Setbacks for the arrogant appear to either induce humility, or rage, perhaps even a complex mix of the two. Resulting rage can be targeted at the self, others, or both. What is it about rage that can overwhelm humility, and even eventually extinguish it all together?

In a sense, when rage becomes the dominant choice in facing difficulty, it is an act of desperation, it is an appeal to baser instinct, as in the fight or flight response. In confrontations, it has been said wisely, "Discretion is the better part of valor," because going to war may well be foolhardy and someone in a state of rage will rarely be able to compromise, or even stand down to let things cool off and allow a more calm and measured response based on reason and logic as much as emotion. Humility is certainly the superior choice, given the constraints of the question; it is certainly the case that a humble response to difficulty will allow a clearheaded approach to be worked out much more readily than rage might allow. In a sense, rage is a final resort to fighting and conquest as a strategy, and there are relatively few circumstances warranting such a level of negativity to be even felt within, let alone unleashed on someone else. There are times when righteous anger can save the day, but even there it must be based on a thoughtful assessment so the anger can be directed at delivering a message that will reinforce and strengthen an argument so as to deflect an opponent, and essentially render them stripped bare of justification to keep a fight going, and surrender. Blind rage can rarely accomplish a good result. So here again, every emotion has utility and a place in things, but reason and logic need to be a part of the mix in most situations in order to prevail against an opponent acting unfairly.