Oh you never know Stryke. I mean - I've never been in a physical fight in my life. But as a woman who lives in a somewhat major metropolitan area with a huge transient population (that used to be the murder capital of the US) I'm more paranoid and aggressive about unwelcome attention than I was when I lived in suburban Indiana.
The test also weighs verbal and physical aggression equally...which may or may not make sense.
Self-Efficacy
Moderator: Available
-
Stryke
Honestly Dana , I`m not suprised with my score , I think your right it has a lot to do with enviroment etc . Not many of my friends would argue with me , I dont deal with to many strangers , I`m not highjacked by the little things .
this force continuim stuff is great , theres no need to get angry unless you need it .
And also there is the confidence issue and the ability to project etc , how many folks are going to try pick on me anyhow when I have a good grasp of diffusing and unsettling phsychologically .
Anyone that`s me t me knows how easy going I am , Martial arts is probably one of the few bones of contention
this force continuim stuff is great , theres no need to get angry unless you need it .
And also there is the confidence issue and the ability to project etc , how many folks are going to try pick on me anyhow when I have a good grasp of diffusing and unsettling phsychologically .
Anyone that`s me t me knows how easy going I am , Martial arts is probably one of the few bones of contention
I took it four times and here's about how I scored, on (approximate) average.
In parenthesis is the avg for men
Phys: 18 (24.3)
Verb=20 (15.2)
Anger=7 (17)
Hostility=12 (21.3)
Overall=56 (77.8 )
Apparently I'm an argumentative corpse.
Not too surprising, though like any of these tests, I think a lot of the questions are too equivocal. For example "I would hit someone with enough provocation." To me, that really depend a lot on the situation. I could definitely answer strongly either way. There absolutely are situations where I would hit someone (self-defense). But if by provocation it just means extreme rudeness I'd answer differenlt? I'm incredibly unlikely to ever hit someone just for being obnoxious or insulting.
Similarly "if someone hits me I hit them back" Without context what does this even mean?
In parenthesis is the avg for men
Phys: 18 (24.3)
Verb=20 (15.2)
Anger=7 (17)
Hostility=12 (21.3)
Overall=56 (77.8 )
Apparently I'm an argumentative corpse.
Not too surprising, though like any of these tests, I think a lot of the questions are too equivocal. For example "I would hit someone with enough provocation." To me, that really depend a lot on the situation. I could definitely answer strongly either way. There absolutely are situations where I would hit someone (self-defense). But if by provocation it just means extreme rudeness I'd answer differenlt? I'm incredibly unlikely to ever hit someone just for being obnoxious or insulting.
Similarly "if someone hits me I hit them back" Without context what does this even mean?
Hey, Stryke!
I picked up on this:
" theres no need to get angry unless you need it ." (Stryke)
I found this a very interesting comment. To me, it seems to say that you can get angry when you want to, or not when you don't want to.
I know you've posted before on the analysis of anger, but my current thinking is that TRUE anger overrides any "selective" process, and leaps out of you when you least expect it, and maybe don't want it to!
These urges can and should be controlled, for sure, (the purpose of MA), but real anger to me is something that cannot be summoned at will by a decision, and turned-on/turned-off consciously.
Anger (even righteous anger) is NOT not "fighting spirit". In fact, I've posted before that "fighting spirit" is something that replaces anger/rage and yet allows the fighter to perform at an equivalent level but in full mental control.
This is one of my training objectives as matter of fact.
I believe that anger, true anger, has no victory in successful fighting, and has to be replaced by fighting spirit in order to win.
True anger is chaotic, non-directed, non-thinking, aggressive, and indiscriminately destructive.
It is not a "positive motivating force" in "self defense", it is a non-thinking force of destruction that all our training should prepare us to deal with.
Having watched all the Rocky and Van Damme movies and being Hollywood-conditioned, I personally believe that the concepts of MA training, learned and practised as they were intended (for life-and-death self defense) do IN FACT create the potential of victory over blind chaotic rage, by prepared, conditioned, calculating and seasoned technique, learned in a Dojo and practiced in realistic scenarios.
I think that this is the very cornerstone upon which MA is built.
And I live in the real world where violence occurs.
To me, the notion that one can suddenly "decide" to "get angry" and magically prevail over a crazed attacker by "more anger" is methodically flawed, and at odds with what I have learned and experienced.
So, in the spirit of the forums, and on behalf of our readers, knowing we are cyber-friends, I call upon you to defend your position!
"You're the MAN!!!"
NM
I picked up on this:
" theres no need to get angry unless you need it ." (Stryke)
I found this a very interesting comment. To me, it seems to say that you can get angry when you want to, or not when you don't want to.
I know you've posted before on the analysis of anger, but my current thinking is that TRUE anger overrides any "selective" process, and leaps out of you when you least expect it, and maybe don't want it to!
These urges can and should be controlled, for sure, (the purpose of MA), but real anger to me is something that cannot be summoned at will by a decision, and turned-on/turned-off consciously.
