You forget that anger is not a rational concept. Anger's usually not based in logic, it's usually a kind of emotion. You can reason with facts and with logic. You can't reason with an emotion.
The article in question doesn't try to say that the only reason to be nice to people is because they might have something for you. The reason the article exists at all is to provide people with yet another appeal to themselves to avoid anger. If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic?
It's a shame you chose to read this article in such a negative light. I thought it was pretty good.
You've made incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not forgotten. I don't see why you think that making trivial observations about the nature of emotion moves the conversation forward.
You seem to conflate the idea of logic itself with that of 'a self-serving rationalization'. You can approach a discussion about empathy and patience using logic or without using logic, just as you can approach a conversation about 'getting what you want from other people' using logic or without using logic. Using logic is completely orthogonal to choices of focus.
What you call "self-serving rationalizations" are a form of logical thinking. I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic.
Either way, I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations." This article, in the way I read it, shows a particular way to rephrase a situation that would otherwise make you angry, so that it ends up being a win-win situation instead. This isn't even happening at the cost of someone else.
I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept. Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too?
> I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic
When you said:
> If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic?
First, (and possibly not relevant to your question) I did interpret that as implying that the act of (a) using empathy and patience is a mutual exclusive act from (b) using logic. (I often use logic to broaden my viewpoint, which increases my capacity for empathy and patience, in some specific scenario).
More relevant to your question, I also interpreted this as suggesting that 'using logic' was a good characterization of the strategy being advocated by the article. I would disagree. I think 'using logic + embracing a value system + desiring specific results' would be better characterization. For example, if I use logic and a different value system, then I might set aside my anger simply in order to experience greater joy and happiness in the moment, and/or possibly increased ability to have a harmonious interaction with the other party (for the pure satisfaction of it). With other value systems and variation in the specifics of 'desired results', I might logically arrive at courses of action which none of us have mentioned.
> I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations."
Yes. In general, as we are using the phrase, I don't disagree.
> Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too?
Okay, this could become a semantic quagmire - I'm not sure how to address this briefly. Ultimately, I'm not sure it is possibly to have purely 'unselfish' intentions, as even the desires to see other points of view, to be kind to people, to be patient, are ultimately still 'selfish' in some way. My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - not whether or not those values align with an (impossible?) idealization of 'unselfishness' (or even more confusingly, a 'degree' of unselfishness). I'm sorry if this is a non-constructive tangent, it can be hard to understand what people mean with all the limitations of language.
> I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept.
I'm curious about the word 'so' in there. It is true that I stated that I agree with the great-grandparent - because I agree with the basic sentiment and the direction of the criticism, not that I agree with the strong language used and the implied strong feelings. I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever, but I do think (a) there are important missed opportunities here, with respect to exploring deeper and more compelling reasons to widen one's perspective and emotional flexibility in moments of anger, and (b) it does strike me as an overt, unapologetic embrace of self-censor in order to get the direct benefit of some immediate results.
If this blog post really appeals to someone, then they might be particularly selfish or impatient. If that person implements the strategies presented simply in order to have better material results in the interaction (and no other reason), then it seems to me that we have encouraged them to become more fake. Acting civil can have the same short term results as being a better person. I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil, esp. while also missing an opportunity for introspection and re-evaluation of their values.
I don't mean this as an indictment of the blog post, just a criticism.
> My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - [not an] idealization of 'unselfishness'
Sure. So, is it not enough to just be nice to people, must we always be authentic too?
> I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever
And I don't think it's the best thing ever. Honestly, I don't have much of an attachment to this essay either.
The only specific positive point I see to this essay is giving yet another tool to people who otherwise would fail to express their anger in a proper way. And this parlays into my next point:
> I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil
People who experience anger are not necessarily all aggressive people. Aggression is "a behavior where the intention is to harm someone or something."[1] This blog post is about helping people retain their civility in the face of anger and avoid aggression, which I think is something you're in favor of.
It's not "faking being civil," it's just another way to help people be civil. Some people have legitimate issues with how they deal with anger (and aren't necessarily people for which an "introspection and re-evaluation of their values" is obligatory), and I think it's great to give them more tools with which to ease back into society.
I don't like "selfish, impatient, aggressive" (hereinafter referred to as "bad") people either. But angry people aren't necessarily "bad" people, and even then "bad" people have to start somewhere.
The article in question doesn't try to say that the only reason to be nice to people is because they might have something for you. The reason the article exists at all is to provide people with yet another appeal to themselves to avoid anger. If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic?
It's a shame you chose to read this article in such a negative light. I thought it was pretty good.