Emotion: Anger

Meaning: 1) You perceive a threat you wish to destroy
2) You perceive that one of your rules has been broken

Threat Assessment

Whether or not Anger is due to perceiving a threat we wish to destroy or not is usually easy to determine. Is there an immediate threat to you? Is there an immediate threat to one of your responsibilities or someone or something you love? If the answer is no, then your anger does not stem from this.

If you do perceive a threat to yourself, your responsibility, or someone or something you love, the first question to ask yourself is: Is there really a threat? Sometimes we perceive threats that do not actually exist, or the threat we perceive is very hypothetical and exceptionally unlikely. We must assess the threat to determine if there really is a threat.

If we do recognize a threat, then the next question is whether or not the threat can or should be eliminated, and if so, how? Then we take action, doing whatever is reasonable under the circumstances. Sometimes threats are so obvious that there is little need for much evaluation. An assault or rape in progress, and attempt at murder, or any immediate threat to life or limb should be dealt with immediately using reasonable force, as necessary.

For some threats, eliminating the threat is impossible. If an invading army has stormed the shores of your nation and you are angry about their actions, as an individual there may be nothing you can do. Many other threats are like this. As angry as someone may be, and as important as it may be to eliminate the threat, if there is nothing that can be done at that time, then the threat should be avoided as best as possible. There may be actions that can be taken at a later time, perhaps to organize a resistance or retreat to a regrouping position.

The military analogy is also useful for dealing with threats that are too big to deal with in other areas as well. As much as an appropriate solution might include the elimination of an immediate threat, there are many threats in which there are no acceptable solutions. A business about to go out of business might be able to find the money by defrauding others, but if the only solution is to do something unethical or immoral, then it is better to do damage control rather than solve the problem that way. There must always be moral and ethical solutions to any threat, or the threat should be accepted as a fact of life.

Broken Rule

Most anger, however, is not due to actual and immediate threats to life and limb. Most anger is because a rule has been broken.

Forgiving the person who Angered you is the first step you must take. If you cannot forgive, then that event will haunt you. This does not mean you have to forget it and behave as though it never happened. You have learned something about the person just as if they had told you they had such a tendency. You behave accordingly, knowing that this is an action of which they are capable, but you forgive them.

If you can forgive them from the heart, then what they did won’t follow you through the rest of the process and you can more effectively deal with your feeling. Forgiveness is a deeper and more complex than will be addressed here, but a careful reading of the chapter on forgiveness will help you understand what forgiveness really is an is not if you are at all hesitant. Most hesitation to forgive stems from a misunderstanding of forgiveness, a misunderstanding almost universally taught to people even though we intuitively know it’s wrong.

The intensity of the anger tells you how important the rule is to you, how badly the rule has been broken, or both. If you are mildly upset, then that means that either your rule isn’t very important to you, or it wasn’t broken very badly. This could also be because you know you have a good rule, but you do not expect everyone to follow, so violations are only mildly upsetting.

What’s the Rule?

When you are angry, you must try to discover what rule, specifically, has been broken. Articulate the rule if you can. Try to define the rule. Once you understand the actual rule that has been broken, then you can take the next step. If you cannot define the rule, then explore the possibility that your anger may be completely unreasonable or due to a chemical imbalance. If either is true, you should not take your anger out on anybody and ought to seek a medical evaluation.

Exploring the rule is often difficult for people who have never done this before. Since so many of us are taught that we can’t help how we feel, we learn to treat the feeling as a real thing by itself and don’t know that the feeling is only an interpretation of reality. If we can’t figure out our rules for interpreting facts, we can easily be lost in the emotion and rendered completely powerless.

Sometimes other people can help you discover your rule. I heard a skit clip on a Brittany Spears CD that was the prelude to “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” in which her boyfriend, upon breaking up with her, would dare say “No matter what I do, you’re never satisfied.” In the skit, she said “I can’t believe he said that!” Then she asked her friend about it, and her friend told her that she really was like that. As would be normal, Brittany’s character was astonished that her friend actually agreed with the ex-boyfriend. When confronted with her friend’s evidence, she responded “I know I’m a little picky. I just know what I want.”

That’s a typical human process. We deny that we have a rule by dismissing the opinion of the person who told us. When the rule is confirmed, we rederfine the rule so it makes us look good. One of the hardest things for most people to do is admit to stupid rules. In the skit, “I just know what I want” ended the skit. In real life, it would only be the beginning. If that rule is true, then the character should be able to explain clearly and completely exactly what she wants and why she wants it. An inability to do so indicates that the rule is untrue, and, instead, leave it more likely the character really has a selfish, emotional rule that her boyfriend’s job is to make her feel a certain way. While this was just a short skit, it resonates with listeners precisely because so many people do the same thing in real life.

For more complete information on how to explore and articulate rules, see the chapter on Rules.

Evaluate the Rule

The next step is to ask “Is this a good rule?” Once you know your rule, you have to evaluate the rule to see if the rule is a good rule. It might be morally good, in the sense that there’s nothing evil or ethically wrong with it, but is it useful? For instance, a rule that everyone should follow the moral standards of your religion might be a morally good rule, but is it useful to deal with people who do not share your moral beliefs? Often rules like this do more to facilitate opposition and total rejection than the desired compliance.

Are the expectations too high? Are personal standards being imposed on others? For instance, my wife started learning everything in the entire Master of Life series when she was a preteen. She gathered her own allowance money and spent it on seminars and books and explored the material in her own life. As a result, she didn’t make many of the mistakes typical of teens or even adults. She had sufficient insight as a preteen to know that she didn’t have the answers, and the mess she saw in the lives and relationships of others prompted an awareness that she had no way to know the real answers. So she set about to learn how to do life right the first time.

Obviously she isn’t perfect, but she understands things exceptionally well. She can discern underlying principles and think through to future consequences with some accuracy. She thinks in terms of generations, as I do. It makes us a wonderful team, but she does have one consistent problem with which she must deal. She forgets that other people don’t know what she know. She also forgets that people who are learning it won’t learn it and do it as well as she did. She forgets that most people have a lifetime of wrong thinking and a lifetime of building bad habits to overcome. In short, she often expects too much from people because she did it.

