I’m doing some research for a book about anger, and would value your input. What concepts or practices do you think we can learn from Stoic philosophy that might help us deal with our own anger and that of others? Let’s start a discussion! Everyone is welcome to join in. Please comment.
I want to emphasize something that I've said countless times over the years, but this whole thread helps to highlight. Most people can think of at least one strategy for coping with anger, maybe they can identify 2-3. It's similar with therapists, in my experience as a trainer, they might name 3-4 strategies for anger if you put them on the spot and ask for a list.
What I find quite remarkable, is that Marcus Aurelius lists TEN distinct cognitive strategies for coping with anger (Med 11.18). Not only that but he returns to selections from that list over and over throughout the Meditations, as if he really is so familiar with these techniques that they're second nature to him. The list he gives isn't even exhaustive as Epictetus and Seneca mention other Stoic techniques for anger. Most of the strategies Marcus lists would not seem out of place in modern CBT. In other words, his level of comprehension of cognitive therapy for anger is, and I don't say this lightly, quite astounding.
Another observation... Nobody would be able to rattle off a list like that based on personal experience because we normally choose 2-3 strategies at most, and stick with them, for most problems. When someone gives a list like that they're demonstrating the level of analysis you'd expect from a TEACHER of the subject, who has thought about it more systematically. I'm not sure why that is in Marcus' case, as he did not teach philosophy. It may be though that he acquired training in this list from Rusticus or one of his other teachers, who had this level of comprehension. Marcus learned and memorized the whole list, though, not just a selection of 2-3 strategies. That's real dedication to a therapy process that, in fact, goes way beyond what a client in modern CBT would normally do. Clients learn the bits of therapy that help them - not the ENTIRE subject and every strategy that's available. You go to the gym and learn a dozen exercises, maybe, which you use in your routine, but a fitness instructor would know dozens more because he teaches different people. That's the advanced level of comprehension that Marcus exhibits, for some reason, with regard to anger management. Compare what he says to the examples in this thread. Most people are describing similar strategies, but usually 1-3 seem enough to them... not ten! As soon as I saw Marcus' list for the first time, I though it was odd - it resembles the way an expert, a teacher, of psychotherapy would think about the subject, and it's several levels of sophistication beyond most modern self-help in that regard.
Let me try to pose what I think is an important question... People who get angry, and people who believe anger can often be helpful, often cite the fact that they believe expressing anger in the right way can be an effective tool for influencing others and achieving constructive social change, correct? Now in assertiveness training we always begin by teaching people to distinguish more clearly between the emotion (anger) and the behaviour (aggression or assertiveness). Actors can replicate any type of angry behaviour, without necessarily feeling angry themselves - as can most of us, to some extent. This raises at least two major questions but I'll focus on the first. If anger clearly has costs attached, why do so few non-angry people choose to fake anger in their exchanges with others if it's such an effective means of communicating and achieving change? Of course, sometimes people do pretend to be angry, but it's quite rare. So why don't more non-angry people simply pretend to be angry, like an actor might, if angry behaviour is such an effective tool of social change? Why don't we glare at people and yell more often when we're not feeling angry or engage in other angry-looking behaviours voluntarily? Again, people do this sometimes, but it's not very common. Why isn't it a more commonly-used communication strategy if it generally works well? (Or does it actually work well?)
To stop when you feel it's beginnings, step back and ask why you are angered, and note that the ego's reflexive response will waste your energy, and you will have learned nothing.
Absolutely. There's a lot going on there from a psychological perspective but it's also, to some extent, common sense. So we find similar advice throughout the ages. Hearing that can help validate the experiences of others who are coping with anger. To be able to stop when it is beginning you need to know the situations where it is likely to be triggered, so that you can be on the lookout, and be aware of the early-warning signs, which are typically bodily sensations that are very common but which we tend not to notice normally unless we're looking for them, such as frowning, or tensing our shoulders, or changes in our breathing. The other bit of what you said is also important - being very aware of the negative consequences of anger can diminish the habit's strength. But it needs to be a clear perception not just a vague idea. So working on this can help, e.g., through visualization techniques. Also, the Stoics advise us to ask ourselves: what does you more harm the anger or the thing that triggered it? That question can help diminish the emotion's strength.
I'd love to read more about the Stoic theory of 'proto-passions' in relation to anger. As I understand it, these are the initial sensations of anger which we cannot stop, that can quickly engulf us if we're not careful. How did they resist them developing? What techniques for recognizing them? What physical or psychological sensations are early warning signs?
It seems to me that this concept is similar to what we call "automatic thoughts" in modern cognitive therapy, and automatic or involuntary experiences in general. The distinction between voluntary and automatic thinking is crucial to modern psychotherapy. We don't normally try to stop involuntary thoughts or feelings but rather the main approach now recommended is to actively accept them and view them with indifference. I think that's what the Stoics also had in mind. Of course, over time they may change indirectly, as a result of changes to our voluntary thinking and underlying beliefs. How to recognize them? The Stoics talk, actually, about using a mirror - something I wrote a recent article about. However, generally I would say that making a list of high-risk situations and triggers helps, so you know in advance to watch out for the incipient signs of an emotion. And also studying previously unnoticed early-warning signs can be facilitated by coaching or following certain cues, e.g., most people frown when they become angry but few people observe themselves doing this. So knowing that fact can make it easier to notice the muscular tension in your forehead, if you're on the lookout for it.
I just got into DBT with Marsha Linehan's book. DBT, rooted in CBT/Stoicism but focused on emotional regulation and mindfulness. DBT therapy addresses maladaptive behavior by teaching emotion regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, core mindfulness, and self-management skills. Doc, you got anything on DBT you can share?
I love to read the free flow of information between Donald and so many people who are actively engaged in CBT, DBT and Stoicism. At 79 I am a very late arrival to Stoicism. I will describe myself as an active and most interested user of Stoicism. I came across Donald and Stoicism about 6 years ago. I retired in 2006 from a major Fortune 500 company where I negotiated and supported the sale of its products for more than 25 years. I was exposed to DBT in the Mid 80s in hopes of finding help for a daughter.
My first correspondence with David led to his response of a single word ANGER 😡. The lights went on and it’s been full throttle as much as I can muster. The anger I had began in my home literally at birth.
It’s been a challenging ride but so very very worth it. Mental illness is such a debilitating illness. I’ve witnessed it in my very own household. If I had billions of dollars I know where I would invest it. Supporting Robert in the slightest way is the least I can do.
I've studied many different modalities of therapy. I began as a client centred counsellor, and studied psychoanalysis and trained in psychodynamic counselling, before getting into research on hypnosis, and then various forms of CBT. I have to say that although I'm interested in DBT, it's one of the few modalities that I've not studied in any depth. I've had friends and colleagues who used it but it was a little outside my sphere as a clinician because it mainly originated as a treatment for borderline personality disorder, which would usually be treated by specialists in that diagnosis - though I understand it's now used with other diagnoses. (My main specialism was social anxiety disorder, and to some extent anxiety disorders in general.) DBT is more common in the US than in the UK, where I'm from - and BPD diagnosis is roughly 2-3 times more common in the US than in the UK.
I've heard that there are many parallels between DBT and Stoicism, to some extent these are similar to the links between Stoicism and other third-wave forms of CBT, such as the emphasis on mindfulness, emotional acceptance, living in accord with values, etc.
Must admit I am challenged by a level of frustration. You may recall from the outset I saw Stoicism as the answer to all the world problems. Why can’t others see something that to me is so obvious?
My #1 immediate (and super-effective!) practice for dealing with anger and other harmful, “temporary madness”emotions: Cognitive Distancing! Thank you, Donald, for writing and teaching us about this method so often, so clearly, and so helpfully!
I found the book "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman to have greatly influenced my thoughts about anger. Basically, Goleman professes the "red light, green light" approach to anger. If you get angry then stop your self, i.e. "red light" and think about the consequences of your angry impulses. Come up with alternative actions to respond, i.e. "yellow light." When you figure out an acceptable response without terrible consequences then follow up on that action. Goleman's approach very similar to CBT of putting your thoughts into proper perspective and engaging the left prefrontal cortex of the brain.
I regularly carry a loaded firearm with a CPL permit so the consequences of anger could quickly land me in jail. The AEDP approach of just feeling through your emotions like anger with breathing and grounding help with impulse control. See "It is Not Always Depression" by Hillary Jacobs Hendel. I stop myself from shooting people despite outrageous behavior of people. I then think about appropriate responses. Since I am a lawyer, that means I figure out ways of suing people which is often the best approach to anger inducing stimulus.
I plan to read "The Upside of Your Dark Side" by Kashdan and Biswas-Diener because I tend to internalize thus getting depressed rather than angry. (Learned helplessness as a kid from an abusive alcoholic/drug addicted father.) Recognizing anger can be a helpful emotion to prevent yourself from being further exploited and abused is important to consider.
The Buddhist philosophy of balance and to be assertive rather than aggressive is key. I need to finish reading Robertson's book on "Resilience" which covers assertiveness training in detail. So many neuroses and not enough time to read about dealing with them all.
Yes, we sometimes call that the "stop and think" or "time out" approach to anger management. Some researchers actually disagree with it but I think it's usually helpful. Thinking through the consequences is difficult though when in an angry state of mind because your ability to do so is impaired but there are ways that can be tackled, e.g., by rehearsing visualizing the negative consequences of anger beforehand, etc. I think breathing through feelings can be helpful in a number of ways, one being that it allows us to sit with them for a bit longer, which can slow down impulsive responses and gives us more time for natural emotional processing to take place and anger to be replaced by other more adaptive feelings.
Differentiate between anger and irritability, they are completely different, irritability is irrational because it is fight or flight and you're not breathing or thinking clearly when you are in fight or flight mode for any length of time. Anger without fight or flight means that you have the emotion of anger and still have rational thought and choose whether to act on it or not. The experience of it it will pass and be relieved whether you act on it or not. if you suppress anger (or any other emotion) you will have fight or flight
which means anxiety and or irritability and not have rational thought. This is what the stoics didn't know, they mix the two up and call anger irrational and unhealthy, when it is irritability that is irrational and unhealthy.
I think these distinctions can be important. Although I would say that most of the research on anger tends to associate it with cognitive biases and impaired thinking skills, so I think the Stoics were largely on the right track when they classed anger as an irrational emotion.
I’ll start off by mentioning that I am not a scholar, although I am educated and hold a couple of university degrees, I am by no means an expert in philosophy or Stoicism. I’m a Canadian Federal Correctional Officer and I work in one of the angriest environments one can possibly imagine, prison. The inmates are angry, officers are angry and management is angry. From top to bottom the whole organization is just a toxic entity boiling with anger. Discovering Stoicism has to a large degree helped me escape this endless cycle of anger that comes with my profession.
The organization I work for is all about control. Controlling inmate behaviour and maintaining order and security inside the prison walls are the primary duties of a correctional officer. Although we try to control everything that goes on inside the institution, in reality there is very little that we do control and this is where a lot of the anger and frustration comes from in this profession. This anger is compounded and over the course of a career and it can change even the most kind hearted person into a miserable, jaded ball of rage. Once I discovered Stoicism, it was the beginning of my journey towards conquering my anger.
