Comments on: Poison Phrase: You sound angry

By: LaMoor

LaMoor — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:43:16 +0000

Anger is good fuel. I think if your in an arena and anger comes out. I would continue to watch the board and decide whether I should respond any further my first comment is my opinion and if it is not viewed as an opinion I might want to reconsider the way I approach the audiencein the future if I want a more positive response. I would start out with “In my opinion” and when I see anger I submit to the golden rule “Silence”.
Opinions are not something I would make a battle out of.

I would dismiss it too.

By: merylrunion

merylrunion — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:18:22 +0000

There is a place to identify anger. However, I consider this an Ad Hominem attack because instead of addressing the reasoning behind the argument that was put forward, it ignored the content and discredited the commenter.

This was on a blog, where people weren’t in a patient / psychologist relationship with the author. But even if they were, I’d see it as similar to if a psychologist disclosed confidential information and the patient explained why that was inappropriate, and the psychologist talked about the patient’s anger instead of explaining why it was necessary or admitting that it wasn’t.

When I read the posts, I thought they made legitimate points and was curious how the author would respond to them. They posts sounded reasonable to me, and I would have liked to have heard the author’s response to their points.

I do want to go on record that acknowledging anger can be a PowerPhrase - in addition to addressing the substance of the anger.

By: Kathleen DuBois

Kathleen DuBois — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:31:54 +0000

I agree I wouldn’t want my therapist to deflect my anger back to me instead of guiding me to discovery of the underlying causes. And I didn’t read the referenced exchange, so I don’t know how I would feel about that specific instance. However, I do know there are many instances in our lives where expressed anger is inappropriate; instances in which the angry person should deal with their anger on their own and not expect me to be their therapist. I am not the cause of their anger, I just happen to be the person caught in their cross hairs when they are feeling angry. My perception is that chronically angry people often seem to think their anger is “righteous” & whoever is on the receiving end is at fault somehow & deserving of their righteous anger. They also appear to me to think that somehow they are really DOING something when they are being angry. I would vote for a lot less publicly expressed anger and a lot more neutrality. If your anger is not going to help a person or a situation (and it seldom does), then keep it to yourself. Go run or chop wood or pull weeds or dig a hole or scrub grout or dance.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:21:05 +0000

That’s interesting. Of course therapists use that expression a lot in the course of their work but some less insightful ones might forget that in real life they might also have underlying issues of anger that prompt potentially offensive statements! To automatically defect criticism back on the speaker/writer in this way indicates to me an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for how we speak/write. It is true that we can’t always anticipate the reactions of others and also that we can’t be sure where they are coming from. But that is no reason to invalidate the expressions of their opinions. People have a right to object to such generalisations, assumptions and judgements and the source of them needs to consider her own role in this instead of simply passing it back without self-reflection. It is unreasonable for professionals (and others) to expect others to look at their own agendas without also looking at their own.