When she catches herself, she realizes that very few people have the benefit of early training. Intellectually, she realizes that most people learned wrong first, and even those who do learn and accept the answers don’t always implement those answers. She’s watched people tune out the lessons because “I’ve heard this before” even though they don’t DO any of it. Yet, emotionally, she often forgets, and must remind herself that she still has this unreasonable expectation of others. The rule might be a morally good one, a useful one if others followed it, but her standards are too high. Many of us do the same thing, and I am no exception.

One of the elements to consider is whether or not you ought to be able to expect the person or thing that broke your rule to actually follow it. Rules that involve the behaviors of strangers may not always be rules worth having. You might know what they ought to do, but should you have a rule that says that they must obey? There are enough of these rules that affect us directly an dramatically - such as on which side of the road others should drive. If we get angry over details in the behavior of others, we are likely to spend our whole lives angry.

If the rule is good, reasonable and ought to be obeyed, then take the next step. If not, then you need to change the rule. Changing rules is covered in some detail in the chapter on Rules.

Was the Rule Broken?

Was the rule really broken? It might just be a perception. If you are certain the rule was really broken, take the next step. If not, you can now ignore the situation since you know that your anger was a mistake. This does not invalidate the emotion, only the perception. All it means is that you thought something happened that did not happen, so you can set aside the anger. Once you realize your mistake, the anger should vanish. If it does not, look for the rule again because your rule may not be what you thought. It probably means the rule is something you may not have wished to admit, or there may be additional rules bundled in the situation.

A mother had two very reasonable rules. It was a long time ago when a hi-fi stereo system was a huge expense for a home. It was likely to follow only a house and car for the largest expense in a household, and the children had a very specific rule that they were not to play with it unless they had permission. She also had a rule that the children were not to lie to her. Both rules were reasonable.

One day she found sticky, purple stains in the hi-fi. The stains smelled of slightly rancid grape, evidence that the children had been playing with the hi-fi while eating their grape popsicles, probably a day or two ago, and had spilled and not cleaned up. Armed with the certainty, she talked to her children, who, of course, denied that they had gone anywhere near the hi-fi. Now she was really angry. Not only did the children play with the expensive piece of electronic equipment, but they had lied about it. She told them the evidence she found, and the children stuck to their story. They were sent to their room.

That evening, her husband came home and she told him about the children and the hi-fi and how the kids wouldn’t admit to playing with it. He told her that he thought that the stain might have been his wine from last night when he was using it, and that he hadn’t realized he spilled. The children, he said, were probably telling the truth.

The mother was horrified that she had punished the children for breaking two rules only to discover that they were probably following both rules for which she punished them. She immediately went to their rooms and apologized, admitted her mistake and released them from their punishment. The children learned that when she was wrong, she would admit it, and she commended them for telling the truth. The children also learned that they could trust her to admit it when she was wrong, so they knew when she stuck to HER guns, it meant she was sure she was right.

Needless to say, as soon as the mother found out that the children had not broken her rules, she was no longer angry at them. If she was still angry, it would tell her that she wasn’t upset about those rules being broken. If she was still angry, it would mean that there were other rules involved in her anger.

Getting the Rule Followed

If you’ve articulated a good rule and the rule was really broken, then you can ask the next question. What is the best way for me to have this rule followed?

There are many different means to do that. The kindest of these is to communicate the rule in a polite, respectful fashion and asking for the other person to kindly respect your rule. Depending upon the person with whom you are dealing, you might say it differently and you might expect any of a number of responses, but simple communication is the first step.

Keep in mind that it might take many attempts at communication to get even the most loving person to follow your rule if your rule is not also his or her rule. All parents know that sometimes it takes years upon years and hundreds of repetitions for some children to learn certain rules - especially rules that they don’t really understand. One mother reported that she has struggled for years to get her boys to learn the difference between a safe activity and a dangerous activity. All they seem to be able to determine is “interesting” or “boring,” and she doesn’t want them learning the concept of danger by getting seriously injured.

After a while, the boys will probably learn. In the meantime, she keeps repeating the same lesson. The boys can answer questions about it, indicating that the information is lodging in their brain. The next step is to get them to remember the rule beforehand, and hopefully still remember when they choose their actions. Until then, she supervises them exceptionally well so she can preempt, as much as possible, any dangerous choices she sees them making.

If your rule is followed, you must express appreciation, rewarding and thus reinforcing having your rule followed. In more distant relationships, it might be a simple but sincere “thank you,” and for closer relationships something more. For the children, it might be sincere congratulations and hugs and kisses. For older children, it might be expressed respect for their maturity.

When Simple Communication Isn’t Enough

If simple communication isn’t enough, there might have to be a consequence for ongoing disobedience. This will often be the case with parents and children, bosses and employees, teachers and students, or anyone else functioning from a position of authority. Depending upon the nature of the relationship and the rule that was broken, the consequence will vary, but it should always bear some relationship to the rule.

A martial arts instructor was sometimes angered at the behavior of his senior students. He had a deep commitment to his students, and when the actions of his senior students were harmful to his newer students, he was upset. His solution was simple. He carefully outlined the conduct expected of a senior student, and they were told that failure to adhere to these behaviors at the martial arts school would result in being demoted to a rank more suited to the behavior. One of two things happened: the student shaped up, or the student left. No student was willing to accept a radical demotion. Either response was acceptable, though character growth was certainly preferable.

If the Rule is Still Broken

If rules are being consistently broken, despite communicating them or even enforcing them where the authority exists to do so, you may have to reevaluate the rule. It is possible that your rules are not as reasonable as you may think. Sometimes, it will just take time and repetition, especially if your rules are outside the normal thinking of the person breaking them - such as the children in the above example. If someone grew up with different rules, their behavior might flow so naturally from those rules that they keep forgetting. In these cases, patience and loving repetition is the key, even mentioning the rule before typical problem times may help.

