Our thoughts, rather than external events, are what truly cause our anger. It requires a significant shift in perspective and a deep level of emotional awareness to recognise and communicate the underlying needs driving our emotions.
Dan, I always look forward to your posts. Recently I've recommended to my husband that he subscribe to your publication.
As a coach I'm surprised how often my clients aren't able to recognize what feeling is evoked from a particular circumstance, or what need is not being met. If we can begin to educate ourselves in that realm of the human condition maybe non-violent communication would become easier for us. It does take courage as you so eloquently suggest.
Wonderful piece. So timely for me in my time of parenting teen boys who are often late, take too long showers, and don’t always clean up after themselves. 🤣
I am enjoying walking along this path of inquiry with you, Dan. NVC is challenging. I'm in a NVC group run by this org: https://www.authenticcommunicationgroup.com/ This group has been one of the most impactful I've been a part of and very challenging at times for the reasons you explore here. Thanks for including us!
Great read, thank you. Lots to work with. Though don’t we also speak about righteous anger? Even an angry God or Jesus throwing the sellers out off the temple. How would the different approaches go about that?
While I think sometimes God's anger in the Bible is couched in terms that sound like "status wounds," many readers of the Bible see God's anger as linked to a vision of justice and righteousness. Therefore it's closer to Nussbaum's acceptable anger "That's outrageous! Something should be done about that!" Yet I doubt that Nussbaum would approve of what that "something" often turns out to be.
Some argue that God was never really angry. God was just pretending to be angry for pedagogical reasons.
What feels more "true" to me as a reader of the Bible is that the ancients thought anger was often the "right" way to respond to provocation. The feigning anger argument feels forced to me.
Again, I expect I'll have more to say about this in a future post. Thanks for responding!
I love this post. The useful information, but also your honest struggles with an approach you might cognitively admire, but struggle to practically implement. Exploring the WHY is sometimes the hardest thing to face but so necessary. I think it starts on the individual level, but once we begin to ask these questions in our daily interactions and close relationships, maybe this can open a door to larger questions about the dire hateful/ angry state of the world. What drives people to be so hateful towards each other and even take to the extreme of acts of terrorism? What’s behind that hate, the pain? It’s not to excuse it, but to understand it better, and address it? Jon Stewart said something quite inspiring and beautiful about this to Stephen Colbert when asked about what is the right way to answer antisemitism, if cancellation is not it. The audience was silent once he made his points, and I remember I cried when I watched him. It is such hard work, but I think he is absolutely right in what he said. Hard, but necessary work. And imagine if we all did our part and improved ourselves just a little bit… the world would look very different.
This one really hits home. I can't imagine what's missing, or how you could add to it.
You subtitled it "Nonviolence requires Courage", but really it is about non-reaction, not about nonviolence. You said: "No one makes you angry. It’s your own thoughts that make you angry."
So why don't you modify your thoughts?
1) Well, you enjoy being angry. 2) You identify emotional tension as your power center. 3) You also have an urge for domination through the anger drama. 4) People only respond to raised voices and anger these days. 5) You think your thoughts encapsulate "the truth". So how can I change my thoughts to be an "un-truth"?
When you examine these five you can find a softening of your interpretation. If you start with small things, you can easily prove that it works, every time and immediately. You also have to determine that anger troubles you in a certain way. Not all people come to that conclusion. For them it might be the juice of life. It is actually stated very clearly in ancient philosophies. I won't point to that, because it is meaningless until it is your own discovery.
To say something like: “I really value spending time with you. When you didn’t show up, it made me wonder whether you value spending time with me as well.”
I find that very confrontational and superior. It is very likely that such a person has never examined their own thoughts about you enough, to know how to respond. Now you're putting them on the spot, to make a declaration of love. It's just as likely they would jump in the other direction.
Go to any restaurant, coffee shop or waiting area. The two people sitting together are one or both on their cell phones. What do they see in there?? You got me? It is the humor of multi tasking, and only giving a fraction of your attention to any endeavor. What poverty in your relations. Where you lack courage is to slough them off. With an empty "dance card" you might encounter a real person.
