13 ms·

Don’t let your anger persist

312 points by julianshapiro 10y ago

hiou 10y ago
This is gross. Maybe don't be an asshole because you are hurting someone by doing it? Terrifying that a human being needs to think about the world in such a self centric way.
- sthatipamala 10y ago
  This is addressed: "Yes, this is a selfish and transactional view of relationships. But that's the point of this whole post: If you can't justify being nice for the sake of others, at least be nice for the sake of yourself."
- ColinCochrane 10y ago
  To be fair, the article is up front about that. But that's the point of this whole post: If you can't justify being nice for the sake of others, at least be nice for the sake of yourself.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I agree. The advice in this blog post seems to only encourage people to be more calculating and fake, rather than patient or empathetic.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    If assholes faked politeness, the world would be a better place. Their inner state of mind does not affect anyone -- only their actions do.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      > If assholes faked politeness, the world would be a better place Not when compared to developing sincere respect or humility. Also you seem to underestimate the damage that is done by such people who become increasingly skilled at hiding their inner state. We are better off as a community if we can identify those people. [That is, they behave consistently with their inner state, so we know who they are.]
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Well... think about a glass that's full. When someone bumps it, it spills. What does it spill? Whatever was in it. When we get bumped, we spill. If we're full of anger or bitterness, we spill anger or bitterness. If assholes faked politeness, their inner state of mind would not affect people as often. But it still would affect people. What's inside comes out at least some of the time.
      - jshevek 10y ago
        I agree emphatically. In many cases, other people's inner states inevitably effect us, no matter whether they strive for politeness.
      - ktRolster 10y ago
        Well said.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Thanks. I stole the glass analogy, but I'm not sure of the origin...
    - Joof 10y ago
      You know when people smile at you, but don't mean it? It's a horrible feeling.
  - striking 10y ago
    You forget that anger is not a rational concept. Anger's usually not based in logic, it's usually a kind of emotion. You can reason with facts and with logic. You can't reason with an emotion. The article in question doesn't try to say that the only reason to be nice to people is because they might have something for you. The reason the article exists at all is to provide people with yet another appeal to themselves to avoid anger. If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic? It's a shame you chose to read this article in such a negative light. I thought it was pretty good.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      You've made incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not forgotten. I don't see why you think that making trivial observations about the nature of emotion moves the conversation forward. You seem to conflate the idea of logic itself with that of 'a self-serving rationalization'. You can approach a discussion about empathy and patience using logic or without using logic, just as you can approach a conversation about 'getting what you want from other people' using logic or without using logic. Using logic is completely orthogonal to choices of focus.
      - striking 10y ago
        What you call "self-serving rationalizations" are a form of logical thinking. I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic. Either way, I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations." This article, in the way I read it, shows a particular way to rephrase a situation that would otherwise make you angry, so that it ends up being a win-win situation instead. This isn't even happening at the cost of someone else. I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept. Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too?
        jshevek 10y ago
        > I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic When you said: > If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic? First, (and possibly not relevant to your question) I did interpret that as implying that the act of (a) using empathy and patience is a mutual exclusive act from (b) using logic. (I often use logic to broaden my viewpoint, which increases my capacity for empathy and patience, in some specific scenario). More relevant to your question, I also interpreted this as suggesting that 'using logic' was a good characterization of the strategy being advocated by the article. I would disagree. I think 'using logic + embracing a value system + desiring specific results' would be better characterization. For example, if I use logic and a different value system, then I might set aside my anger simply in order to experience greater joy and happiness in the moment, and/or possibly increased ability to have a harmonious interaction with the other party (for the pure satisfaction of it). With other value systems and variation in the specifics of 'desired results', I might logically arrive at courses of action which none of us have mentioned. > I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations." Yes. In general, as we are using the phrase, I don't disagree. > Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too? Okay, this could become a semantic quagmire - I'm not sure how to address this briefly. Ultimately, I'm not sure it is possibly to have purely 'unselfish' intentions, as even the desires to see other points of view, to be kind to people, to be patient, are ultimately still 'selfish' in some way. My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - not whether or not those values align with an (impossible?) idealization of 'unselfishness' (or even more confusingly, a 'degree' of unselfishness). I'm sorry if this is a non-constructive tangent, it can be hard to understand what people mean with all the limitations of language. > I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept. I'm curious about the word 'so' in there. It is true that I stated that I agree with the great-grandparent - because I agree with the basic sentiment and the direction of the criticism, not that I agree with the strong language used and the implied strong feelings. I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever, but I do think (a) there are important missed opportunities here, with respect to exploring deeper and more compelling reasons to widen one's perspective and emotional flexibility in moments of anger, and (b) it does strike me as an overt, unapologetic embrace of self-censor in order to get the direct benefit of some immediate results. If this blog post really appeals to someone, then they might be particularly selfish or impatient. If that person implements the strategies presented simply in order to have better material results in the interaction (and no other reason), then it seems to me that we have encouraged them to become more fake. Acting civil can have the same short term results as being a better person. I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil, esp. while also missing an opportunity for introspection and re-evaluation of their values. I don't mean this as an indictment of the blog post, just a criticism.
- SamBam 10y ago
  An article telling people to be nice for the sake of being nice would be correct, but not change a single person. That's because everyone knows they're supposed to be nice, we've been taught it since before kindergarten. Yet people are still assholes at times. The point of this article is to say "being an asshole isn't even having the effect you think it does. It makes things worse for you too. Try being nice -- it might actually make things better for you. And then you may keep it up."
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > An article telling people to be nice for the sake of being nice would be correct, but not change a single person. I have been influenced by blogs which make appeals to ethical conduct (for the sake of ethical conduct) as a desirable end goal. So it is not true to say that such a blog wouldn't change a single person. Further, there is a missed opportunity here to discuss the direct, personal physical, mental, and emotional benefits of unlearning excessive attachment to anger.
Kenji 10y ago
Some people only understand the language of anger. It really depends on the individual. Some people understand you when you're acting calmly 100% of the time. Others need to be reminded that what they're doing actually bothers you and the only way to get through to them and applying pressure is being loud and angry. But those are usually the people you souldn't be doing business with anyway.
- jseaidou 10y ago
  I agree with this but let me ask you, how many do you think respond more from anger vs calmness? I think or at least I'd like to believe that more people respond from calmness and I'd rather interact and be successful through calmness even if it means I don't exactly get what I want that small amount of time from those who would respond better from anger.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    Hmm, that's a good question. I guess in the vast majority of cases, calmness wins. Especially at the workplace. And usually, it's better to avoid the people who only understand the language of anger, rather than confront them. But sometimes, someone has to stand up to these people.
    - abraae 10y ago
      Calmn + determination I believe is the most effective approach. Unfortunately maintaining this demeanor is beyond my own abilities though.
- barsonme 10y ago
  I think what you're getting at is _assertiveness_, not anger. Assertiveness expresses urgency (and perhaps frustration) without hostility. It's the difference between: > ... I've been hung up on 3 times in the last 30 minutes, please transfer me to your manager ... and > ... Being hung up on 3 times in the last 30 minutes is bullsh*t, transfer me to your manager now! God, why can't you guys get this right? ... or something similar.
sthatipamala 10y ago
This post is very timely. Recently I developed some type of "learned helplessness" where I felt that shitty situations were being thrust upon me and I was drowning. What I was missing is that I had a lot of agency over these situations. I could have declined meetings, asked for help, missed deadlines, or risked disappointing whoever was requesting something from me. Being angry and resentful didn't solve anything. So instead I asked myself "if I don't do this thing I don't like, what's the worst that will happen?". The answer most of the time turned out to be... "nothing." What remained was what I chose and those things were worth doing whole-heartedly.
- apatters 10y ago
  Did you try making a demonstration of anger at the parties who were thrusting these things upon you? This actually can be the correct course of action sometimes.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    This might work, but as human beings we often have better options. If you just cooly explain why you a request is unreasonable, then that acts as a rebuke to the requester. And it is one that can't be just dismissed as "ahh, she's on the rag".
  - ptero 10y ago
    This. Not always, but not infrequently, either. Demonstration of anger can be mild, but it should clearly show pushback. There are many cases when we are being asked to do things that the person requesting them knows are not realistic. If one is being asked to do three things that are estimated as week long each in a week plus something else a "man, how can I do this? I cannot work 24 hour days" may be all it takes.
