primed for action. Your 'tension' in other words. IF someone presents an opinion that cuts across one's most basic and cherished thinking (somebody says, for instance, that we should institute a forced abortion program to cut own the excess population) we might well experience tension, arousal, and would start marshaling arguments against this view. — Bitter Crank

Yes. It is more clear cut in some cases. I did frame this as anger/annoyance rather than plain anger. I am of the belief that we are driven by how we ‘feel’ about something first and foremost and this is where this line of thinking stems from and why I’m looking for argumentation against it.

Most of the time, though, other people's opinions do not rile us up that way. We can deal with others' opinions without tension developing. — Bitter Crank

In which case we ignore them or don’t take them seriously (see reply from T Clark) which then leads to the opening up of anger/annoyance for one party. I would say most of the time someone is riled. If not the discussion/debate/argument quickly dies and can hardly be called such.

At any rate, I think our "go to state" is one of quiet, restful, homeostasis--most of the time. Still, I recognize that sometimes we like to pick a fight, just for its excitement value--or tension. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think this? What are you basing this on?

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. If we agree with what someone says and have nothing more to add we may at most say ‘well done’. If we oppose the view we necessarily find something at fault and we don’t like this, yet such dislike can be an understanding of our own short comings, shorting comings of others, or (more likely) an admixture of both.

Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack.

Anyway, have a appointment …

Your view clearly opposes mine and you feel obliged to comment.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? If not why comment? What drove you to comment. What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with.

This is kind of the position I am putting up for discussion.

Overall I think the video will do a good job with the exception of saying he 'fell over' without mentioned he'd been pelted with objects and that is why he fell to the ground - it is pretty hard to squeeze in every detail though in a brief video.

The nuances in laws state to state is likely something many don't really give too much consideration (especially non-native citizens of the US as they're used to ONE law across the lands rather than multiple iterations/interpretation of one law).

To have success in life it pays to serves others. You may call this 'selfish' but if it acts to helps out others then that necessarily removes the burden from yourself PLUS gives a degree of satisfaction I'd say?

Intelligence? That is a whole can of worms! I'm not convinced that being intelligent makes you a 'better/worse person' in any way.

If we're just talking in terms of IQ alone neither a reasonably high IQ nor a reasonably low IQ have much to do with someone's character.

All neurotransmitters do multiple things. It is better to think of neurotransmitters as keys which fit holes that turn on or off numerous items (some that act against each other).

What happens a lot (regarding the neurosciences) is researchers say one thing then journalists run with it and misrepresent it. This is probably something that happens more in the neurosciences than most other fields as it is effectively a new field of research and the amount of ground to cover within it grows exponentially day by day.

F.I.R.E.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZqBsLm7TuM

Heard of that?

I think the ability to communicate instantly is not something that will destroy democracy. I would also say it is untrue that media outlets over the past two decades (anywhere in the world) haven’t been somewhat of a detriment to democracy to some degree.

Now we can see the problems of democracy and we find that we’re all responsible and should check and double check our sources and keep in mind that what we might be hearing may actually be quite false.

The more sensitive the subject the more dangerous it is to stack evidence to back your beliefs and abscond from and derail others. I think younger generations are more adapted than older folks realise as they’ve grew up with the ability to communicate on a global scale.

I think @apokrisis did a good job of answering this.

People will assume 'surprise' to mean the everyday 'surprise' unless the technical term is outlined.

In simpler terms it merely refers to differing from the norm and something I find interesting about the 'Free energy principle' - in terms of the cognitive neurosciences - it how this plays off Inhibition of Return (IOR) in terms of awareness and attention.

But why is minimising surprise the very same as living longest? — Banno

Because 'minimising' doesn't mean 'eradicating'? I don't really understand this question unless you took 'minimising' to mean 'reduce to nothing'. It might also be a case of conflating this in terms of 'evolution,' 'information theory' and actual 'physical energy'?

Neuroplasticity - yes, children's brains. However, hazarding a guess, going out on a limb here, most modifications/adaptations are in software and not in hardware. — TheMadFool

The brain is highly plastic in juvenile development. As an example a kid (aged 8 yrs I believe) who had half his brain blown out due to a stray bullet still went on to get a degree at university. When components are lost other areas grow to take over (another case of a child born without a cerebellum being able to walk).

I don't see what sense it makes to talk about hardware and software when referring to the human brain in reasonable detail (even as an analogy it can often give the wrong impression).

Brilliant! Reminds me of The Day Today and Brass Eye.

Wow! Okay bye bye.

Because it has to opposed in some way? My view of a hero is actually more like batman than robinhood. I think true heroes knowingly and purposefully cause themselves pain, distress and suffering (at extreme levels) to help/protect/further others.

Robinhood was aimed more specifically at tyranny. I wouldn’t complain strongly about him being framed as a hero but he doesn’t quite fit my rigid definition.

You claim the witness said he was not guilty. That is untrue. — Kenosha Kid

The witness admitted he was shot in self defence. That is basically the same as saying (in that instance) he wasn’t guilty. I didn’t mean to imply he said anything about his guilt regarding the deaths.

It was a pretty clear cut case as I tried to outline in the post you picked those first sentences from. Even clearer for anyone who bothered to watch a significant proportion of the trial - which is how I know what I am saying isn’t due to newsreel clips, chat show parading or social media comments (some of which are scarily absent of the most basic facts and others of which perpetuate blatant lies at both ends of the spectrum).

I’d rather people move to discussions of how to address people being shot by poorly trained police officers for next to no reason. It is clear enough in the US that simply complying with the police as much as possible isn’t always going to end well.

Can you see a future in the US where police officers carrying firearms is unusual? I think that would be the ideal to work towards but I’ve no idea how that can be achieved anytime soon nor what the incremental steps towards it would look like. A starter would be addressing police training and who is allowed to openly walk around with guns.

In the country I was born I have never seen a police officer with a gun. In fact I cannot ever recall seeing a gun in that country other than on TV.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.
— I like sushi

No, the guy he shot who survived admitted he'd pulled a gun on him. This alone can't acquit him. For instance, of the murder of the two unarmed men. — Kenosha Kid

I never said it did. Why you focused on that puzzles me given that I gave a blow by blow account of what I learnt from watching the trial directly after those two sentences.