Learning is based on experience. You have to do something to find out. That's why I say start with small confrontations, just to see that your feelings really do change. It is upward and onward from there. I think you say it in other posts; acceptance doesn't mean resignation. You're even better at resolving issues.
"That's why I say start with small confrontations, just to see that your feelings really do change. It is upward and onward from there. I think you say it in other posts; acceptance doesn't mean resignation. You're even better at resolving issues."
Starting small and building from there is wise counsel.
You seem more confident in our ability to control our thoughts than I am (at least at this moment). The tool you suggest for controlling our thoughts is--more thoughts. I think this can take us some distance. But I wonder whether there comes a point where the "finger is incapable of touching itself."
How do you control the thoughts needed to effectively control thoughts? It seems to me that some degree of "thought control" will always remain beyond us.
Hi Dan, good insight. Clarity takes a couple of go-arounds. and it is a valuable partner who asks “what does that mean”.
I am not against thoughts; they are one of our best tools. If we define “controlling” thought as “not having any”, then another thought cannot eradicate itself. I would claim that is a misinterpretation of spiritual lore. All cultures are built on language stereotypes. Therefore, all cultures, all of mankind’s relationships, are one or another “virtual reality”. Hence the saying is that; life-is-an-illusion. Golly, is that a great discovery, or is that the most obvious thing in the world?
So, moving away from thought (meditation), is purposed to show that your particular thought pattern and the suffering that it causes, are not the meaning of life. Still, everything that happens to humanity is done with agreements in language, (thought). So, to eschew all thought is to step out of human innovation, and step into permanent victimhood of what the others are doing to you with their thinking.
“Control” thought is a wording I would move away from, because of a common connotation. We think of each situation as already a given, and then we move in to control it. So therefore, control equals suppression, and suppression seems to add energy to the unwanted. But "control", or I suggest authorship, can come before the situation, or arise with the situation. So, the need for suppression might not arise. Simple wording can be work-around. Can we author our thoughts? Well, it is not a guarantee, but let’s see.
You might begin to realize that thoughts are not a one-off, there are 100's of thoughts begging to be picked up. Then one pops in, often it’s the one that screams the loudest, attached to some hurt or a personal conundrum. (Maybe what I'm saying now is really how it is; or maybe it is just another story, but still, you can act on it as if it is THE REAL mechanism.)
So, then your definition becomes, "I picked up this thought", can I lay it down? Why not? What does it give me, is it of any service? Now maybe you are noticing a variety or some choices. It's a knack. First stage is to practice setting down thoughts. It is a repeated process, just keep going with it. Take your energy and interest away from that thought, (like you do in meditation, when a thought interrupts). But then pick up another one, the goal is not a clear space or no-mind.
A lot of what sticks a thought is the identification that this one-thought is ME. If you are saying there is choice among many options, the ME expands. Everything becomes easier. I have a metaphor whereby you can notice something about thoughts before you really run with them, (I won’t expand on it for brevity). But it is like a bus station; all the buses are parked there in the boarding area with the sign of their destination. It may be a foggy sign, but you DO know not to get on that bus. That means you don't pick up that thought and run with it. Still, there are plenty of buses, so you do pick up some other thought. That takes you to another thought, stimulus and response, and on and on.
Whether you get to choose all your thoughts becomes irrelevant, because once you define this as the mechanism, (again, whether it's true or not), you can operate with it. And when you become proficient at "setting-down thoughts", it doesn't matter what is running. You know that they are all harmless, and can be put away at will. Maybe it is just a trick, but I say it works and it is transformative.
Then the whole practice becomes unneeded, you have graduated from the school. I either have no reactive thoughts, or I have some reactive thoughts, same-same, they all have an equal weightlessness. My state of mind is not perturbed. It has worked for decades.
I’m “with you” for a lot of this. There is a difference between “non-reactive” which you praise and “non-responsive.” The goal isn’t to become stone—it’s to respond to life without being whipped around by it. My guess is we agree on this.
Here’s where I may differ. You write: “Still, everything that happens to humanity is done with agreements in language, (thought).”
I’m not convinced. Humans exist without language (e.g. babies). We all existed as humans before we had language. Part of human experience occurs in a place where language doesn’t govern. Our thoughts arise within from somewhere. And the place from which our thoughts arise, by definition, isn’t governed by language.
