To what extent are you civil?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I can't say I have experienced this enough to say it's true, but it sounds feasible.

Think also of all the nice things you've done for your friends, which you would not do for obnoxious people.

(I'm assuming that if you find a person obnoxious, you would not make friends with him).

Perhaps you bought your friend a nice gift. Helped her to move house. Gave her some tips on how to pass an exam. Offered emotional support when she had a problem. Lent her your car. Babysat her dog when she was away. Recommended her for a job. Ran an errand for her. Counselled her when she had a problem. Etc etc.

This is the kind of voluntary help which generally obnoxious people deprive themselves of.

I often give free, informal legal advice to friends who need it. Simple stuff for me - things like what to do next, if their loved one has died without a will ...... Or what are your rights, if you want to get divorced .... Or what are the steps involved, if you want to sell your house ....or what to do, to claim a simple debt ....

Obviously I only give such free advice to people I like.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Correct, and I never said otherwise.

Let me put it another way. Nike manufactures Nike shoes, socks and T-shirts at its factories.

If you came from a Nike factory, you are not necessarily a shoe. You could be a sock or a T-shirt.

On the other hand, if you are a Nike shoe, you definitely came from a Nike factory.

This makes sense...strangely.

[CroMagna]

I disagree that most angry people end up in jail. They only end up in jail if they resort to violence, as telling someone off is legal. Expressing anger usually has the effect of causing others to submit or to face humiliation.

Studies by Hochschild and Sutton have shown that the show of anger is likely to be an effective manipulation strategy in order to change and design attitudes. Anger is a distinct strategy of social influence and its use (i.e. belligerent behaviors) as a goal achievement mechanism proves to be a successful strategy.[11][12]
Larissa Tiedens, known for her studies of anger, claimed that expression of feelings would cause a powerful influence not only on the perception of the expresser but also on their power position in the society. She studied the correlation between anger expression and social influence perception. Previous researchers, such as Keating, 1985 have found that people with angry face expression were perceived as powerful and as in a high social position.[31] Similarly, Tiedens et al. have revealed that people who compared scenarios involving an angry and a sad character, attributed a higher social status to the angry character.[32] Tiedens examined in her study whether anger expression promotes status attribution. In other words, whether anger contributes to perceptions or legitimization of others' behaviors. Her findings clearly indicated that participants who were exposed to either an angry or a sad person were inclined to express support for the angry person rather than for a sad one. In addition, it was found that a reason for that decision originates from the fact that the person expressing anger was perceived as an ability owner, and was attributed a certain social status accordingly.[31]
Showing anger during a negotiation may increase the ability of the anger expresser to succeed in negotiation. A study by Tiedens et al. indicated that the anger expressers were perceived as stubborn, dominant and powerful. In addition, it was found that people were inclined to easily give up to those who were perceived by them as powerful and stubborn, rather than soft and submissive.[32] Based on these findings Sinaceur and Tiedens have found that people conceded more to the angry side rather than for the non-angry one.[33]
A question raised by Van Kleef et al. based on these findings was whether expression of emotion influences others, since it is known that people use emotional information to conclude about others' limits and match their demands in negotiation accordingly. Van Kleef et al. wanted to explore whether people give up more easily to an angry opponent or to a happy opponent. Findings revealed that participants tended to be more flexible toward an angry opponent compared with a happy opponent.

en.wikipedia.com/anger

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, it is a very big difference.

Let's say that you were often physically abused as a child or grew up in a bad neighborhood where thugs and gangsters abounds. Two things might very well then happen.

You could grow up to be an aggressive, belligerent person who also attacks other people.

Or you could grow up to be an insecure, timid, cowering, meek little creature, with a deep fear of encountering violent situations.

I had a rough childhood and it turned me into the latter. Rather than being assertive, which I don't think works, I just avoid most people and perceive them as filth. Reekah is proof positive that people can be rude for no apparent reason and I have vowed that humanity will never betray me again.