If you have your rules worked out so you can explain them, talk to a trusted friend about them, one who produces the result you desire. Someone who consistently produces the results you desire might be able to shed some light on the problem. You might even talk to the person who broke your rules and discuss your rule and whether or not they agree with it. If not, try to find out why not and consider that they may have a valid opinion.

Another aspect of human behavior you may have to consider is that the constant breaking of your rules is telling you something about the other person. There may be some resentment toward you and breaking your rules is a method of punishing you for their pain. You may or may not be responsible for their pain, so don’t automatically assume it’s your fault.

Obedience to your rules might mean something to them they do not wish to pursue. The rules might simple represent a lack of freedom to them, and they presently value freedom more than they value anything they might get or lose by breaking your rules. Many young people behave this way, so selfish in exercising their own “rights” that they don’t recognize that anyone else has rights, too. Sometimes it’s just a sense of invincibility because they know you can’t touch them or do anything else and they are immaturely flaunting their power.

In these cases, there might be nothing you can personally do to have your rules followed, and whatever the natural consequence may need to be imposed, whether it means the relationship ends with a friend, an employee is fired, a child is punished or someone is arrested.

If your anger is obvious and strongly expressed, someone might be using your rules to exert power over you, demonstrating their ability to control you by making you angry. It might have to do with a past hurt you or someone else inflicted on them with their bitterness remaining until now. Sometimes it’s a matter of duplication, meaning they don’t want to duplicate something in your life and they feel that the rules you wish to impose are part of that. These are cases in which their issues have to do with you.

You can deal with the power issue by being constructive with your anger to resolve issues rather than tear into someone else. You can ask for forgiveness and admit you did something wrong for the hurt issue. You can work to create an inspiring life worth duplicating in the last, or find someone they respect who agrees with an will reiterate your rules. Parents often find this useful.

As you understand the emotion of anger, you can deal with it more effectively. If rules need to be changed, you can change them. If issues need to be addressed, address them. If people need to be forgiven, forgive them. If you understand, then you know what to do to obey the command “Do not let the sun go down on your anger.” (Ephesians 4:26)

ANGER ISN’T WRONG

God gets angry. Being loving does not mean that you never get angry. It means that you get angry, but you do not sin (Ephesians 4:28). In fact, the words used in that verse in Greek and the Hebrew reference to Psalm 4:4 imply an anger so strong that the body trembles with the emotion. It means that you get righteous indignation, that you get angry when evil is done and not good, you get angry with injustice, but it is always righteous anger, and you do not let it control you. This kind of anger is not temperamental, petty, or selfish, but the kind of anger a loving mother might have when she sees that the actions of her child will lead that child down a dangerous path.

Anger can be a productive emotion if it’s channeled properly. It is also the single most destructive emotion you can feel, especially if it’s amplified to the level of trembling rage. If you lash out while enraged, you have little control, much destructiveness, and you are very likely to do things you will regret. However, sometimes anger can be used properly, and that can lead to tremendous accomplishment. You might get angry at an injustice and that emotional impulse can set in motion a whole new calling in life, such as what happened to Mother Teresa. So incensed was she at the injustice to the outcast who could find no help that the formerly elitist, selfish nun became dedicated to the poor and suffering for life.

The problem with anger isn’t the emotion, it’s what you do with the emotion. If you act out, if you lash out, if you do unproductively destructive things, then your anger is leading to sin (if you’re beating up a bad guy in a serious criminal situation, that’s productive destructiveness). If you use it to motivate yourself, but you keep the emotion firmly under control so it simply fuels your drive, then it can be useful. It was a righteous indignation at the injustice wrought upon the Colonies that sparked the American Revolution. It was the same indignation that lead to the Underground Railroad. God gets angry when His children follow a path that leads to destruction.

The key is to keep control. Self Control is the capstone of the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Self Control does not mean you feel nothing, but whatever you feel, you control it. Love is not provoked, meaning you don’t give others control over your emotions (1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - explained more thoroughly in the chapter on Agape Love). You are to control your own emotions, control your own actions no matter your emotions, and whatever you do, you are responsible for your actions and your intent. It is not someone else’s fault. That’s part of taking responsibility for yourself.

When my father was in high school, he had a coach that noted his misbehavior and told him “Conway, you’re never going to amount to anything!” That statement angered my father and drove him. He was going to be “somebody.” For a while, he kept up the same misbehavior and was on the path predicted by his coach, but during his time in the Coast Guard and leading up to my birth, he shaped up. Finally, he did get his act together and became successful. He always remembered his coach’s words, and whenever he felt like quitting, he was fueled with determination because he was unwilling to prove his coach right.

I heard the story because that coach was one of my teachers in high school. Not only had my father remembered those words for more than 20 years, but the coach also remembered the punk kid who was on the path to self destruction. He had kept track of my dad for all those years and knew that my father had built a business from the ground up and lived in a nice house up on the hill. He told me the story, as did my father, and mentioned how impressed he was that my dad had proven him wrong.

Anger is a potentially powerful emotion. It has the potential for great good, or terrible evil. You can feel it, but keep your anger productive. No matter how intensely you feel it, you are responsible for your actions. There may be good cause to get angry, and when there is we call it “righteous indignation.” However, what people call righteous indignation is as often “self righteous indignation,” but we can avoid that with maturity and wisdom.

ANGER AT GOD

If we have Anger toward God, that means we have a rule that He didn’t follow. If we think about that even for just a few minutes, we can see how having a rule that we expect God to follow tells us that one of us is wrong. If we consider who God is and who we are by comparison, it should be apparent that our Anger at God should tell us that our rule is wrong.

Anyone who believes in God should see this as self-evident, but it’s amazing at how many people feel justified in their anger at God. God allows things that I would prefer didn’t happen, but I trust that He knows better than I do. When bad things happen, it is most commonly the natural consequence of the free will choices people make. When random chance works against me, I assume that it is the statistical probabilities working out against my interests - just as sometimes is works out in my favor.

