
The Rationality of Rage - sethbannon
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/the-rationality-of-rage.html
======
devinhelton
I wrote a post about this phenomena myself - _How to identify and quash
'offense-bullying'_. I include some tips on how to deal with angry people -
[https://devinhelton.com/2015/03/23/standing-up-to-offense-
bu...](https://devinhelton.com/2015/03/23/standing-up-to-offense-bullying/)

Really, this should be obvious to everyone. People get angry because their
mind, consciously or subconsciously, detects that anger will be beneficial to
them. Period. If you are oppressed, but are very weak, and know you are weak,
and you know that anger won't make things better, then you do not get angry.
You grovel or you submit. Whereas anger can happen in all sorts of
circumstances where there is no true grievance or oppression, ranging from a
child throwing a tantrum because he wants candy, to an aristocrat getting
angry at a peasant for bumping into him.

~~~
mistermann
> People get angry because their mind, consciously or subconsciously, detects
> that anger will be beneficial to them. Period.

I disagree with this, I often get angry even though I know an angry reaction
will be detrimental to my cause.

~~~
devinhelton
Well, I think the mind's detection that anger would be beneficial operates at
lower-level, and that in a modern environment it can misfire. For instance,
let us say that an employer screws you over. Your primal instinct might be to
get angry and make a big fuss. This is because in a more traditional
environment, where everybody knows everybody, you need to get angry and fight
for yourself, or else you will be seen as a pushover. Your primal instinct
also recognizes there is no immediate danger to getting angry at your employer
-- you can yell at them and raise a consequence without him beating you to a
pulp. So your instinct says: "Get angry, defend your honor, it is in your
interest to make a fuss."

But in a modern environment, few people, if anybody, know that you were
screwed over by your employer. So there is no need to put up a fight in order
to defend your reputation. Furthermore, if you put up a fight, onlookers will
not be close enough to the issue to know if you are right or wrong. All they
will see is drama, and they will associate that drama with you, rightly or
wrongly. You will make an enemy of your former employer. So all around, anger
is a bad idea. So in the modern environment, Dale Carnegie advice applies.
Also good advice for the modern world is Chris Matthew's adage: "Don't get
mad, don't get even, get ahead."

I also think that most modern bosses act in a sort of weak-willed fashion.
Remember the classic scene from Office Space where the boss asks Peter to come
in on Saturday? As typical for the modern boss, he says, "What's happening? So
I'm going to need you to come in tomorrow, if you could be here around 9pm,
that would be great." Rather than phrase it as an order, he makes it sound
like he is asking for favor. Thus the boss doesn't pattern match your primal
mind as being a _boss_. You have to reprogram your mind to understand that
what he says is really an order, and not a favor. You have to reprogram your
mind to treat your boss like a boss, and not like a peer you can get angry at.

------
x5n1
Wow, they just reinvented righteous indignation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteous_indignation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteous_indignation)

~~~
sridca
I was just putting this quote in another comment:

"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as
'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the
guise of virtue." – Erich Fromm

I guess we can now rewrite 'virtue' to be 'reason'.

