This morning, before I had my first sip of coffee, I had learned the following: (1) my friends’ daughter was sick, (2) another friend, more distant, was pregnant, and (3) that legislators in my state have been embracing all sorts of policies I find harmful. That’s right, within ten minutes of waking up, Facebook had provided me with opportunities to feel sadness, joy, and anger. Contrast that with ten years ago, pre-Facebook, when I would have spent that time… staring out the window, probably. Honestly, what did I do while waiting for my coffee to brew before I had Facebook?
The other night, I was enjoying dinner out with my wife and two young kids. When my wife and youngest son were in the bathroom, the man in the booth behind my son got out of his seat and came toward us. He looked angry and approached us aggressively enough that it made me uncomfortable. I reached out to protect my son when the man stopped and snapped at me, “Tell him to stop kicking the seat!”
I was confused. I hadn’t noticed or heard my son kicking anything so I said, “He’s kicking your seat?”
“Yes! Make him stop,” he snapped back and turned away before I could respond.
So, I said loudly enough for him to hear me (it was a very loud restaurant), “I’m sorry, sir. I’ll make sure he doesn’t do it again.”
No response. He just turned back and glared at me.
I told my son, who was obviously shaken up the exchange, that it was ok but that he needed to be more careful not to kick the seat. A moment later, my wife and youngest son returned from the bathroom. My oldest needed to move so she could get into the booth and, when he did, the man turned back and glared at me again, obviously annoyed with us. I explained the situation to my wife. My son heard me and said, “I’ll get up on my knees so I don’t kick the seat.”
Again, his movement annoyed the man behind him to the point that he glared back at us and this time started kicking our seat hard, over and over again. My wife started to say something to him but I asked her to stop. It seemed he was looking for a fight and I have no interest in such things. I called a waiter over, explained the situation, and asked to be moved to a different seat. The manager came over and took us to another seat. The man just glared at us as we left.
I didn’t want to move. It was inconvenient and unfair. I wasn’t the one being an asshole. Why should I have to move? But, I didn’t trust him. I didn’t like how close he was sitting to my wife and son, and, honestly, he struck me as just horrible enough to hurt a child if he lost his temper again. Getting far away from him was the smart thing to do.
Two quick things about this story before I get to the main point.
One, I put a premium on good behavior from my kids, especially when we are out in public. I have a very high bar for what I expect from them and I don’t hesitate to take them out of a public place if they are misbehaving. Had I known he was kicking the seat, intentionally or unintentionally, I would have stopped him. As big an asshole as this guy was being, I still feel badly that I didn’t notice my son was bothering him earlier.
Two, I’m perfectly willing to grant the premise that this guy was having a really bad day and that this wasn’t reflective of his behavior in general. I realize I only got a glimpse of what kind of person he is and, even though his behavior was deplorable, it may be that he’s normally a very different sort of person. We’ve all had bad moments and I like to imagine that he went home, embarrassed by how he acted, and wishing he could apologize.
I doubt it, though.
I suspect he goes through life looking for things that make him angry. I suspect he goes through life baiting people; trolling in real life. That sort of approach to life tends to work for people in the short term. The other night, he got exactly what he wanted… for us to leave. He threw a fit, and because it was more important to me to keep my family safe than it was to argue with him, he got what he wanted.
What’s interesting is that most people grow out of that sort of thing. As we get older, we stop looking for things that make us mad (or sad or scared) and start to turn our attention to things that make us happy. It’s called socioemotional selectivity (named by Dr. Laura Carstensen out of Stanford) and is rooted in the idea that as we get older, we realize life is short, and that negative emotions aren’t worth it. People shift their attention toward things that make them happy and avoid those things that make them sad, scared, or angry. It’s a mark of healthy emotional development to grow out of looking for things that anger us.
Put another way, if you go through life looking for things that make you mad, you’re going to find them and you’ll spend you entire life angry.
