Venting and "Mad as Hell" : a collage

Lately I had a couple of separate online conversations on the topic of anger and "venting", and some useful thoughts came out of it that I want to capture.

I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of....emotion...in our social world today (online, and off). A lot of negative emotion, a lot of frustration. I'm not passing judgment on the emotion itself or the situations causing it. The topic of who does or doesn't "deserve" to be angry is way too complex...if that even is a quagmire worth wading into, of which I'm not at all convinced. But either way, I don't have the attentional energy. I deal with things as they come up, and if I'm not directly involved, I try to give other people's anger a lot of.....space. For that matter, I try to give it space even when I am involved!

The first text is - yes! - another quotation from Diana. I read this and could immediately it to situations in my life:

"I think about the venting thing a lot, because I have moments I really want to just tell the world what I'm thinking and fuck decorum (which means, I think, fuck people's feelings). I've long believed that it's good to vent, but I'm not so sure anymore. That theory seems to be based on what we might call the Teapot Model, where we're like teapots that'll blow our tops if enough steam builds up, and venting is the only thing that will release the pressure.

I've been watching people and thinking about how they behave for a while now, though, and what I've noticed is that those who "vent" stay the angriest. It's almost like their ranting doesn't release the pressure so much as seek confirmation of their opinions which includes the justification of their anger. Venting also draws the approval of those who share one's opinions and anger, which also reinforces the sense that we *should* be angry.

I don't think that bit of received wisdom is right anymore. If there is a net positive to ranting or venting, I have yet to see it." (January 12 2022)

The next thing I read was a question from a friend: "Should we all be mad as hell?" I will leave out the context because honestly, anyone can think of something they could/should be "mad as hell" about. Like, go ahead and think of one....right now.

My friend also mentioned something unpleasant that happened in traffic, which I think is pretty universally relatable. So that was why I included comments on traffic. This is me:

 Traffic stuff terrifies me on a regular basis….though I continue to drive. (Avoiding driving caused such an escalation in my anxiety about it and irrational avoidance that I know that isn’t a good route to go either.) But I think about car accidents every time I get in the car (do other people do this? No idea how normal/abnormal I am) and I do something like pray….albeit not in a very ordered and conscious way, and often with a lot of profanity. I will add you to my driving prayers. Driving is probably THE most obvious example of individual action affecting collective well being, and vice versa (at least in cultures with a rule following ethic).

I’m not entirely sure of the direction of your thoughts in this post, but to address your question “should we all be mad as hell?” There is certainly plenty to be “mad as hell” about, but I’m less certain about manifesting that in the world. The most obvious problem for me is that it’s remarkably easy to be mad as hell, and that there even seems to be an addictive quality to it. By contrast calm people are harder to find, and stepping out of that anger cycle is much harder than stepping into it.

I also see people around me acting mad as hell, including many in cars (terrifying!) but I have no idea what they are mad about and what they imagine they are achieving by it. Perhaps they are mad about the same things I might hypothetically be mad about, and thus we are entirely in sympathy….but I can’t tell. There is no mutual understanding or responsibility.

Also, truthfully, the one thing that almost always alienates me from others is this “mad as hell” thing….for example I had to mute one of my group chats lately, because of the angry tone of the conversation and how people were choosing to express themselves. These are adults I consider kind and responsible, even exceptionally so. I have met them in person. We share a vocation and profession. I am deeply in sympathy with them and their struggles and frustrations, but….it was too much.

Do you (speaking to the person I was responding to) feel abandoned or excluded from the support systems in our society? ….or perhaps they are failing, the institutional ones at least. This is a serious problem. I don’t think anger is the solution, but it might be pointing to something important, something neglected. (January 15th 2022)

The final question is my attempt to find an alternative to shared anger, or to try to treat that anger not as an end in itself, but as a signal or signpost. Certainly, repressing or denying anger is not the (only) way to go, though it might actually the best choice in the moment. But constant anger or frustration is a signal of something that needs attending to. And if we are in a position to do so, perhaps taking some time to investigate is worth it. But, I think it is important to not just mirror back the anger, and if I feel a temptation to join in unthinkingly, well, I probably have to attend to myself first, before doing anything else.

Diana on Persuasion

The following is from my friend Diana (13 January 2022). Diana, as I have mentioned before, is almost the only person I still interact with regularly on social media. And it's because she has thoughtful, respectful discussions with people and then posts things like this as follow up. I am saving it so that I always have it to refer to. I feel like a New Year's Resolution or Intention might emerge from this, once I have mulled it over a bit more.

If I don't perceive a disagreement to be an argument, it isn't. It's just another person with a difference of opinion.

Also, I have the choice to argue back. If I reject that opportunity, there's no argument, no matter what choices the other person makes. It takes two to tango; all I have to do is decline the invitation.

Yesterday, I posted this thought and several conversations evolved from it. It immediately became clear that I should have clarified what sort of "argument" I had in mind.

The type of argument I was thinking of specifically in that OP was not the academic type (a statement or series of statements for or against something), nor the respectful disagreement type (which I'm obviously not opposed to at all), nor what I might call the agreement type (where I'm providing yet another reason we both believe X is true, say).

