
Why bad-tempered people earn more and live longer - hvo
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160809-why-it-pays-to-be-grumpy-and-bad-tempered
======
rogerbinns
I watch out for people complaining about things, but don't treat it as a
negative. It shows that at least they care enough to complain. The situation
is far worse if they give up complaining, because they no longer care.
Complaining also implies there are improvements that could be made, so again a
benefit.

This attitude surprised someone the other day complaining about their code. I
was delighted, since it meant they cared!

~~~
Cyclone_
Careful, sometimes people don't complain because they are afraid of the
retaliatory consequences if they do. Seems like a very dangerous assumption to
make. I've talked to many people who just feel like they can't speak up in
certain situations.

~~~
late2part
Chilling, from a chilling effect, is generally bad. It's better for people to
speak their mind, and for folks to feel comfortable sharing their opinion.

~~~
Cyclone_
I agree 100% it is good for people to speak their mind, but I'm just saying in
some cases you really can't.

~~~
busterarm
Frequently, complaining is important to getting things done at work. If I were
in a situation where I was worried about retaliation for speaking up about a
problem, the real problem isn't the issue at hand but that I need to find a
new job.

------
brlewis
Text of article ties pessimism, not bad temper, to higher earnings and
longevity.

Ideally you have a full emotional toolbox. If you're always optimistic you'll
blind yourself to risks. If you're always pessimistic you'll blind yourself to
opportunities.

~~~
ignasl
This is great common sense thinking. We have all the different emotions for a
reason. You can even think of them as the tools. Right tool for the right job
as programmers love to say. If someone follows article's "scientific" advice
and stays angry all the time it will just become really stressful for him. I
think if you are really dissatisfied with something it's best to burst out in
anger and forget about it after few minutes. At least that's how I use this
anger tool :)

------
DanielleMolloy
Just some thoughts:

High achievers are frequently perfectionists. Perfectionism is a good eye for
details on the basis of very high standards. We know the downsides of
perfectionism (e.g. black & white thinking, more difficulties to work towards
80/20 if necessary), but it is still an excellent basis for achieving great
work.

There seems to be less cognitive load in keeping up perfectionism / high
standards simply all the time; in comparison to deciding whether perfectionism
is useful in each individual situation.

Therefore many high-achieving people will keep up their perfectionist attitude
all day, for all things they encounter in life.

Unfortunately, few things in the world are perfect, or well enough under their
control to become perfect.

Hypothesis: The bad temper of many good workers and high achievers comes from
perceiving everything in life with the black & white pattern of perfectionism
in a non-perfect world.

This both drains their energy and can make them appear a little dissatisfied.

~~~
update
I think this hits the nail the nail on the head.

You said it eloquently.

Less scientifically stated: I personally see it as more of a point & click
gesture coupled with a lot of 'Alpha' tendencies. It's a simple as "this is
wrong. shut up. Make it this way which is the right way, and, do it now."

speaking as a bad-tempered, high earning person.

relevant part of the article:

> The truth is, pondering the worst has some clear advantages. Cranks may be
> superior negotiators, more discerning decision-makers and cut their risk of
> having a heart attack. Cynics can expect more stable marriages, higher
> earnings and longer lives – though, of course, they’ll anticipate the
> opposite.

also shout out to Elizabeth Hurley who was mentioned in the article :)

> To his ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Hurley's friends he was apparently known as
> ‘Grumpelstiltskin’.

> Hugh Grant may be famed for being moody and a little challenging to work
> with. But could a grumpy attitude be the secret to his success?

~~~
buserror
There is a little secret here. If you 'Alpha' in /just/ the right way, you
edge on the side of gentle bullying your environment, and end up having an
effect of changing it more than by trying to always try to negotiate your way
into having people 'see' the 'right' path.

Basically. it saves time and effort. I know it's not a popular thing to say,
but everytime people talk about 'leadership ability' it's mostly that:
ultimately, driving people to do as you say.

I know it works for me, sometime you just can't re-re-re-explain stuff around,
and a bit of the Alpha button aka Follow-the-leader wand waving helps saving
time and saliva.

And yes, being grumpy (more often than not, faking it!) helps too. I think
I've fine tuned the ability to an Olympic Sport. I'm known as 'the gruffalo'
in the family ;-)

Of course you need to balance all that weight throwing with the counterpart:
You need to be the first, and loudest to say if/when _you_ get it wrong.

~~~
mk89
> If you 'Alpha' in /just/ the right way, you edge on the side of gentle
> bullying your environment, and end up having an effect of changing it more
> than by trying to always try to negotiate your way into having people 'see'
> the 'right' path.

how do your colleagues perceive you? If you work alone, or if you are the
boss, maybe it's alright (the examples show Jeff Bezos, Beethoven, ...), but
what if you work with 2-6 other people?

