thinking about: social norms relating to arguments, esp. displaying emotion (anger), and wondering to what extent they very by class/race/sex/etc within america

essentially along the lines of "is the concept of 'emotional intelligence' classist (or even racist!?)"

(I was looking for a different post relating to previous train of thought but found https://vividness.live/2015/10/05/buddhist-ethics-is-advertising/#agreeableness instead)

It used to be common knowledge that / I used to believe that "ain't" was ungrammatical, and that people who used "ain't" were failing to speak "proper" english, and therefore low status. Learning linguistics & descriptivism fixed that for me.

I also think getting visibly (or physiologically) angry in an argument is failing at remaining calm, which is the proper mood for resolving disagreements.

But raising/lowering volume, tone of voice, posture, body language, etc, are all perfectly valid meta-linguistic maneuvers, so I'm probably being inconsistent here. (at least classist, possibly also racist -- hard to distinguish the two in america)

the "as long as they hurt you *politely*, you aren't allowed to get angry about it" is clearly abusive, with "polite" always designed to favor oppressors.

otoh the "guy never learns how to handle his emotions, because making women placate and soothe him is one way of enforcing power" trope is also clearly abusive.

remember reading someone saying that part of what makes it hard to make the transition from a working-class job to a middle-class job is different norms around arguing and conflict resolution.

something happens, there's an argument, and the would-be upwardly mobile gets into the argument they same way their family & neighbors argue -- which is unprofessional by middle class standards (un-middle-class by professional standards?) and promptly gets fired.

but they didn't go into more detail about how working-class argument style(s) differs from the normative middle-class argument style, so I don't know exactly what they entail

" Here, we [...] tested the hypothesis that the association between social status and anger expression depends on whether anger serves primarily to vent frustration, as in the United States, or to display authority, as in Japan...

As expected, anger expression was predicted by subjective social status among Americans and by objective social status among Japanese."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3859704/

this seems relevant, although not quite what I'm looking for (haven't read past the abstract yet)

on further reading, not quite what I'm interested in; measures something different

what would be relevant to my question is

-- how do different communities within a broader culture ("america") vary wrt how and when it is acceptable to display anger in an argument?

-- is "remaining calm" a better (more "successful") arguing strategy than "get mad" across communities, or does "get mad" work better than "stay calm" in some groups?

success is kind of nebulous here (if you win the argument, but lose respect/friends, is that a success?) but basically what I'm asking is, "is staying calm in an argument a measure of social/emotional skill, or a measure of which social environment you're optimizing for?"

(anger in the sense of threatening hostility can work if the angry has some power/privilege over the other, so arguments between peers within the same community is most relevant here)