[Acting Like Godot]

Studies by Hochschild and Sutton have shown that the show of anger is likely to be an effective manipulation strategy in order to change and design attitudes. Anger is a distinct strategy of social influence and its use (i.e. belligerent behaviors) as a goal achievement mechanism proves to be a successful strategy.[11][12]
Larissa Tiedens, known for her studies of anger, claimed that expression of feelings would cause a powerful influence not only on the perception of the expresser but also on their power position in the society. She studied the correlation between anger expression and social influence perception. Previous researchers, such as Keating, 1985 have found that people with angry face expression were perceived as powerful and as in a high social position.[31] Similarly, Tiedens et al. have revealed that people who compared scenarios involving an angry and a sad character, attributed a higher social status to the angry character.[32] Tiedens examined in her study whether anger expression promotes status attribution. In other words, whether anger contributes to perceptions or legitimization of others' behaviors. Her findings clearly indicated that participants who were exposed to either an angry or a sad person were inclined to express support for the angry person rather than for a sad one. In addition, it was found that a reason for that decision originates from the fact that the person expressing anger was perceived as an ability owner, and was attributed a certain social status accordingly.[31]
Showing anger during a negotiation may increase the ability of the anger expresser to succeed in negotiation. A study by Tiedens et al. indicated that the anger expressers were perceived as stubborn, dominant and powerful. In addition, it was found that people were inclined to easily give up to those who were perceived by them as powerful and stubborn, rather than soft and submissive.[32] Based on these findings Sinaceur and Tiedens have found that people conceded more to the angry side rather than for the non-angry one.[33]
A question raised by Van Kleef et al. based on these findings was whether expression of emotion influences others, since it is known that people use emotional information to conclude about others' limits and match their demands in negotiation accordingly. Van Kleef et al. wanted to explore whether people give up more easily to an angry opponent or to a happy opponent. Findings revealed that participants tended to be more flexible toward an angry opponent compared with a happy opponent.

I know all that.

The problem with anger is that you win only once with it.

Because - once bitten, twice shy. People are caught by surprise once - when you flare into a temper - and they submit.

The second time round, they will devise strategies to work around you, avoid you, deceive you, confuse you.

[CroMagna]

Food for thought. It is true that angry people are normally avoided (although there are some circumstances where you can't avoid them, as in the case of an angry boss or family member). What do you mean by "deceive you, confuse you?"

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, think of angry people you have known. How did you deal with them?

I'll give you a simple example. Once upon a time, I was a young, inexperienced lawyer. I had to spend some time working at a law firm for an Angry ♥♥♥♥♥ (let's not go into details, just take it from me that she is an angry ♥♥♥♥♥).

The AB is actually very good in her field of work. But I dislike her.

Now, years have passed. I am in a position to hire and engage law firms and recommend lawyers. I work in a global investment bank now and we regularly engage about, errrr, I would say, something like 20 law firms around the Asian region. We spend tens of millions of dollars per year, on law firms in Asia alone.

And I make sure that AB never gets a single piece of work from us.

Why? Because I don't like her. I don't want to work with her. I don't want to talk to her. I'm very aware that if I were her client, she would probably treat me very differently (i.e very nicely) but because I don't like her, I'll never give her any work.

That's her loss. Not mine.

This is one example of how angry people are punished and disadvantaged in ways that they may not even realise.

[CroMagna]

I avoid the angry people I have known. But they have gone on to live successful, wealthy lives without me. And they gain the respect of the immature wannabes and the sheep. I think you're rare because you're in a position of power.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

I avoid the angry people I have known. But they have gone on to live successful, wealthy lives without me.

I suspect that you're somehow equating anger with success and wealth. Sorry, that's not convincing to me at all. I know plenty of successful, wealthy people who don't strike me at all as being particularly angry.

There are various studies and books on what kind of people become successful; and what kind of people become wealthy; and how and why. Three books I can recall, off the top of my head, are:

1. The Millionaire Mind .... This is a study of self-made millionaires in the USA, and how they became millionaires.

2. The Extra One Percent ..... (By Rob Yeung) .... This is a study of top performers in the workplace, and seeks to identify the top eight or nine common characteristics which they share

3. How to Be a Star at Work ...... Again this is another study, done by a psychologist, whereby top performers are systematically studied to find out the secret of their success.