And in addition to that, although I agree that trying _always_ to negotiate
takes a lot of effort and energy, how do you prevent misunderstandings when
you are grumpy? Because if I say "X is 10", and then you say "No, I don't
think so", but X _is_ 10, while you still don't see that even if I try to use
smoke signals to explain that to you, then you can see that being
bully/grumpy/defensive/negative is not only not worth it, but it can also
jeopardize tasks and the relationship with your colleagues, because it makes
it harder to communicate with you - therefore next time, I won't ask you
anymore, unless I really have to.

How do you personally deal with such situations? Because I believe that the
answer is in the middle: a straight NO sometimes is better than any other
attempt to negotiate (oh, wait, how do I tell him that this idea is dangerous?
etc.), however, in my opinion it takes years of tuning and understanding.
However, when dealing with other people, how do you unleash your emotions
blindly? It just doesn't work out, despite all the benefits it might have.

> I know it works for me, sometime you just can't re-re-re-explain stuff
> around, and a bit of the Alpha button aka Follow-the-leader wand waving
> helps saving time and saliva.

The question is: why do you think you _are_ the leader? No offense, just
asking, because I want to know what makes people believe that.

I have seen this behavior pretty much unjustified - meaning: without this
person who believed to hold the key to heaven, things worked better for
everyone and even more efficiently, without communication issues and anger. I
believe that a real leader doesn't need to be grumpy, as he will show with his
actions how things should be, and people will automatically follow, because of
respect, not because of fear.

~~~
buserror
Oh actually I should have added a bit more precision too -- I like working
with people who do the same! Basically, it's nice for someone (me, or someone
else) to feel a bit stronger about something, pick it up, 'claim' it and run
away with it...

And yes, with people who /can't/ do that it's a bit more difficult..

You have to keep it in check and also be able to champion ideas that are not
yours; ie become an advocate.

~~~
mk89
I have many questions for you, which I hope you can answer - at least to some
extent.

For example, is it easy for you to blend in when you are with new people?
Suppose you start a new job, new people.

Were you ever left alone in your job? If yes, how do you deal with it?

Have you ever had fights with colleagues due to those reasons? Did they ever
tell you it's hard working with you? And your managers? If so, how did you fix
it? Did you fix it?

Why do you do it? I mean, you mentioned it, when you said "to feel stronger",
but then, my question is if this is worth it. Do you ever feel you miss good
insights about issues? Because in my opinion when you behave that way, you
will mostly focus on what you want to shout, your ideas, etc, but not on
learning. How do you deal with it?

P.s.: I am not criticizing, I am just curious to know how people behaving this
way deal with some of the most common issues in my opinion.

------
jhayward
The article is kind of all over the place.

I've long looked for a kind of "creative impatience" in people as an indicator
of someone who will likely make a creative leap on a problem or simply
bulldoze their way past a hurdle.

They can come off like a malcontent but if I see them start working on
something with that certain body language of "I've had enough of this" I'm
always secretly pleased and look forward to the outcome, letting whatever
sparks may be, fly.

On the other hand if these same folks walk away from something it's likely
they don't see any way of salvaging whatever the faults may be. Either way,
their mindset or approach is a gift.

~~~
mioelnir
Hate driven development. Once your hate for the current solution's
inadequacies pass a threshold, you start implementing the replacement.

~~~
rjdevereux
Spite driven development: when you develop something just to prove someone
else wrong.

~~~
ak39
Classic.

Both spite driven development and hate driven development belong here:
[https://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-
jargon/](https://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-jargon/)

The horror is the comedy and the comedy is the horror.

------
inputcoffee
I got really annoyed at the poor science behind this study and wanted to
compose a really good, original comment in response.

But I couldn't come up with one, proving the study wrong.

I just think that they have the causality reversed.

Care a lot -> Focus + Hard work + strong emotion

So the anger is a side effect of caring.

But that is a guess. I'd have to look at the study and I would flip directly
to the page where they reveal the effect size and the significance first.
That's what they should report.

~~~
astazangasta
You don't have to prove the study wrong, you just have to be cognizant of
this:

THESE ARE ALL JUST NARRATIVES.

Sure, they found some studies on the subject of anger and creativity. Does
this mean that "bad-tempered people earn more and live longer"? Fuck, no.

First of all, this was never what was being studied. Second of all, what the
hell is "bad-tempered"?

It's all "just a guess". The act of going from observation (the behavior of a
bunch of students in a study) to the abstraction (anger helps you live longer)
is necessarily an act of intuition. You can accept it or not, as you like. If
you decide the evidence is compelling, go for it - live your life by swearing
at people.

But you're just as free to say, "This evidence is bullshit, and it's a great
stretch to say that it has general implications about the impacts of anger-
management on health and success." There is no one to tell you otherwise.