Epictetus once cautioned his students stating that philosophy is not purely academic and they should not spend all their time drowning in books. Philosophy is a way of life and is to be practiced daily in the real world. I can assure you that in my work environment I have had plenty of opportunities to practice various Stoic teachings.
The first principle that was a complete game changer for conquering and controlling my anger is the dichotomy of control. Often in the chaos of working in a prison we lose sight of our surroundings and the bigger picture because we get what we officers like to call "tunnel vision", where we are overly focused on what is going on right in front of us and lose sight of everything else. We get so caught up in trying to control everything that we completely lose sight of the fact that in reality we really control nothing, we can only influence things but the outcome is not up to us. The dichotomy of control taught me the only thing I have control over is the internal. My views, judgements, opinions and reactions are what I can control. Once I discovered this, it was extremely liberating and I stopped worrying and trying to control all the externals around me and only focused on what I could control. Majority of my anger and frustration faded when I finally came to this realization.
The second principle that has benefitted me is Seneca's power of the pause. Whenever I feel anger coming on, I recognize and accept the fact that I am angry and I do not suppress it. I recognize that I am angry but I don't react to it. I do not wish to become a slave to my anger. I gather myself and try to respond with sound and reasonable judgement. I am particularly cognizant of this when I am dealing with an inmate or a fellow staff member. I realize that once I get angry and respond with emotion, the person I am directing that anger toward now has power over me.
The final stoic teaching that has assisted me a great deal is a quote from Marcus Aurelius. “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.” I often remember this quote while simultaneously using Seneca's power of the pause. I pause and think of all the times when I have gotten angry and made the situation worse by losing control. This is often enough to steer me into a more sensible reaction. This technique has assisted me numerous time in both my professional and private life.
Battling with my anger is still a daily grind and there are still moments where I lose the battle as I am no Stoic sage. Stoicism and its teachings however, have given me an upper hand and is helping me build up my inner citadel. The walls keep getting stronger and I hope one day they will be impenetrable so my tranquility will remain undisturbed.
Yes, it sounds like a good place to study anger. Andy Small uses anger with inmates in the UK, and there are some videos around of him discussing his work. (I worked briefly with the probation service in the UK at the start of my counselling career.) I agree that dichotomy control, pausing (we sometimes call this the "stop and think" or "time out" strategy in CBT) and absolutely the quote you mention seems important to me in this regard. I relate it to the concept of functional analysis in behaviour therapy,.
Stop and think. This often works better if you train yourself to identify high-risk situations (triggers) for anger and to be be on the lookout during them for early-warning signs (EWS), which you can also learn to spot such as automatic thoughts and particularly physical sensations that come early in the anger sequence. I tell clients to try to notice things they hadn't noticed before. That's easier than it sounds because anger tends to limit our awareness and, e.g., it's surprisingly common for people to overlook initially that they are frowning or staring or their voice has changed, etc. Spotting these things makes it easier to introduce a pause - it can give you another couple of seconds, i.e., it buys you more time. Also, anger is typically a way of responding to an initial feeling of anxiety or emotional hurt (frustration, disappointment, loss, etc). We normally ask people to try to notice what that emotion that precedes anger is. Again, noticing this tends to expand the time available to step out of the anger sequence. The next step is usually what we call cognitive distancing or defusion - the ability to step aside and observe your thoughts from a detached perspective. That's a knack some people find easy, whereas others need coaching and practice to get.
Functional Analysis. I think even better than considering the consequences (though this is pretty effective) is another quote from the Stoics. Ask yourself what's worse the response or the trigger? What does you more harm, your own anger or the thing you're angry about? I find it also helps to remember that the trigger, or thing you're angry about, could potentially be viewed from different perspectives and dealt with in a number of ways (cognitive flexibility). With that in mind, it's more obvious that the anger is the more harmful thing. Some people find that just by asking themselves that question in the moment they can undermine the motivation for responding with anger, and gain more pause.
Stoicism has helped me not get angry towards others. But I am still struggling with anger towards myself whenever my behavior falls short. Usually my self-anger happens after the fact, when I realize I got fooled, or manipulated. Any stoic advice on this matter greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a subtle but important distinction between being angry with yourself and being concerned about your own errors. When we're angry we tend to think in very overgeneralized "characterological" terms, i.e., 'I'm an idiot", "I'm worthless", "I always make mistakes", etc. That's just anger talking. It helps to realize that's a cognitive bias, which makes problem-solving almost impossible, and to shift focus instead onto more specific things that we can change.
If you're applying a high standard to yourself, it can help to explore it from different perspectives and try to identify a more flexible and adaptive rule or standard that would lead to better results. For example, we often ask, would you teach that rule/standard to a child and advise them to follow it through life? No? What would be a more helpful rule to guide them instead? What would happen if you followed that rule yourself? How could you begin following it tomorrow?
Hey, I'm not a scholar. I'm just a regular guy trying to be a Stoic practitioner, so take this for what its worth. I've never been quick to anger, so this hasn't been much of an issue for me. But, I believe the initial emotional reaction may be unavoidable to a degree. What Stoicism teaches us, perhaps using the view from above, is to acknowledge the feeling and situation and to use that gap between stimulus and response to allow our rational mind to choose our reaction and our course, rather than acting on impulse. Maybe this is obvious to you all already.
Yes. To use my favourite example: if someone walked up to you in the street and spat in your face, you would probably feel a flush of automatic anger. (For years I used that example in teaching then one day, in London, someone actually did it to me - a guy who seemed to have mental health problems, or was high on drugs, was walking up to everyone he passed in the street at night and spitting in their faces.) As I recall, Seneca says he wouldn't even refer to that initial feeling as anger per se. Maybe it could also be called shock or alarm or something else. I think the main thing is to notice that it's happening and to be aware that we're now in a different brain state suddenly, in which our judgement will be biased. In cognitive therapy it's called the "hostile mode" of brain functioning. I think of it as like being drunk or high. We're not thinking straight in that frame of mind so we have to be careful not to allow it to make our decisions. The Stoics call it temporary madness, which is a good description. It's best to take a time-out and wait until we've regained our composure before doing anything, usually.
Excellent description! I’ve spent many years as a cop, so I suppose I’ve had a lot of practice at not allowing emotion to make decisions. But, at the same time, the majority of calls we respond to revolve around people wrapped in this temporary madness!
As a lawyer, my initial response would be to someone spitting on me would be to reach for my pepper spray, i.e. the jerk sauce. You never want to appease the aggressor and escalate the violence of the threat, i.e. be the hunter and not the rabbit. The Navy SEALs teach a lot about immediate action drills to respond to various threats. Constantly imagining threat scenarios and appropriate responses is a useful exercise in a high threat environment. See "SEAL Survival" by Cade Courtley.
I have to say that I've spoken to several special forces personnel and they have a very different perspective on anger from me. I think there's a lot to unpack there because it seems to me that they often view anger as a tool but don't really take account of the problems associate with doing that. For instance, anger can sure focus your attention but we also know it leads people to underestimate risk, which a problem in a high-risk situation, because when people experience anger they tend to act more impulsively and place themselves and others in more danger. So it's a dangerous tool, and I think it's worth exploring the pros and cons more carefully.
What actually happened in the situation above was that it took me a minute to realize what was going on. I was with my wife. I wiped my hand on my face and said "Did that guy really just spit on me?!" Then I ran after him, which was perhaps a mistake, and yelled "Hey, what the hell did you do that for?" He turned around, took a step forward and swung a haymaker punch at me. I remember in that split second suddenly realizing that he was out of his mind because his punch whizzed through the air at least three feet from my face. He clearly didn't know what planet he was on. So I sighed and walked away,. I saw him spit on another couple. I called out to some other people to stay away from him. In retrospect I would perhaps have responded differently. I'm glad it didn't escalate, though, and I had the sense to walk away the moment I realized he was either high or crazy. We should probably have called the cops - I can't recall now but I think there was a reason why we didn't. (I was abroad so maybe having issues with my mobile phone or something.)
I've taught this phenomenon in stress resilency classes for work as as a reaction state. We called it condition black, where the executive center is no longer in control- you are reacting to a specific perceived threat happening right now, and the lizard brain is in control. This state is where trained or learned responses come into play, the problem being that those trained/learned responses are not always appropriate to the specific situation. Teaching people how to recognize this state of mind and take themselves out of it is a long process.
Donald, I appreciate your deep dive into Stoic teachings on anger—it's an essential topic that deserves more exploration. While Stoicism often frames anger as a "temporary madness" that must be subdued for rational thought to prevail, I wonder if there’s a way to rethink anger from a Stoic lens that might see it not just as something to be suppressed or avoided but as a potential source of insight and growth when navigated properly.
The Stoics often taught us to align with nature, and part of nature is experiencing a full range of human emotions, including anger. What if we considered anger as a signal—a tool for understanding deeper values or unfulfilled needs? For example, anger might emerge not just from a lack of rationality but from a deeper sense of injustice or a violation of a core principle. In this way, anger could be reframed as a compass pointing toward areas where our values are misaligned with our environment or actions.
Epictetus said, "We are disturbed not by events, but by the views we take of them." If we take this idea further, what if anger is also an invitation to inspect our views more deeply, not just to quell them but to understand what lies beneath? Could anger, then, be seen as a gateway to self-discovery, a way to uncover unexamined assumptions or deeper passions that, when understood, could guide us to more virtuous actions?
Furthermore, Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, often speaks of using challenges as opportunities to practice virtue. What if we extend this to emotions themselves, such as anger? Instead of seeing anger merely as a challenge to virtue, it could be seen as an opportunity to sharpen virtues like courage, justice, and wisdom. For instance, anger arising from witnessing an injustice could be channeled into purposeful action that aligns with Stoic virtues—transforming the initial emotional impulse into a deliberate, reasoned response that promotes justice or societal good.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially from your perspective on the potential flexibility within Stoic teachings to engage with emotions like anger more dynamically, perhaps even using them as a catalyst for virtuous action and self-awareness rather than solely focusing on their suppression or avoidance.
Looking forward to your reflections on this nuanced angle!
Yes. We need something resembling anger, or desire, in order to exercise the virtue of temperance. But I think we can learn from anger while also challenging it. Let me take a step back for a moment and explain that I think a whole chapter (or three!) of the book should be about the idea that anger has value or is justified. We have to proceed slowly and carefully because anger itself is known to impair our ability to judge exactly this sort of question, by limiting our sense of the consequences of actions, and the range of options available to us.
Before we begin to judge the benefits of anger, we need to look at the costs. That would be a list but it includes things like several cognitive and attentional biases, impaired problem-solving and decision making, impulsiveness, etc. We must also distinguish anger (the emotion) from aggression (the behaviour) as many of the perceived benefits of anger are due to the behaviour, which does not, in fact, depend upon the emotion - so that whole class of perceived benefits can arguably be dismissed before we even begin a cost-benefit analysis. We also need to carefully distinguish the involuntary from the voluntary aspects of anger. For instance, we might say that we can learn from the automatic feelings of anger that we experience but still step back and suspend our more voluntary responses, such as venting, aggression, or ruminative thinking.
I think the practices you discuss in your books are all very good and effective. Likewise those strategies referred to in the original Stoic texts of Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and those discussed in recent Stoic literature.
