9 ms·

Not what the article is getting at, but I have seen displays of righteous anger cause positive changes. Sometimes you need to communicate that you aren't just g

Not what the article is getting at, but I have seen displays of righteous anger cause positive changes. Sometimes you need to communicate that you aren't just griping and this is a red line. Doesn't work if people already think your a hot head though.

scarface74 8y ago
I've never seen showing anger works. In American society, being Black and angry, conjures up the stereotype and gets you labeled as an "Angry Black Man". Also, if you are a female showing anger, gets you labelled negatively.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  Yes, Americans don't understand disagreement, even legitimate disagreement. You are wondering if this is because they fear incurring liability if they admit there is a problem or due to the almost prison-like environment of high school in their formative years, or what. It's a great problem for foreigners.
  - wedn3sday 8y ago
    Can confirm. Was recently informed I was "not a team player" for pointing out obvious facts that happened to be inconvenient. A German friend of mine told me that when she was immigrating here, she took a class that was supposed to help with integrating into American culture, she was told to always wrap any sort of criticism in a complement sandwich.
    - clintonb 8y ago
      praise-criticism-praise
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      That's called the "shit sandwich".
    - twiceaday 8y ago
      Being disagreeable is okay but being disrespectful is not. Sometimes people conflate the former with the latter though so you have to be careful.
      - finnthehuman 8y ago
        >but being disrespectful is not Nah. It’s fine. You might find it advantageous to navigate the world by humoring the people too full of themselves to realize they don’t deserve an ounce of respect. But they don’t, and it’s fine if you don’t want to give it.
  - cat199 8y ago
    imho it's baked into anglo individualist enlightenment philosophy - if there is no dogmatic truth, and individuals are allowed to make their own decision, you are being an overarching papist to insist that there is a right way, and further more that we should listen to it. so instead, 'be nice', because 'respecting others opinions' (even if delusional) is the true virtue besides, insisting on a 'correct way' for the group means that individualism itself is flawed, and so is therefore heretical..
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      That's not QUITE it. The issue is that everyone is insisting that there is a DIFFERENT "right" way. So of the 30 or 40 "right" ways in a group of 30 or 40 people, there has to be some system for settling on 1 "right" way. So what ensues, without anyone consciously realizing it, is almost an election. Where the group settles on one "right" way. And any holdouts are said to be difficult intransigent people. It's a bit like a court jury. All 12 jurors actually have their own opinion. But over time, they select one opinion as the consensus opinion. The reason for selecting that opinion can be different for each juror, but any juror not accepting the consensus opinion would be considered a hold out. I'd even wager that the other jurors would just as soon not be on a jury with the hold outs in the future. Having mentioned all that, the material point here is that every initial opinion in the group can be "wrong". The consensus opinion is only the opinion that the group promotes as its own. Being the consensus opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, anymore than being a dissenting opinion means that the dissenting opinion is correct. It's entirely possible, in fact oftentimes likely, that both opinions are "wrong".
      - HarryHirsch 8y ago
        It isn't quite like that. Any decisionmaking process in a group has to be anchored in observable reality, you can't make it a popularity context. You recognize the trouble when you teach at university, students don't know how to reason and make cogent arguments.
      - mnctvanj 8y ago