derefr 10y ago
Complete tangent: what's up with the word spacing in the submission title here? It's abnormally thin.
- userbinator 10y ago
  I see boxes, so those definitely aren't normal spaces. But they made me click...
  - didgeoridoo 10y ago
    Unicode thin spaces maybe? THIN SPACE Unicode: U+2009, UTF-8: E2 80 89 Doesn't seem to be happening anymore...
mholt 10y ago
This reminds me of the self awareness tools codified by the Arbinger Institute in their book, Leadership and Self Deception, where they describe how to "get out of the box." I also highly recommend The Anatomy of Peace by them.
agumonkey 10y ago
Pay attention to your mental balance people. On average it's never a problem, but when stuck, anxiety can have significant somatic impact, raised secretions of acid in your stomach, trouble eating (stuck oesophagus valve), lack of bowel movements, or worse like artery constriction, thus potential increase in blood clot, which doesn't need more explanations.
supersan 10y ago
I learned this lesson by experience. I am partner in a popular marketing site and so I get a lot people who are interested in JV opportunities from all around the world. Now I like getting directly to the point (“Hi Max. Tell me what I can help you with.”) because it saves us time and we both know this is a JV call so if the other person has a list or opportunity that matches ours, it's on. Unfortunately most JV calls I've had start off like a dick measuring contest. People love to boast how big their business is and how this can be start of a million dollar partnership, yada yada. This becomes especially infuriating when the other person is blatantly lying just to impress you. Earlier I used to get kind of pissed off or started 1-upping them while getting irritated and angry of what I'm doing with my time. Now I just put the phone on speaker and do something else saying "sure" or "great" from time to time. Not only does it save my time, I don't lose my focus after and yes, I close more deals and create longer relationships. So yes, this don't be a child philosophy is really great, esp for geeks (like me) who think that the shortest distance between two points is always the best route.
- melvinmt 10y ago
  This may be an obvious question but what's a JV call?
  - analog31 10y ago
    Joint Venture? Granted my side business is extremely tiny, but I get such calls from time to time. Usually it's how I can work for free, or give away free stuff, with the idea that I will somehow cash in on it later.
  - supersan 10y ago
    Sorry, it means a Joint Venture call, for Cross promos, affiliate promos, etc.
  - nostalgiac 10y ago
    Joint Venture (Partnership).
amorphid 10y ago
I learned a while ago (in therapy) to decouple anger from action. I can feel angry, and just not act on it. Without an action to act on attached to my anger, the anger just mind of melts away. Reducing need feel angry is a different skill.
partycoder 10y ago
If you have some exposure to game theory you will learn that consistently collaborating will not be the best approach in every situation. If people learn that you consistently collaborate they will intuitively start abusing that (e.g: force you to play "chicken", "the volunteer's dilemma" or any model game in which the collaborator loses). That's to start with. Now, competing doesn't mean losing control of yourself and explode and become vulgar. It also does not mean having bad intentions and being evil. Whatever you decide to do, compose yourself and don't let your emotions take over. And try to keep your motivations well-intentioned. If you are going through a bad moment... a good tool for introspections and analyzing your situation is the SWOT chart (4 quadrants: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). You can express your current situation in terms of these 4 things, to better understand and identify ways to use your strengths and opportunities, work on your weaknesses and mitigate threats. Another important concept is balance. Try to find the imbalances in your life. What are excesses, what are the things you are lacking... and find ways to balance things out. Your anger might come out of frustration generated from these imbalances. If people give you a hard time, read a book called: "The No Asshole Rule". Now, those are not the only types of draining people. Just try to not let people drain you emotionally, at least not for a good reason. If after an interaction with someone you consistently feel drained, it's time to avoid that person for your own good.
- amerkhalid 10y ago
  I think in general one should try to be nice to everyone but yes, in my own experience, collaboration and being nice all the time is probably not the best strategy. It can be very demanding on one's mental health. I say it because lately I have found myself engaging in far too many emotionally draining conversations with a few friends and coworkers. These are generally negative/depressed/anxious people. Of course, they need someone who they can talk and lighten their loads but they end up passing their load on me. After lunch or dinner with these friends, I feel too tired to contribute anything positive when I am with my other friends or more importantly with my wife. One should not be sounding board for everyone but only close friends and family.
stcredzero 10y ago
We humans are really bad at controlling our emotions. This post won't help with that. I'm reading this as: "Now putting on my asbestos long johns and awaiting the internet mobs."
wbillingsley 10y ago
TL;DR: Wouldn't life be so much better if we all had to be Stepford Wives, faking our utmost delight and happiness despite whatever misfortune might come our way, and nary ever committing that most heinous crime of grumping or letting it be outwardly visible that we're not in the best mood today. Would that not be a most delightful utopia, o ever-smiling citizen?
- hubert123 10y ago
  maybe it would, seems to me that grumpiness is just as much an act as happiness
PravlageTiem 10y ago
Western culture is so obsessed about suppressing anger at all costs. Like each person is a nuclear weapon that needs to be aggressively contained or else the entire fabric of civilization will collapse. Anger exists for a reason and it exists for good reasons. The manifestation of anger means some model you are holding onto is no longer in sync with reality and that resynchronization costs more than your time preferences will allow. (Using the authors scenario, your expectation was for a reasonably timed phone call, not a 35 minute wait.) It's not that anger is wrong. The anger is correct. The expectation was wrong. The West automatically assumes all instances of anger are permanently wrong, and this child-like ritual prevents one from appreciated the value of anger as a compulsion that tells you in no uncertain terms that your expectation is completely out of whack and you need to either cut your losses or resynchronize the expectation. Anger becomes fuel for remodeling reality once you understand what is is trying to tell you. Putting taboos up around it prevents this realization, which in turn, creates people who are trained to perpetually cling to false models of reality out of fear of violating the taboo.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  Is that a West-only thing? My admittedly minor experience with some Japanese people is that in many settings they hide any discomfort (including outright anger) in order to not make a scene or lose face. In fact, if can pinpoint being angry in public often to any country it's the US.
  - foobarian 10y ago
    I thought so too until I started watching Russian road rage videos (just use those terms to search on Youtube). I think Russians take the cake for uninhibited anger displays!
    - sotojuan 10y ago
      Ha, forgot about Russia. Yes, I guess they and Eastern Europe win.
  - PravlageTiem 10y ago
tomcam 10y ago
I grew up angry because I was unsafe and couldn't defend myself. Strong motivator. My children grew up safe in nice neighborhoods because of it. Being powerless as a kid led directly to starting my own businesses. It was the surest way I could buy safety. It allowed me to build up a buffer against the rest of the world.
- tonyarkles 10y ago
  I grew up not unsafe, but in a messed up and pretty unpredictable environment. Now I help dysfunctional engineering teams get better :).
  - tomcam 10y ago
    Great use of your experience!
leshow 10y ago
I disagree wholeheartedly, that being happy in the face of being treated like shit will get you what you want in that type of situation. What is the author basing his assumptions off of?
- verytrivial 10y ago
  Really? I read this as being more about unproductive anger "cross-talk" -- being angry with a previous situation or disjoint context and taking it out on (largely) innocent bystanders, often the very people who could actually help you now or in the future.
debacle 10y ago
I generally explain to the CSR I am on the phone with when I need to make an unpleasant phone call: Look, I know this isn't your fault. I know you didn't cause this, but I need to be angry at someone. If you could redirect my call to the right person it would be greatly appreciated. I generally either receive very good service (a thank you goes a long way), or I get forwarded to someone whose job it is to deal with "problem" customers and we have at it.
- trisomy21 10y ago
  I've used a similar approach, but never thought about explicitly requesting someone to be angry at. I like that and will have to give it a try.
- hiou 10y ago
  Is that like the modern equivalent of a whipping boy?
drivingmenuts 10y ago
Funny (by that I mean not-funny-at-all) thing I've discovered about myself: It's a hell of a lot easier to let go of my anger when it's directed at someone else, but when it's directed at me, I hold on to that anger with both hands, tooth and nail.
ksec 10y ago
It is VERY hard. Some may even call it bad temper. Some call it self control. But sometimes I think some system are in place as if they were there just to make you angry. In tech terms, these UX are bad. And it is exactly this reason we can innovate, and someday an idea was born from this frustration into a startup. Other thing that easily set me off is Hypocrite. I would much rather they admit they are a asshole. And I am fine with that. Thinking back now I think I have grow up with a little bit more patient, rather then spending time to get angry, I just spend time doing something else worthwhile. Hypocrite I can ignore, but someone put me in the wrong, is still something i cant over come yet. I tried to let time fix it. But the anger still creeps in once I sit down and not doing anything as if evil is trying to seduce me into darkness. Many mention here the power to control your anger as Intelligent and smart. I am not sure if those are the correct word to use. I think they are wise, which I think is something different to Intellect. I am using the word "I think" here a lot, because i am not sure if any of these of sure, so correct me if I am wrong.
haalcion3 10y ago
> When Max picked up the phone, you should have exclaimed, “Hey, Max! It’s a pleasure to chat. I would love to hear what you’re up to.” And you should have said it genuinely. Should have, yes, if you really felt that way. And if you can feel that way geniunely, that's the best. However, I don't think it's right to lie like that if you don't really feel that way. You can go a long way being nice without lying. But, on don't just give up and say, "I'm just not nice." That's a problem, and if you feel that way all the time, you should go see or talk to someone: a family member, a friend, a GP doctor, a psychiatrist, or anyone that will listen and help you figure out the real problem. You might need more sleep. You might need medicine. You might need a chiropractic adjustment. You might need to vent. You might need to just spend time with another person. You might need to be alone in nature.