What I've found personally works for me with regards to anger management include:
I've had to come face to face with many an angry man and woman over the years in the course of my employment.
Using verbal de-escalation, distraction, redirection.
Listening to someone who is angry at you and acknowledging their point of view helps. Not getting angry in response is essential.
Kindness
I've found responding to an angry person with kindness and a gentle tone of voice helps greatly.
I've found that angry people find it hard to continue being angry at you if you're kind to them. A soft tone, trying to assist them if you can in some way.
It's something I've mentioned before on similar threads. The response varies. Some people have given me a lot of grief. Almost insinuating that I'm being rather too liberal and wishy washy and soft.
But I think that was due to a misunderstanding on what I mean by using kindness.
I mean that not responding to anger with anger or rudeness. Acknowledging that anger often has its roots in pain, fear, frustration and toxicity,( substance use).
My work involves working in a psychiatric unit with people with mental illness who have been detained under the mental health act so their rights have been severely curtailed.
They are angry and shout and swear, get verbally and physically aggressive. They can get violent. They may need to be restrained and forcibly medicated or even kept separate from everyone else.
They do not understand why they are in hospital and do not have insight into their illness or their risk to themselves or others.
They may be psychotic and deluded. They may be very anti social. Many of the people I come across have a criminal record. Many have seriously assaulted others.
In short, it's hard to have a logical conversation with many of these people.
But, despite all this, in my experience, those who get angry, and they can get extremely angry and threatening, often respond well to being treated with respect and kindness. With humanity. It may take some time but they do respond well.
I also find that not rushing to judge and blame others helps me immensely. Someone cuts me up on the freeway?
I regard his actions as his poor actions and demonstrative of his poor character not mine. But I also think that maybe he didn't see me or has a reason to drive like that, perhaps an emergency.
Thinking that we humans are all here for a short time only and it's fruitless to waste time and energy getting angry at others.
Getting angry has caused me bigger problems than the original thing that got me angry in the first place. I've personally experienced this.
Since then I've read about this in Stoic literature. It was like a lightbulb moment for me. I was reading what I had already experienced.
When I find myself getting annoyed I refer to some maxims or go to phrases I've learnt to help me in the moment.
Thinking that anger is temporary madness, as Seneca said, really resonates with me.
I could go on but I'm not sure how helpful I'm being.
To conclude I'd like to say that I know what anger is. Being on the receiving end of it. And having been someone who used to get very angry very quickly and with increasing frequency.
But after having discovered Stoicism, Stoic philosophy and the psychological aspects of Stoicism I've had a complete turnaround. Night and day.
It's really been amazing for me. And sustainable.
I very rarely get angry now.
And when I do it's much less intense and I recover and turn it around quickly.
I thank the study of Stoicism for that. I thank the modern Stoicism movement for that. I thank authors of Stoic literature for that especially you and Massimo Pigliucci. I consider myself a Stoic practitioner/ student of Stoicism and have adopted Stoicism as my philosophy of life.
You probably know that Marcus Aurelius talks about kindness being an antidote to anger in Med 11.18. He also says that whereas other people think of anger as strength and manliness, he believes the opposite is true. There's an underlying technical point he's assuming which is that the Stoics define anger as the desire for revenge, i.e, the desire for the other person to experience harm in retaliation ("I am going to teach them a lesson!"). But the Stoics think we're all fundamentally misguided about what is good and bad, or helpful and harmful. And they believe that we should wish our perceived "enemies" to become our friends and allies, by showing them kindness, which as the opposite of anger, would be defined as the desire to help the other person. How? Fundamentally, by helping them to become wise and virtuous, and flourish, Fate willing - as it is not under my direct control but I may still attempt to influence them in the right direction. The Stoics say that a friend is the only thing that is directly "productive of virtue" because they can provide us with a role model.
I follow Rob Hendersons Substack who’s just released a post about anger.
“ weaponising anger is a use full political strategy “
A few good insights on that too.
“Indeed, across political settings, angry people are more likely to vote than those who are not angry. In other words, politicians who can stoke anger can use it to motivate their base. The angrier voters are at the opposing party, the more likely they are to show up to the polls to support their own party. As Webster puts it, “angry voters are loyal voters.”
Yes, throughout history, people have clearly tried to evoke anger. Once you realize that anger is a cognitive state, in which our thinking is profoundly biased, it becomes glaringly obvious that making the electorate, or assembly, enraged, though it makes them easy to control, is also going to lead to dangerous and impulsive decision-making, and a whole battery of other problems.
They're more likely to vote but less likely to consider the longer-term consequences of their vote.
I find anger shows up for me mostly as irritation in the context of family, and in most cases when I'm distracted or tired. I try to keep this beautiful quote from Epictetus in mind "Starting with things of little value – a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine – repeat to yourself: For such a small price I buy tranquility and peace of mind." From one of your books or a talk, I can't recall, I made the connection that the emotion is undergirded by a narrative, and that if the narrative is interrupted the anger fades. I've been able to successfully calm it this way, although it isn't always easy, and it depends on how aware I am at the moment. This is a great thread, can't wait to read the book!
That's a great way of thinking about it. When I think about anger management, I look at what the research tells us but then I also look at what clients, or other people, keep telling me has actually helped them. I hear (variations of) the same things over and over and over. Thinking in some way about the consequences of anger seems valuable to most people and we hear this in the cliched remark "It's not worth it!" It makes sense because the research tells us that anger normally impairs our ability to evaluate the consequences of our actions so when we manage to look at it in terms of its consequences we're actually snapping ourselves out of the trance of anger, to some extent just by adopting that perspective. So asking yourself is it worth getting angry over some spilled milk? Is it worth letting this trivial thing slide in order to maintain my sanity? I think the most powerful question of this kind, though, is the Stoic question: What does you more harm, your own anger or the thing about which you're angry? Shifting into that perspective can be directly antagonistic to the experience of anger.
It sounds interesting. It seems like a different perspective from the one we normally get in literature on anger. I'm not sure it fits neatly with other insights and observations but I do think there's some value in this idea.
My experience has been that after stumbling upon Stoicism (long story), my anger issues have very much abated. The techniques of recognizing the proto-emotion and being able to take the step back (or take in the bigger picture) have been quite beneficial.
Yes, for many people, spotting the early-warning signs of anger is often enough to nip it in the bud, particularly if we're able to gain cognitive distance, by shifting perspective and separating our thoughts from the events to which they refer.
Firstly this is a great topic. I think stoism helps with anger because it forces you to aby in a way that is positive and not destructive.
However, I think for it to be fully effective you need to be emerged into the philosophy of stoism. Then the tools for controlling anger are really present, and are quickly accessed because you have trained your thinking.
I'm more optimistic. In my experience, and I think the outcome studies back this, people often benefit significantly from CBT without being immersed in Stoic philosophy. In fact, often people benefit from very basic interventions. You must realize that anger, like worry, is very fragile. It depends on just the right conditions to grow, like an orchid. Change one of several variables and the spell is broken.
We don't know for sure. No clinician could really claim to answer that question based on their experience alone. To be honest, we can only judge that based on long-term follow-up studies. It would depend what approach is used, I think. When anger management is done through assertive communication, or problem-solving training, it probably requires booster sessions in many cases for long-term maintenance. But it may be that approaches like cognitive restructuring, which aim more at changing beliefs and emotions are more lasting.
Generally speaking, therapies that aim to change specific behaviours, such as ways of talking, tend to wear off after, say, a year or two, as people forget the skills or get into other habits. Therapies that target underlying attitudes and emotions tend to have more durable benefits. In the past assertiveness training was often used to treat anger, by replacing aggressive behaviour directly, but now we tend to focus more on beliefs and emotional self-regulation.
Aaron T. Beck found that almost every case of anger was initiated by either fear or emotional hurt, like sadness or shame. Anger can definitely be seen in many cases, not as a primary emotional response, but more of a n irrational coping strategy. We can identify several ways in which it seems to relive emotional pain but the costs outweigh the benefits.
Stoicism has greatly improved my anger. My old temper is gone and I rarely get truly mad any more. Seneca as well as others were a big part of that. A method I prefer to use a lot is the view from above. If something is starting to get under my skin, I step back and look at it from a larger prospective. Is it something that matters in the grand scheme of things? Will my anger make one bit of difference? The answer is always no. Also, taking the time to look from above is a long enough break from my impression of anger to calm down and not give in
I think the view from above, and similar perspective shifting exercises, can be helpful. I think the best argument in favour of this is that anger clearly narrows our attention and causes very restricted and selective thinking, and attention, and recall. So techniques like the view from above can counteract that tendency to some extent. Another way of looking at it is that when we're upset about something we tend to focus automatically on the problem, putting it under a magnifying glass, which amplifies the emotional effect. When we widen our perspective, though, we introduce other, competing, stimuli into our perspective, which can allow us to continue acknowledging the problem while diluting its emotional impact.
I first became interested in stoicism. When my two sisters were joking one day and said I was always angry. I rejected that idea and then they pointed out examples of how I would easily get raised and start going on.
I felt a bit embarrassed about it and thought about the things which made me angry.
My job in retail , the customers were always annoying, my colleagues were irritating , the work was menial and never ending.
The fact that I wasn’t in a good career compared to my friends hurt me. That people might think I’m lower than them or stupid was hurting me and everything reminded me of that.
My beliefs were that I had the right to get animated at the smallest inconvenience because it wasn’t fair . Life was dealing me a rough hand and I never got the lucky breaks others did with their careers.
I realised I was getting angry because I was annoyed at my own lack of progression , I was annoyed I hadn’t made anything of myself and anything that reminded me of that would set me off.
I started getting into stoicism as a remedy for being angry , led me to realise I was only angry at myself and I should probably get my emotions under control , do something about my situation and stop looking at the world like I’m at its mercy.
and it helped, I started my own business , achieved plenty of personal goals and took on a whole new look at the world.
I used to be full of anger in my teens, and early twenties, then over time it just disappeared. I think I began to see it as ridiculous and unnecessary. Reading books on Stoicism helped but it was kind of a side effect. I wasn't really trying to get rid of my anger I just sort of grew out of it, somehow, I think. With minor irritations, I think it's even more useful to ask the Stoic question: What does you more harm, your anger or the minor inconvenience you're irritated about? The more we ask that question, I think, the weaker the anger becomes.
That seems to me to be a natural outcome of a developing brain, learning how to deal with the effects of testosterone aggression. I think most males experience this aggression as we go through late puberty (I can't speak to the female experience) and that it's the maturation of the brain that helps get a handle on it, in the right environment. The "wrong" environment can teach harmful coping skills for this aggression that can make functioning in society difficult.
I can tell you that of the people who contact me about anger, about 90% of them are male. If you skim the comments in this thread, I suspect you'll also see a similar ratio of men to women. Not sure what that means exactly but it's quite noticeable.
How many women contact you about depression compared to men? I remember a saying that depression is anger turned inwards and I wonder if this is how estrogen fueled anger manifests or maybe it's just more socially acceptable for that response?
About 2-3 times more women are diagnosed with clinical depression than men but I don't see them as much in my coaching practice as I would have, say, when I worked in the NHS.
