And he realizes that anger is an appropriate response to some situations

他意識到，憤怒是對某些情況的適當反應

and an inappropriate response to other situations.

以及對其他情況的不恰當反應。

And assuming he's neurotypical and healthy, Val will have mastered anger when he can determine

假設他是神經症患者而且健康的話，當他能判斷出，瓦爾就已經掌握了憤怒的能力。

when anger is an appropriate response to a situation and when it's not.

什麼時候憤怒是對情況的適當反應，什麼時候不是。

And the causes of inappropriate anger are two misunderstandings: the misunderstanding

而造成不恰當的憤怒的原因有兩個誤區：誤解。

of necessity and the misunderstanding of effectiveness.

的必要性和對有效性的誤解。

Let's start by taking a look at necessity.

我們先來看看必要性。

Like most people, Val's anger first arises when he feels he has been wronged, harmed,

和大多數人一樣，瓦爾的憤怒首先產生於他覺得自己受到了冤枉、傷害。

or some injustice has been done against him.

或者對他有什麼不公正的待遇。

Anger arises as a necessity, so that he can respond to the current situation effectively.

憤怒的產生是一種需要，這樣他才能有效地應對當前的情況。

But how does Val know if his interpretation of the situation is correct?

但瓦爾怎麼知道自己的解釋是否正確呢？

Has an injustice actually been done to him?

難道他真的受到了不公正的待遇？

His answer to this question is really important to know, so let's take a look at an example.

他的這個問題的答案真的很重要，我們來看看一個例子。

Imagine Val driving through the city, and suddenly, a car cuts him off.

想象一下，瓦爾開車穿過城市，突然，一輛車把他攔住了。

How Val interprets this situation determines whether or not he'll get angry.

瓦爾如何解讀這種情況，決定了他是否會生氣。

The first interpretation is that the person in the other car tried to get ahead at his

第一種解釋是，另一輛車的人試圖在他的車前

expense.

支出。

Val feels an injustice has been done to him, and anger begins to arise.

瓦爾覺得自己受到了不公正的待遇，於是開始憤怒。

In the second interpretation, Val believes the other person has somewhere really important

在第二種解釋中，瓦爾認為對方有很重要的地方。

to be.

要。

Maybe he's rushing to the hospital because his child is sick or his wife is pregnant.

也許他是因為孩子生病或妻子懷孕才急著去醫院的。

And Val believes that, really, he's in the way of the other driver, and Val feels he

而瓦爾認為，真的，他擋住了另一個司機的路，瓦爾覺得他。

would be doing an injustice to him by not allowing him to get ahead.

不讓他出人頭地，就是對他不公平。

Anger never arises in this situation.

在這種情況下，永遠不會產生憤怒。

In each situation, the arrival of anger depends on Val's interpretation.

在每種情況下，憤怒的到來都取決於瓦爾的解釋。

It depends on whether he believes an injustice has been done against him, and it depends

這要看他是否認為自己受到了不公正的待遇，這要看他是否認為自己受到了不公正的待遇。

on whether he believes anger to be necessary or not.

在他認為憤怒是否必要時。

So how does he avoid the misunderstanding of necessity?

那麼，他是如何避免必要的誤解的呢？

He needs to, as much as he can, create space and time to gain clarity.

他需要，儘可能地創造空間和時間來獲得清晰的認識。

He needs to confirm or disconfirm whether an injustice has actually been committed,

他需要確認或不確認是否真的發生了不公正的行為。

and he should seek proof.

而他應該求證。

But in the absence of proof, Val will have to make one of two presumptions: either he

但在沒有證據的情況下，瓦爾只能做出兩種假設之一：要麼他

will have to presume innocence on behalf of the other person or he will have to presume

他將不得不為對方推定無罪，或者他將不得不為對方推定。

guilt.

內疚。

If he believes he lives in a fair place, presumption of innocence is the smarter choice.

如果他相信自己生活在一個公平的地方，無罪推定是更明智的選擇。

But if he lives in a land of thieves, presumption of guilt is the smarter choice.

但如果他生活在一個盜賊的國度，有罪推定是更明智的選擇。

Making the wrong presumption is more likely to lead to the inappropriate use of anger.

做出錯誤的預設，更容易導致憤怒的不當使用。

But let's say that an injustice has been done, and Val feels that he's been wronged.