- Rarebox 10y ago
  True. I think author's point was that if you're not happy to talk with Max for 15 minutes, you should not agree to the call. Since you already decided that this endeavor is worthwhile, you might as well enjoy it.
projektir 10y ago
I'm not too happy with the framing of this post. It's rather guilt-trippy (this is highly common in self-help these days, sadly), and, as most such advice, it relies on making you feel bad in overt ways rather than making a good argument. But I'm also getting a strong manipulative vibe here. The author makes unfounded claims and then calls the reader a child if they don't agree with the author. The terms "asshole" and "jerk" are being thrown rather liberally. You're not an asshole or a jerk if you want to end a conversation. People who do not immediately reciprocate are not automatically takers with no concept of generosity. Anger is not "childlike". It's an emotion, like many others. I've seen it plenty in older people. Some people could use more of it. Some people have too much of it. This is true for virtually every emotion. Shutting it down instead of calibrating can cause problems. Most of this is irritation, not anger, anyway. Passive-aggressiveness often occurs when it's not possible to release emotions properly. At the end of the day, we're not Vulcans, but some environments practically demand that we express no strong emotions of any kind, which is not without side effects. We should work with what we are, not what we like to pretend to be, and I think emotions have been getting a lot of bad rap lately. Emotions are of informational value in and of themselves and most of us do not express them as a means to an end. We express them because we feel them. Whether or not we should be feeling a particular emotion is a more interesting discussion. And the effect such a thing will have on other people depends a lot on the situation and the culture... The language just creeps me out. > "John" sounds patient and caring. He actually wants to help. > He won't go above and beyond when it turns out his ex-cofounder is someone who can help you. > You know, the self that is good at getting what it wants from others. > And you should have said it genuinely. Even if you're feeling miserable. With your sudden warmth, Max is appreciative that you’re making his hustle easier, and he goes out of his way to tell you what he can do for you at the end of the call. I do not find it a great thing if someone is in a poor mood, thinks I'm a waste of time, but then tries to mimic genuine warmth without actually feeling it in order to get what they want and maximize their use of time. I'd much, much rather they brush me off as fast as possible. There's a word that describes people like this but I'd rather not use it. I'm OK with "not valuing my time" if it means I remain genuine. I do not want to live in a world of masks. I expect people to occasionally be irritated, cold, and otherwise not on their best emotional performance. I expect it even more if I am indeed at risk of wasting their time. Them being irritated and such is a cue to me to understand what's going on, if they are masking it, how can I tell? Emotions are information. I find it much more productive to expect people to express emotions and learn to understand them, empathize with them, as well as tolerate them. The people don't have to construct elaborate masks, and I don't have guess as to what everyone's feeling. This doesn't seem like a good source of emotional advice to me.
pjwal 10y ago
tldr; Golden Rule Such a basic premise, that is absolutely impossible to master.
somberi 10y ago
Question: Do you ever feel angry or outraged? His Holiness: Oh, yes, of course. I'm a human being. Generally speaking, if a human being never shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not right in the brain. [Laughs.] Ref: Dalai Lama's website where it quotes his interview in the Time Magazine - http://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/10-questions-time-magazine http://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/10-questions-t... I found this book useful: "Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama" - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26332.Destructive_Emotions http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26332.Destructive_Emotion...
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Seeing "his holiness" out of context, isn't it a bit of a useless title? Anyone can be "his holiness" (unless it's a woman), depending on what anyone believes in. I was confused why you're linking to an interview with the dalai lama for something the pope said.
- elbear 10y ago
  There's a crucial difference between feeling angry and expressing it and directing that anger at someone.
EGreg 10y ago
I realized the same thing about fear. I was in an elevator and thought something scary happened ... But then the elevator normally opened on a floor and I realized it was nothing. Or you hear a scary sound by the door -- but then see it was nothing. You thought that something was due Monday but now realize it's not. You can make a mental shortcut to STOP feeling fear right there. Yes you will still have the brain chemistry for a bit, but you can snap back into being productive and relaxed.
stupidcar 10y ago
If you accept abuse with a smile, then you're just going to keep on receiving abuse. The reason companies get away with providing this kind of appalling customer service is because too many people put up with it out of politeness. By the time I've been treated like this by a company, I've already made up my mind to stop using their service ASAP. When I finally get through to an operator, my aims are: 1. Get a fix to my immediate problem. 2. Waste as much of the company's time, money and goodwill as possible. They've wasted my time by putting me on hold, but every minute I spend arguing with an operator or, better yet, a supervisor, is time the company is paying someone for, and has an opportunity cost, because they're not speaking to some other customer. 3. Piss–off the operator enough that they'll consider quitting their job. I do feel sympathy for people who work in these call centres, but only the same way I'd feel sympathy for the soldier of an evil regime. It doesn't stop me viewing them as the enemy. Right now there is a metastasised corporate approach to running customer service that has focussed on cutting costs and outsourcing to the point that the actual service provided is totally dysfunctional. The result is that if you have any problem, with any large company, it is a crapshoot whether you will ever get it fixed. This situation is a deliberate choice on the part of the companies involved. This won't change by people being calm and friendly and swallowing their anger, any more than politics ever gets fixed by people voting for the marginally less corrupt/incompetent candidate every four years. And anyone who tells you it will is either naive or dishonest. This situation will only change through a revolution in consumer behaviour that makes it too difficult and/or expensive for the companies to continue as is. Companies that think it's OK to treat their customers like garbage need to be met with concentrated and directed anger at every opportunity. Giving their customer services employees such hell that they can't retain them is just the start of it. When it becomes impossible for companies to act like this without unleashing a tsunami of fury from every direction, you can bet they'll change their approach pretty quickly.
- cm2012 10y ago
  You are poorly rationalizing being shitty if you behave that way to phone operators.
- throwanem 10y ago
  In a former life, I worked Tier 1 for one of America's largest credit card company. We had a lot more latitude than you seem to realize or care to know. I once, over ninety minutes and three credit department reps, convinced the organization to extend additional credit to a woman dying of terminal cancer, so that she'd be able to afford pain medication a while longer. This was of course a bad credit risk, in the sense that she had no realistic prospect of ever repaying her debts, or indeed of living long enough to do so; I don't know whether you are familiar at all with terminal illness, and I hope for your sake you are not, but there is often a point at which acceptance and exhaustion become perceptible in a person's voice, and she had passed it. You would of course argue that it's of no significance to the company whether such a person dies peacefully or otherwise, and to a certain extent this is of course true. What you overlook is that companies, even very large ones, are made of people, and that those people have agency and will surprisingly often go very far out of their way in order to help a customer, even if doing so might carry a personal cost for them. (In the case I describe, it cost me about $400. I knew it would. Some things matter.) I also dealt with people who operated under the idea that being unpleasant to me would benefit them somehow. At least, I assume some of them thought that way; others no doubt were just nasty people in general. The thing about serving as the human interface to a company is that we don't stop being human when we put our headsets on and log in to the PBX, and the thing about latitude is that it goes both ways. Recognize our shared humanity despite your entirely reasonable frustration and behave toward me on that basis, and I'll go to great effort to help you, even if it costs me something. Treat me as a disposable vessel for your anger at some imaginary cipher you cherish of the company for which I work, and you're going to have a damn hard time getting so much as a late fee waived. (Oh, and by the way - you're not going to make me think about quitting my job, and it is a comedy of arrogance that you imagine otherwise. You are 1/150 of my average daily workload. Do you really think you have power over me? You have the power to ruin your reputation among my colleagues - we can't say things like "what an asshole" in account notes, for reasons of professionalism and liability, but we can convey the same meaning in other words, and we do. And you have the power to influence my analysis of whether it is worth my limited time to come to your assistance with whatever problem has prompted your call. But to imagine you have the power in a three-minute phone call to materially affect the course of my life and the decisions I make therein? What astonishing hubris!) You inveigh against "companies that think it's OK to treat their customers like garbage", and in that, and that alone, you're not wrong. But you fail to realize, or perhaps to care, that, when you interact with customer service, you aren't talking to companies, but to people. You seem to think that treating those people with cruelty has value. It does not. Such behavior is both counterproductive and beneath you. It also, in my professional experience, is much less common than I think you suspect - you really are an outlier here, and whatever mass movement of which you imagine yourself to be a part really does not exist. I have to say I feel for you - it must be awfully lonely to be where you are. But the extent of my sympathy is strictly circumscribed by the fact that you bring it on yourself.
LordKano 10y ago
