TED Community » Robert Jaffe

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 24 2011: Hello, Andrea. Wish I had access to your magical basketball court. What a great idea. I read your post carefully and thought about what you say. I would think that the Dalai Lama has long since entirely mastered his own capacity to become angered, and may well have done so in the manner you describe - by redirecting energies that might otherwise have fostered anger into much more constructive endeavors. But by now that must be a habit for him. And of course, for you and I and others here, that's something we'd all like to do, a personal goal. And many of us will make progress in that way and ultimately attain some degree of success. But what about all the angry people around us, whom we have to work with, when we don't have a magical basketball court available? How do we get them to comprehend even a portion of the advantages that accrue from changing into a non-angry person? To feel their way into the betterness of a non-angry life? I would tend to think that in order to accomplish something like that we do have to be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, so to speak, to demonstrate to them in short order - through a small, on-the-spot, highly limited transformation of a tiny aspect of their anger into a (to them) obviously useful and pleasant "different state" related directly to a solution of the conflict in which they find themselves at the moment we meet them. Which we could then use to get them thinking seriously about long-term change. I have no magic solutions, but better minds than mine, such as Bill Ury and others, have been mulling this over for quite some time. Sooner or later I do believe we'll get somewhere.

• A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: Mmmmm. I don't know that I have much wisdom to impart. I live in as much of a daily fog as everyone else. But of course I'd be happy to write about my experiences of and conclusions about mediation. Let me try to work them into some general questions I can pose in the future. I'd prefer, if we can, to keep to the central idea of the problem of anger in this particular line of comments. It's a very, very central matter in all mediation of whatever kind, family mediation, litigation mediation and international mediation, among others.
  
  Solving the problem of anger (and, yes, I do believe it's solvable, and I'm not a romantic idealist) is important on every single conceivable level: couples, families, workmates, labor/management, in schools, colleges, universities and internationally. It will take time, but it's feasible. We've already seen that kind of huge social and personal development. I've actually witnessed similar changes happen in my own lifetime. And so would anybody have done who's more than fifty years old today. They may not have noticed it. They may not have focussed on it. But such things do really happen in the real world among real people. Take care!

• A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: Thank you very much, Debra, for bringing Bill Ury's talk to my attention. He's a great hero of mine, as he is to all mediators. I was a spear carrier in the army in which Bill Ury was and is a general. His books are excellent, and I recommend them all without reservation. Please don't get me started on the general subject of mediation though, because I'll talk (or write) your head off. As I mentioned in another post here, I've spent most of my adult life as a full-time, professional mediator, like Bill, and it's a fascinating way to make a living.
  
  What you say about negative feelings and anger is absolutely correct, from my point of view. Rejection, fear and confusion do all too often default to anger. I very much like your image of anger as a state where your brain is on tilt like a pinball machine. It's so terribly true. And, yes, realizing what you're doing before you explode in anger, and then taking action to stop it, would be well worth while for all of us. As to your last comment, I'd be amazed if you found any professional mediator who "resorts to anger very often." From a mediator's point of view, anger, particularly anger in mediators themselves, is about as self-destructive as pulling the pin on a grenade and stuffing it in your pocket. Take care!

• A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: Hmmmm. I would tend to think that only a small percentage of angry people would be able to eliminate their anger in the way you describe, Mr. Schulte. Many people, particularly angry people, for many different reasons, don't find themselves in a mental or emotional position from within which they can access essentially oriental wisdom. This may well be different for individuals who have actually been raised within Buddhist societies. For most westerners, though, I believe that more basic methods have to be employed. After all, however bright and cultured and sophisticated we may be, much of our being is animal, for we are animals, with an all-too-frequent animal existence on several levels. And however unhappy we may be to do so, we have to be realistic about dealing with the animal parts of our nature.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: As to who the professionals are, they include but are not limited to psychologists, social workers, therapists, counselors, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts with whom I have dealt in connection with my professional work for the past 35 years. From my point of view as a long-time family mediator working with couples who are having difficulties with each other, anger is entirely counterproductive. You'll never be able to truly listen to your spouse if you're enraged at them, and real listening is essential, in my view, if a couple wants to stay together.
  
  As for their suggestions, for starters you might want to read Kathy K's post above. She has a good grip on the most frequent advice to angry people: first, realize that you're angry (many people manage to hide from this realization.) Second, consciously locate each particular "trigger" that sets off your anger. Third, think about how to avoid such triggers as best you can in the future. Fourth, figure out (with or without professional advice) how to channel your anger into healthier pursuits, such as (Kathy K. writes) exercise. Other people suggest any form of energetic (but not necessarily aerobic) activity, including playing a musical instrument, doing garden work, washing your car, walking to and from the store instead of using your car (if that's realistic), or (obviously) doing any kind of sport. I myself have found it valuable in eliminating anger to consciously work on positive relations with other people, in a much more attentive and caring way than I have before.
  