In honor of Shark Week, I wanted to tackle the question everyone (ok, just me) is asking. Do sharks get angry? I’ll be the first to admit that this post started as a somewhat desperate attempt at combining my professional passion: anger, with my personal passion: sharks. That said, as I started working on it, I realized that it is actually a much more interesting question than I originally realized (i.e., it’s way more complicated than Jaws 4 made it seem).
Sharks don’t get mad. They get even.
Here’s why it’s interesting… and complicated. There is no single, universally established, definition of an emotion. Psychologists (to say nothing of the other professionals who have a stake in defining emotion) don’t agree on what an emotion is and certainly haven’t been able to come up with something broad enough to capture all emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, guilt, curiosity) yet exclusive enough to keep out similar but non-emotional states (e.g., thirst, hunger).
Our inability to define emotions has led to grave difficulties in studying them (or, on a whim, trying to decide if sharks feel them). What most psychologists would tell you, though, is that emotions are psychological states that include physiological arousal, some fairly predictable behaviors, and certain types of cognitions or thoughts. When we are angry, our sympathetic nervous system (the fight or flight system) kicks in so our heart-rate increases, our muscles tense up, our hair stands on end, etc. It’s a very similar physiological experience to fear.
In fact, the same structures in the brain that are associated with fear are associated with anger. Most notably, the amygdala, is our brain’s emotional computer. It takes in information from the senses and initiates emotional responses when necessary. Essentially, it tells the rest of the brain, “time to get angry” (or scared, sad, etc.). While it’s particularly relevant with fear (research shows that stimulating it causes a fear response and removing it leads to the absence of fear), it also plays an important role in initiating anger and aggression. Stimulating it can lead to aggressive outbursts and, in the past, amygdalectomies have been used as an approach to dealing with uncontrollable aggression.
Turning now to the shark brain, what we see is that they are relatively similar, structurally, to the human brain (they don’t look at all similar… but they have similar parts).
Most importantly with regard to anger is that they do have an amygdala which coordinates their fight or flight response. From a purely physiological perspective, there’s no reason to think they aren’t capable of feeling angry.
With regard to angry behaviors, it becomes more complicated. While humans will engage in all sorts of behaviors when angry, animals tend to just lash out in aggressive ways. Of course, they do that when they are scared too, further complicating things. In humans, we also have the luxury of inferring emotions from facial expressions but this doesn’t get us very far with sharks.
It’s hard to tell this:
Finally, the third part of the angry experience is the cognitions. In people these are thoughts of having been wronged, having our goals blocked, having someone to blame, and believing the situation is unfair. Obviously, the cognitive piece is what’s lacking in sharks. They are not known for being smart (unless you count Deep Blue Sea).
Wow, that is deep…
It’s probably unreasonable to say that a shark can feel wronged, unfairly treated, or even have the capacity to blame someone for something. They can have their goals blocked, though, and that can help us answer part of this question.
Infants and toddlers aren’t capable of understanding fairness either but we do know that they still get angry.
Enter the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which says that aggression results from having one’s goals blocked. Aggression, a behavior, is not the same as anger, an emotion, but it’s also the primary way that animals will act when they are angry.
Thankfully, passive-aggression is rare in sharks
Essentially, when you interfere with what a person or animal really wants, it lashes out. They have studied frustration-aggression with mice, cats, dogs and, of course, humans (but not sharks). With infants, the studies look like this. Something the infant wants is placed where he or she can’t get to it (out of reach, behind glass, etc.). Infant tries to reach it, fails, and they observe how the infant reacts. Infants will do a lot of different things in this situation (cry, scream, move on to something else, etc.) but, sometimes, he or she will lash out by banging a fist or throwing something.
So, what would this study look like in sharks? Well, we would put something the shark wanted in a place it couldn’t get to.
Like Richard Dreyfuss perhaps
Then we would watch how it reacted.
My grant request for the funds to run this study is still pending.
On the off chance my funding doesn’t come through, we can turn to some other sources.
