Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Communication and Anger Message-ID: Date: 8 May 91 05:58:58 GMT References: <1991May5.184723.29313@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Natural Language Incorporated Lines: 59 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu Why is it that people take other people less seriously when they are displaying anger? I don't know the answer in general, but I know how I see it. When reading/hearing someone else's ideas I like to be given the opportunity to alter my opinions by being shown a persuasive argument and possibly entering into a discussion, where we each present support for our views. I do not enjoy simply being hit over the head with someone else's views, and I try to avoid that experience. With written/published material, it is hard to have an actual discussion with the writer (except on the net, of course), so I look for some signs in the writing that the writer has considered the opposing points of view and found them unpersuasive. The best is to see an actual refutation of opposing views, although limited space does not always allow that. It has been my experience that people who express things very angrily are unwilling to listen to contradictory ideas. Their idea of arguing against contradictory ideas seems to be to get more angry (now personally) and to "argue" against those contradictory ideas with either insults or some sort of illogic (like: "well, if you disagree, then you must be in favor of "). Therefore, when I see or hear things expressed angrily, I feel that the person has probably not formed their ideas by considering all the information, but rather by accepting the information that suits them and ignoring the rest. It is difficult for me to respect an opinion that is based on emotion and which is maintained by a refusal to listen to any contradiction. I have rarely seen anything which is presented angrily which gives me the opportunity to consider the issue for myself. Rather, I see many emotional assertions which I am just supposed to accept because of vehemence with which the author expresses them. Since anger repels many people and just amuses others, it doesn't seem to be the best way to get an idea across. As far as I can tell, the people who are convinced by these emotional tactics are those who are first made to feel the same emotion as the author. So, the author may present some examples which will make the reader angry about the same subject. Then, having established a relationship based on this emotion, the reader may be ready to believe things without analyzing them as much as they might normally. Once again, this is based on my experiences (and those of friends) in attempting to have discussions with angry people. To add to the effect of the general impressions of angry people detailed above, when someone is angry, people often feel that they, personally, are being attacked, and they become defensive, and less willing to listen to what the angry person has to say. You can say that the person on the receiving end should be able to look beyond the anger, but the fact is that they frequently can't. "Communication" implies some effort on each side; the person trying to express their ideas should have some consideration for how that expression will be perceived and received. Are they really trying to communicate, or just to express themselves? If you are trying to communicate with someone, doing something which will cause them to not listen to you doesn't make sense. If it seems to me that someone is just talking to express their emotions, not to communicate their ideas, then why should that affect my opinions? Muffy