Simply put, no matter our religion, we recognize intellectually that we are not God, and whoever or whatever we believe Him to be, He certainly has a longer range persepctive than we do. What if no one ever died? What if He always fixed everything? What if He preempted all choices other than perfectly righteous choices? What would that do to US as a race? Would we overcrowd our planet? Would we get lazy and stupid because He always did everything for us? Would we even have free will?

If we understand anger, it becomes glaringly obvious that it is ridiculous to be angry at God. Those feelings, however, certainly tell us something about OUR RULES. If God hasn’t followed our rule, then it should be clear that our rule is wrong. We have learned something about our mistaken expectations of God and how the world ought to work, and we should know that WE need to change.

THE ANGER OF OTHERS

Dealing with the anger of others is somewhat similar to dealing with our own anger. However, we cannot do anything to change the rules of others. We must also be aware that what may appear as Anger might not actually be Anger. It might be Frustration, which often appears as Anger, or even Fear with Anger used as a mask of power (a common emotional response of men who are afraid). Fear tends to generate a flee reflex, while an almost identical physiological emotion, Anger, tends to generate an fight reflex. Men are often more willing to admit they are ready to fight than flee.

When Anger is Caused by a Threat

The first thing we need to do is remember what Anger means. It is either a desire to destroy a perceived threat, or it means that the angry person perceives that a personally held rule has been broken.

If someone is responding to a perceived threat, then you need to ascertain whether or not a real threat exists, and if so, what kind is it? If there is a threat, you might want to help to diffuse the potential danger. Sometimes people get angry because they feel someone is trying to hurt them or someone for whom they feel responsible. If so, anything you do to alleviate the threat will help alleviate the anger as well.

If there is an actual, physical threat that needs to be destroyed, like the enemy in a war, you might simply join him in fighting. Then you become a partner dealing with the threat rather than a distraction or hindrance.

When Anger is Caused by a Broken Rule

More often, anger is the result of a broken, personally held rule. If you know someone has certain rules and you do not wish to Anger him or her, the simplest thing to do is comply with the rules. If the rules are reasonable, or even if they simply do not violate morality, then obedience to those rules is recommended.

As an example, many times family members learn simply to abide by the unreasonable rules of close relatives simple to keep the peace. There are multiple examples of adult children of immature parents who simply accept that their parent will never grow up. Rather than try to get their parent to change, they simply accept that things are as they are and follow the rules of their immature parent whenever family occassions force them together. Otherwise, they generally avoid the problem parent.

Unreasonable, Unchangeable Rules

Workers have also learned to do this at times. One public school employee learned that no matter what the administration in his district said, they didn’t mean it. Votes were advisory and would be “declared” as whatever the administration wanted - no matter the actual vote. Political expediency and being on the “cutting edge” was more important than the actual results. He found that even when the administration asked for ideas or feedback, unless you told them to do what they already wanted to do, you were in trouble with them. Rather than anger his superiors and get no where, he learned to simply play along since there was nothing he could do to change how things were done. He also started looking for a job in another district.

This is an example of a rules conflict. The STATED rule was one thing, the ACTUAL rule was something else. While people were told they had a say, they actually had none. While teachers were asked for input, the administration didn’t actually want any. If you did exactly as you were told, but your ideas and answers weren’t what they wanted, you were in trouble.

A boyfriend was chastised by his girlfriend because he wasn’t jealous when she flirted with other guys. So the next time he felt jealous, he mentioned it, and she yelled at him for not trusting her. The rules combined to make compliance impossible. The relationship ended.

When the Rule Hasn’t Really Been Broken

Often, the situation can be diffused by helping the person realize that his rule does not apply to the situation. Sometimes people believe that things ought to go a particular way when they really shouldn’t at all.

WARNING! If you invalidate the feelings of another person, you will become the object of their anger. This isn’t a situation where you say something like “You shouldn’t be angry.” Saying they should not be angry will make them more angry. You must go to the underlying cause of their anger and let them conclude for themselves that they should not be angry.

The way you accomplish this is by explaining to the person how things are supposed to be in the particular situation and explaining that things are being done properly. You can add that while this is the way things are done, that you can see how he expects it to be his way, and, for diplomacy, you might even add that most reasonable people agree. But, given the number of less honest people (or whatever explanation applies to the situation), this is the way things must be, and apologize - even if it isn’t your fault. This technique is an example of a rules shift. By helping them change their rule about how this particular situation ought to go, you alleviate their anger.

Another technique is to help them see that perhaps their rule isn’t being broken after all. Provided this is true, of course, you can simply let them know that everything is being done that can be done to get them what they want. Often people are upset not because something is taking too long, but because they believe that people aren’t actually working on the result they desire. This can be accomplished by providing updates.

If someone is waiting to pay a bill, and he sees people standing around without manning the cash register while he waits, he will probably feel as though he is being ignored. A simple comment like “I’m not allowed in the register, but I’ll get the cashier for you right away” will often alleviate that anger. Of course, you have to follow up. Failure to follow through on what was promised will make them angry all over again, and this time the anger may be intensified by the feeling that you were trying to deceive them.

Interrupting Anger

Interrupting the emotional pattern can also be a good tool for dissolving Anger. Sometimes a question that causes their Mind to change focus will help. Most of us have experienced, seen or heard about someone who was upset, perhaps shouting and gesturing angrily, rage being expressed openly and powerfully - then a phone rang and the anger momentarily vanished as he or she answered the phone with a polite “Hello, may I help you?”

A question about something can often change a person’s emotional state. If you are not the target of the shouting, sometimes just passing between two people, if there’s room, can interrupt the exchange. A question asked as you pull back can draw their attention to you. Asking calmly “What going on? How can I help?” can draw them from their anger to a potential solution, allowing you to broker a sort of peace between them.

When you are the target of someone’s Anger, a sincerely apology can often end their tirade. You can simply explain “I didn’t understand, I’m sorry.” and take the discussion from there. If you did anything wrong, even if it was as simple as a delay or the way you said something, apologize. If you were right, but you handled it less than perfectly or communicated it less than perfectly, apologize for that.