  I'm not familiar with Eckhart Tolle but I do know of and highly respect the Dalai Lama, a wonderful man several of whose works I've read or listened to. I can't agree, though, that "venting" anger is ever any better than getting rid of anger in another, less socially toxic, way.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: I think you have real insight into the anger problem, Ms. K. And that your ideas about how to deal with that problem have to be taken quite seriously. As for anger's contribution to mental and physical disease, I'm not as sure. Yes, we've been told (in my case for fifty years) that depression "is anger turned inward." And I haven't heard anything that would make me think the psychological professions have changed their minds about that. I have, though, heard from both psychologists and physicians that they are presently rather dubious about unexpressed anger causing cancer. See, e.g., www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/69/7/667.full.pdf

• A reply on Conversation: Is the exteriorisation of angry feelings a good thing or a bad thing?

  May 20 2011: Well, Ms. Shaw, I think you're right about professional mediators. I WAS a professional mediator for 35 years (retired now) and I do think they might help the political situation. Some others have suggested that the different sides in politics trust different kinds of people, and that those particularly trustworthy folks be used to tamp things down.
  
  For example, take AGW. Neither side is actually listening to the other. There's a complete lack of trust on each side. Most people who think AGW is real trust scientists and specialized government officials. The anti-AGW group have been said to place more faith in businessmen and clergy. They simply do not trust scientists or government officials on this (or probably any) issue. If we could find some successful businessmen and evangelical clergy who do believe in AGW, perhaps they might have an easier time getting across the idea that AGW is real and has to be acted on now.
  
  As for the bottom line, I do agree with you about not acting out the anger on someone else and getting away from the scene. I think Kathy K above has some good ideas on that point.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Is resistance to technology use in society based on our evolution history tied to the land rather than the machine?

  May 18 2011: The rate of technological change increased very slowly from ancient times through the middle ages up to the beginning of the modern era from and after the Reformation. Beginning in the eighteenth century in Britain, the rate of technological change began accelerating in a manner never experienced before and continues to accelerate to this day. Until at least the end of the nineteenth century technological change (cheaper fabrics, better public health, easier movement from place to place) was seen by most people as beneficial (except of course for those who lost their employment because of it, such as the weavers). Starting some time in the twentieth century, with things changing faster and faster, some people began getting nervous, and that nervousness has increased and been transmuted into positive alarm on the part of many people today. Technological change has led to vast social changes and we as a species just are not accustomed to dealing with such things. The fact is generally accepted that through millions of years during paleolithic times our ancestors experienced almost no change at all. Over the past, say, fifteen thousand years there have been very significant changes, but still at much, much slower rates than is true today. As a species, I personally don't believe we have as yet any evolutionary adaptation to the kind of change that has become normal over the past three hundred years. Accordingly, many people demonize technological change and idealize whatever they conceive of as "nature." Particularly if they have a social memory of having been injured by technological change in the past (as in the U.K.) I think that the rate of technological change will remain very, very fast because of the obvious and overwhelming economic benefits it brings.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Wealth and power have been our conventional measures of success. What definition will better sustain us now and how can we move into it?

  May 18 2011: You are oh-so-right, Mr. De Paoli. I myself went to college and studied something I loved, history. And then, to placate my father, I went to law school and became a lawyer. I hated it all. Some ten years after law school I had an opportunity to become a family mediator, which I took. For the following 35 years, until I retired, that's how I made a living for myself and my family. I devoted my life to helping other people towards mutual understanding and respect, a thing I loved to do. I earned far less money than I would have as a practising lawyer, but I did something that made me feel good about myself and all those around me. To tell you the truth, I don't know that studying a "practical" subject in college would do you any harm. It will perhaps make it a little easier for you to start out in the world of work. It frequently takes people quite a while to feel themselves out and discover what they "really" want to do. I've known many people who have changed not only jobs, but entire careers and specialities within their first fifteen years out of high school. English majors and accountants turning into doctors or nurses. Architects becoming lawyers. Lawyers becoming novelists. Doctors becoming financial advisers. But it's quite true, things were easier for younger job hunters in my time. These days it may well (I do not know this for sure) be best to study something practical in college, something that might even slightly improve your ability to get that critical first job afterwards. You will always, but always, have the opportunity to change in the future. In fact, if you're really meant for something other than what you're then doing for a living, I think it's quite doubtful that you'll be able to resist the change.

• A reply on Conversation: Wealth and power have been our conventional measures of success. What definition will better sustain us now and how can we move into it?

  May 18 2011: Absolutely agree. On all points save one. I wouldn't characterize Ms. Doron's mother's comment as "selfish." It just seems to me to be misguided and overly harsh on herself. I'm sure that if Ms. Doron and her mother talked this over at length (as they may well have done - later), her mother would be able to recognize the worth and value of her contribution to other people's happiness and the general good of society. One can be a clerk in a convenience store and be a good and valuable person and member of society. As the French say: "il n'ya pas de sot metier." Having the "right" job, or having an enormous amount of money will by no means guarantee you happiness or fulfillment. Just in this past year there was a study, blazoned across all the major news outlets, which found that at and above an income of sixty thousand dollars (U.S.) a year, the rate of personal happiness is the same for all.