I really enjoy biting commentary, cutting sarcasm, and everything that exists in that type of humor. I also know that its very divisive in its effect: in some situations the verbal sparring is gloriously enjoyable for all involved (participants and spectators), and in others it alienates while also failing to convey the desired message.
Obviously my goals for a given interaction are super relevant: do I want to feel better *now*? Do I care about how the other person feels and reacts? Do I want to attempt to change minds or enlighten?
Its not too hard to think these things through afterward, and determine whether I should respond scathingly or not. Its far harder to have my default urges align with my long term, conscious desires of who I want to be and what I want to accomplish with my social interactions.
Its interesting how some things feel like attacks, and cost a lot of emotional effort to respond civilly, while others are effortlessly deflected and handled with grace and gentle respect. And how different those zero-cost and high-cost interactions are from person to person.
I wish there was a strong, empirical model for mental resources, instead of a giant pile of guesswork and “learn who you are”. Learning yourself is important, but there almost certainly exists a hard-science basis for limited mental and emotional resources, we just haven’t discovered it yet.
All I know is that to some extent it can be trained: I believe to a very large extent. Its a couple meta-levels down, but its even harder to estimate whether the effort to train a given ‘skill’ for a given type of interaction to be lower cost is *worth* the effort to train it.