Finding common ground, and externalizing the Anger to some other object can be useful to take you off the firing line and shift the target. If, in a business situation, someone is yelling at you about something, you can start complaining about the same thing - blaming a vendor or company policy. Be careful that you don’t shift their target to someone at which they can actually direct their anger. This is a technique to get you and them on same side. Once you’re on the same side with them, you can develop camaraderie through the shared complaint, and then diffuse their Anger and place yourself as part of the solution to their problem rather than the representative of the problem.

PEOPLE CONDITIONED TO ANGER

Some people are conditioned to anger. This means that they normally get what they want by behaving angrily. Sometimes the best way to deal with these people is simply to give them what they want so they go away - such as a customer service situation. My wife and I have a policy that we do not change our rules based upon someone else’s anger. We listen more carefully when approached politely, but we stand our ground when approached angrily. Most of our business relationships are long term and frequent, so we would rather lose a client than show the others that it is possible to influence us with anger or intimidation.

In an ongoing relationship giving someone what they want because they are angry or you are afraid they will become angry actually helps condition them to be angry even more. Consider this: If a particular behavior gets you what you want, will you do or not do that behavior? If a particular method seems to be the most effective means, or the only effective means, to get what you really want, then you will engage in more of that behavior. This applies to children and adults. Every time a child throws a temper tantrum in a store and is “rewarded” with a toy just to get him to be quiet, that child learns to do that more often. Even children understand this if you ask them. Whatever produces the desired result most easily or consistently will become the conditioned means whenever that result is desired.

Likewise with adults. If the threat of being angry will make others comply with their wishes, then they will be conditioned to anger so they get what they want. If we continue to comply, then we contribute to their problem. We actually help create the very thing we dislike.

Extinguishing this behavior is often a far more difficult task than conditioning it in the first place. The other person now knows that this behavior gets him or her what he or she wants. Changing that conditioning can be difficult, and when you stop complying with angry demands or stop capitulating to avoid his anger, the behavior will likely get worse before it gets better. The person will push it harder to try to get it to work again.

This means that we have to be prepared to face that anger. We have to be prepared to attach consequences to the anger so it becomes counter productive to his demands. We have to be willing to accept the possible consequences of doing so.

In business, this might mean we have to be prepared for a customer to leave. Often a calm “We have a firm policy of never giving in to threats or demands made in anger, but only to those made politely and with respect. I’m sorry.” will often be enough to calm an angry client. However, it could also result in the client leaving. Many businesses find that eliminating such cleints actually increases their bottom line over time. These are not the kind of clients a busienss wants because they are disruptive to business.

In a marriage, it might mean we have to be prepared to get out of harm’s way. If someone is getting too angry, you can leave your spouse for a weekend, telling him or her “I’m sorry, but I will no longer live this way. I’m afraid if I give you what you want, I’m only helping you learn that anger is the best way to get what you want. I’m afraid that if I don’t give you what you want and stay, that I or the children might be in danger. I’m leaving for a few days, and we’ll talk when I come home.” Then leave.

Might the spouse leave? Maybe. Might the anger and abuse stop? Maybe. More likely the reconditioning might take some time, but if anger starts to NEVER have a beneficial effect and always has a consequence, the person with either shape up or the relationship will be over. If the angry person walks out, it means that their rules are more important to them than the relationship. If this might be the consequence, it would be best to seek help and guidance from a minister or a marriage counselor.

Often changing this conditioning takes time, and it is likely to be person specific. One of the reasons people lash out at family and close friends more readily than coworkers is because they are considered “safe” targets. Because of the social investment in the relationship, they feel they have more social clout they can spend on their tirades. They sometimes feel that the person can’t stop being a parent, sibling, spouse or child over a single tantrum - and if they apologize profusely enough later all will be forgotten. However, letting it go actually facilitates the problem.

There are many people who know not to play the anger game with my wife or with me. It doesn’t work. We limit our contact with people who are completely unreasonable, and no “punishment” inflicted by angry people particularly matters to us - especially passive-aggressive behaviors. When you can stand on your own and are willing to lose the relationship, and they know it, it can empower you to influence the person and help them break their Anger habit.

ANGRY MASKS

Sometimes what appears to be anger isn’t really anger at all. Boys and men, in particular, are often trained by society to hide hurt, disappointment, confusion and other emotions that they think make them look weak. However, this problem is by no means limited to males.

Often, anger hides other emotions because of fear that looking weak will threaten their social status. They would rather have strength out of control, what they often perceive anger to represent, than weakness and helplessness. Sometimes anger masks other emotions because they have a rule that says that they should be strong, and being hurt makes them feel weak. Sometimes their rule is as simple as “no one should hurt me” so they feel angry when it happens.

Anger as a mask may require a two step process to dig behind. It might start with anger, and then have to work through the underlying emotion the anger was masking. The process for each feeling is the same. Once the surface feeling has been addressed, you just deal with the next one.

ARGUING RIGHT

When people argue, they normally go into the argument to prove that they are right and the other person is wrong. There are times in which people, mostly immature people, get so caught up in the fight that they have to win at all costs. Teenagers have even admitted that they refused to give in when they knew their parents were right because they refused to let their parents win. Perhaps that is why Proverbs tells us that answering a fool according to his folly will make us a fool as well. Imagine arguing with someone who will not surrender no matter how right you are and no matter the cost to them. The Bible is right.

(Of course, as parents, the next verse tells us that we have to answer a fool according to his folly or he will be right in his own eyes. It’s one of the unfortunately paradoxes of parenting. See Proverbs 26:4-5. Martin Luther purportedly thought this was a contradiction and questioned whether Proverbs should be kept. Perhaps a parent corrected him.)

Our goal in any argument to be right when we finish. If we win an argument, but we were wrong, then we haven’t really won. If we managed to convince someone else that we were right, we have compounded the problem because there are now two people who are wrong rather than one. The purpose of engaging in any conflict should never be to prove our side, but to discover truth and to have both people as correct as possible when the discussion is over.

