Reasoned Anger

[Siúil a Rúin]

Is there such a thing? It is natural to feel anger, but it tends to be related to having an assumed entitlement/right violated. When that happens it is typically outside of the person's control, so while anger may be a natural response, what purpose does it serve? It seems like the reasoned course is to make a plan to solve the problem or let it go and conserve energy to face the next problem.

On various online communities that refer to MBTI, there is also at times an assumptions that negative emotions like anger, pessimism, or depression don't count as much as being in the domain of Feeling, which I don't quite understand the reasoning behind. Perhaps social dominance which is sometimes achieved through abrasiveness is assumed to be at the other end of the spectrum from politeness which is associated with Feeling. From my understanding politeness and dominance are more similar because they are both achieving a personally desired social outcome that makes self less vulnerable.

What are your thoughts.

 

[nozflubber]

fuck yeah there's reasoned anger...... disect any INT and you'll find a lot of hatred based on rational groundings

 

[AOA]

Reasoned anger? That's right - it's acceptable in that it helps get things done. It's called assertiveness, which is unlike the petty anger some people have for reasons unknown.

 

[Rangler]

Any Rational NT can be angry. It's a good time.

 

[Nadir]

There are times where reasoned anger shines as a method of communication, simply because it makes the consequences clearer and puts the receiver of said anger in stress (which results in increased creativity and productivity during that time). You can only get so far by airing your disappointments in a mild-mannered way: to create the proper motivation for progress, -- perhaps more for groups and not so much for individuals; individual interaction allows for a more indepth, personalized approach, so anger might not be as useful there -- you need to show what will happen without it, and anger augments that presentation.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The problem with anger is that it tends to cloud judgement, especially when you consider that people get angry most often when they perceive that they've personally been wronged in some way. This type of anger tend to inspire revenge, and revenge is never reasonablee.

However anger can also be useful as a motivator. If an unemotional third person observer can conclude that the angry person's actions are reasonable, then you have "reasoned anger". In practice reasoned anger only happens when the angry person is not directly involved in the situation. Instead they are perceiving injustice between two parties and want to intervene.

For example a person might say, "the situation is Darfur makes me really angry", and then they proceed to give money to a charity or lobby their federal representative about the situation. Another person might say, "the situation in Darfur is wrong", but then do nothing about it. The anger is reasonable in this case, because it motivates reasonable behavior.

 

[sculpting]

Oh, I love reasoned anger in ENTJs. The shit shall fly, but in a directed way and things will be accomplished. For me reasoned anger helpd drive my tertiary Te to the surface and give me the resolve to go head to head with my beloved ENTJs or the ESTP retards I work with as needed.

Ignore us feelers, we get freaked out at first when the happy harmony gets disrupted but anger and unhappiness can drive productive change and are thus essential

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The problem with anger is that it tends to cloud judgement, especially when you consider that people get angry most often when they perceive that they've personally been wronged in some way. This type of anger tend to inspire revenge, and revenge is never reasonablee.

However anger can also be useful as a motivator. If an unemotional third person observer can conclude that the angry person's actions are reasonable, then you have "reasoned anger". In practice reasoned anger only happens when the angry person is not directly involved in the situation. Instead they are perceiving injustice between two parties and want to intervene.

For example a person might say, "the situation is Darfur makes me really angry", and then they proceed to give money to a charity or lobby their federal representative about the situation. Another person might say, "the situation in Darfur is wrong", but then do nothing about it. The anger is reasonable in this case, because it motivates reasonable behavior.

There have been a number of good posts here including this one. I agree with what you say here.

As you describe it, anger can be reasoned when it is used as a means to a reasoned end. When anger becomes the end in itself, then it is more personalized. This would be true of the person who has a baseline of internalized anger and then seeks a means to express it in the world. Then the particular situation whether it occurs in traffic or in an online discussion, etc. is the means by which to indulge the anger. Those two processes are opposites.

Nature tends to carve out useful features over time, so it makes sense for anger to have a useful function. It can be an interesting balance though as it can be intoxicating which can make any idea seem enlightened. Anger has potential to replace reason with certitude, so the interplay between that particular emotion and reason is an especially interesting one.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Good posts so far. I'd agree that anger can help accomplish certain tasks because angry people give off vibes of dominance that cause others to accept their worldview. It raises the question, however, about whether someone who ACTS angry in order to achieve a goal (make their message more persuasive) is really angry, or is merely acting angry. I'm not so interested in how we label that state of being as "angry" or "not angry," but whether the emotional reaction is the same or different.

 

[FDG]

If it's reasoned, then it's not anger.