I used to work in call centers and I would try to de-escalate angry customers. When they settled down and were decent in return, I'd do everything I could to help them. Sometimes, I'd even bend the rules to help out a decent person with their problem. If the person continued to heap abuse upon me, I'd do everything by the book. I wouldn't bend the rules. I wouldn't provide helpful suggestions to help people get what they wanted from a manager. Be nice to people and more often than not, they'll be nice to you in return. LK
deepGem 10y ago
I agree with most of what is said here. What has personally helped me is to know the limits of patience and to walk out of the scenario as soon as those limits cross. In the quoted instance, I would have never waited for 35 minutes on the call . I would have cut the call in 10 regardless of the expected outcome. It's better to judge what kind of a situation you are walking into and set expectations accordingly. For instance, in Bangalore I know that it is normal for people to be late for meetings. Traffic is bad, your previous meetings don't end on time etc. So I'll be prepared for a 15-30 minute wait. Beyond that I'll just cancel and move on. I failed do this on an interview and it was just an unpleasant experience. The interviewer was pissed and so was I. We just wasted the next 30 minutes.
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  So if you have something you need to accomplish, and you can't do it in the ten minutes you allow for your interaction, what do you do? The classic example in the US is the silly cable plans here that give "promotional" rates for a year or two and then double or triple in cost automatically. What would you do in this situation if it would take, say, 45 minutes on the phone to get what you need?
  - deepGem 10y ago
    I presume they won't tell you the wait time upfront. In such a case, calling the cable company will be my secondary activity on a headset while watching a movie or something of that sort. I'm just saying that I'll be prepared for the wait.
mouzogu 10y ago
Most of the anger I experience or come across from others is borne out of selfishness. The article makes a good point. Controlling anger is usually in our best self interest - thereby being a means of tempering our selfishness for long or short term benefit. It points to something else which is not discussed as much: Self control. The amount of times I've seen grown adults and over 60s acting like petulant children over the most minor inconvenience. I cant help but think that in the span of your life you have not yet learnt to control your emotions. Some comments refer to buddhism. Which to me is a form of self control. Some other comments, point out rightly (imo) that Anger like all emotions serves a purpose and should not simply be ignored. I think the purpose of anger is to highlight (but not validate) the differences between our expectations and reality. In order to assess the balance between our expecations and reality, you need self control, I think. Otherwise you can act out of haste.
conjectures 10y ago
Many good points in the article. However, anger suppression is not always rational. If others are aware they can treat you badly and you'll smile and carry on, there is little incentive for them to treat you well. If they are aware you have a self-destructive policy that will also impose costs on them, they may modify their behaviour. More on game theory, anger and the ultimatum game: http://paulwgoldberg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/game-theory-and-anger.html http://paulwgoldberg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/game-theory-and-...
d--b 10y ago
I am taking the exact opposite stance: now I let myself get infuriated at the very beginning of the first phone call. As much as I hate being angry, I have come to embrace the efficiency of the attitude. I think humans get really motivated to do things for mainly 2 reasons: 1. because they gain something from completing the task (money, self satisfaction, social status, gratitude, etc.) 2. because it would cost them not to complete the task. I noticed it myself: I am working harder for my clients that are more annoying to me. I want to make more efforts to reward my clients who are not being douchebags, but the truth is that I have more to gain from being at peace with the annoying ones that being nice to the nice ones. It's the same reason why demanding people get upgraded in planes. The same reason that you can get a table at any reataurant if you're loud enough. Or that your internet is fixed faster if you shout through your phone. The question is: is it more unpleasant for you to let yourself be angry or is it more unpleasant for you to not get what you want?
- estefan 10y ago
  "The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Sad but true.
  - ConroyBumpus 10y ago
    Eventually, however, the persistently squeaky wheel gets replaced.
- qntty 10y ago
  Acting annoyed can get you to a local maximum of helpfulness from others, but it will never get you very close to the global maximum. Moving toward the global maximum requires you to be sensitive to other people's state of mind and being angry dulls this sensitivity. Being annoyed might be a useful tool to have in your toolbox, but don't fool yourself into thinking you can't do better. Your model of what motivates people is only valid for situations where people feel low levels of connectedness to the person they're dealing with. Essentially, you're missing an important dimension, along which you need to travel to get to the global maximum of helpfulness.
- elbear 10y ago
pickpuck 10y ago
How do I convey my real, justified anger to The Company instead of a person? It may not be effective (or fair) to get hostile, but by the time I'm yelling, it's because I've realized The Company doesn't care about my emotional state, and this person is another willing participant in a silently abusive system, even if they're just reading the Company-provided script to get the Company-provided paycheck. Perhaps too few humans have perfect emotional regulation, but it's not surprising that some react accordingly. The people who designed these insensitive systems knew that they would eventually turn all our hearts cold at no cost to The Company. Julian's response is to keep being nice to keep his transactional relations as smooth as possible. The representative's responsive is to vent to their co-workers about how stupid and mean customers are. Mine is to yell when I'm angry. But aren't we all suffering from the same flawed system? At this point in time, it's no one person's fault, and there's little incentive to fix it, so this probably won't change until emotionally attuned software can replace customer service reps.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Ideally, stop doing business with them. That's the only form of anger that companies understand.
- dqv 10y ago
  >How do I convey my real, justified anger to The Company instead of a person? By evaluating whether the way you're conveying it would be appropriate in a public place with a third party observing you. People understand and expect a certain level of anger when things aren't right, but if your demeanor on the phone would offend a neutral party observing your call - you have gone too far. A good way to do this is to imagine how you'd talk to a cashier with other people in line. If it's drawing too much attention and make the person next in line uncomfortable - you have gone too far.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
agentgt 10y ago
I have wondered if retaliatory or impatient anger has any correlation with the ability to delay gratification. There is a famous study that showed how delayed gratification is somewhat a good predictor of success and intelligence [1]. Now I'm not for suppressing anger but I have seen many times how not being an ass generally gets what you want. That being said you can sort of combine the two if you have two parties which is what my wife and I do frequently with customer service aka "good cop, bad cop". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
stevenkovar 10y ago
To me, anger is easiest to dissolve when you take a step back—physically if necessary—and observe the situation. More often than not you'll find there was a communication breakdown somewhere, and you can resolve that breakdown instead of react to where the miscommunication led. The real danger is burying anger to save face, as is common in many cultures. Taking it home with you, or passing it to someone else. Resolve why your brain feels dissonance and something that angers you can be dealt with rationally and simply.
exodust 10y ago
> We often think, If I'm blatantly angry, they'll understand that I'm unhappy with the situation. I think he misses the mark with this idea. People don't strategically get angry. Nobody chooses anger in advance as a means to influence change or broadcast a dislike. Anger is immediate, real-time. Precisely why it's so difficult to control. As we get older, we learn to moderate and channel this energy rather than letting the fire hose spray in all directions. My thoughts on anger are this: don't suppress it or ignore it. Acknowledge it, then do your best to channel it. If that means firmly telling John what you think of his company's service in no uncertain terms - without being rude - then this is a good outcome. Even use an elevated tone. Such tones are useful, we have them in reserve for when an injustice happens. Nothing wrong with that. John can handle it, he's not a precious flower ready to crumble because of an unhappy client. Feedback is important. Let's not aim for a world where everything is a "thumbs up". Being extra nice to "John" for the sake of "not being angry" is counter-productive and doesn't help anyone.
- dqv 10y ago
  >People don't strategically get angry. Yes they do. And it's not uncommon. The overwhelming majority of the angry calls I got were /not/ genuine anger. At least it wasn't anger about anything I or the company was doing. It felt like, more often than not, people needed an outlet, so they directed that energy towards someone who is paid to "be nice no matter what".
whamlastxmas 10y ago
I am probably yelling into the void, but I've adopted a tactic that's made a big difference in my life. I used to feel personally slighted constantly. Someone cutting me off in traffic, neighbor too loud, person talking on their phone loudly in public. It all made me really angry. Sometimes I would remember these slights for days, weeks, or years. Then one day, I read about having a "I don't give a fuck" attitude and applying it to everything in life. I did this and at first of course I was faking it. Stuff still pissed me off but I pretended it didn't. I would grind my teeth and tell myself IDGAF. Constantly. Many times a day. IDGAF. I would smile and act happy and didn't let it show that anything ever phased me. It's been a few months of doing this really hardcore, and it's honestly made me not give a fuck to a pretty big extent. I feel like I'm a less uptight guy, I don't take myself as seriously, I don't let people get to me and I don't let things stress me out. If someone throws some shit at me, I just go with it. Laugh about it and give them space if it's not going to resolve itself. Sometimes I don't have a response to something shitty because my mental gears are working to not give a fuck when I really do, but that's fine. I don't need a response to everything. Silence is fine. I don't really give a fuck. Give it a shot. I don't rub it anyone's face and I would definitely not tell anyone in person about my attitude because it ruins the facade. It's really cut a lot of negativity out of my life and I think I'm probably on the road to being a more likable person.