Starting with this video here:
Same thing here:
Taken together, I’m inclined to believe that, yes, sharks do feel anger. It’s probably not the same sensation of anger that humans feel as, without the intellectual capacity to evaluate and interpret events, it’s likely experienced very differently. However, at the core, anger is a primitive emotional state that likely exists because it provided the evolutionary advantage of energizing creatures to confront abuse or mistreatment. We know other animals experience emotions. Dogs get happy, elephants get sad, birds….
I wonder if they’ve tried meditation….
And recent evidence suggests that animals are even capable of feeling much more complex emotions like jealousy.
So why not sharks?
Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.
Last week, I did an interview with Christopher Gabriel on WDAY about online anger (you can hear it here). He asked me, specifically, about some angry tweets that he labeled “drive-by nasties.” These are tweets or Facebook posts where the author doesn’t attempt to have a dialogue or any sort of civil discourse but, rather, just says something cruel or hurtful and disappears.
I took a look today and found a couple of examples (I didn’t have to look very hard).
A tweet about the economy from President Obama was met with this.
A Guardian Facebook post about Hillary Clinton was met with this (note how many times it was “liked” as well).
A Huffington Post Facebook post about Washington state’s new marijuana law that says that you can’t sell anything that may appeal strongly to kids was met with this.
And even a Huffington Post Facebook post with cute pictures of dogs and babies was met with this.
I’ve addressed online anger plenty here but these are particularly interesting because the authors don’t seem to want to have a discussion. In many cases, people responded to these posts but the authors didn’t respond back. It’s not that they were trying to start a fight, necessarily. It’s more that they just want to unload without having to deal with the consequences.
So what are these drive-bys all about?
It seems like there are a couple of thing going on. Obviously, we have people who are angry, judgmental, and disproving. They are upset about something and they want to let the world know about it. That’s actually a lot of people, though, and most of us don’t take to Twitter or Facebook to tell people off and then run away from the conflict that follows. What really stands out here is that they don’t want to be challenged in response. They want to be heard but they don’t want to listen.
I can’t help but wonder if at the root of these is a lack of confidence. They have strong beliefs but don’t really feel comfortable in defending those beliefs. People who feel secure in their positions are willing to stick around and discuss them. It’s likely insecurity that drives people away from the post-comment argument.
It’s unfortunate because social networking provides such great potential to have real conversations about complex issues. It could be (and is) used to bring smart people together from across the globe to discuss and solve problems. We can’t do that, though, if people continue to use it as dumping ground for their disapproval and frustration.
It’s a bit of an understatement to say that there are some people across the globe who take their soccer seriously. This World Cup has given us more than enough examples of fan taking things to a new level.
All joking aside, things have gotten serious in the last few days with threats, violence, and riots.
Let’s start with Juan Zuniga, the Colombian player who injured Brazilian star-player, Neymar. Even before the 7-1 loss to Germany, Zuniga was getting death threats from Brazilian fans. In fact, the Colombian Soccer Federation has had to provide him with additional security.
Meanwhile, Brazil broke out into chaos after the loss with fights among fans and riots in multiple locations. In fact, 12 buses in Sao Paulo were set on fire by angry Brazilian fans after the loss.
Make no mistake about it; this isn’t just one soccer-obsessed country overreacting to the result of a game. We see this sort of anger elsewhere as well. The South Korean team was pelted with toffee by angry fans when they returned home and English fans set fire to an Italian flag in response to a loss.
So why does all this happen? Why to people find them themselves getting too riled up over sports? After all, it’s only a game, right?
Well, as it turns out, there are several basic psychological phenomena that make anger a likely reaction to disappointing outcomes in sports.
Basking in Reflected Glory: One concept, originally described by Robert Cialdini and relevant to sports viewership, is the tendency of people to bask in the reflected glory (BIRG) of successful others. You often hear this in the language they use to discuss their favorite team. Fans respond to victory by saying “we” won, “we” played great, and who do “we” play next. Even though they themselves have done nothing concrete to have earned the victory, they still see themselves as part of the team and, therefore, partially responsible for the victory. The tendency to BIRG is even more likely in a county like Brazil that receives so much of its esteem from soccer.