Most often when people argue, one or both is right, and one or both are wrong. More often than we might think, both sides are right and wrong on something, and if we listen carefully, we might be able to figure out where we are wrong and fix it. If, at the end of an argument, we are right, then we won. We might have to concede that the other person was right and we were wrong, but in that concession, we become right, and if we’re right, then we win.

People can argue without getting emotional or raising their voices. All this requires is listening carefully, explaining clearly, and sticking to the issue. We should not raise our voice when we ought to reinforce our point. Shouting is a sign that someone isn’t communicating, someone isn’t listening, or that you have run out of valid points. Calling names and other personal attacks also shows an inability to make a valid, logical point.

If you consider raising your voice in anger and making personal attacks as losing and as evidence that you are wrong, then it goes far to help you keep your cool. If you and your spouse both agree that personal attacks amount to a concession of the point, you will both be less likely to go there. At the first personal attack your spouse should have the right to look at your and say “Your personal attack just told me that you admit you’re wrong. If that’s not the case, shall we get back to the point?” A similar strategy can be used in any relationship close enough to define the rules of argument beforehand. In a superior-subordinant relationship, such as employment, the senior generally must make the rule.

Sticking to the issue is important, and keeping discussions as factual as possible is also important. Issues are hard to address when unrelated things are brought in. Problems are difficult to resolve if the facts aren’t known. If attacks become personal, resolution is difficult. If conclusions are discussed rather than facts, many possible solutions will be overlooked. Exploring the truth of any matter is critical, and that requires focused effort to resolve the true issues and understand the facts.

A common complaint in any dispute is that the other side doesn’t understand. However, in any dispute or problem, there is a tendency to want to make the other side understand, but not much of a desire to understand the other side. When both sides are pushing to make the other side understand, they are not listening. When they do listen, they often do so not for the purpose of understanding, but for the purpose of disputing the statements. When you only listen so you can turn things around, you aren’t really listening at all.

This is what children often do when they ask their parent for an explanation about a decision. If they are asking because they want to understand, parents will normally make an effort to explain. If they are asking only because they want to argue, parents are perfectly within their rights to refuse to get into it.

In any conflict, we should seek to understand the other side first. As we explore the other side and the reasons for their position, we often find that they have some very good points. Their points might not take into account the facts we know and the perspectives we hold, but careful listening can be very illuminating. Even before we start making our point, we might already find areas in which discover the other side is correct. Perhaps they know something we don’t know, or perhaps they applied a logic we overlooked. By trying to understand, we can honestly evaluate whether we still believe we are right.

By trying to understand first, we lay the foundation for making our own point and the other side is normally much more receptive to listening when we have listened first. By reflecting back our understanding of their position and having them confirm that we understood what they said, we are then in a better position to help them understand our position, provided their point hasn’t already changed our position.

Once we understand, we need to define what we mean by certain things. As we try to understand the other side, we sometimes discover use of words that differs from what we might mean with the same words. We might also discover that the intent is the same, but the rules are different. Each side might be trying to express respect according to the rules by which they define respect. In such a case, the entire dispute might have arisen over the definition and rules for respect, or love, or effort, or honor.

The argument might have arisen because of a difference in the definition of bragging. Some people think it isn’t bragging if you can really do it. Others think that exaggeration and lies aren’t the only bragging, but talking even about true accomplishments and abilities is bragging if the audience doesn’t want to hear it, it isn’t appropriate, or you’re stealing someone’s spotlight. Some think it’s bragging if you even answer a question truthfully and it makes you look good. Imagine the first person defending himself from the last person when he’s accused of bragging. The whole dispute might have been solved simply be defining what you mean by it.

If we truly understand the other side, and we’ve defined what we mean by what we say, then we are the best position to make our side understood. We can even reference the opposing view, using their facts or their logic to help us make our point, something we cannot do if we do not understand the other side of the argument. As we understand, define, and seek to be understood, then both sides can work through a solution mutually, one that fulfills the needs and intents of both sides. That is a resolution.

A key advantage to seeking to understand first is that the other side very often has good points, facts of which we are unaware, or logic that accounts for something we have not considered. We might discover that they are right without putting our foot in our mouth first. In these cases, we simply acknowledge their point and move on. Even more often, something in their point reveals a need to modify our position, and in these cases, we can make the change before we argue our position. Then we begin by acknowledging their best points and let them know that they thought of some things we hadn’t considered, and while we’ve changed our position a little, we think that the following things are relevant... and then we make our case.

We must also be careful about ascribing meanings to facts that do not necessarily follow from the facts. We might think that an event or a behavior has a particular meaning, but it might not mean that at all. If we stick to the facts, we can address the facts and develop a solution to the issue at hand. Finishing right, finishing with a solution, even if it wasn’t the solution we originally desired, is the goal of any argument. Disagreements aren’t our opportunity to pound other people’s positions into submission, but an opportunity for exploration, for gaining new insights, and for gaining wisdom by finishing right.

Even individuals have internal disputes. The purpose of the internal argument, hopefully, is to debate the relevant points so we can arrive as the proper conclusion. In “Fiddler on the Roof,” Tevye has these dialogs as the action around him freezes to illustrate how we do this in ourselves. He starts off with statements on one hand, then the other hand, and he thinks it through to a final decision. We all do this when we are faced with a choice.

A married couple is a unit. If there is any dispute, any disagreement, the husband and wife are “one hand” and “the other hand” and the purpose of communicating in the disagreement is to find the right answer. The couple should seek to be right when the couple is done dealing with the disagreement. If both the husband and the wife treat any conflict as they would if it were an internal dialog and sought to come out of it with the right answer as a couple, the whole dynamic of a difference of opinion changes.

Remember: the husband and the wife are no longer two, but one. They are one flesh, one unit, one household, one family. They are on the same team! Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand, so that means that we should not divide over any difference. When we do, we damage our ability to stand. If we argue wrongly, if we tear at each other personally, then we tear down our house. Be it actual people who would like to see you fail, or challenges like a financial problem or a family problem or a health challenge, the enemy will get you if you defeat yourself.

