You're describing the stereotype of a mean drunk. In reality, there's also the happy or the sentimental drunk. They might just laugh it off or smile big and hug the person bumping into them.

For sure, alcohol reduces inhibitions. If you're a naturally chip-on-the-shoulder kind of person, alcohol will turn you into a certified jerk. Alcohol can turn other kinds of people into lovable fools as well though.

I didn't think the bar was to describe something that was true for everyone. I suspect what I described is true for many, across many cultures. I've also seen people I would have characterized as mild-mannered act much differently with alcohol in them. I don't think it's just strictly amplifying existing traits.

Reduced inhibition does not support the thesis of increased agression, unless you define aggression to refer to "aggression shown".

But I'd overall turn the 'cultural' aspect a little further even. I think I have observed a couple of times people to consume alcohol in order to be able to transgress cultural norms because the cultural norms themselves are 'parametrised' for the sober-drunk states.

I.e. get into a fight sober? Could be unacceptable even to someone who wants to get into a fight. After 4 beers? May be perfectly fine for your peer group. Same goes to other things, like dancing, approaching strangers, etc.

What I really found interesting for example is, in my abroad term in Canada. The sober Canadian society was overall friendly and polite, definitely friendlier than in my German home. People held up doors for me (a 20 something man, felt really weird and unexpected), you got compliments for what you wore (never happened to me in Germany), etc. pp. But this radically changed in the 'drunken space' where people were a lot more aggressive and fights were much more the norm.

> Reduced inhibition does not support the thesis of increased agression, unless you define aggression to refer to "aggression shown".

So... the normal definition that everyone already uses?

>Reduced inhibition does not support the thesis of increased agression, unless you define aggression to refer to "aggression shown".

I mean overall increased opportunity for violence. Less inhibition might mean I'm more likely to say "fuck off" to someone rather than just think it. Which could lead somewhere.

That's indicative of underlying aggression and can't be extrapolated to other cultures.

I guess, but I'm curious what culture has no aggression at all.

Probably depends on how specific you get with the term aggression

It sounds like there's a suggestion that cultures where alcohol has no notable effect on overall violence. I'm curious what culture that is.

look at japan. Salarymen get shitfaced on the regular, but you don't hear about drunken street fights in Tokyo do you?

I don't hear about drunken street fights in the US either, probably because I don't consume the local media and street fights don't make it to the international news section.

idk maybe mormon culture?

Where in canada were you? I've lived here my whole life and never experienced anything like this. And I've been to Germany, out drinking with Germans, a handful of times and never felt any material difference in demeanor between partying with those folks and with canadians.

If you have to fake being sorry about everything, eventually that pent up frustration has to come out :P

I’m just a sample of one, but I’m way more likely to flip my shit when sober — all my fights or verbal altercations I have in fact been sober.

Granted, I’ve been diagnosed with various mental health disorders related to emotional regulation, so perhaps this is dependent on individual brain function.

Of course. Not everybody is going to get violent. And it won’t affect everybody the same. But it does feel like it really brings out the violence in people who maybe are already prone to that type of behavior. In your case it may do the opposite.

I think you're still describing a cultural cause here.

Responding to perceived aggression with your own aggression is not a given. It's a culturally decided response, not an instinctive one.

A good christian is supposed to respond to aggression by "turning the other cheek" and not responding at all. A strict, honor based society might say the only way to respond to aggression is by killing that person.

Western culture falls in between these two. Reduced inhibition simply makes your judgement of the consequences worse so people usually make the choice they want to make (shaped by their culture) and just don't think though what it could mean.

But we wouldn't say that Japan is more of a Christian culture than the U.S., or that the U.S. is more of an honor culture than Japan.

I understand the sociological theories you are referring to, but I'm not sure how useful they are.