Tension: Once you acknowledge that fans care about the outcome because they identify with the team (i.e., they BIRG), it’s easy to understand the tension that accompanies viewing a sporting event. This becomes even more true as the stakes get higher. The more important the game, the greater the tension and, as was discussed under Anger Basics, people experience greater anger in response to negative events if they are already feeling tense or on edge.
Elevated Status and Meaning: It is not uncommon to hear fans describe sporting events as hugely important or even monumental occasions, elevating the status and meaning of the events well beyond their actual implications. Attaching so much importance to an event will certainly lead to frustration and anger when there is an undesired outcome. In other words, if someone thinks that watching their team win will be the best thing that ever happened to them, watching them lose will probably feel like the worst thing that has ever happened to them. It certainly doesn’t help that the Brazilian press has been using words like “catastrophic” and “a historic humiliation” to describe the loss.
Perceptions of Unfairness: It’s easy to find controversy or some reason why the outcome was not fair or deserved. Ambiguous calls by officials, poor play by a player, or poor coaching all fall into the category of reasons why a team “should” have won and otherwise “would” have won. It all feeds into the feeling that the desired outcome was taken from the fan and gives the fan a specific target to be angry with (e.g., coach, referees). In this case, it’s easy for fans to look at Neymar’s injury as the primary (and unfair) reason for the loss. Hence, it’s easy to target Zuniga as the offending party.
Secondary Gain: Finally, for some, the outcome of the game has actual consequences. Typically, these consequences are manufactured by the person ahead of time through gambling, fantasy sports, or even just through banter with a friend who supports the opposition (i.e., “smack talk”). For such people, the outcome has very real financial or social implications and it is easy to have an emotional reaction to the idea of lost money or damaged pride.
The good news is that no one is doomed to feel angry every time his or her team loses. There are some fairly simple steps that can be taken to help decrease unwanted feelings of anger.
- Keep it in Perspective: It is important, not just during the game but in the time leading up to it, to remember the real implications of things not going the way you want them to. It may be easier said than done but try to keep in mind what it will really mean if your team loses or wins (i.e., is this really “catastrophic”).
- Awareness and Relaxation: Being aware of feelings of tension and anger in the moment and introducing relaxation approaches can be a valuable way to decrease unwanted anger. Useful relaxation approaches can include deep breathing, counting, progressive muscle relaxing and others.
- Limit the Banter: Friendly banter can become unfriendly in a hurry so it’s a good idea to remember not to dish out any more than you can take. Adding damaged pride to a loss only makes it worse and there’s a good chance that the targets of your excessive smack talk will come back at you when you are down.
- Avoidance: Ultimately, it might make sense for people to consider whether or not they want to invite something into their life that makes them so angry. Watching sports is a choice, even for people who are really passionate about them, and you can choose not to watch if it isn’t healthy for you or the people around you.
By Ryan C. Martin
Note: This is update to a 2011 post, The Inciting World of Sports
Right now, Guns and Ammo is running a March Madness themed ad campaign on its website.
Here’s how it works. Like the NCAA tournament, there are four divisions: Handguns, Rifles, Modern Sporting Rifles, and Shotguns. Within each division, there are 16 types of guns listed that face off against one another. They are seeded. For instance, in the first round, the “Smith & Wesson M&P 10” is a 1-seed, facing off against the 16th seeded “Salient Arms Tier 1.” (Presumably, the seeds are based on how they did in the regular season?) Fans vote on their favorite and the winner moves on to the next round until we get to the final and can finally learn the answer to the question we’ve all been waiting for… most popular gun.
I want to mention first that I’ve never seen so many advertisements on one website. The contest is brought to you Galco Gunleather. The rifles are brought to you by Burris; handguns by Laserlyte, and so on. There’s a banner for Smith & Wesson at the top (maybe that’s why they’re a 1-seed), another banner for a thermosight at the bottom, and ads for various magazines on both sides. It’s almost as though advertisers have found the perfect place to target an overly-devoted and obsessive group of consumers.
