Your rule is that, for fairness' sake, what you contempt in others you excise from yourself. Most people, when they get upset, are led along by the emotion--like a thousand pound bovine with an itty bitty nosering; a little force goes a long way against someone who isn't trying to resist it. Wrath is a pro wrestler; it needs your help with the throw. Kids, you can just say no to chokeslams.
So you try to be reasonable.
But at the end of the day you can't say that it's made you any happier than the average person.
You read a book in class called A Monster Calls where the protagonist goes on a rampage--ripping down shelves and destroying furniture and smashing a clock into little pieces. (Not that you're comparing your life to his. You're well-aware that your life's objectively great. It's just--somehow the knowing doesn't help.) And, after, he has regrets--but also found it therapeutic. He shouldn't have done it and wishes he hadn't, but he was at his breaking point before, and beneath his breaking point after.
Wouldn't it be interesting if having greater self-control just means that you go longer and endure misery more before you snap? On this model, life continues happening to people until they reach their breaking point, and fly into a cathartic rage, and from that point on they wobble back and forth across the threshold. The difference between you and those with quicker tempers (or with less control over themselves; you're a hard act to follow when it comes to quick tempers) is that you'll fill your bigger glass with more misery before it overflows, and be forever more miserable.