UNPOPULAR OPINION #3

“You have anger issues,” I reckon there are always quite a few people you want to confront with such a bluntly direct statement.

“No, I don’t,” most will surely avoid admitting their truest essence, or accepting the newly layered identity being imposed on them without consent.

Some people explode more easily and at rapid speed: their reaction is never delayed, and surely never bottled. Eventually, it showcases so much consistency between what they receive and how they react that patterns get established. Most people, either consciously or subconsciously tapping into those patterns, avoid, or at the bare least try to avoid, any kind of confrontation with people who have ‘anger issues.’

Anger is not something bad. Again, as with many things, it is not the tool itself that is filthy, but the way in which it is being utilised.

Anger is not something bad. Again, as with many emotions, it is as much about where it came from as it is about where it is going.

Anger is not something bad. Its absence is what is far more terrifying.

As long as your partner is angry with you, you can be sure that there is still some hope to save the ‘sinking Titanic.’

As long as your employee is enraged with you as to why you keep promoting others above them, you can be certain they mean to stay at this workplace and have no hidden intentions of quitting.

As long as fans are angry with you, you can bet on them still having expectations of you, as well as emotional investment in you and the things you do.

Nonchalance might look cool, and so might sound detachment. A person does not fret over things, nor does their heart beat faster upon hearing awful news, nor does their brain, remaining at calm, awaken its amygdala into a fight-or-flight survival response.

Nonetheless, they come with a couple of invisible costs.

Anhedonia. Sounds like an interesting term, doesn’t it?

As per its given definition, anhedonia is a psychological condition characterised by the inability to experience pleasure in normally pleasurable acts (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Because nonchalance, in some cases, from certain angles, can be weaponised as passive aggressiveness. In this situation, we are moving from aggression that is pure and reactional to something more calculative and ‘cold-served,’ if I may say so.

If its definition doesn’t deceive, it is being, marked by, or displaying behaviour characterised by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive, passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness) (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

It is not a rule of thumb that once one experiences anger inside, they automatically commit some external aggressive act and thus, in its turn, become something identity-ingrained.

Just because anger is an internal emotion, and aggression is outward resistance-expressing behaviour, it doesn’t equate to both coming in subsequent order during the same situation. Some people can either suppress or bottle their anger. And when they can’t, well, it starts to seek its way out.

It is fortunate if one’s aggression materialises itself merely in verbal shape, but no, sometimes, or rather quite often, the palms once opened for handshakes squeeze themselves to mould into fists and beat the object in the vicinity of their sight. It is quite lucky if they rise into a full intention of beating objects only, where things are mostly inanimate, though expensive according to their own metrics. But luck is not a symbol of guarantee, hence it is far from seldom that one might encounter beatings of subjects, where once-lively bodies turn into lifeless corpses.

Nonetheless, just because a person once or twice lets their anger take an external, visible shape, it does not quite literally translate into that being their behaviour pattern, bound to repeat itself at any fortunate chance.

Sometimes, those who bottle their anger a lot, and especially for a prolonged timeframe, might reach the periphery of external placidity, and all the anger once suppressed might pour outwards in its pressed-down accumulation.

Hence, aggression is mandatory, and needed even in many circumstances.

Anger does never suffice, because anger is an emotion. Whatever emotion one feels, it arrives with the mission of conveying something, with the necessity to make a person act, though whether consistently or incoherently, it is a person’s own free will to decide upon it. However, the underlying rule persists unaltered: the emotion comes to its host, knocking at the door of their brain’s chemicals with the message to act.

Boundaries. Too little aggression equates to too much agreeableness, which, in its turn, leads to too little guarding of one’s ‘private’ space and personal boundaries.

True. Being kind is commendable. Yet being someone with poor boundaries, upon whom people from all walks of life can insert and impose their own opinions and advice, however misaligned they may be with the actual desires, cravings, and needs of the one being advised and guided, is not something to be proud of.

Having people characterise you as aggressive might not make you look like the right person, but having your boundaries never respected will most definitely make you feel like you are always the wrong person.

That said, I do not imply that a person, whenever and wherever they feel angry, must rush to demonstrate aggressive behaviour, as its excessive repetition and unwavering consistency in showcasing such an ‘inappropriate demeanour’ will eventually lead to their act being categorised as aggressiveness rather than mere aggression.

But, please, don’t let misinterpretation fill the space here. Aggressiveness does not always mean that a person carries a predisposition to being violent towards their environment, hostile towards their surroundings. There are quite a significant number of cases when it materialises in the form of drive, ambition, or simply a competitive spirit, speaking generally.

For instance, a person might feel angry that they have fallen behind in life or behind their peers. To defy that, to not surrender to the set of misfortunes and curses, they might, in their quite ‘aggressive behaviour,’ refuse to take upon themselves the ‘roles’ that fit their ‘newly downgraded level,’ only ending up unleashing upon their lives others’ blank stares and judgemental murmurs.

Nonetheless, as the rule, no, rather, as the law of alignment and manifestation works, as the quote ‘fake it till you make it’ dictates, by refusing to settle for what doesn’t align with your soul’s calling, you might end up attracting what does align.

Aggressiveness is not something entirely bad. Again, as with many things, it is not the tool itself that is filthy, but the way in which it is being utilised.

Aggressiveness is not something entirely bad. Again, as with many behavioural tendencies, it is as much about where it came from as it is about where it is going.

Aggressiveness is not something entirely bad. Its total absence is what is far more terrifying.

As long as police officers portray ‘aggressiveness’ in solving the case, you can be sure that there is still some hope to save that kidnapped boy or physically abused wife.

As long as the nation embraces the shared ‘aggressiveness’ towards the unjust and corrupt system of its politicians, you can be certain they really mean for their country to prosper, not just in verbal declarations, but in actions.

As long as friends do not shy away from ‘aggressiveness’ in keeping their pal away from a bottle of extra whiskey, you can still cling to the belief that their drunkard friend will not need to count any more tallies of rehabilitation centre visits.

To return to the very beginning…:

In other words, it comes in the form of a written and delivered message.

To put it differently, it requires one to read the message, but, in doing so, to be careful not to misinterpret the letter’s true meaning.

Or, to be precise, it is the act of sending the reply message and making sure it won’t end up being handled by the wrong hands or delivered to the wrong places.