Anger (even righteous anger) is NOT not "fighting spirit". In fact, I've posted before that "fighting spirit" is something that replaces anger/rage and yet allows the fighter to perform at an equivalent level but in full mental control.
This is one of my training objectives as matter of fact.
I believe that anger, true anger, has no victory in successful fighting, and has to be replaced by fighting spirit in order to win.
True anger is chaotic, non-directed, non-thinking, aggressive, and indiscriminately destructive.
It is not a "positive motivating force" in "self defense", it is a non-thinking force of destruction that all our training should prepare us to deal with.
Having watched all the Rocky and Van Damme movies and being Hollywood-conditioned, I personally believe that the concepts of MA training, learned and practised as they were intended (for life-and-death self defense) do IN FACT create the potential of victory over blind chaotic rage, by prepared, conditioned, calculating and seasoned technique, learned in a Dojo and practiced in realistic scenarios.
I think that this is the very cornerstone upon which MA is built.
And I live in the real world where violence occurs.
To me, the notion that one can suddenly "decide" to "get angry" and magically prevail over a crazed attacker by "more anger" is methodically flawed, and at odds with what I have learned and experienced.
So, in the spirit of the forums, and on behalf of our readers, knowing we are cyber-friends, I call upon you to defend your position!
"You're the MAN!!!"
NM
The music spoke to me. I felt compelled to answer.
-
Stryke
Neil , I understand your point of view but strongly disagree .True anger is chaotic, non-directed, non-thinking, aggressive, and indiscriminately destructive.
It is not a "positive motivating force" in "self defense", it is a non-thinking force of destruction that all our training should prepare us to deal with.
I would say I only get angry when needed , and or justified , my mental awareness and cognicance of whats going on always affords me that luxury .
could you please tell me why beyond your own hunches , why anger is
non directed ...... Indiscriminate .. I dont think so
Non thinking ... I dont understand , does rage make you incapable of decision ? , this is a weak argument and merely equates to fear of emotion .
aggressive, Is this a bad thing when justified and necessary ? and
indiscriminately destructive. Once again why indiscriminate ?
Both Biology and phsychology would disagree with you Neil , In fact this is the only reason for anger !! , If it wasnt for this purpose and it was so useless and indiscrimate , I argue we wouldnt have retained the emotion .It is not a "positive motivating force" in "self defense
most have a fear of anger , as does most of society , Your ideal sounds very nice and is , but it is contrast to your very nature .
I argue you cannot control something you do not understand .
these very arguments , to me show a distinct lack of understanding of primary emotion .
the constant labelling of potential side effects , is not the same as addressing the emotion itself , the side effects can be delt with by understanding .
I think label desease gets in the way here , you say anger is not positive , and is not the warrior mindset .
what characteristics do you associate with the warrior mindset ?
true anger ? , this is an unusaul term , I feel perhaps like others , once the anger is free of confusion , is justified , righteous , thinking , positive and usefull , you will then relabel . It is easier to blame anger than your own moral weakness .
It may then be warrior mindset , and a noble thing , we have controlled the bad aspects , we have harnessed it for it`s use .
You see basically , all the negative aspects associated with anger are an excuse , they are actually character flaws , if you do something bad out of anger , it is not the anger that made you do it .
you chose to do it .
you may have an altered risk/reward model because you feel empowered yes , but basically you failed on a moral level , your true nature came out because you thought youd get away with it .
anger is not the problem , you see you got angry for a reason .
Why you get angry can be a problem , If you get angry because you need to express controll or dominate , that is a problem .
But it is your perception that made you angry , at some point you choose to act , it is a moral decision , people incapable of this decision are mentally i`ll , they are a tiny percentage . Anger does not exuse action unless you have a phsychotic episode .
the whole thought of good/bad emotions are naive , the sexual predator/pedophile may molest small children because it makes them feel happy or fulfilled .
do we blame these feelings of joy and fullfillment , heck they may be able to rationalise feelings of love ?
the problem was the moral judgement , the ethical breech , the pshychosis and conditioning that lead to such innapropriate associations .
the same with anger .
to say any sane human is incapable of controlling such a primal part of there being is absurd . They may not ... but that remains quite seperate .
It is about self knowlege , and self responsibility .
I feel if people cannot confront such things inwardly then they have no true hope of mastering themselves .
You qualify what you mean by warrior mindset , and I`ll tell you if I can fuel all the positves from righteous indignation (anger)
and Qualify True Anger , and i`ll say wether I suffer those maladys when upset .
Maybe at the end of it all the only thing seperating us will be language , and perspective .
-
Bob M
-
Stryke
In context of this Neil , it`s about boundarys , I know mine and what makes me angry is in context of my force continuim ." theres no need to get angry unless you need it ." (Stryke)
I found this a very interesting comment. To me, it seems to say that you can get angry when you want to, or not when you don't want to.
My mental and emotional boundarys have been brought mostly in Sink .