You will find great detail in these books about how rich, successful people became that way. However, you're not going to find that anger is one of their secrets.

[Apresto]

Being angry or uncivilized are both things that are worse than just being passive. In a situation where one can help by being rude you actually just put the attention of others at you and rob the situation, just like a thief. Being passive doesn't help also but it doesn't do harm. So it it's for us to choose 1,2 or 3 - being helpful and contribute or being rude and get everything for yourself, or three - being passive(1 is best, 3 is worst). .

[Moriarty]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by reekah

I don't believe we are owed or guaranteed anything in life.

Neither do i...

I sometimes am uncivil for fun, or for the hell of it.

I guess that depends on what extent you take it to. Spit in someone's eye and you can expect a broken jaw, type idea. If you do something that causes harm to another then expect no good return. If you dont give a damn about good returns, then maybe your just a rebel without a cause.

I find social interaction is complex, we often place our own needs as superior above all others.

I believe everything is based upon personal needs first. You can swear up & down that a kind act had no strings attached, but if you dig hard enough, you'll find there's always a payoff.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by reekah

I don't believe we are owed or guaranteed anything in life. I sometimes am uncivil for fun, or for the hell of it. I find social interaction is complex, we often place our own needs as superior above all others.

It's interesting how different people will come to wildly varying choices out of the same premises! I also don't believe we are owed or guaranteed anything in life, I also find social interaction complex, and I do also notice that we humans often place our own needs as superior above all others.

Does that mean being civil for fun or for the hell of it is a good choice for me? Absolutely not! It would be an incredibly stupid choice for me, considering the consequences of no guarantees in life, the complexity of social interaction, and people's tendency to prioritize their own needs as superior to others'.

First, because the consequences don't work for me (for instance, getting banned), and even more importantly, because what inspires me are things that are totally inconsistent with not being civil: things like Courtesy, Love, Joy, Upward Spirals, Personal Power (power-To, not power-Over).

[AllTogetherNow]

i dunno, i don't really find social interaction that complex or difficult - i've found that the old cliche "you get what you give" became a cliche for a reason.

i'm civil to others because i do unto others the way i would like them to do unto me. the old 'Golden Rule' from childhood applies in pretty much all cases of interaction.

if it's someone i can't stand but, say, i must work with, i interact civilly because i've made agreements to my employer. regardless of my personal feelings about the individual, those feelings are secondary to keeping my agreements regarding my behavior on the job. In my personal life, when i come across ppl i dislike, or don't wish to interact with for whatever reason, i'm civil out of basic respect for other human beings. i don't have to like them, approve of them, hang out with them, or even carry on a conversation - but i will give a general acknowledgement/greeting and then go about my business.

the only time i don't feel any need to be civil is when someone approaches me combatively or abusively, then i'll lettem have it. and depending on the nature of the interaction, i may not greet that person civilly next time i run into them, cause i just don't need that kind of energy around me. but still, i'll just say nothing to them. i don't antagonize or actively behave uncivilly, i just disengage completely. :shrug: Consequences happen.

but generally speaking, imo life is just more pleasant for everyone, when people are respectful and civil to each other.... i have an interest in everyday life being a pleasant place to be, so what i'll bring to the party is clear communication and kindness, in all my interactions big or small. i see no need to interact in an uncivil manner, unless it's for purposes of taking a stand for myself, or someone i care about who's being mistreated. if that happens all bets are off.

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I suspect that you're somehow equating anger with success and wealth. Sorry, that's not convincing to me at all. I know plenty of successful, wealthy people who don't strike me at all as being particularly angry.