ARGUING WRONG

Arguing wrong is easier than arguing right because there are more ways to argue wrong than there are to argue right. Arguing right means we share a mutual goal of arriving at the right answer when we are done. Arguing right means we stick to the issue, and we seek to understand the other side before we try to force them to understand our position. Arguing right keeps emotion out of the discussion as much as possible, even though both may feel angry, hurt, fearful, overwhelmed to any number of feelings. No matter how intense the argument, the mutual purpose of arriving at the best conclusion for the team will protect the marriage.

We can argue wrong by arguing to win. If we go in with the attitude “I’m right, I just have to prove it!” we cut off the possibility that the other side is right. We cut off the possibility that the other side might have facts we don’t have, or a point of view that will help, or some understanding of some facet of our position that may escape us. If we argue to win, we aren’t trying to find the right answer, we’re playing a selfish power game. That’s harmful to a relationship.

We can argue wrong by making personal attacks. We see this in politics all the time. Political argument often follow the rule “when you can’t win on the point, beat up the messenger.” When we personally attack our partner, we are damaging the marriage. Since the husband and wife are no longer two, but one flesh, that means that you are beating yourself up, too. If you hurt your spouse, you hurt your marriage. If you hurt your family member, you hurt your family. If you hurt your friend, you hurt your friendship.

We can argue wrong by over-generalizing. As soon as we start with “always” and “never” we are almost always wrong. Unless something is literally an always or never, we should not make the claim. It’s too easy to beat. If the other side has even a single example where the always or never isn’t true, then you’ve just shot down your own side and lost your credibility in the argument. Since arriving at the proper conclusion requires sticking to true facts, over-generalizing sabotages the goal of discussing a conflict and renders it useless.

We can argue wrong by raising our voice. When we start to shout down the other person, it means we are not properly communicating our thoughts and feelings, or it means the other side is not listening. Shouting something louder that the other side is ignoring it will help make sure the words reach their ears, but it will do very little to get the point across. With certain people I have known there is a volume and emotional intensity level at which I learned a long time ago to ignore anything they say. The words still ring in my ears, but I don’t listen. I assume that anything they say is from their emotions and they don’t mean it. If they say the same thing when they are calmer, then I listen.

We can argue wrong by minimizing the emotions of the other person, or even ourselves. There was one time my wife came to me and calmly and lovingly described her emotional state as “pissed.” That’s how she felt. Her well-honed ability to understand the language of emotions, control them, and communicate effectively allowed her to tell me exactly how she felt inside without tearing into me just because I was a handy target. After a short discussion, we discovered exactly what I could to help, and I did it, and she felt much better.

Men are the most common minimizers, a behavior born of the fact that men are taught to ignore, suppress or control their feelings. Since women have greater social license to be emotional, they often are, and men just as often don’t understand why she’s so upset or why a problem seems so big to her. Women, however, will often minimize a man’s anger, one of the few emotions he has social license to express. Minimizing someone’s emotions is telling someone that they are being unreasonable. If we have learned the language of emotion, we can feel it, we can even feel it intensely, and still communicate effectively. The Bible indicates that we can be trembling with rage, but we should not sin. We should control our expression, but the feeling is there to give us information. Failure to acknowledge that in ourself misses something important. Failure to acknowledge that in our partner is an attack.

We can argue wrong by treating our feelings like they are a thing unto themselves. This is more common in women than men, but men do it, too. How we feel is information that should tell our Mind something. If we speak the language of emotion, if we understand what our feelings mean, then we know that everything we feel has meaning and purpose. The problem isn’t that we are angry, it is that a rule of ours has been broken and we need to find that rule and discover how it has been broken. Just because we don’t know why we’re angry doesn’t make our anger any more or less a thing unto itself than not speaking Spanish means the words being spoken to us in Spanish are just sounds. Words have meaning, and emotions have meaning. We have to get behind the word to what it means when dealing with language, and we likewise need to get behind the feeling to the meaning when dealing with our emotions and the emotions of others.

We can argue wrong by bringing in irrelevant facts. There was an instance in which a wife was caught between her husband and her grandmother. Her husband asked her to do a favor, and she agreed. The favor entailed her helping an acquaintance move some things that were stored in a truck to a storage unit so her husband could attend to another task that had an immediate deadline. She agreed to go help the man load the equipment into storage. The grandmother happened to be there at the time and didn’t know the man, so she said that she thought her granddaughter should not go with him. She was adamant, starting in on all the nasty things that could happen if she went. Rather than let a scene develop, the man suggested the wife stay, and the wife agreed.

Later, the wife let her husband know what happened, and since the grandmother was frequently around, he decided that the issue had to be dealt with. Since the grandmother, despite her claims to the contrary, actually had minimal respect for her granddaughter, the young wife could not resolve the issue with her. The husband talked to the grandmother. He said that he was her husband and asked her to do a favor, and even if it wasn’t a favor for him, he still trusted her to know when something was dangerous and he trusted her to protect herself. Then the grandmother said exactly what the husband expected to hear.

“I’ve been her grandmother a lot longer than you’ve been her husband.”

Of course it was a true fact, but what made the fact relevant? She thought that fact trumped his position and the argument was obviously over. There was no way the husband could dispute the fact. But he asked her a question that resolved the issue differently. “That’s true. It will always be true. Until you die, no matter how long we’re married and how old she is, you will always have been her grandmother longer than I’ve been her husband. Are you saying that your rule is that you should always have the right to tell her what to do no matter what I want? Are you saying you should always have total power over her?”

The grandmother paused and reflected on the implications of her statement. She really did love her granddaughter, which was why she wanted to protect her. But she had to admit that the rule sounded bad when he reflected it back to her. The grandmother admitted that she had gone too far, and the issue was resolved. The couple has never again had such a problem, despite an ongoing relationship with her.