I think this is from a long time listening to my emotions rather than repressing them .
contrary to manys thoughts emotions are to aid us , overpowering conflicting emotions are simply a disconnect between mind and spirit , contradiction .
when you come to accept and acknowledge yourself , your feelings , and becaome aware of yourself , I`ve found this confusion dissapates , things merge , and work together .
It`s that know yourself stuff they always talk about .
Emotions are part of that , if you cant face and accept your anger then I dont see how you can see yourself clearly .
It`s a key component in understanding your nature , and confusion .
And maybe one day arriving at acceptance , and martially learning to be deliberate , emotionally physically , mentally
-
Stryke
Easeist thing In the world Neil , it`s about congruency , emotion is one of three , get the other two on board and your there .but real anger to me is something that cannot be summoned at will by a decision, and turned-on/turned-off consciously.
If I can physically make myself angry , and mentally make my self angry , the emotion will appear .
Same with the emotion , If I can physically relax , mentally calm ,the emotion will dissapate . It`s a Zen thing really ....
the only thing lacking in this equation is a subject or focus .
what about the history of Bezerks !!! why were they feared , how did the pshychologically become so enraged .
many differing schools of shaminisim also embrace and understand these concepts .
It varys little more then self hypnotisim , something kata and the moving meditation thing strongly accesses and resembles .
where back to that induced warrior mindset thing .
It`s just a broader picture being painted .
-
Bob M
We have all experienced anger
Why not tap it.
I use it as a trigger.
If I know I'm going to fight I harness the emotion to increase the violence of my responce. I imagine my adversary harming my family and destroy them.
In a sporting event I still use anger. I'm angry that my opponent dares face me on the floor, I'm angry that they would dare attempt to best me in front of my friends and students. I use this anger to drive them from the ring. They can share the ring with me if they are sleeping, otherwise they will be beaten until they leave.
I learned this from a good friend. It's my ring! How dare you stand in it. I can't wait for the match to start so I can punish them for standing on my mat!
Nothing wrong with using emotion!
Why not tap it.
I use it as a trigger.
If I know I'm going to fight I harness the emotion to increase the violence of my responce. I imagine my adversary harming my family and destroy them.
In a sporting event I still use anger. I'm angry that my opponent dares face me on the floor, I'm angry that they would dare attempt to best me in front of my friends and students. I use this anger to drive them from the ring. They can share the ring with me if they are sleeping, otherwise they will be beaten until they leave.
I learned this from a good friend. It's my ring! How dare you stand in it. I can't wait for the match to start so I can punish them for standing on my mat!
Nothing wrong with using emotion!
-
Stryke
Call it what you want ....
people like fluffy words and will say things like intensity .....
well intensity isnt a defined emotion but it sure is emotional and feeling .
there is nothing cold and calculating about experiencing that Warrior (I want to use feirceness but that`ll be grouped with anger) Intent
theres nothing unemotional about a conflict situation .
People say they experience a cold deliberate calm .... whats the deliberate if not a feeling . why the spur to act , to previal ? , it sure isnt lack of emotion .
the issue is simply repression , a fear to acknowledge that it`s a feeling and it`s powerful .
And like it or not it`s a component of anger , I`d say it`s the pure form of anger , but words will highjack again . People will think of all the times mommy told them anger was bad , because they were a child and did something naughty .
angry is naughty , bad anger bad .....
the fact is were grown ups , anger or impowerment or intent , choose a label , is a primal emotion .
wether it is positive or not is how you use it , but thats your rational , educated , self reliant , self responsible self .....
not the emotion .
If your a bad sport do you blame the emotion of competitiveness or do you blame the competitor for there choice ?
And yes , get out of my &&&(*&%$ ring , is a usefull tool at times .
people like fluffy words and will say things like intensity .....
well intensity isnt a defined emotion but it sure is emotional and feeling .
there is nothing cold and calculating about experiencing that Warrior (I want to use feirceness but that`ll be grouped with anger) Intent
theres nothing unemotional about a conflict situation .
People say they experience a cold deliberate calm .... whats the deliberate if not a feeling . why the spur to act , to previal ? , it sure isnt lack of emotion .
the issue is simply repression , a fear to acknowledge that it`s a feeling and it`s powerful .
And like it or not it`s a component of anger , I`d say it`s the pure form of anger , but words will highjack again . People will think of all the times mommy told them anger was bad , because they were a child and did something naughty .
angry is naughty , bad anger bad .....
the fact is were grown ups , anger or impowerment or intent , choose a label , is a primal emotion .
wether it is positive or not is how you use it , but thats your rational , educated , self reliant , self responsible self .....
not the emotion .
If your a bad sport do you blame the emotion of competitiveness or do you blame the competitor for there choice ?
And yes , get out of my &&&(*&%$ ring , is a usefull tool at times .
-
Stryke
T0 quote an astute poster 
I`d call it a mature anger , an emotionally immature person can blame anger for there actions .There's also the concept of "righteous anger" seen portrayed as in "Walking Tall" or "Roadhouse" - type movies.
This kind of anger is not destructive as much as restorative.
You might even call it "positive anger", to offset or counter "negative" (destructive) anger.