So while thoughts are important and meaningful (I’m not part of the crowd that “thinks” the goal of life is to eliminate thoughts) they don’t capture the totality of human experience.
Hi Dan, your survey of anger management, (this series) is very constructive. I like this one the best, and the next one, (if I commented), I would be reverting back to this one. I tend to resist further divisions of the ME as a needless complication. But, if by saying there is an angry part, and then some other parts, it might allow you to confront other options. That is a good awareness.
About babies, I always say that I am writing to those who are reading this. Babies are out. I do study non-linguistic beings, (dogs and cats). It is an amazing view of life. You say “the place from which our thoughts arise, by definition, isn’t governed by language”. Yet they are all contained within our cultural stereotype of behaviors. That is language based.
So how do you access the non-linguistic parts of human behavior?
Would you be saying that people do “this and that” without linguistically articulating it? But now we have to assess why do people, (or animals) do ANYTHING? They have a feeling that motivates them. Even a dog scratches where it itches. And what are all these “feelings”? We call them emotions.
Now we are opening a whole new separate category. There is cognition on the one side, and emotion on the other side. Do people separate these two, to further mystify what could be simple? You don''t have to choose definitions based on some proof of truth, or no exceptions. Choose your beliefs based on what trajectory they will bring to your future unfolding.
I am sure that I can demonstrate a linguistic model behind every feeling. In fact, everything we say, either tightens or relaxes a bodily contraction. You might not notice it. That feeling translates to an emotion. You say it clearly up above with Rosenberg:
“No one makes you angry. It’s your thoughts that make you angry.”
That particular statement is focused on anger; but the meaning is that all emotions (contractions) are created by thoughts and beliefs. It is not an active thought in the moment that decides, some emotion is due here, but a passive mental construct from memory, called a belief, that says “things shouldn’t be this way”. If this is the mechanism in everyone you talk with, isn’t it worthwhile to concentrate on digging deeper into it?
I also aspire to behave with the high level of emotional awareness and courage that you describe so well. This all comes down to the age-old saying, “actions speak louder than words.”
And like you, I try to use words merely to remind myself of how I should act.
That’s a great question. My first thought…if I begin with not trusting, I’ll never know whether my judgment that the person is untrustworthy is correct. I’ll have already acted on the assumption that it’s true. Whereas if I begin by speaking what’s truly going on for me, I may call forth the other person’s ability to do the same. And what am I risking by speaking truthfully? I’m risking making myself vulnerable and potentially being disappointed or even ridiculed. Because I don’t want to be ridiculed, and because making myself vulnerable feels dangerous, I avoid it. So while “cowardice” is the word I’ve used in this post, in my next post, I’ll write a bit more about how this type of cowardice may be well earned and have its own claims to be respected and honored.
Thank you. And yes, I agree with you that appropriate boundaries and self-protection are the opposite of cowardice. Speaking personally, I’m pretty good at boundaries but I have a tendency to over-protect.
Used with care, our anger can become an important tool of self-inquiry and healing. One of my best friends says of anger that its presence roaring up within us is a signal that our boundaries have been violated in some way. It functions as an early warning system, alerting us to tend to our boundaries—first by inward examination. Inquiring into “where” the injury to our boundaries is and “what” is injured, “how” is it injured?—making sure we understand what the problem is before acting to try to fix it. As one of our primal emotions, anger can be a potent fuel to help us overcome the fear and vulnerability that comes with speaking our truth. When anger is used mindfully it burns cleanly, providing the energy to right and repair what is wrong. This experience is very different from
Our thoughts, rather than external events, are what truly cause our anger. It requires a significant shift in perspective and a deep level of emotional awareness to recognise and communicate the underlying needs driving our emotions.
Dan, I always look forward to your posts. Recently I've recommended to my husband that he subscribe to your publication.
As a coach I'm surprised how often my clients aren't able to recognize what feeling is evoked from a particular circumstance, or what need is not being met. If we can begin to educate ourselves in that realm of the human condition maybe non-violent communication would become easier for us. It does take courage as you so eloquently suggest.
Thanks so much for your kind words. And the feeling is mutual. I look forward to reading your posts as well.