There are plenty of successful, wealthy people who aren't angry. But there are numerous angry people who are successful and wealthy. Just look at Reality TV. There are thousands of angry people, particularly women, who have gone on to make millions as a result of bullying and antagonizing their roommates. The industry is notorious for rewarding bad behavior.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

There are plenty of successful, wealthy people who aren't angry. But there are numerous angry people who are successful and wealthy.

Hmmm, interesting, don't you think? Some successful, wealthy people aren't angry, and some successful, wealthy people aren't angry. Wouldn't you say that might indicate one can be successful and wealthy without being angry, and without needing to pay the costs one pays for being consistently angry?

[Agota]

I'd like to be more civil, because I'm impressed with people who are able to be very polite with everyone despite their behavior or status. In general, I see being uncivil as a weakness, because usually uncivil behavior is reactive behavior most of the times and reactivity means lack of control. I've seen some exceptions, though, when highly advanced Buddhists act in a way that would seem extremely uncivil, but they're doing that consciously with an intention to help the person they're being uncivil with.

I also think ALG makes an excellent point that by being rude to people you simply make your life way harder in the long run.

[AllTogetherNow]

because usually uncivil behavior is reactive behavior most of the time <...> I've seen some exceptions, though, when highly advanced Buddhists act in a way that would seem extremely uncivil, but they're doing that consciously with an intention to help the person they're being uncivil with.

very good point Agota. there's a difference between being knee-jerk reactive, and consciously utilizing a behavior as a tool, or method to achieve a purpose - when it's done that way it's a choice, and is not 'attached to' the emotion of anger.

[srikant]

a naturally happy man is polite and loving towards everyone he meets, its his quality and not forced. However, it should come from inside. Forced civility is waste of energy

[Angela]

Originally Posted by srikant

Forced civility is waste of energy

I don't agree, Srikant. I have found it very valuable to behave in a civil way during moments when I was feeling less than loving.

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hmmm, interesting, don't you think? Some successful, wealthy people aren't angry, and some successful, wealthy people are angry. Wouldn't you say that might indicate one can be successful and wealthy without being angry, and without needing to pay the costs one pays for being consistently angry?

Yeah you can be successful and wealthy without being angry. My point was that there are few costs associated with being consistently angry, with the exception of violent criminals. Angry people often exert their will over submissive people and go on to rise to the top, gaining the respect of their peers along the way.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

My point was that there are few costs associated with being consistently angry, with the exception of violent criminals.

I guess "few" is subjective. Consistent anger has been shown to cause or exacerbate a variety of physical illnesses: heart disease and heart attacks, stroke, high blood pressure, ulcers, decreased energy and sexual functioning, overfat, chronic pain, and more. Additionally, as ALG was mentioning, there are consequences that are apparent to a chronically angry person, and even more insidiously, consequences that the angry person is clueless about, like lost opportunities, rejections, getting fired or not getting hired, and all kinds of ways that people will protect themselves from the toxicity of a consistently angry person that often the angry person, being in a continual sympathetic (fight/flight) response, is unaware of, because it reduces the room on the conscious stage to only what serves the emergency response -- in other words, consistent anger makes you kind of stupid. Plus, most good-feeling people, in my experience, would just rather hang out with other good feeling people, rather than dealing with crotchety ones.

I understand if you don't agree, but to me, these seem to be pretty significant associated costs.

[CroMagna]

Hi Angela!

I guess TV tends to glamourize anger, particularly Reality TV, followed by rap music. It makes it seem like anger is consistently rewarded in our society and respected. Perhaps that's not the reality.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

Hi Angela!

I guess TV tends to glamourize anger, particularly Reality TV, following by rap music. It makes it seem like anger is consistently rewarded in our society and respected. Perhaps that's not the reality.

Hi, there!

I don't think it's the anger that's rewarded, so much. I think there are people who have other traits in such abundance that they get rewarded in spite of their anger, and those rewards at least temporarily outweight the costs of being megacranky and uncivil.

I think there is a segment of the entertainment industry in which certain people who are really talented in demonstrating or playing anger in certain ways get compensated, but they're not neccesarily angry people -- many of them are pretending and performing emotion they don't actually feel.