        This is correct. Consensus opinion might not be the very best of all the possibilities, but is rarely a very bad choice. The other side of this is buy-in. On a great team, it's important to have everyone feel free to put forth an opinion, with backup. And then this process happens. And then it's just as important for everyone to "murder the un-chosen alternative" - in other words, even if a team member very strongly believes their posited solution was correct, and very strongly believes the chosen solution is incorrect - they must murder their solution, and wed the chosen solution. A team, committed as a team, to the team-chosen alternatives over time, is a very powerful team. Likely more powerful than one that only chooses the objectively best solution without full buy-in from the rest of the team. It takes hard and nuanced work from the team leader to cultivate this.
- ndarwincorn 8y ago
  The best manager I've had as a dev is a first-generation Nigerian-American, and in the year I worked for I saw him get legit fired up once, and it was incredibly effective. At least for me and I think the team as a whole. Though to support your point, from what I could tell he had that rep with some in the office. But that was probably inevitable given the environment (very white collar) and his personality (certainly not angry but not at all passive either).
- extralego 8y ago
  Being white and angry gets you labeled “Angry White Man”. Come to think of it, the issue of our culture’s ballooning expectations of positive public expression seems to persist at a fairly continuous rate regardless of race/gender. And, while race/gender discrimination exacerbates all social inequalities, inherent systematic inequalities like cultural expectations and capital inherently elude acknowledgement in an inspection of identity lines.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > Being white and angry gets you labeled “Angry White Man”. The angry label gets applied far earlier to women and black people.
    - jameskegel 8y ago
      I'd like to see the evidence upon which you make assertions like this.
      - haskellandchill 8y ago
        I've observed it, the threshold is currently lower for a white male, especially an educated white male that presents themselves well and is law abiding and free of debt and addictions. The good citizen in general is rewarded, as it should be I suppose. You can't fight city hall.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        The closest I can find is this: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/17/14945576/black-white-bodies-size-threat-study https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/17/14945576/black-whit... Now imagine if the Black person shows signs of anger. On the other hand. I once had a really tall (White) manager who you could tell would go out of his way to stand further back from a crowd so we wouldn’t have to look up at him. I’ve had to tell my tall and big stepson to be mindful of his size. He still thinks of himself as this little kid (not in a bad way)
    - extralego 8y ago
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I am generally very calm and measured but I sometimes deliberately get angry and it seems to make me heard. I do this maybe once or twice a year and only in situations where I am 100% sure that my point is correct.
  - twic 8y ago
    I have had colleagues a bit like this. You spend two years working with this calm, intelligent, sensible person, so when they finally do get angry, you stop and pay attention.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      I think it also works in relationships. A lot of people let things fester for a long time. I think a good blow up from time to time clears the air often. That is if you let it go afterwards.
- slededit 8y ago
  Can't speak to race issues, however there is a difference between anger at a specific situation and anger at the straw that broke the camels back. It has to be an issue everyone can immediately understand without needing a back story for it to be effective. Otherwise to observers without context it just looks like an over reaction. The problem is most often anger comes from a series of injustices at the office. Not one singular event.