Wonderful piece. So timely for me in my time of parenting teen boys who are often late, take too long showers, and don’t always clean up after themselves. 🤣
I found this very interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Looking inward is key. More will always be revealed about your responses and reactions in any case.
I am enjoying walking along this path of inquiry with you, Dan. NVC is challenging. I'm in a NVC group run by this org: https://www.authenticcommunicationgroup.com/ This group has been one of the most impactful I've been a part of and very challenging at times for the reasons you explore here. Thanks for including us!
We recently listened to Oren Jay Sofer speak about NVC. Barry and I found some very helpful communication tips. Never too late to learn something new!
Great read, thank you. Lots to work with. Though don’t we also speak about righteous anger? Even an angry God or Jesus throwing the sellers out off the temple. How would the different approaches go about that?
On "righteous anger" take a look at this post summarizing Martha Nussbaum's approach.
https://open.substack.com/pub/danehrenkrantz/p/getting-smarter-about-anger?r=eqk6z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
While I think sometimes God's anger in the Bible is couched in terms that sound like "status wounds," many readers of the Bible see God's anger as linked to a vision of justice and righteousness. Therefore it's closer to Nussbaum's acceptable anger "That's outrageous! Something should be done about that!" Yet I doubt that Nussbaum would approve of what that "something" often turns out to be.
Some argue that God was never really angry. God was just pretending to be angry for pedagogical reasons.
What feels more "true" to me as a reader of the Bible is that the ancients thought anger was often the "right" way to respond to provocation. The feigning anger argument feels forced to me.
Again, I expect I'll have more to say about this in a future post. Thanks for responding!
I love this post. The useful information, but also your honest struggles with an approach you might cognitively admire, but struggle to practically implement. Exploring the WHY is sometimes the hardest thing to face but so necessary. I think it starts on the individual level, but once we begin to ask these questions in our daily interactions and close relationships, maybe this can open a door to larger questions about the dire hateful/ angry state of the world. What drives people to be so hateful towards each other and even take to the extreme of acts of terrorism? What’s behind that hate, the pain? It’s not to excuse it, but to understand it better, and address it? Jon Stewart said something quite inspiring and beautiful about this to Stephen Colbert when asked about what is the right way to answer antisemitism, if cancellation is not it. The audience was silent once he made his points, and I remember I cried when I watched him. It is such hard work, but I think he is absolutely right in what he said. Hard, but necessary work. And imagine if we all did our part and improved ourselves just a little bit… the world would look very different.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. And yes, if we could do a bit better with how we relate to our anger, I think we’d be better off.
The exploration has been rich for me. If my posts provide value for others, that’s wonderful (and what I hope for).
I’m making progress understanding why our “anger toolbox” isn’t working well. Eventually I hope to share what I’ve learned in a book.
That is so wonderful Dan!! Good for you, and I’ll cheer you on.
Hello Dan Ehrenkrantz,
This one really hits home. I can't imagine what's missing, or how you could add to it.
You subtitled it "Nonviolence requires Courage", but really it is about non-reaction, not about nonviolence. You said: "No one makes you angry. It’s your own thoughts that make you angry."
So why don't you modify your thoughts?
1) Well, you enjoy being angry. 2) You identify emotional tension as your power center. 3) You also have an urge for domination through the anger drama. 4) People only respond to raised voices and anger these days. 5) You think your thoughts encapsulate "the truth". So how can I change my thoughts to be an "un-truth"?
When you examine these five you can find a softening of your interpretation. If you start with small things, you can easily prove that it works, every time and immediately. You also have to determine that anger troubles you in a certain way. Not all people come to that conclusion. For them it might be the juice of life. It is actually stated very clearly in ancient philosophies. I won't point to that, because it is meaningless until it is your own discovery.
To say something like: “I really value spending time with you. When you didn’t show up, it made me wonder whether you value spending time with me as well.”
I find that very confrontational and superior. It is very likely that such a person has never examined their own thoughts about you enough, to know how to respond. Now you're putting them on the spot, to make a declaration of love. It's just as likely they would jump in the other direction.