This is just one example of arguing wrong by bringing in irrelevant facts. This is often done by dismissing someone’s view for a reason that has nothing to do with the truth or error of a position. There are many. “It’s a guy thing.” “It’s a woman thing.” “Well, you’re still single.” “Your wife has obviously you whipped.” “I guess your husband really has you brainwashed.” “You’ve only been married a few years.” “You’re just an old married couple.” “You don’t have children.” “Your children are all grown.” “That’s easy for you to say.”

There are also the classic avoidances. “No one knows what goes on behind closed doors,” meant as a trump on any argument. Variations include “It has to do with my childhood,” “you don’t know what I’ve been through,” and “it’s just the way I do things.” None of these addresses any issue at hand, but all are meant to end a discussion. They might be employed properly when someone is butting into something that isn’t their business, such as a friend trying to get in to a private issue between husband and wife, but there is seldom a valid reason to use such non-facts to shut down a spouse that is trying, honestly, to resolve an issue. Perhaps if the spouse using such tactics is getting professional help from a clergyman or counselor and the issues are being dealt with there, and they will be shared when the spouse is able, this might be okay in the short term.

All these are just a few of the examples of how many people argue wrong. There are others, just as there are many wrong roads to take no matter your destination. Any method of arguing that doesn’t effectively deal with the issue at hand is not useful. Any method of arguing that damages the other spouse or harms the marriage is almost always wrong. Almost, but not always. Sometimes misconduct on the part of one spouse will make any valid discussion painful, but issues must be addressed if they are causing problems.

MAKING UP RIGHT

When we do something wrong, we need to take steps to deal with it.

First, we must admit that what we did was wrong. We must do this without equivocating or trying to excuse it. No “I know I did this wrong, but...” We should also be as specific as possible in our admission.

Second, we should sincerely and contritely ask for forgiveness.

That’s the basic formula. It’s the same as dealing with mistakes with God. We confess. We ask forgiveness. Forgiveness, though, must be understood. It does not mean that we will be treated as though the wrong never happened. See the chapter on Forgiveness for details.

Repentance must also take place. Repentance is when we agree that something is wrong, and we turn away from that behavior. We take steps to avoid doing it again in the future. With sin to God, we ask for His help and we willingly cooperate with His help to avoid that sin in the future. (Failure to cooperate usually results in the same thing happening again/) With our spouse and a wrong in our marriage relationship, we should cooperate with whatever solution we develop that may involve our spouse. Anytime a wrong involves other people, the process is similar.

Also, if we made the mistake of wronging our spouse in front of our children, the children should also be part of the making up process, or, at the very least, told that mom and dad have made up. The children should be told that there has been confession, forgiveness and repentance. The children should be given as many details as appropriate for their age, and most especially for the amount of their exposure to the argument. Remember, we set the example by our behavior. If we do well, but they don’t know, they cannot copy.

Restoration is a process that follows, and it takes time, often a lot of time. If the wrong was minor, unusual, or something that arose from highly unlikely circumstances, such as something hurtful said or done during a time of intense, unusual crisis, restoration might be a simple matter. If someone said something totally insensitive and rude under the stress of a friend’s funeral, it might be easily excused.

If the wrong was something easily repeated, especially something devastating that is easily repeated, then restoration might take time and require somewhat draconian measures. A wronged person may need some time to feel comfortable that the problem will not arise again. Two years of good behavior is a typical amount of time for people to really feel something won’t happen again.

Willard Harley has an effective explanation of this process when he discusses restoration after an affair has taken place. In short, the offending spouse must totally and completely separate himself or herself from the offending partner, even if that means changing jobs, firing someone, or even moving. Very few professional obligations are so strong as to absolutely preclude this. Then, he says, the offending spouse must give full permission for the innocent spouse to check on the promised schedule at any moment of the day or night when they are separated. In this day of wireless phones, this might include being available at a stationary phone or being with someone else so the exact whereabouts can be confirmed at any time.

This isn’t to say that the offending spouse will stray if left to his or her own devices for even a day, but that the legitimate fears of the innocent spouse must be properly addressed, and those fears have been justified by past action. Gradually, over time, perhaps a few months in the case of a single mistake and an otherwise trusting relationship, to years for a prolonged affair and a sense of betrayal, the offending spouse will be restored to his or her original level of trust, though armed with the mutual knowledge that this is possible and should be dealt with effectively enough that the solution, as applied, would have been sufficient to prevent the first affair.

MAKING UP WRONG

Making up wrong includes buying gifts or making concessions because the other person was really upset. A florist ran an ad that headlined “How angry was she?” As many calls as they got from women claiming to be offended, their business from men multiplied dramatically.

When we make up, we have to be careful that we don’t inadvertently create a payoff to being irrationally emotional. We have to be careful that we don’t inadvertently create a payoff to fighting. If we end up giving good things because of a bad thing, we reinforce the bad thing. If we create a payoff to being emotional and fighting, we will increase moodiness and fighting.

So when we make up, we should make up by resolving the issue and dealing with the wrong with confession, forgiveness and repentance. The good behaviors are done to craft a magnificent relationship. We don’t want to associate getting those things with doing bad behavior.

To understand how this principle works, let’s start with a parenting example. If a parent is in a store with a child, and the child wants a toy, he might ask for it. If his parent says no, the child might start a tantrum, throwing a fit, screaming, crying, pouting, and generally making the parent miserable. If the parent buys the child a toy after that, what has the child learned? The child has learned that the way to get what you want is to throw a fit.

Let’s consider an adult, then. If a woman enjoys receiving gifts as a show of romance and love, but her husband never buys anything, she will feel unloved. If, however, when the two of them have really huge fights, he always shows up with gifts, then her emotions internalize the association of gifts to fights. Since gifts are already tied to love, the way she will know she is loved is if she gets the gift, and the way to the gift is the fight. Chances are she would not intellectually rationalize it that way, but if her husband only bought her loving gifts after a fight, he is essentially telling her “If you want to know I love you, start a fight with me.”