scarface74 8y ago

I've never seen showing anger works. In American society, being Black and angry, conjures up the stereotype and gets you labeled as an "Angry Black Man". Also, if you are a female showing anger, gets you labelled negatively.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
Yes, Americans don't understand disagreement, even legitimate disagreement. You are wondering if this is because they fear incurring liability if they admit there is a problem or due to the almost prison-like environment of high school in their formative years, or what. It's a great problem for foreigners.
- wedn3sday 8y ago
  Can confirm. Was recently informed I was "not a team player" for pointing out obvious facts that happened to be inconvenient. A German friend of mine told me that when she was immigrating here, she took a class that was supposed to help with integrating into American culture, she was told to always wrap any sort of criticism in a complement sandwich.
  - clintonb 8y ago
    praise-criticism-praise
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    That's called the "shit sandwich".
  - twiceaday 8y ago
    Being disagreeable is okay but being disrespectful is not. Sometimes people conflate the former with the latter though so you have to be careful.
    - finnthehuman 8y ago
      >but being disrespectful is not Nah. It’s fine. You might find it advantageous to navigate the world by humoring the people too full of themselves to realize they don’t deserve an ounce of respect. But they don’t, and it’s fine if you don’t want to give it.
- cat199 8y ago
  imho it's baked into anglo individualist enlightenment philosophy - if there is no dogmatic truth, and individuals are allowed to make their own decision, you are being an overarching papist to insist that there is a right way, and further more that we should listen to it. so instead, 'be nice', because 'respecting others opinions' (even if delusional) is the true virtue besides, insisting on a 'correct way' for the group means that individualism itself is flawed, and so is therefore heretical..
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    That's not QUITE it. The issue is that everyone is insisting that there is a DIFFERENT "right" way. So of the 30 or 40 "right" ways in a group of 30 or 40 people, there has to be some system for settling on 1 "right" way. So what ensues, without anyone consciously realizing it, is almost an election. Where the group settles on one "right" way. And any holdouts are said to be difficult intransigent people. It's a bit like a court jury. All 12 jurors actually have their own opinion. But over time, they select one opinion as the consensus opinion. The reason for selecting that opinion can be different for each juror, but any juror not accepting the consensus opinion would be considered a hold out. I'd even wager that the other jurors would just as soon not be on a jury with the hold outs in the future. Having mentioned all that, the material point here is that every initial opinion in the group can be "wrong". The consensus opinion is only the opinion that the group promotes as its own. Being the consensus opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, anymore than being a dissenting opinion means that the dissenting opinion is correct. It's entirely possible, in fact oftentimes likely, that both opinions are "wrong".
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      It isn't quite like that. Any decisionmaking process in a group has to be anchored in observable reality, you can't make it a popularity context. You recognize the trouble when you teach at university, students don't know how to reason and make cogent arguments.
    - mnctvanj 8y ago
      This is correct. Consensus opinion might not be the very best of all the possibilities, but is rarely a very bad choice. The other side of this is buy-in. On a great team, it's important to have everyone feel free to put forth an opinion, with backup. And then this process happens. And then it's just as important for everyone to "murder the un-chosen alternative" - in other words, even if a team member very strongly believes their posited solution was correct, and very strongly believes the chosen solution is incorrect - they must murder their solution, and wed the chosen solution. A team, committed as a team, to the team-chosen alternatives over time, is a very powerful team. Likely more powerful than one that only chooses the objectively best solution without full buy-in from the rest of the team. It takes hard and nuanced work from the team leader to cultivate this.
ndarwincorn 8y ago
The best manager I've had as a dev is a first-generation Nigerian-American, and in the year I worked for I saw him get legit fired up once, and it was incredibly effective. At least for me and I think the team as a whole. Though to support your point, from what I could tell he had that rep with some in the office. But that was probably inevitable given the environment (very white collar) and his personality (certainly not angry but not at all passive either).
extralego 8y ago
Being white and angry gets you labeled “Angry White Man”. Come to think of it, the issue of our culture’s ballooning expectations of positive public expression seems to persist at a fairly continuous rate regardless of race/gender. And, while race/gender discrimination exacerbates all social inequalities, inherent systematic inequalities like cultural expectations and capital inherently elude acknowledgement in an inspection of identity lines.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > Being white and angry gets you labeled “Angry White Man”. The angry label gets applied far earlier to women and black people.
  - jameskegel 8y ago
    I'd like to see the evidence upon which you make assertions like this.
    - haskellandchill 8y ago
      I've observed it, the threshold is currently lower for a white male, especially an educated white male that presents themselves well and is law abiding and free of debt and addictions. The good citizen in general is rewarded, as it should be I suppose. You can't fight city hall.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The closest I can find is this: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/17/14945576/black-white-bodies-size-threat-study https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/17/14945576/black-whit... Now imagine if the Black person shows signs of anger. On the other hand. I once had a really tall (White) manager who you could tell would go out of his way to stand further back from a crowd so we wouldn’t have to look up at him. I’ve had to tell my tall and big stepson to be mindful of his size. He still thinks of himself as this little kid (not in a bad way)
  - extralego 8y ago
maxxxxx 8y ago
I am generally very calm and measured but I sometimes deliberately get angry and it seems to make me heard. I do this maybe once or twice a year and only in situations where I am 100% sure that my point is correct.
- twic 8y ago
  I have had colleagues a bit like this. You spend two years working with this calm, intelligent, sensible person, so when they finally do get angry, you stop and pay attention.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I think it also works in relationships. A lot of people let things fester for a long time. I think a good blow up from time to time clears the air often. That is if you let it go afterwards.
slededit 8y ago
Can't speak to race issues, however there is a difference between anger at a specific situation and anger at the straw that broke the camels back. It has to be an issue everyone can immediately understand without needing a back story for it to be effective. Otherwise to observers without context it just looks like an over reaction. The problem is most often anger comes from a series of injustices at the office. Not one singular event.