As someone who has dealt with anger issues, I have found the societal maxim that I need to “vent my anger” to be counterproductive (at best). It usually creates a self feeding tornado that makes everything worse, including my regret and resentment. One thing I do is to borrow a Bhuddist lesson and recognize and take ownership of my anger when it arises. I feel it well up, and then “my anger and I are going to leave now” or “we’re going to sit quietly and breathe for a few minutes”. I realize I can’t help the automatic response, but Stoicism has helped me recognize it for what it is, and to not give assent to the irrational impulse.
There may be a whole chapter on venting! It's pseudo-therapy. It makes no sense to say that venting someone "gets it out of our system", or is therapeutic, if we believe that anger is cognitive and based on underlying beliefs? Do the beliefs get vented and go away? No. Research on venting for anger management has shown that it doesn't work and can, in some cases, actually make people more prone to anger. If venting worked then people who express anger a lot in the morning would be the most relaxed people in the evening - it's obviously not how emotion works. People feel "I have to vent" because venting anger brings temporary relief, but that can make it somewhat addictive, and it usually makes the problem worse in the long-run. Venting makes us feel better because it temporarily replaces pain with anger. It shits our focus from the pain inside to the blame outside. It also replaces powerlessness with a temporary, but illusory, sense of being powerful. It's a good job that venting doesn't actually purge emotions from our minds because if it worked like that we'd never want to express joy or friendship or other positive emotions, in case they're flushed out of our emotional tank by accident. It's just not how emotion works. So we have to challenge the folk-psychology or superstitious theory of anger on which venting as a coping strategy is based, which mistakenly views emotions as if they were like fluid or pressure that builds up inside us somehow, and can be released through venting. Instead, emotions are complex, made of many ingredients, but cognition plays a central role in them.
I do know that anger can be a reaction when we feel that our identity is threatened. A majority of people identify who they are with what they think, and when this is opposed or challenged, the brain, not being able to distinguish between a real or perceived threat, kicks into high gear with a fight or flight response. Just look at two people with opposing political views argue. There is almost never concession, sometimes it even turns deadly. I believe it was Seneca who said that anger is a form of madness, driving a person to irrational thought and action.
As a lifelong activist, I will assert that expressing anger is one of the tools in your toolkit, for extending your zone of influence - the things you can change.
A calm, rational piece of rhetoric may or may not change someone else's behaviour towards you.
In CBT one of the first things we normally teach clients, and in traditional assertiveness training, is to distinguish more clearly than normal between anger (the amotion) and aggression or assertiveness (the behaviour). Actors can exhibit aggression without actually feeling angry, and so can the rest of us. So if we divorce the behaviour from the emotion, what are the costs and benefits of the emotion? (The behaviour is therefore no longer one of the benefits because it does not depend on the emotion.) Also, we have to be cautious about the perceived benefits of expressing anger because they're often short-term benefits, whereas the longer-term consequences may be less positive. If I want an employee to work harder, for instance, yelling angrily at them, might definitely ""work", short term, but it could cause them to resent me longer-term, and so end up being counterproductive. We also have to consider the psychological costs of anger, e.g., it is well-known that it tends to be linked with several important cognitive biases.
As a therapist, I’ve found Epictetus’ quote about anger to be quite powerful for my patients. When they realize someone could master them, it just for a few seconds, it can really hit home.
I really wonder what would happen if someone read that quote to Jordan Peterson when he's yelling about how various groups in society make him angry. Or to other famous self-improvement influencers who model anger, and appear to valorize it as a response, and whose followers seem to become more angry as a result.
I think they would dismiss it, or say they’ve “moved past it.” That maybe at one time the quote helped them, but now this egotistical and angry version of them is their “best self.” Excuse the sarcasm.
There are places where anger is appropriate and useful, and there are places where it is useless, and it seems to me that:
• the skill(1) of figuring out(2) the difference is the same or very similar as the Stoicism practice of figuring out what is in your zone of agency - what you have control over - and what is not, and
• indeed the things you should get angry about are the things that you can change, which is core Stoicism.
Note 1: I say "skill" because like other elements of Stoicism this can be practiced and developed.
Note 2: this figuring out has to be almost impossibly quick - fractions of a second in many situations.
I think the question of the usefulness of anger is extremely important, and one that I take very seriously, and am keen to write about in some depth. What I believe we should bear in mind is that, put crudely, everyone believes their anger is justified in the heat of the moment. (With some exceptions perhaps.) Anger brings psychological changes with it that profoundly bias our judgment and typically make us feel it's an appropriate response, although we often then regret it afterwards when we're no longer angry. Knowing that, we have to be doubly cautious about how we judge whether it's appropriate or not. People often say that it gives them the energy or motivation to address perceived injustices or threats. That does appear like a benefit. (There may be other benefits.) But it has to be offset against the costs, which are, among other things, that it tends to impair our problem-solving ability and cause us to underestimate risk and act more impulsively, with an impaired sense of the consequences of our actions, and a limited awareness of the range of possible coping strategies or solutions available to us. So, again to put it crudely, anger would often be like giving a shot of adrenaline to someone who is so drunk they're not thinking clearly. We have more motivation and become more persistent in our actions but are worse at judging the consequences. That's obviously problematic.
The Stoics normally think we should eliminate anger completely (at least in its quasi-voluntary form) rather than getting angry about things that are up to us. This is an interesting idea, though. I do think that if you shift focus away from other people, and away from your character as a whole, onto your specific thoughts and beliefs, which might be a consequence of what you're saying, that it can potentially be antagonistic to anger.
Seneca’s On Anger has a lot to say on the matter. Anger is weakness, a sign our tranquility created by rational perceptions has been disrupted and suggests a flaw within those perceptions. Much anger comes from reality not meeting our expectations or desires. The first discipline of Stoicims is desire, that we ought to have no desires other than what the universe presents to us within our control. When something frustrating happens, it is the will of the universe and the most rational response is to accept it and even desire it which evaporates anger. Epictetus says anger is a sign someone or something has control over you.
Any anger inducing situation is an opportunity to practice virtue. Perhaps we are waiting for someone who is late for a meeting. It’s an opportunity for patience. If it becomes a pattern and a boundary setting conversation needs to happen, it’s an opportunity for justice but also courage and kindness.
Yes, this idea that anger should be viewed as a signal to engage in a particular type of behaviour is quite important, I think. The paradox that anger is a sign of weakness, that it means we're controlled by someone else, is also extremely significant. Many people are motivated to become angry because they feel it makes them more powerful. (Psychologists call this "illusion of control".) Persuading someone prone to anger that the opposite is true, it's an illusion, and that they're actually making themselves weaker and more vulnerable, comes as a shock to them at first, but it can be an epiphany that helps them change. What, then, are we to make of influencers like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, and others popular in the manosphere, who appear to encourage anger among their followers? Do their followers become more angry or less angry as a result of consuming the content (videos mainly) that they produce? If they're becoming more angry, does that mean, paradoxically, that they're becoming weaker, and giving away more control to others as a result of consuming this type of self-improvement material?
That’s a really interesting question. I would say yes, those manosphere influencers tend to encourage anger among their audience. Eliciting outrage to form a community is a classic tactic to increase influence. There are good, healthy things they sometimes encourage like lift and set boundaries. But I think a lot of it creates a sense of victimization. And you’re right, they give away control to others as a result.
Another thought. There are lots of evolutionary psychology arguments to be made for men have a predisposition for aggression and violence based on historical roles. But the Stoic answer is probably that men as rational beings are meant to live above our primal instincts as belief and culture can override them.
Yes, these arguments based on evolutionary psychology are logically weak in that they often seem to commit what philosophers call the genetic fallacy or fallacy of origins. That can mean different things but one form is when we argue that something resembles its origins, e.g., in evolutionary terms. Just because shaking hands originated as a way of checking the person you're meeting isn't armed, let's say, it doesn't mean that tells us anything about the function it serves today - to pick the first example that comes to mind. Just because anger once served a particular function that doesn't mean that it still functions in the same way. Also, I'm not entirely sure that what animals, or our early ancestors, experienced can really be called "anger". Does my cat get angry? I'm not sure. It exhibits aggression if I try to steal its food maybe. I have no idea if what's going on inside its head is comparable to human anger, though, in terms of the psychology. If I mosquito bites me, I might "aggressively" swat at it, and kill it, but I don't actually experience any emotion of anger inside.
Interesting, thanks for the thoughts. Fallacy of origin is intriguing. You get into arguments of nature vs. nurture as well although I think the reality is a combination of the two. It’s also impossible to know with certainty how any being experienced reality as we are limited to our own perception. Seneca says we have to proceed without absolute certainty and proceed in probabilities based on reason. I assume you experience reality similar to me because we are of the same species. I would say we do have a predisposition to anger or at least outbursts of anger. But Seneca says to experience the moment of anger then override it with reason.
There is definitely a cultural belief that anger is manly. Marcus Aurelius said gentleness is more manly because you are more in control and more human. What do you think? Do you think angry men are considered more attractive in society?
I don't know if angry men are considered attractive. I'd say probably not. Confident and assertive men, I hope, are more appealing. I agree with Marcus Aurelius. Anger is a form of weakness, at least insofar as we allow ourselves to be duped by our initial angry impressions, which are typically not good representations of reality.
Thanks everyone. I’ve created this brief online form to gather initial feedback on a very simple Stoic anger management technique. Please test it out, if you’re interested.
Sometimes I'll ask a simplified question that may seem contentious but it's intended as a cue for discussion. Like this... How can anger be called "natural" insofar as it significantly distorts our perception of reality?
Donald, this book is not properly Stoic, but it was written by one of the most popular contemporary buddhist monks of last century. Thich Nhat Hahn, the book is called Anger. And I think the logic behind it aligns very well with the teachings of Stoicism.
I've found something similar, although it's still surprising, in a way, because almost every book on CBT used to mention the famous quote from Epictetus, and Beck and Ellis repeatedly stated that Stoicism was one of the main philosophical influences on CBT. Part of the problem is that many psychologists and therapists don't actually read the original books. I agree that the third-wave has obvious links with Stoicism. There's no reference to that in the main texts, though. (I mentioned it in the ACT email group years ago and the response was that they thought Stoicism was like stoicism and saw it as contrary to what they were teaching, which was a mistake on their part.) The main ACT clinical manual does, actually , cite the Serenity Prayer - but that's about as close as it gets to acknowledging any debt to Stoicism.
I think that's different from other countries, e.g., in the NHS in Britain, it's more common to study the subject a bit more broadly. Anyone, though, who reads a general intro to CBT should probably find themselves reading about Ellis. Some clinicians have quite a narrow scope, though, especially if they're focusing on a particular specialism. Then again, if they go to any conferences on CBT they should hear about other approaches, to some extent, and be exposed to books about the subject that touch on the history.
I didn't know about this anti self-help book. That's interesting. I know an author in Denmark called Chris MacDonald who is interested in Stoicism but not many others there, unfortunately.
I want to emphasize something that I've said countless times over the years, but this whole thread helps to highlight. Most people can think of at least one strategy for coping with anger, maybe they can identify 2-3. It's similar with therapists, in my experience as a trainer, they might name 3-4 strategies for anger if you put them on the spot and ask for a list.