312 points by julianshapiro 10y ago

hiou 10y ago

This is gross. Maybe don't be an asshole because you are hurting someone by doing it? Terrifying that a human being needs to think about the world in such a self centric way.

sthatipamala 10y ago
This is addressed: "Yes, this is a selfish and transactional view of relationships. But that's the point of this whole post: If you can't justify being nice for the sake of others, at least be nice for the sake of yourself."
ColinCochrane 10y ago
To be fair, the article is up front about that. But that's the point of this whole post: If you can't justify being nice for the sake of others, at least be nice for the sake of yourself.
jshevek 10y ago
I agree. The advice in this blog post seems to only encourage people to be more calculating and fake, rather than patient or empathetic.
- twblalock 10y ago
  If assholes faked politeness, the world would be a better place. Their inner state of mind does not affect anyone -- only their actions do.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > If assholes faked politeness, the world would be a better place Not when compared to developing sincere respect or humility. Also you seem to underestimate the damage that is done by such people who become increasingly skilled at hiding their inner state. We are better off as a community if we can identify those people. [That is, they behave consistently with their inner state, so we know who they are.]
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Well... think about a glass that's full. When someone bumps it, it spills. What does it spill? Whatever was in it. When we get bumped, we spill. If we're full of anger or bitterness, we spill anger or bitterness. If assholes faked politeness, their inner state of mind would not affect people as often. But it still would affect people. What's inside comes out at least some of the time.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      I agree emphatically. In many cases, other people's inner states inevitably effect us, no matter whether they strive for politeness.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      Well said.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Thanks. I stole the glass analogy, but I'm not sure of the origin...
  - Joof 10y ago
    You know when people smile at you, but don't mean it? It's a horrible feeling.
- striking 10y ago
  You forget that anger is not a rational concept. Anger's usually not based in logic, it's usually a kind of emotion. You can reason with facts and with logic. You can't reason with an emotion. The article in question doesn't try to say that the only reason to be nice to people is because they might have something for you. The reason the article exists at all is to provide people with yet another appeal to themselves to avoid anger. If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic? It's a shame you chose to read this article in such a negative light. I thought it was pretty good.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    You've made incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not forgotten. I don't see why you think that making trivial observations about the nature of emotion moves the conversation forward. You seem to conflate the idea of logic itself with that of 'a self-serving rationalization'. You can approach a discussion about empathy and patience using logic or without using logic, just as you can approach a conversation about 'getting what you want from other people' using logic or without using logic. Using logic is completely orthogonal to choices of focus.
    - striking 10y ago
      What you call "self-serving rationalizations" are a form of logical thinking. I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic. Either way, I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations." This article, in the way I read it, shows a particular way to rephrase a situation that would otherwise make you angry, so that it ends up being a win-win situation instead. This isn't even happening at the cost of someone else. I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept. Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too?
      - jshevek 10y ago
        > I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic When you said: > If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic? First, (and possibly not relevant to your question) I did interpret that as implying that the act of (a) using empathy and patience is a mutual exclusive act from (b) using logic. (I often use logic to broaden my viewpoint, which increases my capacity for empathy and patience, in some specific scenario). More relevant to your question, I also interpreted this as suggesting that 'using logic' was a good characterization of the strategy being advocated by the article. I would disagree. I think 'using logic + embracing a value system + desiring specific results' would be better characterization. For example, if I use logic and a different value system, then I might set aside my anger simply in order to experience greater joy and happiness in the moment, and/or possibly increased ability to have a harmonious interaction with the other party (for the pure satisfaction of it). With other value systems and variation in the specifics of 'desired results', I might logically arrive at courses of action which none of us have mentioned. > I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations." Yes. In general, as we are using the phrase, I don't disagree. > Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too? Okay, this could become a semantic quagmire - I'm not sure how to address this briefly. Ultimately, I'm not sure it is possibly to have purely 'unselfish' intentions, as even the desires to see other points of view, to be kind to people, to be patient, are ultimately still 'selfish' in some way. My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - not whether or not those values align with an (impossible?) idealization of 'unselfishness' (or even more confusingly, a 'degree' of unselfishness). I'm sorry if this is a non-constructive tangent, it can be hard to understand what people mean with all the limitations of language. > I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept. I'm curious about the word 'so' in there. It is true that I stated that I agree with the great-grandparent - because I agree with the basic sentiment and the direction of the criticism, not that I agree with the strong language used and the implied strong feelings. I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever, but I do think (a) there are important missed opportunities here, with respect to exploring deeper and more compelling reasons to widen one's perspective and emotional flexibility in moments of anger, and (b) it does strike me as an overt, unapologetic embrace of self-censor in order to get the direct benefit of some immediate results. If this blog post really appeals to someone, then they might be particularly selfish or impatient. If that person implements the strategies presented simply in order to have better material results in the interaction (and no other reason), then it seems to me that we have encouraged them to become more fake. Acting civil can have the same short term results as being a better person. I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil, esp. while also missing an opportunity for introspection and re-evaluation of their values. I don't mean this as an indictment of the blog post, just a criticism.
SamBam 10y ago
An article telling people to be nice for the sake of being nice would be correct, but not change a single person. That's because everyone knows they're supposed to be nice, we've been taught it since before kindergarten. Yet people are still assholes at times. The point of this article is to say "being an asshole isn't even having the effect you think it does. It makes things worse for you too. Try being nice -- it might actually make things better for you. And then you may keep it up."
- jshevek 10y ago
  > An article telling people to be nice for the sake of being nice would be correct, but not change a single person. I have been influenced by blogs which make appeals to ethical conduct (for the sake of ethical conduct) as a desirable end goal. So it is not true to say that such a blog wouldn't change a single person. Further, there is a missed opportunity here to discuss the direct, personal physical, mental, and emotional benefits of unlearning excessive attachment to anger.

Kenji 10y ago

Some people only understand the language of anger. It really depends on the individual. Some people understand you when you're acting calmly 100% of the time. Others need to be reminded that what they're doing actually bothers you and the only way to get through to them and applying pressure is being loud and angry. But those are usually the people you souldn't be doing business with anyway.

jseaidou 10y ago
I agree with this but let me ask you, how many do you think respond more from anger vs calmness? I think or at least I'd like to believe that more people respond from calmness and I'd rather interact and be successful through calmness even if it means I don't exactly get what I want that small amount of time from those who would respond better from anger.
- Kenji 10y ago
  Hmm, that's a good question. I guess in the vast majority of cases, calmness wins. Especially at the workplace. And usually, it's better to avoid the people who only understand the language of anger, rather than confront them. But sometimes, someone has to stand up to these people.
  - abraae 10y ago
    Calmn + determination I believe is the most effective approach. Unfortunately maintaining this demeanor is beyond my own abilities though.
barsonme 10y ago
I think what you're getting at is _assertiveness_, not anger. Assertiveness expresses urgency (and perhaps frustration) without hostility. It's the difference between: > ... I've been hung up on 3 times in the last 30 minutes, please transfer me to your manager ... and > ... Being hung up on 3 times in the last 30 minutes is bullsh*t, transfer me to your manager now! God, why can't you guys get this right? ... or something similar.

sthatipamala 10y ago

This post is very timely. Recently I developed some type of "learned helplessness" where I felt that shitty situations were being thrust upon me and I was drowning. What I was missing is that I had a lot of agency over these situations. I could have declined meetings, asked for help, missed deadlines, or risked disappointing whoever was requesting something from me. Being angry and resentful didn't solve anything. So instead I asked myself "if I don't do this thing I don't like, what's the worst that will happen?". The answer most of the time turned out to be... "nothing." What remained was what I chose and those things were worth doing whole-heartedly.

apatters 10y ago
Did you try making a demonstration of anger at the parties who were thrusting these things upon you? This actually can be the correct course of action sometimes.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  This might work, but as human beings we often have better options. If you just cooly explain why you a request is unreasonable, then that acts as a rebuke to the requester. And it is one that can't be just dismissed as "ahh, she's on the rag".
- ptero 10y ago
  This. Not always, but not infrequently, either. Demonstration of anger can be mild, but it should clearly show pushback. There are many cases when we are being asked to do things that the person requesting them knows are not realistic. If one is being asked to do three things that are estimated as week long each in a week plus something else a "man, how can I do this? I cannot work 24 hour days" may be all it takes.

derefr 10y ago

Complete tangent: what's up with the word spacing in the submission title here? It's abnormally thin.

userbinator 10y ago
I see boxes, so those definitely aren't normal spaces. But they made me click...
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  Unicode thin spaces maybe? THIN SPACE Unicode: U+2009, UTF-8: E2 80 89 Doesn't seem to be happening anymore...

mholt 10y ago

This reminds me of the self awareness tools codified by the Arbinger Institute in their book, Leadership and Self Deception, where they describe how to "get out of the box." I also highly recommend The Anatomy of Peace by them.