What I had in mind was what we mean when we say things like, "I don't want to argue about it!" or "you always have to argue with me!" This colloquial use implies contentiousness of some sort. It implies disagreement that is more bent on winning* than it is on understanding one another and exploring new ideas--which I contend is the way we should always strive to approach disagreement.

I've found that when someone believes a thing strongly enough to make bald claims about it, responding even with "I disagree" is a losing strategy, because what that person feels is that you are about to attack a belief that is important to him. Even saying "I respectfully disagree" is functionally little better than saying "You're / That's wrong / false," because either way, now it's on.

I tried "I disagree" for a long time, thinking it showed respect and if the person took offense anyway, that just couldn't be helped or that was their problem, something like that. Except, (first) if my goal was to get them to consider my point of view, it was in fact *my* problem. And (second) if I was telling myself "that couldn't be helped," that was just my excuse to continue to do the thing I knew had a high probability of failure, because I already knew it tended to make people intractable and even angry with me. It was as dumb as if I'd continued to walk up to cornered wildcats saying "I don't mean you any harm" and getting torn up as a result then writing it off with, "Well, I tried. It isn't my fault that cat didn't understand I was friendly."

If I'm already telling myself "if they respond poorly, that isn't my problem," I'm admitting I already know I've chosen a losing strategy. I was just making excuses because I enjoyed the battle and liked feeling superior and I liked the kudos I got from like-thinkers. I wanted those feelings more than I wanted to communicate effectively with that person about an idea I wanted them to consider, at least.**

Because that's how people change their minds. I don't just give them a logical argument about why this worldview is right and that one is wrong and they hear it and say, "Well, the logic adds up. I guess I was wrong. Whaddayaknow." None of us do that. And we shouldn't. And despite the fact that we tend to regard people as stupid for not hearing our claims and being convinced they are true, just like that, the fact is that this slowness to change our minds about important ideas is *smart*. You have a thing that's worked all right so far to fend off the chaos. After all, you've survived up 'til now, at least. You should be very careful that the thing you're asked to trade it for is as good, let alone better. You have to carry the new ideas around for a while and see how they work out. You have to do beta testing. This is all *smart*. So the next time you make an argument for why there is or isn't a god, say, remember what you're expecting people to do--something that defies physics, basically.

The really important stuff isn't about constructing an argument like a wall that a person just has to see and acknowledge its truth. Never. The really important stuff is gathering ideas and examining them over time and finding that this way of seeing things makes more sense than that one I used to use. It's planting seeds and growing a forest.

Once you realize that the stuff we really want to argue about are not simple beliefs but entire worldviews, and worldviews shift not like baseballs but like planets, that it's about planting seeds, then you see the futility of offering unsolicited opinions that people are wrong. You start looking for how to plant seeds, for which you will require fertile soil.

And how do you make the soil of a personal relationship fertile? You show respect to that person. You believe in the good in them and you establish rapport. You try to understand how they see the world and why--charitably, because I guarantee you they do what they do and believe what they do from the same set of morals you yourself appeal to in claiming your own superiority. You treat them like a friend and regard them as a friend, even if they don't regard you as one--yet. And when you have enough mutual respect that the relationship can sustain exploration into important matters, you go there together by mutual consent--as it has to be. If at any point you find yourself regarding them as your pupil, you've stumbled from the cultivated path into rocky territory, undoing all that work you put in to fertilize the soil.***

I don't see any benefits to the kind of arguments we all are referring to when we say someone started an argument with us (most of us aren't keen to take responsibility, even if it did all start when they hit us back). It's a fight, which is exactly the opposite of what sorts of things change our own minds.

* It's easy to spot when someone is more bent on winning than understanding because that's where you find your logical fallacies, from all forms of red herrings (personal attacks of all forms being ever popular) to mathematical mistakes (formal fallacies) and everything in between, and that includes all of us smart people. Fallacy generation seems to be almost entirely a result of people having a preferred conclusion for which they are seeking proof (evidence or arguments of any kind that seem to bolster it)--that is, they are reasoning backwards and when reasoning doesn't work right that way. When you try to reason backwards, you logic bad.

** That was originally one of my motivations because, I think, that was the mindset I was coming from and you don't shake that overnight. Now I find more and more that learning what they know and why they think like they do is the best reason to take this approach.

*** This is where the metaphor ends, as I recommend against using manure to fertilize the soil of friendship. It has to come from a genuine place.

Fish

Going to be a dream bore again….

I dreamed last night that for whatever reason my family had several jars of water and we had live fish in them. The fish started out small, but then were really doing quite well and growing.

I noticed one evening that one of the jars had a particularly corpulent fish in it. This fish was much too big for its jar, so much so that it could barely turn sideways. It spent most of its time poking its jaws out of the water, mouthing at air. It was also quite obviously trying to jump out of the jar (but struggled to do so).

“That fish!” I exclaimed to my husband. “It’s going to jump out of the jar! What do we do!”

I was really quite frightened of this fish, and its obvious…well…fish-ness. I didn’t want to walk away or leave it in case it jumped out when I wasn’t there. A large dead fish on the floor was an obvious problem, but a live active fishy fish was also a problem. What to do with it? A bigger jar? Put it in the bathtub? It was also so full of life, it was clearly wrong to keep it confined in a jar.

So what does it mean? I haven’t had any specific inspiration for New Year’s, but how about this: find the big fish in my life a river to thrive in.