What I find quite remarkable, is that Marcus Aurelius lists TEN distinct cognitive strategies for coping with anger (Med 11.18). Not only that but he returns to selections from that list over and over throughout the Meditations, as if he really is so familiar with these techniques that they're second nature to him. The list he gives isn't even exhaustive as Epictetus and Seneca mention other Stoic techniques for anger. Most of the strategies Marcus lists would not seem out of place in modern CBT. In other words, his level of comprehension of cognitive therapy for anger is, and I don't say this lightly, quite astounding.
Another observation... Nobody would be able to rattle off a list like that based on personal experience because we normally choose 2-3 strategies at most, and stick with them, for most problems. When someone gives a list like that they're demonstrating the level of analysis you'd expect from a TEACHER of the subject, who has thought about it more systematically. I'm not sure why that is in Marcus' case, as he did not teach philosophy. It may be though that he acquired training in this list from Rusticus or one of his other teachers, who had this level of comprehension. Marcus learned and memorized the whole list, though, not just a selection of 2-3 strategies. That's real dedication to a therapy process that, in fact, goes way beyond what a client in modern CBT would normally do. Clients learn the bits of therapy that help them - not the ENTIRE subject and every strategy that's available. You go to the gym and learn a dozen exercises, maybe, which you use in your routine, but a fitness instructor would know dozens more because he teaches different people. That's the advanced level of comprehension that Marcus exhibits, for some reason, with regard to anger management. Compare what he says to the examples in this thread. Most people are describing similar strategies, but usually 1-3 seem enough to them... not ten! As soon as I saw Marcus' list for the first time, I though it was odd - it resembles the way an expert, a teacher, of psychotherapy would think about the subject, and it's several levels of sophistication beyond most modern self-help in that regard.
Let me try to pose what I think is an important question... People who get angry, and people who believe anger can often be helpful, often cite the fact that they believe expressing anger in the right way can be an effective tool for influencing others and achieving constructive social change, correct? Now in assertiveness training we always begin by teaching people to distinguish more clearly between the emotion (anger) and the behaviour (aggression or assertiveness). Actors can replicate any type of angry behaviour, without necessarily feeling angry themselves - as can most of us, to some extent. This raises at least two major questions but I'll focus on the first. If anger clearly has costs attached, why do so few non-angry people choose to fake anger in their exchanges with others if it's such an effective means of communicating and achieving change? Of course, sometimes people do pretend to be angry, but it's quite rare. So why don't more non-angry people simply pretend to be angry, like an actor might, if angry behaviour is such an effective tool of social change? Why don't we glare at people and yell more often when we're not feeling angry or engage in other angry-looking behaviours voluntarily? Again, people do this sometimes, but it's not very common. Why isn't it a more commonly-used communication strategy if it generally works well? (Or does it actually work well?)
To stop when you feel it's beginnings, step back and ask why you are angered, and note that the ego's reflexive response will waste your energy, and you will have learned nothing.
Absolutely. There's a lot going on there from a psychological perspective but it's also, to some extent, common sense. So we find similar advice throughout the ages. Hearing that can help validate the experiences of others who are coping with anger. To be able to stop when it is beginning you need to know the situations where it is likely to be triggered, so that you can be on the lookout, and be aware of the early-warning signs, which are typically bodily sensations that are very common but which we tend not to notice normally unless we're looking for them, such as frowning, or tensing our shoulders, or changes in our breathing. The other bit of what you said is also important - being very aware of the negative consequences of anger can diminish the habit's strength. But it needs to be a clear perception not just a vague idea. So working on this can help, e.g., through visualization techniques. Also, the Stoics advise us to ask ourselves: what does you more harm the anger or the thing that triggered it? That question can help diminish the emotion's strength.
I'd love to read more about the Stoic theory of 'proto-passions' in relation to anger. As I understand it, these are the initial sensations of anger which we cannot stop, that can quickly engulf us if we're not careful. How did they resist them developing? What techniques for recognizing them? What physical or psychological sensations are early warning signs?
It seems to me that this concept is similar to what we call "automatic thoughts" in modern cognitive therapy, and automatic or involuntary experiences in general. The distinction between voluntary and automatic thinking is crucial to modern psychotherapy. We don't normally try to stop involuntary thoughts or feelings but rather the main approach now recommended is to actively accept them and view them with indifference. I think that's what the Stoics also had in mind. Of course, over time they may change indirectly, as a result of changes to our voluntary thinking and underlying beliefs. How to recognize them? The Stoics talk, actually, about using a mirror - something I wrote a recent article about. However, generally I would say that making a list of high-risk situations and triggers helps, so you know in advance to watch out for the incipient signs of an emotion. And also studying previously unnoticed early-warning signs can be facilitated by coaching or following certain cues, e.g., most people frown when they become angry but few people observe themselves doing this. So knowing that fact can make it easier to notice the muscular tension in your forehead, if you're on the lookout for it.
I just got into DBT with Marsha Linehan's book. DBT, rooted in CBT/Stoicism but focused on emotional regulation and mindfulness. DBT therapy addresses maladaptive behavior by teaching emotion regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, core mindfulness, and self-management skills. Doc, you got anything on DBT you can share?
I love to read the free flow of information between Donald and so many people who are actively engaged in CBT, DBT and Stoicism. At 79 I am a very late arrival to Stoicism. I will describe myself as an active and most interested user of Stoicism. I came across Donald and Stoicism about 6 years ago. I retired in 2006 from a major Fortune 500 company where I negotiated and supported the sale of its products for more than 25 years. I was exposed to DBT in the Mid 80s in hopes of finding help for a daughter.
My first correspondence with David led to his response of a single word ANGER 😡. The lights went on and it’s been full throttle as much as I can muster. The anger I had began in my home literally at birth.
It’s been a challenging ride but so very very worth it. Mental illness is such a debilitating illness. I’ve witnessed it in my very own household. If I had billions of dollars I know where I would invest it. Supporting Robert in the slightest way is the least I can do.
Namaste 🙏🏻
Thanks, Mort.
I've studied many different modalities of therapy. I began as a client centred counsellor, and studied psychoanalysis and trained in psychodynamic counselling, before getting into research on hypnosis, and then various forms of CBT. I have to say that although I'm interested in DBT, it's one of the few modalities that I've not studied in any depth. I've had friends and colleagues who used it but it was a little outside my sphere as a clinician because it mainly originated as a treatment for borderline personality disorder, which would usually be treated by specialists in that diagnosis - though I understand it's now used with other diagnoses. (My main specialism was social anxiety disorder, and to some extent anxiety disorders in general.) DBT is more common in the US than in the UK, where I'm from - and BPD diagnosis is roughly 2-3 times more common in the US than in the UK.
I've heard that there are many parallels between DBT and Stoicism, to some extent these are similar to the links between Stoicism and other third-wave forms of CBT, such as the emphasis on mindfulness, emotional acceptance, living in accord with values, etc.
Thanks so much for your valuable insight.
Must admit I am challenged by a level of frustration. You may recall from the outset I saw Stoicism as the answer to all the world problems. Why can’t others see something that to me is so obvious?
Good question. AI seems to quite like Stoicism so maybe that will influence the next generation.
That is a real possibility. We can only hope. 🙏🏻
My #1 immediate (and super-effective!) practice for dealing with anger and other harmful, “temporary madness”emotions: Cognitive Distancing! Thank you, Donald, for writing and teaching us about this method so often, so clearly, and so helpfully!
Good strategy, Ann!
I found the book "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman to have greatly influenced my thoughts about anger. Basically, Goleman professes the "red light, green light" approach to anger. If you get angry then stop your self, i.e. "red light" and think about the consequences of your angry impulses. Come up with alternative actions to respond, i.e. "yellow light." When you figure out an acceptable response without terrible consequences then follow up on that action. Goleman's approach very similar to CBT of putting your thoughts into proper perspective and engaging the left prefrontal cortex of the brain.
I regularly carry a loaded firearm with a CPL permit so the consequences of anger could quickly land me in jail. The AEDP approach of just feeling through your emotions like anger with breathing and grounding help with impulse control. See "It is Not Always Depression" by Hillary Jacobs Hendel. I stop myself from shooting people despite outrageous behavior of people. I then think about appropriate responses. Since I am a lawyer, that means I figure out ways of suing people which is often the best approach to anger inducing stimulus.
I plan to read "The Upside of Your Dark Side" by Kashdan and Biswas-Diener because I tend to internalize thus getting depressed rather than angry. (Learned helplessness as a kid from an abusive alcoholic/drug addicted father.) Recognizing anger can be a helpful emotion to prevent yourself from being further exploited and abused is important to consider.
The Buddhist philosophy of balance and to be assertive rather than aggressive is key. I need to finish reading Robertson's book on "Resilience" which covers assertiveness training in detail. So many neuroses and not enough time to read about dealing with them all.
Yes, we sometimes call that the "stop and think" or "time out" approach to anger management. Some researchers actually disagree with it but I think it's usually helpful. Thinking through the consequences is difficult though when in an angry state of mind because your ability to do so is impaired but there are ways that can be tackled, e.g., by rehearsing visualizing the negative consequences of anger beforehand, etc. I think breathing through feelings can be helpful in a number of ways, one being that it allows us to sit with them for a bit longer, which can slow down impulsive responses and gives us more time for natural emotional processing to take place and anger to be replaced by other more adaptive feelings.
Thanks for the feedback.
Differentiate between anger and irritability, they are completely different, irritability is irrational because it is fight or flight and you're not breathing or thinking clearly when you are in fight or flight mode for any length of time. Anger without fight or flight means that you have the emotion of anger and still have rational thought and choose whether to act on it or not. The experience of it it will pass and be relieved whether you act on it or not. if you suppress anger (or any other emotion) you will have fight or flight
which means anxiety and or irritability and not have rational thought. This is what the stoics didn't know, they mix the two up and call anger irrational and unhealthy, when it is irritability that is irrational and unhealthy.
I think these distinctions can be important. Although I would say that most of the research on anger tends to associate it with cognitive biases and impaired thinking skills, so I think the Stoics were largely on the right track when they classed anger as an irrational emotion.
I’ll start off by mentioning that I am not a scholar, although I am educated and hold a couple of university degrees, I am by no means an expert in philosophy or Stoicism. I’m a Canadian Federal Correctional Officer and I work in one of the angriest environments one can possibly imagine, prison. The inmates are angry, officers are angry and management is angry. From top to bottom the whole organization is just a toxic entity boiling with anger. Discovering Stoicism has to a large degree helped me escape this endless cycle of anger that comes with my profession.
The organization I work for is all about control. Controlling inmate behaviour and maintaining order and security inside the prison walls are the primary duties of a correctional officer. Although we try to control everything that goes on inside the institution, in reality there is very little that we do control and this is where a lot of the anger and frustration comes from in this profession. This anger is compounded and over the course of a career and it can change even the most kind hearted person into a miserable, jaded ball of rage. Once I discovered Stoicism, it was the beginning of my journey towards conquering my anger.
Epictetus once cautioned his students stating that philosophy is not purely academic and they should not spend all their time drowning in books. Philosophy is a way of life and is to be practiced daily in the real world. I can assure you that in my work environment I have had plenty of opportunities to practice various Stoic teachings.