Aside from wandering into an advertising nightmare, the entire contest is weird as hell. Guns are tools. This is a contest where people go vote for their favorite tool. I’m pretty sure Bosch isn’t sponsoring a March Madness-themed contest where people vote for their favorite power-drill or sander. I did go check, though, just to be sure and, no, they’re not. And if they were, I’m pretty sure no one would go vote because there are very few power-drill enthusiasts out there.
Here’s the thing, though. It would be less weird for people to go vote on their favorite power tools. Power tools are not designed with the explicit purpose of killing people like many of these guns. The Smith & Wesson M&P 10 is designed for “multiple uses” but at least two of those uses, tactical and defensive, include killing people. I can’t find as much information about the Salient Arms Tier 1 (I’m beginning to understand why it was a 16-seed) but it would appear to have a similar purpose. What qualities are people voting on?
On top of all that, though, there’s strangeness in the fiery passion with which people are trying to defend their choices. On Facebook, where the campaign is being advertised, people are taking to the comments to defend their choice and sway others. Respondents are angry over how few people appreciate their preferred gun. Some are indignant over even being asked which they prefer, as though they are being forced to decide which child they love most. How dare you even ask? These guns are each special in their own way!
I’m not trying to make light of it. I’ve often found the culture of gun-enthusiasm a bit haunting. I remember once listening to two kids in the bookstore of an airport arguing over which assault rifle was better, the same way two kids might talk about whether or not Michigan State had a chance to win the east as a 4-seed. Unlike basketball, though, this isn’t a game. It simply can’t be healthy to think about guns this way yet, right now, there are tens of thousands of people doing just that and several massive companies making millions by promoting it.
By Ryan C. Martin
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to start by saying I have no strong feelings about Duck Dynasty as a show. Until about three weeks ago, I barely knew what it was. And now that I do, I still don’t really have any strong feelings other than that Phil Robertson is quite the bigot and appears to have some ridiculous opinions about a great many things.
I do, however, have strong feelings about the online mob that was created in response to his suspension. As an anger researcher who is particularly interested in the way people express their rage online, I watched with fascination as an angry, online mob gathered their pitchforks and went after A&E, non-Christians, and liberals.
I watched as Twitter erupted with angry tweets from Duck Dynasty fans. I watched people I’m friends with on Facebook, who almost never post anything, post article after article in defense of Phil Robertson.
It quickly became about much more than whether or not the show would air or whether or not his comments were appropriate. In reading through the tweets, it was clear that to his fans his suspension was an attack on hunters, the first amendment, and all Christians everywhere.
These memes flooded Twitter in the days after his suspension:
One could, of course, go through and pick these apart, as they all defy basic common sense. Had liberals really been defending Miley Cyrus? And were liberals the ones who suspended Robertson? When were his constitutional rights violated, when did this become about Islam, and are you really comparing the Robertsons to the apostles?
Some of this can be explained by basic social psychology. When members of any group (in this case, hunters, Christians, conservatives, etc.) feel attacked, they tend to lash out at the perceived attackers. In this case, the perceived attackers were liberals, A&E and the rest of the media, non-hunters, and non-Christians. Robertson’s supporters circled the wagons and responded the way groups that feel threatened often do.
But some of this was manufactured and that’s the part that concerns me most. In the days after Robertson’s comments, the following was said by various Republican leaders across the country:
Former Vice-Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin (December 18th, 2013, via Facebook): “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
Governor Bobby Jindal (December 19th, 2013, via a statement released by his office): “I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”
Senator Ted Cruz (December 19th, 2013, via Twitter): “If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over treatment of Phil Robertson”
So we have three (and there have been many others) prominent conservatives who are actively working to fuel the fire. That alone isn’t a problem. Politicians often try to drum up anger as a way of gaining support (here’s why, by the way). What is a problem, though, is that they are lying to their followers as they do it. Robertson’s first amendment rights were absolutely not violated in any way and Palin, Jindal, and Cruz must know that (see here for an explanation of how free speech doesn’t guarantee you a TV show). I supposed it’s possible their understanding of the first amendment is so limited that they actually think this is a violation of Robertson’s first amendment rights. But I doubt it. Their position on this is actually inconsistent with the corporate-personhood cause they have been championing these last years (i.e., if corporations have rights, why doesn’t A&E have the right to suspend an employee for voicing something that may damage the company image).