但是，就說發生了不公正的事情，瓦爾覺得自己被冤枉了。

This brings me to the next misunderstanding: the misunderstanding of effectiveness.

這讓我想到了下一個誤區：對成效的誤解。

Once Val's anger arises, he needs to channel it into an effective action.

一旦瓦爾的憤怒產生，他需要將其引導為有效的行動。

And an effective action is one that restores justice or rebalances the scales.

而有效的行動是恢復正義或重新平衡天平的行動。

But how certain is Val that his action will restore justice?

但瓦爾有多大把握，他的行動能恢復正義？

And why?

為什麼呢？

Let's go back to the scenario where Val was cut off in traffic, and let's look at

讓我們回到瓦爾在交通中被截斷的場景，讓我們看一下。

some potential responses.

一些潛在的反應。

The first response: Val decides he will cut the other driver off to get revenge, but this

第一反應。瓦爾決定要砍掉另一個司機來報仇，但這... ...

creates a cycle of them speeding up to pass one another, until eventually, one of them

形成了一個循環，他們加速超越對方，直到最終，其中一個人

gets into an accident.

陷入事故。

In the second response, Val reports the other driver to the police, who promptly takes the

在第二種反應中，瓦爾向警方報告了對方司機，警方迅速把

reckless driver off the road and keeps the streets safer.

魯莽的司機不上路，讓街道更安全。

In this case, Val might have prevented an accident from happening.

在這種情況下，瓦爾可能會阻止一場事故的發生。

In each situation, the appropriateness of anger depends on how effective Val's action

在每一種情況下，憤怒是否恰當取決於瓦爾的行動是否有效

is at restoring justice.

是在恢復正義。

So how does he avoid the misunderstanding of effectiveness?

那麼，他是如何避免效力誤區的呢？

Again, he needs to create space and time to gain clarity.

同樣，他需要創造空間和時間來獲得清晰的認識。

He needs to confirm or disconfirm whether his action will restore justice, and he should

他需要確認或不確認他的行動是否會恢復正義，他應該......。

seek proof.

求證。

And in the absence of proof, Val will again have to make one of two presumptions: either

而在沒有證據的情況下，瓦爾又不得不做出兩種假設之一：要麼是

he presumes it's better to take action or he presumes it's not.

他推測最好是採取行動，或者他推測不採取行動。

If he believes the environment is fair and justice will be acted without his intervention,

如果他相信環境是公平的，正義會在他不干預的情況下被執行。

it's smarter not to take action.

聰明的做法是不採取任何行動。

But if he's in an unfair environment where justice won't take place without his intervention,

但如果他處在一個不公平的環境中，沒有他的干預，正義就不會發生。

it's smarter to take action.

採取行動更明智。

And like before, making the wrong presumption is more likely to lead to the inappropriate

和以前一樣，做出錯誤的推斷更容易導致不恰當的。

use of anger.

怒氣的使用。

So in the end, Val's mastery over anger depends on his ability to answer two questions

所以，說到底，瓦爾對憤怒的駕馭能力取決於他對兩個問題的回答能力。

correctly: have I actually been wronged or harmed in anyways?

正確的：我到底受到了怎樣的冤枉或傷害？

And will my action fix that wrong?

而我的行動能解決這個問題嗎？

And his greatest assets for answering these questions correctly are time and space to

而他正確回答這些問題的最大法寶就是時間和空間，以

find out the truth.

查明真相。

And ideally, through action and feedback, Val can get better at answering these questions

而理想情況下，通過行動和反饋，瓦爾可以更好地回答這些問題。

correctly.

正確。

And most of us are like Val, caught in the middle between two extremes: perfect judgment

而我們大多數人都像瓦爾一樣，夾在兩個極端的中間：完美的判斷力。

on one end, and completely corrupted judgment on the other end.

一端，另一端則是完全敗壞的判斷力。

And the more correctly we can answer these two questions, the more we perfect our judgment,

而我們越能正確回答這兩個問題，就越能完善自己的判斷。

and the more we master our anger and move to the right, but the more incorrectly we

而我們越是掌握怒氣，越是向右移動，但越是不正確的是

answer these questions, the more our judgment becomes corrupted, the more our anger masters

回答這些問題的時候，我們的判斷力就會越發的敗壞，我們的怒氣主

us and the more we move to the left.

我們和越是向左移動。

So

所以

what will it be?

會是什麼？