The first principle that was a complete game changer for conquering and controlling my anger is the dichotomy of control. Often in the chaos of working in a prison we lose sight of our surroundings and the bigger picture because we get what we officers like to call "tunnel vision", where we are overly focused on what is going on right in front of us and lose sight of everything else. We get so caught up in trying to control everything that we completely lose sight of the fact that in reality we really control nothing, we can only influence things but the outcome is not up to us. The dichotomy of control taught me the only thing I have control over is the internal. My views, judgements, opinions and reactions are what I can control. Once I discovered this, it was extremely liberating and I stopped worrying and trying to control all the externals around me and only focused on what I could control. Majority of my anger and frustration faded when I finally came to this realization.
The second principle that has benefitted me is Seneca's power of the pause. Whenever I feel anger coming on, I recognize and accept the fact that I am angry and I do not suppress it. I recognize that I am angry but I don't react to it. I do not wish to become a slave to my anger. I gather myself and try to respond with sound and reasonable judgement. I am particularly cognizant of this when I am dealing with an inmate or a fellow staff member. I realize that once I get angry and respond with emotion, the person I am directing that anger toward now has power over me.
The final stoic teaching that has assisted me a great deal is a quote from Marcus Aurelius. “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.” I often remember this quote while simultaneously using Seneca's power of the pause. I pause and think of all the times when I have gotten angry and made the situation worse by losing control. This is often enough to steer me into a more sensible reaction. This technique has assisted me numerous time in both my professional and private life.
Battling with my anger is still a daily grind and there are still moments where I lose the battle as I am no Stoic sage. Stoicism and its teachings however, have given me an upper hand and is helping me build up my inner citadel. The walls keep getting stronger and I hope one day they will be impenetrable so my tranquility will remain undisturbed.
Yes, it sounds like a good place to study anger. Andy Small uses anger with inmates in the UK, and there are some videos around of him discussing his work. (I worked briefly with the probation service in the UK at the start of my counselling career.) I agree that dichotomy control, pausing (we sometimes call this the "stop and think" or "time out" strategy in CBT) and absolutely the quote you mention seems important to me in this regard. I relate it to the concept of functional analysis in behaviour therapy,.
Stop and think. This often works better if you train yourself to identify high-risk situations (triggers) for anger and to be be on the lookout during them for early-warning signs (EWS), which you can also learn to spot such as automatic thoughts and particularly physical sensations that come early in the anger sequence. I tell clients to try to notice things they hadn't noticed before. That's easier than it sounds because anger tends to limit our awareness and, e.g., it's surprisingly common for people to overlook initially that they are frowning or staring or their voice has changed, etc. Spotting these things makes it easier to introduce a pause - it can give you another couple of seconds, i.e., it buys you more time. Also, anger is typically a way of responding to an initial feeling of anxiety or emotional hurt (frustration, disappointment, loss, etc). We normally ask people to try to notice what that emotion that precedes anger is. Again, noticing this tends to expand the time available to step out of the anger sequence. The next step is usually what we call cognitive distancing or defusion - the ability to step aside and observe your thoughts from a detached perspective. That's a knack some people find easy, whereas others need coaching and practice to get.
Functional Analysis. I think even better than considering the consequences (though this is pretty effective) is another quote from the Stoics. Ask yourself what's worse the response or the trigger? What does you more harm, your own anger or the thing you're angry about? I find it also helps to remember that the trigger, or thing you're angry about, could potentially be viewed from different perspectives and dealt with in a number of ways (cognitive flexibility). With that in mind, it's more obvious that the anger is the more harmful thing. Some people find that just by asking themselves that question in the moment they can undermine the motivation for responding with anger, and gain more pause.
Stoicism has helped me not get angry towards others. But I am still struggling with anger towards myself whenever my behavior falls short. Usually my self-anger happens after the fact, when I realize I got fooled, or manipulated. Any stoic advice on this matter greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a subtle but important distinction between being angry with yourself and being concerned about your own errors. When we're angry we tend to think in very overgeneralized "characterological" terms, i.e., 'I'm an idiot", "I'm worthless", "I always make mistakes", etc. That's just anger talking. It helps to realize that's a cognitive bias, which makes problem-solving almost impossible, and to shift focus instead onto more specific things that we can change.
If you're applying a high standard to yourself, it can help to explore it from different perspectives and try to identify a more flexible and adaptive rule or standard that would lead to better results. For example, we often ask, would you teach that rule/standard to a child and advise them to follow it through life? No? What would be a more helpful rule to guide them instead? What would happen if you followed that rule yourself? How could you begin following it tomorrow?
Hey, I'm not a scholar. I'm just a regular guy trying to be a Stoic practitioner, so take this for what its worth. I've never been quick to anger, so this hasn't been much of an issue for me. But, I believe the initial emotional reaction may be unavoidable to a degree. What Stoicism teaches us, perhaps using the view from above, is to acknowledge the feeling and situation and to use that gap between stimulus and response to allow our rational mind to choose our reaction and our course, rather than acting on impulse. Maybe this is obvious to you all already.
Yes. To use my favourite example: if someone walked up to you in the street and spat in your face, you would probably feel a flush of automatic anger. (For years I used that example in teaching then one day, in London, someone actually did it to me - a guy who seemed to have mental health problems, or was high on drugs, was walking up to everyone he passed in the street at night and spitting in their faces.) As I recall, Seneca says he wouldn't even refer to that initial feeling as anger per se. Maybe it could also be called shock or alarm or something else. I think the main thing is to notice that it's happening and to be aware that we're now in a different brain state suddenly, in which our judgement will be biased. In cognitive therapy it's called the "hostile mode" of brain functioning. I think of it as like being drunk or high. We're not thinking straight in that frame of mind so we have to be careful not to allow it to make our decisions. The Stoics call it temporary madness, which is a good description. It's best to take a time-out and wait until we've regained our composure before doing anything, usually.
Excellent description! I’ve spent many years as a cop, so I suppose I’ve had a lot of practice at not allowing emotion to make decisions. But, at the same time, the majority of calls we respond to revolve around people wrapped in this temporary madness!
As a lawyer, my initial response would be to someone spitting on me would be to reach for my pepper spray, i.e. the jerk sauce. You never want to appease the aggressor and escalate the violence of the threat, i.e. be the hunter and not the rabbit. The Navy SEALs teach a lot about immediate action drills to respond to various threats. Constantly imagining threat scenarios and appropriate responses is a useful exercise in a high threat environment. See "SEAL Survival" by Cade Courtley.
I have to say that I've spoken to several special forces personnel and they have a very different perspective on anger from me. I think there's a lot to unpack there because it seems to me that they often view anger as a tool but don't really take account of the problems associate with doing that. For instance, anger can sure focus your attention but we also know it leads people to underestimate risk, which a problem in a high-risk situation, because when people experience anger they tend to act more impulsively and place themselves and others in more danger. So it's a dangerous tool, and I think it's worth exploring the pros and cons more carefully.
What actually happened in the situation above was that it took me a minute to realize what was going on. I was with my wife. I wiped my hand on my face and said "Did that guy really just spit on me?!" Then I ran after him, which was perhaps a mistake, and yelled "Hey, what the hell did you do that for?" He turned around, took a step forward and swung a haymaker punch at me. I remember in that split second suddenly realizing that he was out of his mind because his punch whizzed through the air at least three feet from my face. He clearly didn't know what planet he was on. So I sighed and walked away,. I saw him spit on another couple. I called out to some other people to stay away from him. In retrospect I would perhaps have responded differently. I'm glad it didn't escalate, though, and I had the sense to walk away the moment I realized he was either high or crazy. We should probably have called the cops - I can't recall now but I think there was a reason why we didn't. (I was abroad so maybe having issues with my mobile phone or something.)
I've taught this phenomenon in stress resilency classes for work as as a reaction state. We called it condition black, where the executive center is no longer in control- you are reacting to a specific perceived threat happening right now, and the lizard brain is in control. This state is where trained or learned responses come into play, the problem being that those trained/learned responses are not always appropriate to the specific situation. Teaching people how to recognize this state of mind and take themselves out of it is a long process.
Yes, I think that's a helpful way of looking at it.
Donald, I appreciate your deep dive into Stoic teachings on anger—it's an essential topic that deserves more exploration. While Stoicism often frames anger as a "temporary madness" that must be subdued for rational thought to prevail, I wonder if there’s a way to rethink anger from a Stoic lens that might see it not just as something to be suppressed or avoided but as a potential source of insight and growth when navigated properly.
The Stoics often taught us to align with nature, and part of nature is experiencing a full range of human emotions, including anger. What if we considered anger as a signal—a tool for understanding deeper values or unfulfilled needs? For example, anger might emerge not just from a lack of rationality but from a deeper sense of injustice or a violation of a core principle. In this way, anger could be reframed as a compass pointing toward areas where our values are misaligned with our environment or actions.
Epictetus said, "We are disturbed not by events, but by the views we take of them." If we take this idea further, what if anger is also an invitation to inspect our views more deeply, not just to quell them but to understand what lies beneath? Could anger, then, be seen as a gateway to self-discovery, a way to uncover unexamined assumptions or deeper passions that, when understood, could guide us to more virtuous actions?
Furthermore, Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, often speaks of using challenges as opportunities to practice virtue. What if we extend this to emotions themselves, such as anger? Instead of seeing anger merely as a challenge to virtue, it could be seen as an opportunity to sharpen virtues like courage, justice, and wisdom. For instance, anger arising from witnessing an injustice could be channeled into purposeful action that aligns with Stoic virtues—transforming the initial emotional impulse into a deliberate, reasoned response that promotes justice or societal good.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially from your perspective on the potential flexibility within Stoic teachings to engage with emotions like anger more dynamically, perhaps even using them as a catalyst for virtuous action and self-awareness rather than solely focusing on their suppression or avoidance.
Looking forward to your reflections on this nuanced angle!
Yes. We need something resembling anger, or desire, in order to exercise the virtue of temperance. But I think we can learn from anger while also challenging it. Let me take a step back for a moment and explain that I think a whole chapter (or three!) of the book should be about the idea that anger has value or is justified. We have to proceed slowly and carefully because anger itself is known to impair our ability to judge exactly this sort of question, by limiting our sense of the consequences of actions, and the range of options available to us.
Before we begin to judge the benefits of anger, we need to look at the costs. That would be a list but it includes things like several cognitive and attentional biases, impaired problem-solving and decision making, impulsiveness, etc. We must also distinguish anger (the emotion) from aggression (the behaviour) as many of the perceived benefits of anger are due to the behaviour, which does not, in fact, depend upon the emotion - so that whole class of perceived benefits can arguably be dismissed before we even begin a cost-benefit analysis. We also need to carefully distinguish the involuntary from the voluntary aspects of anger. For instance, we might say that we can learn from the automatic feelings of anger that we experience but still step back and suspend our more voluntary responses, such as venting, aggression, or ruminative thinking.
Hi Donald
I think the practices you discuss in your books are all very good and effective. Likewise those strategies referred to in the original Stoic texts of Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and those discussed in recent Stoic literature.
What I've found personally works for me with regards to anger management include:
I've had to come face to face with many an angry man and woman over the years in the course of my employment.
Using verbal de-escalation, distraction, redirection.
Listening to someone who is angry at you and acknowledging their point of view helps. Not getting angry in response is essential.
Kindness
I've found responding to an angry person with kindness and a gentle tone of voice helps greatly.