Go to any restaurant, coffee shop or waiting area. The two people sitting together are one or both on their cell phones. What do they see in there?? You got me? It is the humor of multi tasking, and only giving a fraction of your attention to any endeavor. What poverty in your relations. Where you lack courage is to slough them off. With an empty "dance card" you might encounter a real person.
Learning is based on experience. You have to do something to find out. That's why I say start with small confrontations, just to see that your feelings really do change. It is upward and onward from there. I think you say it in other posts; acceptance doesn't mean resignation. You're even better at resolving issues.
.
"That's why I say start with small confrontations, just to see that your feelings really do change. It is upward and onward from there. I think you say it in other posts; acceptance doesn't mean resignation. You're even better at resolving issues."
Starting small and building from there is wise counsel.
You seem more confident in our ability to control our thoughts than I am (at least at this moment). The tool you suggest for controlling our thoughts is--more thoughts. I think this can take us some distance. But I wonder whether there comes a point where the "finger is incapable of touching itself."
How do you control the thoughts needed to effectively control thoughts? It seems to me that some degree of "thought control" will always remain beyond us.
Hi Dan, good insight. Clarity takes a couple of go-arounds. and it is a valuable partner who asks “what does that mean”.
I am not against thoughts; they are one of our best tools. If we define “controlling” thought as “not having any”, then another thought cannot eradicate itself. I would claim that is a misinterpretation of spiritual lore. All cultures are built on language stereotypes. Therefore, all cultures, all of mankind’s relationships, are one or another “virtual reality”. Hence the saying is that; life-is-an-illusion. Golly, is that a great discovery, or is that the most obvious thing in the world?
So, moving away from thought (meditation), is purposed to show that your particular thought pattern and the suffering that it causes, are not the meaning of life. Still, everything that happens to humanity is done with agreements in language, (thought). So, to eschew all thought is to step out of human innovation, and step into permanent victimhood of what the others are doing to you with their thinking.
“Control” thought is a wording I would move away from, because of a common connotation. We think of each situation as already a given, and then we move in to control it. So therefore, control equals suppression, and suppression seems to add energy to the unwanted. But "control", or I suggest authorship, can come before the situation, or arise with the situation. So, the need for suppression might not arise. Simple wording can be work-around. Can we author our thoughts? Well, it is not a guarantee, but let’s see.
You might begin to realize that thoughts are not a one-off, there are 100's of thoughts begging to be picked up. Then one pops in, often it’s the one that screams the loudest, attached to some hurt or a personal conundrum. (Maybe what I'm saying now is really how it is; or maybe it is just another story, but still, you can act on it as if it is THE REAL mechanism.)
So, then your definition becomes, "I picked up this thought", can I lay it down? Why not? What does it give me, is it of any service? Now maybe you are noticing a variety or some choices. It's a knack. First stage is to practice setting down thoughts. It is a repeated process, just keep going with it. Take your energy and interest away from that thought, (like you do in meditation, when a thought interrupts). But then pick up another one, the goal is not a clear space or no-mind.
A lot of what sticks a thought is the identification that this one-thought is ME. If you are saying there is choice among many options, the ME expands. Everything becomes easier. I have a metaphor whereby you can notice something about thoughts before you really run with them, (I won’t expand on it for brevity). But it is like a bus station; all the buses are parked there in the boarding area with the sign of their destination. It may be a foggy sign, but you DO know not to get on that bus. That means you don't pick up that thought and run with it. Still, there are plenty of buses, so you do pick up some other thought. That takes you to another thought, stimulus and response, and on and on.
Whether you get to choose all your thoughts becomes irrelevant, because once you define this as the mechanism, (again, whether it's true or not), you can operate with it. And when you become proficient at "setting-down thoughts", it doesn't matter what is running. You know that they are all harmless, and can be put away at will. Maybe it is just a trick, but I say it works and it is transformative.
Then the whole practice becomes unneeded, you have graduated from the school. I either have no reactive thoughts, or I have some reactive thoughts, same-same, they all have an equal weightlessness. My state of mind is not perturbed. It has worked for decades.
Thanks
.
I’m “with you” for a lot of this. There is a difference between “non-reactive” which you praise and “non-responsive.” The goal isn’t to become stone—it’s to respond to life without being whipped around by it. My guess is we agree on this.