agumonkey 10y ago

Pay attention to your mental balance people. On average it's never a problem, but when stuck, anxiety can have significant somatic impact, raised secretions of acid in your stomach, trouble eating (stuck oesophagus valve), lack of bowel movements, or worse like artery constriction, thus potential increase in blood clot, which doesn't need more explanations.

supersan 10y ago

I learned this lesson by experience. I am partner in a popular marketing site and so I get a lot people who are interested in JV opportunities from all around the world. Now I like getting directly to the point (“Hi Max. Tell me what I can help you with.”) because it saves us time and we both know this is a JV call so if the other person has a list or opportunity that matches ours, it's on. Unfortunately most JV calls I've had start off like a dick measuring contest. People love to boast how big their business is and how this can be start of a million dollar partnership, yada yada. This becomes especially infuriating when the other person is blatantly lying just to impress you. Earlier I used to get kind of pissed off or started 1-upping them while getting irritated and angry of what I'm doing with my time. Now I just put the phone on speaker and do something else saying "sure" or "great" from time to time. Not only does it save my time, I don't lose my focus after and yes, I close more deals and create longer relationships. So yes, this don't be a child philosophy is really great, esp for geeks (like me) who think that the shortest distance between two points is always the best route.

melvinmt 10y ago
This may be an obvious question but what's a JV call?
- analog31 10y ago
  Joint Venture? Granted my side business is extremely tiny, but I get such calls from time to time. Usually it's how I can work for free, or give away free stuff, with the idea that I will somehow cash in on it later.
- supersan 10y ago
  Sorry, it means a Joint Venture call, for Cross promos, affiliate promos, etc.
- nostalgiac 10y ago
  Joint Venture (Partnership).

amorphid 10y ago

I learned a while ago (in therapy) to decouple anger from action. I can feel angry, and just not act on it. Without an action to act on attached to my anger, the anger just mind of melts away. Reducing need feel angry is a different skill.

partycoder 10y ago

If you have some exposure to game theory you will learn that consistently collaborating will not be the best approach in every situation. If people learn that you consistently collaborate they will intuitively start abusing that (e.g: force you to play "chicken", "the volunteer's dilemma" or any model game in which the collaborator loses). That's to start with. Now, competing doesn't mean losing control of yourself and explode and become vulgar. It also does not mean having bad intentions and being evil. Whatever you decide to do, compose yourself and don't let your emotions take over. And try to keep your motivations well-intentioned. If you are going through a bad moment... a good tool for introspections and analyzing your situation is the SWOT chart (4 quadrants: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). You can express your current situation in terms of these 4 things, to better understand and identify ways to use your strengths and opportunities, work on your weaknesses and mitigate threats. Another important concept is balance. Try to find the imbalances in your life. What are excesses, what are the things you are lacking... and find ways to balance things out. Your anger might come out of frustration generated from these imbalances. If people give you a hard time, read a book called: "The No Asshole Rule". Now, those are not the only types of draining people. Just try to not let people drain you emotionally, at least not for a good reason. If after an interaction with someone you consistently feel drained, it's time to avoid that person for your own good.

amerkhalid 10y ago
I think in general one should try to be nice to everyone but yes, in my own experience, collaboration and being nice all the time is probably not the best strategy. It can be very demanding on one's mental health. I say it because lately I have found myself engaging in far too many emotionally draining conversations with a few friends and coworkers. These are generally negative/depressed/anxious people. Of course, they need someone who they can talk and lighten their loads but they end up passing their load on me. After lunch or dinner with these friends, I feel too tired to contribute anything positive when I am with my other friends or more importantly with my wife. One should not be sounding board for everyone but only close friends and family.

stcredzero 10y ago

We humans are really bad at controlling our emotions. This post won't help with that. I'm reading this as: "Now putting on my asbestos long johns and awaiting the internet mobs."

wbillingsley 10y ago

TL;DR: Wouldn't life be so much better if we all had to be Stepford Wives, faking our utmost delight and happiness despite whatever misfortune might come our way, and nary ever committing that most heinous crime of grumping or letting it be outwardly visible that we're not in the best mood today. Would that not be a most delightful utopia, o ever-smiling citizen?

hubert123 10y ago
maybe it would, seems to me that grumpiness is just as much an act as happiness

PravlageTiem 10y ago

Western culture is so obsessed about suppressing anger at all costs. Like each person is a nuclear weapon that needs to be aggressively contained or else the entire fabric of civilization will collapse. Anger exists for a reason and it exists for good reasons. The manifestation of anger means some model you are holding onto is no longer in sync with reality and that resynchronization costs more than your time preferences will allow. (Using the authors scenario, your expectation was for a reasonably timed phone call, not a 35 minute wait.) It's not that anger is wrong. The anger is correct. The expectation was wrong. The West automatically assumes all instances of anger are permanently wrong, and this child-like ritual prevents one from appreciated the value of anger as a compulsion that tells you in no uncertain terms that your expectation is completely out of whack and you need to either cut your losses or resynchronize the expectation. Anger becomes fuel for remodeling reality once you understand what is is trying to tell you. Putting taboos up around it prevents this realization, which in turn, creates people who are trained to perpetually cling to false models of reality out of fear of violating the taboo.

sotojuan 10y ago
Is that a West-only thing? My admittedly minor experience with some Japanese people is that in many settings they hide any discomfort (including outright anger) in order to not make a scene or lose face. In fact, if can pinpoint being angry in public often to any country it's the US.
- foobarian 10y ago
  I thought so too until I started watching Russian road rage videos (just use those terms to search on Youtube). I think Russians take the cake for uninhibited anger displays!
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    Ha, forgot about Russia. Yes, I guess they and Eastern Europe win.
- PravlageTiem 10y ago

tomcam 10y ago

I grew up angry because I was unsafe and couldn't defend myself. Strong motivator. My children grew up safe in nice neighborhoods because of it. Being powerless as a kid led directly to starting my own businesses. It was the surest way I could buy safety. It allowed me to build up a buffer against the rest of the world.

tonyarkles 10y ago
I grew up not unsafe, but in a messed up and pretty unpredictable environment. Now I help dysfunctional engineering teams get better :).
- tomcam 10y ago
  Great use of your experience!

leshow 10y ago

I disagree wholeheartedly, that being happy in the face of being treated like shit will get you what you want in that type of situation. What is the author basing his assumptions off of?

verytrivial 10y ago
Really? I read this as being more about unproductive anger "cross-talk" -- being angry with a previous situation or disjoint context and taking it out on (largely) innocent bystanders, often the very people who could actually help you now or in the future.

debacle 10y ago

I generally explain to the CSR I am on the phone with when I need to make an unpleasant phone call: Look, I know this isn't your fault. I know you didn't cause this, but I need to be angry at someone. If you could redirect my call to the right person it would be greatly appreciated. I generally either receive very good service (a thank you goes a long way), or I get forwarded to someone whose job it is to deal with "problem" customers and we have at it.

trisomy21 10y ago
I've used a similar approach, but never thought about explicitly requesting someone to be angry at. I like that and will have to give it a try.
hiou 10y ago
Is that like the modern equivalent of a whipping boy?

drivingmenuts 10y ago

Funny (by that I mean not-funny-at-all) thing I've discovered about myself: It's a hell of a lot easier to let go of my anger when it's directed at someone else, but when it's directed at me, I hold on to that anger with both hands, tooth and nail.

ksec 10y ago

It is VERY hard. Some may even call it bad temper. Some call it self control. But sometimes I think some system are in place as if they were there just to make you angry. In tech terms, these UX are bad. And it is exactly this reason we can innovate, and someday an idea was born from this frustration into a startup. Other thing that easily set me off is Hypocrite. I would much rather they admit they are a asshole. And I am fine with that. Thinking back now I think I have grow up with a little bit more patient, rather then spending time to get angry, I just spend time doing something else worthwhile. Hypocrite I can ignore, but someone put me in the wrong, is still something i cant over come yet. I tried to let time fix it. But the anger still creeps in once I sit down and not doing anything as if evil is trying to seduce me into darkness. Many mention here the power to control your anger as Intelligent and smart. I am not sure if those are the correct word to use. I think they are wise, which I think is something different to Intellect. I am using the word "I think" here a lot, because i am not sure if any of these of sure, so correct me if I am wrong.

haalcion3 10y ago

> When Max picked up the phone, you should have exclaimed, “Hey, Max! It’s a pleasure to chat. I would love to hear what you’re up to.” And you should have said it genuinely. Should have, yes, if you really felt that way. And if you can feel that way geniunely, that's the best. However, I don't think it's right to lie like that if you don't really feel that way. You can go a long way being nice without lying. But, on don't just give up and say, "I'm just not nice." That's a problem, and if you feel that way all the time, you should go see or talk to someone: a family member, a friend, a GP doctor, a psychiatrist, or anyone that will listen and help you figure out the real problem. You might need more sleep. You might need medicine. You might need a chiropractic adjustment. You might need to vent. You might need to just spend time with another person. You might need to be alone in nature.