I've found that angry people find it hard to continue being angry at you if you're kind to them. A soft tone, trying to assist them if you can in some way.
It's something I've mentioned before on similar threads. The response varies. Some people have given me a lot of grief. Almost insinuating that I'm being rather too liberal and wishy washy and soft.
But I think that was due to a misunderstanding on what I mean by using kindness.
I mean that not responding to anger with anger or rudeness. Acknowledging that anger often has its roots in pain, fear, frustration and toxicity,( substance use).
My work involves working in a psychiatric unit with people with mental illness who have been detained under the mental health act so their rights have been severely curtailed.
They are angry and shout and swear, get verbally and physically aggressive. They can get violent. They may need to be restrained and forcibly medicated or even kept separate from everyone else.
They do not understand why they are in hospital and do not have insight into their illness or their risk to themselves or others.
They may be psychotic and deluded. They may be very anti social. Many of the people I come across have a criminal record. Many have seriously assaulted others.
In short, it's hard to have a logical conversation with many of these people.
But, despite all this, in my experience, those who get angry, and they can get extremely angry and threatening, often respond well to being treated with respect and kindness. With humanity. It may take some time but they do respond well.
I also find that not rushing to judge and blame others helps me immensely. Someone cuts me up on the freeway?
I regard his actions as his poor actions and demonstrative of his poor character not mine. But I also think that maybe he didn't see me or has a reason to drive like that, perhaps an emergency.
Thinking that we humans are all here for a short time only and it's fruitless to waste time and energy getting angry at others.
Getting angry has caused me bigger problems than the original thing that got me angry in the first place. I've personally experienced this.
Since then I've read about this in Stoic literature. It was like a lightbulb moment for me. I was reading what I had already experienced.
When I find myself getting annoyed I refer to some maxims or go to phrases I've learnt to help me in the moment.
Thinking that anger is temporary madness, as Seneca said, really resonates with me.
I could go on but I'm not sure how helpful I'm being.
To conclude I'd like to say that I know what anger is. Being on the receiving end of it. And having been someone who used to get very angry very quickly and with increasing frequency.
But after having discovered Stoicism, Stoic philosophy and the psychological aspects of Stoicism I've had a complete turnaround. Night and day.
It's really been amazing for me. And sustainable.
I very rarely get angry now.
And when I do it's much less intense and I recover and turn it around quickly.
I thank the study of Stoicism for that. I thank the modern Stoicism movement for that. I thank authors of Stoic literature for that especially you and Massimo Pigliucci. I consider myself a Stoic practitioner/ student of Stoicism and have adopted Stoicism as my philosophy of life.
Hope this has helped in some way.
Kind regards
Iain Lumsden
You probably know that Marcus Aurelius talks about kindness being an antidote to anger in Med 11.18. He also says that whereas other people think of anger as strength and manliness, he believes the opposite is true. There's an underlying technical point he's assuming which is that the Stoics define anger as the desire for revenge, i.e, the desire for the other person to experience harm in retaliation ("I am going to teach them a lesson!"). But the Stoics think we're all fundamentally misguided about what is good and bad, or helpful and harmful. And they believe that we should wish our perceived "enemies" to become our friends and allies, by showing them kindness, which as the opposite of anger, would be defined as the desire to help the other person. How? Fundamentally, by helping them to become wise and virtuous, and flourish, Fate willing - as it is not under my direct control but I may still attempt to influence them in the right direction. The Stoics say that a friend is the only thing that is directly "productive of virtue" because they can provide us with a role model.
I follow Rob Hendersons Substack who’s just released a post about anger.
“ weaponising anger is a use full political strategy “
A few good insights on that too.
“Indeed, across political settings, angry people are more likely to vote than those who are not angry. In other words, politicians who can stoke anger can use it to motivate their base. The angrier voters are at the opposing party, the more likely they are to show up to the polls to support their own party. As Webster puts it, “angry voters are loyal voters.”
Yes, throughout history, people have clearly tried to evoke anger. Once you realize that anger is a cognitive state, in which our thinking is profoundly biased, it becomes glaringly obvious that making the electorate, or assembly, enraged, though it makes them easy to control, is also going to lead to dangerous and impulsive decision-making, and a whole battery of other problems.
They're more likely to vote but less likely to consider the longer-term consequences of their vote.
I find anger shows up for me mostly as irritation in the context of family, and in most cases when I'm distracted or tired. I try to keep this beautiful quote from Epictetus in mind "Starting with things of little value – a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine – repeat to yourself: For such a small price I buy tranquility and peace of mind." From one of your books or a talk, I can't recall, I made the connection that the emotion is undergirded by a narrative, and that if the narrative is interrupted the anger fades. I've been able to successfully calm it this way, although it isn't always easy, and it depends on how aware I am at the moment. This is a great thread, can't wait to read the book!
That's a great way of thinking about it. When I think about anger management, I look at what the research tells us but then I also look at what clients, or other people, keep telling me has actually helped them. I hear (variations of) the same things over and over and over. Thinking in some way about the consequences of anger seems valuable to most people and we hear this in the cliched remark "It's not worth it!" It makes sense because the research tells us that anger normally impairs our ability to evaluate the consequences of our actions so when we manage to look at it in terms of its consequences we're actually snapping ourselves out of the trance of anger, to some extent just by adopting that perspective. So asking yourself is it worth getting angry over some spilled milk? Is it worth letting this trivial thing slide in order to maintain my sanity? I think the most powerful question of this kind, though, is the Stoic question: What does you more harm, your own anger or the thing about which you're angry? Shifting into that perspective can be directly antagonistic to the experience of anger.
Has anyone read the surprising purpose of anger book by Marshall b Rosenberg.
His whole idea is that anger is a misplaced call for empathy.
Essentially saying. ” I need you to see that something hurt me “
In the book he outlines steps such as observation, identifying your needs in the situation. Requesting those needs be met.
Very short book about 30’pages but good insights
It sounds interesting. It seems like a different perspective from the one we normally get in literature on anger. I'm not sure it fits neatly with other insights and observations but I do think there's some value in this idea.
My experience has been that after stumbling upon Stoicism (long story), my anger issues have very much abated. The techniques of recognizing the proto-emotion and being able to take the step back (or take in the bigger picture) have been quite beneficial.
Yes, for many people, spotting the early-warning signs of anger is often enough to nip it in the bud, particularly if we're able to gain cognitive distance, by shifting perspective and separating our thoughts from the events to which they refer.
Firstly this is a great topic. I think stoism helps with anger because it forces you to aby in a way that is positive and not destructive.
However, I think for it to be fully effective you need to be emerged into the philosophy of stoism. Then the tools for controlling anger are really present, and are quickly accessed because you have trained your thinking.
That's my thoughts..
I'm more optimistic. In my experience, and I think the outcome studies back this, people often benefit significantly from CBT without being immersed in Stoic philosophy. In fact, often people benefit from very basic interventions. You must realize that anger, like worry, is very fragile. It depends on just the right conditions to grow, like an orchid. Change one of several variables and the spell is broken.
Yes totally agree. One does not need the stoism to benefit from the interventions.
In your experience once Abner management is learned is it learned for life? Or are there relapses? Of so how often and why? Again just my thoughts..
We don't know for sure. No clinician could really claim to answer that question based on their experience alone. To be honest, we can only judge that based on long-term follow-up studies. It would depend what approach is used, I think. When anger management is done through assertive communication, or problem-solving training, it probably requires booster sessions in many cases for long-term maintenance. But it may be that approaches like cognitive restructuring, which aim more at changing beliefs and emotions are more lasting.
Generally speaking, therapies that aim to change specific behaviours, such as ways of talking, tend to wear off after, say, a year or two, as people forget the skills or get into other habits. Therapies that target underlying attitudes and emotions tend to have more durable benefits. In the past assertiveness training was often used to treat anger, by replacing aggressive behaviour directly, but now we tend to focus more on beliefs and emotional self-regulation.
Fear may cause anger and the anger it produces wants to defend and protect
Aaron T. Beck found that almost every case of anger was initiated by either fear or emotional hurt, like sadness or shame. Anger can definitely be seen in many cases, not as a primary emotional response, but more of a n irrational coping strategy. We can identify several ways in which it seems to relive emotional pain but the costs outweigh the benefits.
Stoicism has greatly improved my anger. My old temper is gone and I rarely get truly mad any more. Seneca as well as others were a big part of that. A method I prefer to use a lot is the view from above. If something is starting to get under my skin, I step back and look at it from a larger prospective. Is it something that matters in the grand scheme of things? Will my anger make one bit of difference? The answer is always no. Also, taking the time to look from above is a long enough break from my impression of anger to calm down and not give in
I think the view from above, and similar perspective shifting exercises, can be helpful. I think the best argument in favour of this is that anger clearly narrows our attention and causes very restricted and selective thinking, and attention, and recall. So techniques like the view from above can counteract that tendency to some extent. Another way of looking at it is that when we're upset about something we tend to focus automatically on the problem, putting it under a magnifying glass, which amplifies the emotional effect. When we widen our perspective, though, we introduce other, competing, stimuli into our perspective, which can allow us to continue acknowledging the problem while diluting its emotional impact.
I first became interested in stoicism. When my two sisters were joking one day and said I was always angry. I rejected that idea and then they pointed out examples of how I would easily get raised and start going on.
I felt a bit embarrassed about it and thought about the things which made me angry.
My job in retail , the customers were always annoying, my colleagues were irritating , the work was menial and never ending.
The fact that I wasn’t in a good career compared to my friends hurt me. That people might think I’m lower than them or stupid was hurting me and everything reminded me of that.
My beliefs were that I had the right to get animated at the smallest inconvenience because it wasn’t fair . Life was dealing me a rough hand and I never got the lucky breaks others did with their careers.
I realised I was getting angry because I was annoyed at my own lack of progression , I was annoyed I hadn’t made anything of myself and anything that reminded me of that would set me off.
I started getting into stoicism as a remedy for being angry , led me to realise I was only angry at myself and I should probably get my emotions under control , do something about my situation and stop looking at the world like I’m at its mercy.
and it helped, I started my own business , achieved plenty of personal goals and took on a whole new look at the world.
I used to be full of anger in my teens, and early twenties, then over time it just disappeared. I think I began to see it as ridiculous and unnecessary. Reading books on Stoicism helped but it was kind of a side effect. I wasn't really trying to get rid of my anger I just sort of grew out of it, somehow, I think. With minor irritations, I think it's even more useful to ask the Stoic question: What does you more harm, your anger or the minor inconvenience you're irritated about? The more we ask that question, I think, the weaker the anger becomes.
That seems to me to be a natural outcome of a developing brain, learning how to deal with the effects of testosterone aggression. I think most males experience this aggression as we go through late puberty (I can't speak to the female experience) and that it's the maturation of the brain that helps get a handle on it, in the right environment. The "wrong" environment can teach harmful coping skills for this aggression that can make functioning in society difficult.
I can tell you that of the people who contact me about anger, about 90% of them are male. If you skim the comments in this thread, I suspect you'll also see a similar ratio of men to women. Not sure what that means exactly but it's quite noticeable.
How many women contact you about depression compared to men? I remember a saying that depression is anger turned inwards and I wonder if this is how estrogen fueled anger manifests or maybe it's just more socially acceptable for that response?