Here’s where I may differ. You write: “Still, everything that happens to humanity is done with agreements in language, (thought).”
I’m not convinced. Humans exist without language (e.g. babies). We all existed as humans before we had language. Part of human experience occurs in a place where language doesn’t govern. Our thoughts arise within from somewhere. And the place from which our thoughts arise, by definition, isn’t governed by language.
So while thoughts are important and meaningful (I’m not part of the crowd that “thinks” the goal of life is to eliminate thoughts) they don’t capture the totality of human experience.
Hi Dan, your survey of anger management, (this series) is very constructive. I like this one the best, and the next one, (if I commented), I would be reverting back to this one. I tend to resist further divisions of the ME as a needless complication. But, if by saying there is an angry part, and then some other parts, it might allow you to confront other options. That is a good awareness.
About babies, I always say that I am writing to those who are reading this. Babies are out. I do study non-linguistic beings, (dogs and cats). It is an amazing view of life. You say “the place from which our thoughts arise, by definition, isn’t governed by language”. Yet they are all contained within our cultural stereotype of behaviors. That is language based.
So how do you access the non-linguistic parts of human behavior?
Would you be saying that people do “this and that” without linguistically articulating it? But now we have to assess why do people, (or animals) do ANYTHING? They have a feeling that motivates them. Even a dog scratches where it itches. And what are all these “feelings”? We call them emotions.
Now we are opening a whole new separate category. There is cognition on the one side, and emotion on the other side. Do people separate these two, to further mystify what could be simple? You don''t have to choose definitions based on some proof of truth, or no exceptions. Choose your beliefs based on what trajectory they will bring to your future unfolding.
I am sure that I can demonstrate a linguistic model behind every feeling. In fact, everything we say, either tightens or relaxes a bodily contraction. You might not notice it. That feeling translates to an emotion. You say it clearly up above with Rosenberg:
“No one makes you angry. It’s your thoughts that make you angry.”
That particular statement is focused on anger; but the meaning is that all emotions (contractions) are created by thoughts and beliefs. It is not an active thought in the moment that decides, some emotion is due here, but a passive mental construct from memory, called a belief, that says “things shouldn’t be this way”. If this is the mechanism in everyone you talk with, isn’t it worthwhile to concentrate on digging deeper into it?
.
This is excellent, Dan.
I also aspire to behave with the high level of emotional awareness and courage that you describe so well. This all comes down to the age-old saying, “actions speak louder than words.”
And like you, I try to use words merely to remind myself of how I should act.
That’s a great question. My first thought…if I begin with not trusting, I’ll never know whether my judgment that the person is untrustworthy is correct. I’ll have already acted on the assumption that it’s true. Whereas if I begin by speaking what’s truly going on for me, I may call forth the other person’s ability to do the same. And what am I risking by speaking truthfully? I’m risking making myself vulnerable and potentially being disappointed or even ridiculed. Because I don’t want to be ridiculed, and because making myself vulnerable feels dangerous, I avoid it. So while “cowardice” is the word I’ve used in this post, in my next post, I’ll write a bit more about how this type of cowardice may be well earned and have its own claims to be respected and honored.
Thank you. And yes, I agree with you that appropriate boundaries and self-protection are the opposite of cowardice. Speaking personally, I’m pretty good at boundaries but I have a tendency to over-protect.
(Comment continues, accidentally hit send) the feeling of blind rage, when anger takes over and our thinking mind goes offline.
“When anger is used mindfully it burns cleanly.” That’s a great way of expressing this idea.
Thanks for adding your voice to this discussion.
Used with care, our anger can become an important tool of self-inquiry and healing. One of my best friends says of anger that its presence roaring up within us is a signal that our boundaries have been violated in some way. It functions as an early warning system, alerting us to tend to our boundaries—first by inward examination. Inquiring into “where” the injury to our boundaries is and “what” is injured, “how” is it injured?—making sure we understand what the problem is before acting to try to fix it. As one of our primal emotions, anger can be a potent fuel to help us overcome the fear and vulnerability that comes with speaking our truth. When anger is used mindfully it burns cleanly, providing the energy to right and repair what is wrong. This experience is very different from