I am a venter. If someone shoves past me on the train, three people have heard about it before dinner.
If a friend repeats my joke in front of the rest of the group like it arrived to him in a dream, by Thursday I’ve told it four times.
My sister got the long version. Two friends got the medium one. A group chat that did not ask got a version with dialogue.
I always thought of this as the healthy option. The other choice, as I understood it, was keeping things in, and keeping things in was supposed to be what turned people bitter and gave them ulcers.
So I let it out. Every time, to anyone within reach.
And the relief is not imaginary. It shows up around the second sentence, when the other person makes the sound that means he did what? Something in my chest unclenches.
What I found out recently is that the relief is the whole problem. It’s the reason I keep doing a thing that leaves me angrier than I was before I opened my mouth.
The famous experiment found the opposite of what it set out to test
In 2002, a psychologist named Brad Bushman got six hundred students angry on purpose.
Each of them wrote a short essay. Each essay came back with a comment scrawled at the bottom, supposedly from another student in the study, saying it was one of the worst things the reader had ever come across.
Then the students were split three ways.
One group was handed a punching bag and told to hit it while thinking about the person who had trashed their essay. A second group hit the bag while thinking about getting in shape.
A third group was left sitting quietly in a room for two minutes with nothing to do at all.
Afterward, everyone got a chance at revenge. They were told they could blast their critic with a loud noise, and they chose how loud and how long.
The group that sat doing nothing came out the least angry and gave the shortest, softest blasts. The group that hit the bag while picturing their critic came out the angriest and gave the longest, loudest ones.
Sitting still and thinking about nothing beat letting it out. Not by a hair. It beat it on both measures, which is the reverse of what the theory predicted.
The idea that anger builds up came from a specific place
This belief has an exact location. It didn’t come from anyone watching people get angry and taking notes.
Aristotle used the word katharsis to describe what a Greek tragedy did to the people watching it. The audience sits there, the hero comes to a terrible end, and everyone goes home purged of their own pity and fear.
Two thousand years later, Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud borrowed the word. Breuer had found that when he got a patient talking through a distressing memory, her symptoms often eased afterward.
He decided the memory had a charge sitting on it, and that talking discharged the charge.
From there it becomes the model everybody still runs on: anger collects inside a person like pressure inside a sealed container, and if it isn’t let out through some opening it will burst the container.
It’s a nice picture. It’s also an inheritance, passed down from a philosopher writing about theater and a doctor working in the 1890s, and nobody has ever found the pressure it describes.
More Bolde Stories
Telling the story keeps the body switched on
Anger isn’t only a thought. It arrives with a body attached: pulse up, jaw set, hands doing something.
To tell the story properly, I have to go back and collect the details: what my friend said, what his face was doing, what I should have said.
Getting it right means running it again, and running it again puts my body back where it was standing in that group.
So the retelling doesn’t drain anything. It’s a rehearsal, and I get better at it each time.
This is different from a conversation that loops around in someone’s head uninvited at 2 am, which is memory trying to close something out. This is me choosing to go back in, out loud, with an audience.
A review published in 2024 gathered up 154 separate studies covering more than ten thousand people and sorted the anger remedies into two piles: things that wind the body up, and things that bring it down.
Bushman is the senior author on it. The same researcher, twenty-two years later, working with ten thousand people instead of six hundred.
The bringing-down pile worked. Slow breathing, relaxing the muscles one group at a time, meditation, unhurried yoga, walking away for a few minutes.
The winding-up pile did not, and jogging came out worst of everything, which is the reverse of what most of us have absorbed about working it off.
What that adds up to is uncomfortable for someone like me. Anger doesn’t respond much to being expressed. It responds to what the body is doing at the time.
The belief survived because it feels right and it sells
Sophie Kjærvik, who led that review, has said part of what prompted it was watching rage rooms open up everywhere. Pay a fee, put on goggles, break a stack of plates with a bat.
The rooms are not a fringe thing. They’re a business built directly on top of a theory the field abandoned decades ago.
And the advice is everywhere else too. Self-help books recommend the pillow. There was a billboard in Missouri once that read: hit a pillow, hit a wall, but don’t hit your kids.
It isn’t hard to see why nobody argues with it. The advice feels correct while it’s being taken, because breaking a plate does feel good for about four seconds, and we tend to read feeling good as evidence.
My version comes without goggles. A group chat, a car ride, a friend who is too kind to say she’s heard this one already. Same belief, and I bought it as completely as anyone holding a bat.
Naming a feeling and retelling the story do different jobs
I have to argue against myself, because, well, I like to argue, and also, there’s obviously something to the other side. Nobody thrives on swallowing everything.
There’s a line of brain-imaging work out of UCLA on what happens when people put a feeling into words. People in a scanner were shown faces, angry and frightened ones, and asked to pick the word that fit what they were seeing.
When they did, the alarm structure deep in the brain settled down, and a region behind the forehead that handles language got busier. Putting a name on it seems to take some of the charge off.
That was people looking at photographs in a machine, not a woman on the phone with her sister, so it points at a mechanism rather than proving one.
But it maps onto something I recognize. “I’m angry, and underneath that I’m embarrassed, because I think I got passed over” is a sentence. It has an end. I’ve said it, and now it’s said.
“Let me tell you what he said, and then what she said, and then what he said back” is not a sentence. It’s a plot, with characters and a running time.
I can perform it as many times as there are people willing to sit through it.
More Bolde Stories
There’s a point where the telling stops doing anything
The tell is whether anything new is being said.
The first time I describe something that made me angry, I’m working it out. I don’t know yet what bothered me most or what I want to do. By the fourth time, the version is fixed. The good lines are in place.
There’s also the question of what job the other person has. Early on, they have one, because I need something from them, even if it’s only confirmation that I’m not being ridiculous. Later they’re a seat.
I haven’t stopped venting, and I’m not going to. I called my sister about the friend with the joke, and I’d call her again.
What changed is that I now notice the moment where I’d normally take a breath and start the story over from the top, and lately I’ve been letting that moment go by.