About 2-3 times more women are diagnosed with clinical depression than men but I don't see them as much in my coaching practice as I would have, say, when I worked in the NHS.
As someone who has dealt with anger issues, I have found the societal maxim that I need to “vent my anger” to be counterproductive (at best). It usually creates a self feeding tornado that makes everything worse, including my regret and resentment. One thing I do is to borrow a Bhuddist lesson and recognize and take ownership of my anger when it arises. I feel it well up, and then “my anger and I are going to leave now” or “we’re going to sit quietly and breathe for a few minutes”. I realize I can’t help the automatic response, but Stoicism has helped me recognize it for what it is, and to not give assent to the irrational impulse.
There may be a whole chapter on venting! It's pseudo-therapy. It makes no sense to say that venting someone "gets it out of our system", or is therapeutic, if we believe that anger is cognitive and based on underlying beliefs? Do the beliefs get vented and go away? No. Research on venting for anger management has shown that it doesn't work and can, in some cases, actually make people more prone to anger. If venting worked then people who express anger a lot in the morning would be the most relaxed people in the evening - it's obviously not how emotion works. People feel "I have to vent" because venting anger brings temporary relief, but that can make it somewhat addictive, and it usually makes the problem worse in the long-run. Venting makes us feel better because it temporarily replaces pain with anger. It shits our focus from the pain inside to the blame outside. It also replaces powerlessness with a temporary, but illusory, sense of being powerful. It's a good job that venting doesn't actually purge emotions from our minds because if it worked like that we'd never want to express joy or friendship or other positive emotions, in case they're flushed out of our emotional tank by accident. It's just not how emotion works. So we have to challenge the folk-psychology or superstitious theory of anger on which venting as a coping strategy is based, which mistakenly views emotions as if they were like fluid or pressure that builds up inside us somehow, and can be released through venting. Instead, emotions are complex, made of many ingredients, but cognition plays a central role in them.
I do know that anger can be a reaction when we feel that our identity is threatened. A majority of people identify who they are with what they think, and when this is opposed or challenged, the brain, not being able to distinguish between a real or perceived threat, kicks into high gear with a fight or flight response. Just look at two people with opposing political views argue. There is almost never concession, sometimes it even turns deadly. I believe it was Seneca who said that anger is a form of madness, driving a person to irrational thought and action.
Anger is a blind passion that is satisfied by moral compensation and from which no concrete return can be expected.
As a lifelong activist, I will assert that expressing anger is one of the tools in your toolkit, for extending your zone of influence - the things you can change.
A calm, rational piece of rhetoric may or may not change someone else's behaviour towards you.
A display of anger always will.
In CBT one of the first things we normally teach clients, and in traditional assertiveness training, is to distinguish more clearly than normal between anger (the amotion) and aggression or assertiveness (the behaviour). Actors can exhibit aggression without actually feeling angry, and so can the rest of us. So if we divorce the behaviour from the emotion, what are the costs and benefits of the emotion? (The behaviour is therefore no longer one of the benefits because it does not depend on the emotion.) Also, we have to be cautious about the perceived benefits of expressing anger because they're often short-term benefits, whereas the longer-term consequences may be less positive. If I want an employee to work harder, for instance, yelling angrily at them, might definitely ""work", short term, but it could cause them to resent me longer-term, and so end up being counterproductive. We also have to consider the psychological costs of anger, e.g., it is well-known that it tends to be linked with several important cognitive biases.
As a therapist, I’ve found Epictetus’ quote about anger to be quite powerful for my patients. When they realize someone could master them, it just for a few seconds, it can really hit home.
I really wonder what would happen if someone read that quote to Jordan Peterson when he's yelling about how various groups in society make him angry. Or to other famous self-improvement influencers who model anger, and appear to valorize it as a response, and whose followers seem to become more angry as a result.
I think they would dismiss it, or say they’ve “moved past it.” That maybe at one time the quote helped them, but now this egotistical and angry version of them is their “best self.” Excuse the sarcasm.
There are places where anger is appropriate and useful, and there are places where it is useless, and it seems to me that:
• the skill(1) of figuring out(2) the difference is the same or very similar as the Stoicism practice of figuring out what is in your zone of agency - what you have control over - and what is not, and
• indeed the things you should get angry about are the things that you can change, which is core Stoicism.
Note 1: I say "skill" because like other elements of Stoicism this can be practiced and developed.
Note 2: this figuring out has to be almost impossibly quick - fractions of a second in many situations.
I think the question of the usefulness of anger is extremely important, and one that I take very seriously, and am keen to write about in some depth. What I believe we should bear in mind is that, put crudely, everyone believes their anger is justified in the heat of the moment. (With some exceptions perhaps.) Anger brings psychological changes with it that profoundly bias our judgment and typically make us feel it's an appropriate response, although we often then regret it afterwards when we're no longer angry. Knowing that, we have to be doubly cautious about how we judge whether it's appropriate or not. People often say that it gives them the energy or motivation to address perceived injustices or threats. That does appear like a benefit. (There may be other benefits.) But it has to be offset against the costs, which are, among other things, that it tends to impair our problem-solving ability and cause us to underestimate risk and act more impulsively, with an impaired sense of the consequences of our actions, and a limited awareness of the range of possible coping strategies or solutions available to us. So, again to put it crudely, anger would often be like giving a shot of adrenaline to someone who is so drunk they're not thinking clearly. We have more motivation and become more persistent in our actions but are worse at judging the consequences. That's obviously problematic.
The Stoics normally think we should eliminate anger completely (at least in its quasi-voluntary form) rather than getting angry about things that are up to us. This is an interesting idea, though. I do think that if you shift focus away from other people, and away from your character as a whole, onto your specific thoughts and beliefs, which might be a consequence of what you're saying, that it can potentially be antagonistic to anger.
Seneca’s On Anger has a lot to say on the matter. Anger is weakness, a sign our tranquility created by rational perceptions has been disrupted and suggests a flaw within those perceptions. Much anger comes from reality not meeting our expectations or desires. The first discipline of Stoicims is desire, that we ought to have no desires other than what the universe presents to us within our control. When something frustrating happens, it is the will of the universe and the most rational response is to accept it and even desire it which evaporates anger. Epictetus says anger is a sign someone or something has control over you.
Any anger inducing situation is an opportunity to practice virtue. Perhaps we are waiting for someone who is late for a meeting. It’s an opportunity for patience. If it becomes a pattern and a boundary setting conversation needs to happen, it’s an opportunity for justice but also courage and kindness.
Yes, this idea that anger should be viewed as a signal to engage in a particular type of behaviour is quite important, I think. The paradox that anger is a sign of weakness, that it means we're controlled by someone else, is also extremely significant. Many people are motivated to become angry because they feel it makes them more powerful. (Psychologists call this "illusion of control".) Persuading someone prone to anger that the opposite is true, it's an illusion, and that they're actually making themselves weaker and more vulnerable, comes as a shock to them at first, but it can be an epiphany that helps them change. What, then, are we to make of influencers like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, and others popular in the manosphere, who appear to encourage anger among their followers? Do their followers become more angry or less angry as a result of consuming the content (videos mainly) that they produce? If they're becoming more angry, does that mean, paradoxically, that they're becoming weaker, and giving away more control to others as a result of consuming this type of self-improvement material?
That’s a really interesting question. I would say yes, those manosphere influencers tend to encourage anger among their audience. Eliciting outrage to form a community is a classic tactic to increase influence. There are good, healthy things they sometimes encourage like lift and set boundaries. But I think a lot of it creates a sense of victimization. And you’re right, they give away control to others as a result.
Another thought. There are lots of evolutionary psychology arguments to be made for men have a predisposition for aggression and violence based on historical roles. But the Stoic answer is probably that men as rational beings are meant to live above our primal instincts as belief and culture can override them.
Yes, these arguments based on evolutionary psychology are logically weak in that they often seem to commit what philosophers call the genetic fallacy or fallacy of origins. That can mean different things but one form is when we argue that something resembles its origins, e.g., in evolutionary terms. Just because shaking hands originated as a way of checking the person you're meeting isn't armed, let's say, it doesn't mean that tells us anything about the function it serves today - to pick the first example that comes to mind. Just because anger once served a particular function that doesn't mean that it still functions in the same way. Also, I'm not entirely sure that what animals, or our early ancestors, experienced can really be called "anger". Does my cat get angry? I'm not sure. It exhibits aggression if I try to steal its food maybe. I have no idea if what's going on inside its head is comparable to human anger, though, in terms of the psychology. If I mosquito bites me, I might "aggressively" swat at it, and kill it, but I don't actually experience any emotion of anger inside.
Interesting, thanks for the thoughts. Fallacy of origin is intriguing. You get into arguments of nature vs. nurture as well although I think the reality is a combination of the two. It’s also impossible to know with certainty how any being experienced reality as we are limited to our own perception. Seneca says we have to proceed without absolute certainty and proceed in probabilities based on reason. I assume you experience reality similar to me because we are of the same species. I would say we do have a predisposition to anger or at least outbursts of anger. But Seneca says to experience the moment of anger then override it with reason.
There is definitely a cultural belief that anger is manly. Marcus Aurelius said gentleness is more manly because you are more in control and more human. What do you think? Do you think angry men are considered more attractive in society?
I don't know if angry men are considered attractive. I'd say probably not. Confident and assertive men, I hope, are more appealing. I agree with Marcus Aurelius. Anger is a form of weakness, at least insofar as we allow ourselves to be duped by our initial angry impressions, which are typically not good representations of reality.
Thanks
Thanks everyone. I’ve created this brief online form to gather initial feedback on a very simple Stoic anger management technique. Please test it out, if you’re interested.
https://forms.gle/NtHGEvV6PVmgbbZt7
Sometimes I'll ask a simplified question that may seem contentious but it's intended as a cue for discussion. Like this... How can anger be called "natural" insofar as it significantly distorts our perception of reality?
Donald, this book is not properly Stoic, but it was written by one of the most popular contemporary buddhist monks of last century. Thich Nhat Hahn, the book is called Anger. And I think the logic behind it aligns very well with the teachings of Stoicism.
I've found something similar, although it's still surprising, in a way, because almost every book on CBT used to mention the famous quote from Epictetus, and Beck and Ellis repeatedly stated that Stoicism was one of the main philosophical influences on CBT. Part of the problem is that many psychologists and therapists don't actually read the original books. I agree that the third-wave has obvious links with Stoicism. There's no reference to that in the main texts, though. (I mentioned it in the ACT email group years ago and the response was that they thought Stoicism was like stoicism and saw it as contrary to what they were teaching, which was a mistake on their part.) The main ACT clinical manual does, actually , cite the Serenity Prayer - but that's about as close as it gets to acknowledging any debt to Stoicism.
I think that's different from other countries, e.g., in the NHS in Britain, it's more common to study the subject a bit more broadly. Anyone, though, who reads a general intro to CBT should probably find themselves reading about Ellis. Some clinicians have quite a narrow scope, though, especially if they're focusing on a particular specialism. Then again, if they go to any conferences on CBT they should hear about other approaches, to some extent, and be exposed to books about the subject that touch on the history.
I didn't know about this anti self-help book. That's interesting. I know an author in Denmark called Chris MacDonald who is interested in Stoicism but not many others there, unfortunately.