Rarebox 10y ago
True. I think author's point was that if you're not happy to talk with Max for 15 minutes, you should not agree to the call. Since you already decided that this endeavor is worthwhile, you might as well enjoy it.

projektir 10y ago

I'm not too happy with the framing of this post. It's rather guilt-trippy (this is highly common in self-help these days, sadly), and, as most such advice, it relies on making you feel bad in overt ways rather than making a good argument. But I'm also getting a strong manipulative vibe here. The author makes unfounded claims and then calls the reader a child if they don't agree with the author. The terms "asshole" and "jerk" are being thrown rather liberally. You're not an asshole or a jerk if you want to end a conversation. People who do not immediately reciprocate are not automatically takers with no concept of generosity. Anger is not "childlike". It's an emotion, like many others. I've seen it plenty in older people. Some people could use more of it. Some people have too much of it. This is true for virtually every emotion. Shutting it down instead of calibrating can cause problems. Most of this is irritation, not anger, anyway. Passive-aggressiveness often occurs when it's not possible to release emotions properly. At the end of the day, we're not Vulcans, but some environments practically demand that we express no strong emotions of any kind, which is not without side effects. We should work with what we are, not what we like to pretend to be, and I think emotions have been getting a lot of bad rap lately. Emotions are of informational value in and of themselves and most of us do not express them as a means to an end. We express them because we feel them. Whether or not we should be feeling a particular emotion is a more interesting discussion. And the effect such a thing will have on other people depends a lot on the situation and the culture... The language just creeps me out. > "John" sounds patient and caring. He actually wants to help. > He won't go above and beyond when it turns out his ex-cofounder is someone who can help you. > You know, the self that is good at getting what it wants from others. > And you should have said it genuinely. Even if you're feeling miserable. With your sudden warmth, Max is appreciative that you’re making his hustle easier, and he goes out of his way to tell you what he can do for you at the end of the call. I do not find it a great thing if someone is in a poor mood, thinks I'm a waste of time, but then tries to mimic genuine warmth without actually feeling it in order to get what they want and maximize their use of time. I'd much, much rather they brush me off as fast as possible. There's a word that describes people like this but I'd rather not use it. I'm OK with "not valuing my time" if it means I remain genuine. I do not want to live in a world of masks. I expect people to occasionally be irritated, cold, and otherwise not on their best emotional performance. I expect it even more if I am indeed at risk of wasting their time. Them being irritated and such is a cue to me to understand what's going on, if they are masking it, how can I tell? Emotions are information. I find it much more productive to expect people to express emotions and learn to understand them, empathize with them, as well as tolerate them. The people don't have to construct elaborate masks, and I don't have guess as to what everyone's feeling. This doesn't seem like a good source of emotional advice to me.

pjwal 10y ago

tldr; Golden Rule Such a basic premise, that is absolutely impossible to master.

somberi 10y ago

Question: Do you ever feel angry or outraged? His Holiness: Oh, yes, of course. I'm a human being. Generally speaking, if a human being never shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not right in the brain. [Laughs.] Ref: Dalai Lama's website where it quotes his interview in the Time Magazine - http://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/10-questions-time-magazine http://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/10-questions-t... I found this book useful: "Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama" - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26332.Destructive_Emotions http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26332.Destructive_Emotion...

StavrosK 10y ago
Seeing "his holiness" out of context, isn't it a bit of a useless title? Anyone can be "his holiness" (unless it's a woman), depending on what anyone believes in. I was confused why you're linking to an interview with the dalai lama for something the pope said.
elbear 10y ago
There's a crucial difference between feeling angry and expressing it and directing that anger at someone.

EGreg 10y ago

I realized the same thing about fear. I was in an elevator and thought something scary happened ... But then the elevator normally opened on a floor and I realized it was nothing. Or you hear a scary sound by the door -- but then see it was nothing. You thought that something was due Monday but now realize it's not. You can make a mental shortcut to STOP feeling fear right there. Yes you will still have the brain chemistry for a bit, but you can snap back into being productive and relaxed.

stupidcar 10y ago

If you accept abuse with a smile, then you're just going to keep on receiving abuse. The reason companies get away with providing this kind of appalling customer service is because too many people put up with it out of politeness. By the time I've been treated like this by a company, I've already made up my mind to stop using their service ASAP. When I finally get through to an operator, my aims are: 1. Get a fix to my immediate problem. 2. Waste as much of the company's time, money and goodwill as possible. They've wasted my time by putting me on hold, but every minute I spend arguing with an operator or, better yet, a supervisor, is time the company is paying someone for, and has an opportunity cost, because they're not speaking to some other customer. 3. Piss–off the operator enough that they'll consider quitting their job. I do feel sympathy for people who work in these call centres, but only the same way I'd feel sympathy for the soldier of an evil regime. It doesn't stop me viewing them as the enemy. Right now there is a metastasised corporate approach to running customer service that has focussed on cutting costs and outsourcing to the point that the actual service provided is totally dysfunctional. The result is that if you have any problem, with any large company, it is a crapshoot whether you will ever get it fixed. This situation is a deliberate choice on the part of the companies involved. This won't change by people being calm and friendly and swallowing their anger, any more than politics ever gets fixed by people voting for the marginally less corrupt/incompetent candidate every four years. And anyone who tells you it will is either naive or dishonest. This situation will only change through a revolution in consumer behaviour that makes it too difficult and/or expensive for the companies to continue as is. Companies that think it's OK to treat their customers like garbage need to be met with concentrated and directed anger at every opportunity. Giving their customer services employees such hell that they can't retain them is just the start of it. When it becomes impossible for companies to act like this without unleashing a tsunami of fury from every direction, you can bet they'll change their approach pretty quickly.

cm2012 10y ago
You are poorly rationalizing being shitty if you behave that way to phone operators.
throwanem 10y ago
In a former life, I worked Tier 1 for one of America's largest credit card company. We had a lot more latitude than you seem to realize or care to know. I once, over ninety minutes and three credit department reps, convinced the organization to extend additional credit to a woman dying of terminal cancer, so that she'd be able to afford pain medication a while longer. This was of course a bad credit risk, in the sense that she had no realistic prospect of ever repaying her debts, or indeed of living long enough to do so; I don't know whether you are familiar at all with terminal illness, and I hope for your sake you are not, but there is often a point at which acceptance and exhaustion become perceptible in a person's voice, and she had passed it. You would of course argue that it's of no significance to the company whether such a person dies peacefully or otherwise, and to a certain extent this is of course true. What you overlook is that companies, even very large ones, are made of people, and that those people have agency and will surprisingly often go very far out of their way in order to help a customer, even if doing so might carry a personal cost for them. (In the case I describe, it cost me about $400. I knew it would. Some things matter.) I also dealt with people who operated under the idea that being unpleasant to me would benefit them somehow. At least, I assume some of them thought that way; others no doubt were just nasty people in general. The thing about serving as the human interface to a company is that we don't stop being human when we put our headsets on and log in to the PBX, and the thing about latitude is that it goes both ways. Recognize our shared humanity despite your entirely reasonable frustration and behave toward me on that basis, and I'll go to great effort to help you, even if it costs me something. Treat me as a disposable vessel for your anger at some imaginary cipher you cherish of the company for which I work, and you're going to have a damn hard time getting so much as a late fee waived. (Oh, and by the way - you're not going to make me think about quitting my job, and it is a comedy of arrogance that you imagine otherwise. You are 1/150 of my average daily workload. Do you really think you have power over me? You have the power to ruin your reputation among my colleagues - we can't say things like "what an asshole" in account notes, for reasons of professionalism and liability, but we can convey the same meaning in other words, and we do. And you have the power to influence my analysis of whether it is worth my limited time to come to your assistance with whatever problem has prompted your call. But to imagine you have the power in a three-minute phone call to materially affect the course of my life and the decisions I make therein? What astonishing hubris!) You inveigh against "companies that think it's OK to treat their customers like garbage", and in that, and that alone, you're not wrong. But you fail to realize, or perhaps to care, that, when you interact with customer service, you aren't talking to companies, but to people. You seem to think that treating those people with cruelty has value. It does not. Such behavior is both counterproductive and beneath you. It also, in my professional experience, is much less common than I think you suspect - you really are an outlier here, and whatever mass movement of which you imagine yourself to be a part really does not exist. I have to say I feel for you - it must be awfully lonely to be where you are. But the extent of my sympathy is strictly circumscribed by the fact that you bring it on yourself.

