= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Open thread, March 17-31, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (173)
My suspicion: status games are generally seen as zero sum. Someone attempting to play the status game around you is a threat, and thus it probably helps to be angry with them, unless you expect them to be better than you at status games, in which case being angry with them probably reduces the chance that they'll be your ally, and they will be able to respond more negatively to your anger than a weaker opponent.
Another possible just-so story we can tell is that being (seen as) angry makes it safer to injure someone (e.g., "cold-blooded" murder or battery is seen as less acceptable than killing or battering someone "in the heat of passion"), so when we identify someone as incapable of retribution we're more inclined to make ourselves seem angry as well, the combination of which allows us to eliminate competitors while they're weak with relative impunity. (And, of course, the most reliable way to make ourselves seem angry is to feel angry.)
Is that actually the explanation for Raiden's reaction, though? Probably not; telling just-so stories isn't a terribly reliable process for arriving at true explanations.
Edit: Whoops... should have read drethelin's comment first. Retracting for redundancy.