I think people take Life Series Scott extremely at face value when he talks about how he's feeling and I think that's often a mistake.
I feel like we can all agree that one of the things that gives Scott such an edge in this series is that he's really good at always seeming like he's in control of any situation. I've watched Scott bluff his way out of fights that by all accounts should have killed him just because he acted more confident than he was and psyched his opponents out into retreating when they could have killed him in one shot if they called his bluff.
Scott is a control freak, not in regards to other people or his environment (he's remarkably adaptable to any situation, he knows how to bend, scott's tactics wouldn't work half as well if he was always trying to control the world around him instead of moving with it), but in regards to himself and how he's perceived. Scott keeps a tight grip over how he reacts to things and how he portrays himself to others. Because Scott feels safest when other people think he's in control of the situation, or at the very least unbothered when things go wrong.
Unfortunately, I think Scott's a bit too good at this, because even when the audience recognizes that Scott is putting on a facade to an extent, I think he's still taken at face value as being emotionally unaffected or in control of things when he isn't.
The biggest thing I see this with is how people interpret Flower Husbands in Third Life. They hear Scott crack some jokes about being the one in charge in their relationship and see Scott act relatively calm and unbothered by most things throughout Third Life and their takeaway is to take Scott at face value as being 'in control', sometimes even to the point of playing him up as actively controlling and abusive.
But the thing is, if we read between the lines and look past Scott's ever present facade of control, you start to notice that Jimmy won all their fights, right up to the big one where Jimmy decided they were going to war and Scott, despite his protests, followed Jimmy into the war that killed them. Which..is unsurprising, to me.
Jimmy is stubborn and brave, it's in his nature. He can work with a team just fine, sure, but when he gets something into his head he goes for it, and if that means breaking off from the team to do it, then he does that.
Scott, on the other hand, is a born mediator, he's flexible and social, he keeps his teams together no matter how much he has to compromise, and the whole way he acts perfectly content with it even when there's frustration or anxiety bubbling under the surface because he's invested in keeping up the appearance of always being fine.
Because Jimmy is primarily invested in his own personal goals and Scott is primarily invested in keeping the team together and safe, Jimmy gets his way every time they have a major disagreement.
But because Scott always tries to let it go and not act bothered (even though i'd argue you can tell he's bothered if you pay attention a lot of the time), there's this assumption that Scott, by virtue of being the one who is less willing to complain when he feels like he's getting the short end of the stick, is actually the one with the power, even though he decidedly doesn't actually have any power over Jimmy at all.