LordKano 10y ago

I used to work in call centers and I would try to de-escalate angry customers. When they settled down and were decent in return, I'd do everything I could to help them. Sometimes, I'd even bend the rules to help out a decent person with their problem. If the person continued to heap abuse upon me, I'd do everything by the book. I wouldn't bend the rules. I wouldn't provide helpful suggestions to help people get what they wanted from a manager. Be nice to people and more often than not, they'll be nice to you in return. LK

deepGem 10y ago

I agree with most of what is said here. What has personally helped me is to know the limits of patience and to walk out of the scenario as soon as those limits cross. In the quoted instance, I would have never waited for 35 minutes on the call . I would have cut the call in 10 regardless of the expected outcome. It's better to judge what kind of a situation you are walking into and set expectations accordingly. For instance, in Bangalore I know that it is normal for people to be late for meetings. Traffic is bad, your previous meetings don't end on time etc. So I'll be prepared for a 15-30 minute wait. Beyond that I'll just cancel and move on. I failed do this on an interview and it was just an unpleasant experience. The interviewer was pissed and so was I. We just wasted the next 30 minutes.

cdubzzz 10y ago
So if you have something you need to accomplish, and you can't do it in the ten minutes you allow for your interaction, what do you do? The classic example in the US is the silly cable plans here that give "promotional" rates for a year or two and then double or triple in cost automatically. What would you do in this situation if it would take, say, 45 minutes on the phone to get what you need?
- deepGem 10y ago
  I presume they won't tell you the wait time upfront. In such a case, calling the cable company will be my secondary activity on a headset while watching a movie or something of that sort. I'm just saying that I'll be prepared for the wait.

mouzogu 10y ago

Most of the anger I experience or come across from others is borne out of selfishness. The article makes a good point. Controlling anger is usually in our best self interest - thereby being a means of tempering our selfishness for long or short term benefit. It points to something else which is not discussed as much: Self control. The amount of times I've seen grown adults and over 60s acting like petulant children over the most minor inconvenience. I cant help but think that in the span of your life you have not yet learnt to control your emotions. Some comments refer to buddhism. Which to me is a form of self control. Some other comments, point out rightly (imo) that Anger like all emotions serves a purpose and should not simply be ignored. I think the purpose of anger is to highlight (but not validate) the differences between our expectations and reality. In order to assess the balance between our expecations and reality, you need self control, I think. Otherwise you can act out of haste.

conjectures 10y ago

Many good points in the article. However, anger suppression is not always rational. If others are aware they can treat you badly and you'll smile and carry on, there is little incentive for them to treat you well. If they are aware you have a self-destructive policy that will also impose costs on them, they may modify their behaviour. More on game theory, anger and the ultimatum game: http://paulwgoldberg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/game-theory-and-anger.html http://paulwgoldberg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/game-theory-and-...

d--b 10y ago

I am taking the exact opposite stance: now I let myself get infuriated at the very beginning of the first phone call. As much as I hate being angry, I have come to embrace the efficiency of the attitude. I think humans get really motivated to do things for mainly 2 reasons: 1. because they gain something from completing the task (money, self satisfaction, social status, gratitude, etc.) 2. because it would cost them not to complete the task. I noticed it myself: I am working harder for my clients that are more annoying to me. I want to make more efforts to reward my clients who are not being douchebags, but the truth is that I have more to gain from being at peace with the annoying ones that being nice to the nice ones. It's the same reason why demanding people get upgraded in planes. The same reason that you can get a table at any reataurant if you're loud enough. Or that your internet is fixed faster if you shout through your phone. The question is: is it more unpleasant for you to let yourself be angry or is it more unpleasant for you to not get what you want?

estefan 10y ago
"The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Sad but true.
- ConroyBumpus 10y ago
  Eventually, however, the persistently squeaky wheel gets replaced.
qntty 10y ago
Acting annoyed can get you to a local maximum of helpfulness from others, but it will never get you very close to the global maximum. Moving toward the global maximum requires you to be sensitive to other people's state of mind and being angry dulls this sensitivity. Being annoyed might be a useful tool to have in your toolbox, but don't fool yourself into thinking you can't do better. Your model of what motivates people is only valid for situations where people feel low levels of connectedness to the person they're dealing with. Essentially, you're missing an important dimension, along which you need to travel to get to the global maximum of helpfulness.
elbear 10y ago

pickpuck 10y ago

How do I convey my real, justified anger to The Company instead of a person? It may not be effective (or fair) to get hostile, but by the time I'm yelling, it's because I've realized The Company doesn't care about my emotional state, and this person is another willing participant in a silently abusive system, even if they're just reading the Company-provided script to get the Company-provided paycheck. Perhaps too few humans have perfect emotional regulation, but it's not surprising that some react accordingly. The people who designed these insensitive systems knew that they would eventually turn all our hearts cold at no cost to The Company. Julian's response is to keep being nice to keep his transactional relations as smooth as possible. The representative's responsive is to vent to their co-workers about how stupid and mean customers are. Mine is to yell when I'm angry. But aren't we all suffering from the same flawed system? At this point in time, it's no one person's fault, and there's little incentive to fix it, so this probably won't change until emotionally attuned software can replace customer service reps.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Ideally, stop doing business with them. That's the only form of anger that companies understand.
dqv 10y ago
>How do I convey my real, justified anger to The Company instead of a person? By evaluating whether the way you're conveying it would be appropriate in a public place with a third party observing you. People understand and expect a certain level of anger when things aren't right, but if your demeanor on the phone would offend a neutral party observing your call - you have gone too far. A good way to do this is to imagine how you'd talk to a cashier with other people in line. If it's drawing too much attention and make the person next in line uncomfortable - you have gone too far.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

agentgt 10y ago

I have wondered if retaliatory or impatient anger has any correlation with the ability to delay gratification. There is a famous study that showed how delayed gratification is somewhat a good predictor of success and intelligence [1]. Now I'm not for suppressing anger but I have seen many times how not being an ass generally gets what you want. That being said you can sort of combine the two if you have two parties which is what my wife and I do frequently with customer service aka "good cop, bad cop". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

stevenkovar 10y ago

To me, anger is easiest to dissolve when you take a step back—physically if necessary—and observe the situation. More often than not you'll find there was a communication breakdown somewhere, and you can resolve that breakdown instead of react to where the miscommunication led. The real danger is burying anger to save face, as is common in many cultures. Taking it home with you, or passing it to someone else. Resolve why your brain feels dissonance and something that angers you can be dealt with rationally and simply.

exodust 10y ago

> We often think, If I'm blatantly angry, they'll understand that I'm unhappy with the situation. I think he misses the mark with this idea. People don't strategically get angry. Nobody chooses anger in advance as a means to influence change or broadcast a dislike. Anger is immediate, real-time. Precisely why it's so difficult to control. As we get older, we learn to moderate and channel this energy rather than letting the fire hose spray in all directions. My thoughts on anger are this: don't suppress it or ignore it. Acknowledge it, then do your best to channel it. If that means firmly telling John what you think of his company's service in no uncertain terms - without being rude - then this is a good outcome. Even use an elevated tone. Such tones are useful, we have them in reserve for when an injustice happens. Nothing wrong with that. John can handle it, he's not a precious flower ready to crumble because of an unhappy client. Feedback is important. Let's not aim for a world where everything is a "thumbs up". Being extra nice to "John" for the sake of "not being angry" is counter-productive and doesn't help anyone.

dqv 10y ago
>People don't strategically get angry. Yes they do. And it's not uncommon. The overwhelming majority of the angry calls I got were /not/ genuine anger. At least it wasn't anger about anything I or the company was doing. It felt like, more often than not, people needed an outlet, so they directed that energy towards someone who is paid to "be nice no matter what".

whamlastxmas 10y ago

I am probably yelling into the void, but I've adopted a tactic that's made a big difference in my life. I used to feel personally slighted constantly. Someone cutting me off in traffic, neighbor too loud, person talking on their phone loudly in public. It all made me really angry. Sometimes I would remember these slights for days, weeks, or years. Then one day, I read about having a "I don't give a fuck" attitude and applying it to everything in life. I did this and at first of course I was faking it. Stuff still pissed me off but I pretended it didn't. I would grind my teeth and tell myself IDGAF. Constantly. Many times a day. IDGAF. I would smile and act happy and didn't let it show that anything ever phased me. It's been a few months of doing this really hardcore, and it's honestly made me not give a fuck to a pretty big extent. I feel like I'm a less uptight guy, I don't take myself as seriously, I don't let people get to me and I don't let things stress me out. If someone throws some shit at me, I just go with it. Laugh about it and give them space if it's not going to resolve itself. Sometimes I don't have a response to something shitty because my mental gears are working to not give a fuck when I really do, but that's fine. I don't need a response to everything. Silence is fine. I don't really give a fuck. Give it a shot. I don't rub it anyone's face and I would definitely not tell anyone in person about my attitude because it ruins the facade. It's really cut a lot of negativity out of my life and I think I'm probably on the road to being a more likable person.