The unfortunate problem with this, and other articles in this vein, is the
pretense that we have arrived at some idea of the "truth" based on "evidence",
as if either of these things existed, and we should all start living on the
basis of this paradigm. There is only ever observation (itself a fraught
enterprise) and subjective interpretation.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _THESE ARE ALL JUST NARRATIVES._

> _the pretense that we have arrived at some idea of the "truth" based on
> "evidence", as if either of these things existed, and we should all start
> living on the basis of this paradigm. There is only ever observation (itself
> a fraught enterprise) and subjective interpretation_

Perhaps a bit tangential, or perhaps not, but anyway - that comment was very
strongly postmodern.

~~~
astazangasta
I've been reading Feyerband (Against Method), Latour (We Have Never Been
Modern), and Foucault (The Order of Things) lately, I am so hopped up on
postmodern criticism of science it isn't even funny.

Also, invaluable in being an excellent scientist. Understanding the
epistemology is great for destroying your illusions about what you are
producing and clearing the way for useful effort.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _I am so hopped up on postmodern criticism of science it isn 't even funny._

I can tell. :)

I'm not being ironic, because I agree with:

> _invaluable in being an excellent scientist_

------
emptybits
From the 2009 study in the article:

"Half the students were asked to recall something which had irritated them and
write a short essay about it. The other half of the group were made to feel
sad."

So the "better" performing group was angry and did something about it. While
the control group was made to feel _sad_. Not neutral. Not happy. Not
optimistic. Hm.

------
peterwwillis
Optimism means you assume a good outcome. Pessimism means you generally
perceive risk as more likely. Anger is a reaction to a potential threat; you
already see risk and think you can change it. Happiness is a state of
contentment.

So.... Yeah, if you're happy, you generally perceive low risk and don't see a
need to be defensive or change anything. But we don't live in the jungle. We
don't have to be constantly on guard, because we are on top of the food chain,
and generally speaking we don't need to compete to survive or even thrive.

So the premise that being angry will make you live longer is at best
misguided. If anything, being angry will more likely help you assume a
defensive posture; not many people want to attack someone who looks like they
will attack back. But again, this assumes your livelihood depends on fending
off attacks, or beating other people. Not all people live those kind of lives.

Finally, things like heart attack are probably more related to genetics and
diet than how angry you are. But being angry also clouds your judgment,
meaning you're less likely to take advice, like your doctor telling you to lay
off the doughnuts and red meat.

------
Procrastes
"They don't really live longer... it just feels like it."

\-- Apologies to Sir Clement Raphael Freud.

------
notum
People who read comments before they click on the link are less frustrated and
thus live longer*

*study sample size: 1, preliminary results

------
sandworm101
Or, perhaps people become more bad-tempered as they age. The OP assumes that
there are good-tempered and bad-tempered people and that we remain in our
respective categories throughout out lives. That's plain wrong.

Money changes people. Getting old changes people. With age and money can come
paranoia. Having a pile of cash can make you look at those without as
potential enemies. In much the same way, the reduced mental and physical
abilities of age can make old people fearful of the young and better-abled.

I'd say that long-term studies are needed that track angry people over
decades, but that too is premised on the concept that angry people remain
angry. Imho temper is a function of life circumstance, not vice versa.

------
lamarkia
The article is a hodgepodge of anecdotes. Does not make an effort to attach
some science to it.

------
akkartik
Off on a tangent, I find myself wondering if I'd have a higher opinion of Hugh
Grant's acting if he did roles closer to his real mood. He needs to consider
following in the footsteps of another Hugh: Lawrie as Dr. House.

------
jerryhuang100
this basically contradicts to many other studies about the mind-body
connections, such as hapiness-immunity connections.

that 2010 study of patients of CAD and their follow-ups of 5-10 years of
'angry' levels is kind of flawed as what should actually be studied should be
the "anger" levels as the causal effects of the CAD 5-10 years _prior_ to the
onset of CAD. it's more likely beyond certain points of the progression of CAD
the change of mood does not mean anything to the prognosis.

------
motivic
But... are they happier?

~~~
motivic
and hopefully the converse is not true.

------
kevindeasis
Wouldn't bad tempered people have bad heart rates and stressful lives?

------
llovan
Maybe, but they have lower karma on Hacker News.

~~~
rch
Interesting observation, do you have a source for that?

~~~
llovan
Well, just anecdotally, blunt or angry contrarian responses seem to be
downvoted in most online communities.

~~~
et-al
The key there is "contrarian".

If I posted an angry, but seemingly well-supported rant _aligned_ with the
sentiment of a particular group, people will probably upvote/reblog it (see:
Trump).

------
Poorboyrise
Anecdote: "This is a recorded "interactive" message."

"O.K. The others are gone übermorgen and, I told it before, that we have our
own problems. We have fooled ourself the whole time - to... _Alas!_ I think ye
understand.

But at least i want to give you one pointer:

Mass as a description can be "trained"

around information-points of a reality.

(2nd "Art"-Law) ^^

------
BatFastard
Does this mean many more years of Donald Trump?