What’s more likely is that Palin, Jindal, and Cruz knew their supporters would have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that liberals were attacking the constitution and they deliberately lied to them in order to feed the rage and create a mob.
Such behavior is shameful and dangerous. To that point, on December 20th, A&E had to increase security at their headquarters due to death threats and “suspicious looking packages” in response to the Robertson suspension. It’s not fair to suggest a direct link between their comments and these death threats, but it is fair to say that their dishonest comments escalated an already emotionally charged situation. There are consequences to mob creation.
I’m not asking them to keep quiet. They have every right to express their opinions on this and anything else. I’m just asking them to be honest as they do it. I’m asking them to recognize the responsibility that comes with having so many supporters and not to fan the flames of the online mob with their dishonest rhetoric.
By Ryan C. Martin
According to a recent Huffington Post article, 10 Things Hangry People Do, hanger is when people are both hungry and angry. It seems to lead to all sorts of problems like a need for butter and starch and “chocolate freak-outs.”
It got me thinking, though; why not combine anger with other emotional/cognitive/behavioral states to create more fun new words. In that spirit, here are a handful of portmanteaus (a word I totally knew on my own and didn’t have to ask my colleagues in the English department about) we should embrace:
- Temperature Tantrums: An uncontrollable outburst of anger because you are either too hot or too cold.
- Lustration: Intense sexual desire… for someone who’s just not that into you.
- Checkoutrage: The frustration from consistently choosing the wrong line at the grocery store.
- Inferiation: An inaccurate deduction that leads to infuriation.
- Resetment: The feeling of betrayal and irritation that comes with having to restore your cellphone to factory settings.
- Madderall: The drug prescribed for people with anger and attention problems.
- Pollyannoyed: Feeling irritated by another’s joyful outlook on life.
This is intended to be just the start. Please feel free to add others to the comments below.
By Ryan C. Martin
Over the last few days, I’ve read article after article about the tragedy in Connecticut. From the need for gun-control to the need for civility, from why gun control won’t work to why we need to do more for the mentally ill, it seems every topic has been covered. I admit, I’ve been angrier than most people over this shooting and it’s been hard to control it sometimes. I’ve been told by friends, family, and acquaintances that there is no sense blaming anyone and that it doesn’t do any good to get angry.
I’m writing this as much to process my own anger and sadness and fear as anything else. With all due respect to those who want me to stop pointing fingers, I simply don’t agree. I don’t believe this shooting, or any shooting, just happens. I think they are allowed to happen because we as a society have failed in a variety of ways to do the things that need to be done.
In the interest of full-disclosure, let me start by saying that I hate guns. I have no interest in them and no desire to own, use, or even hold one. Ultimately, the reason I hate guns is because I have no desire to kill anyone or anything. I’m certain I would if I had to in order to protect myself or my family. But if I ever did kill someone, I know I would be tortured by it forever. It would haunt me because, when all is said and done, I think killing is always bad… even when it’s justified.
Despite my hatred of guns, I don’t fault people for wanting to own a gun for defense. I think it’s usually a bad decision to own a gun (the data says they rarely save lives and increase the chances of accidental death in the home dramatically) and I would discourage my friends and family from doing so. But, ultimately, people make lots of bad decisions about safety and this is just one of them. Nor do I fault people for enjoying hunting. While I don’t see the appeal, I understand that people enjoy it as a sport the same way I enjoy certain sports.
So, to any gun owners out there who might be reading this, please don’t think I am trying to paint you all with one brush. I’m not. I know many gun owners and find them to be responsible, smart people. In fact, the gun owners I know are equally repulsed by what I’m about to describe.
There is a type of gun-owner, the gun-enthusiast, that seems different from the responsible gun owners I know. Gun-enthusiasts do not see guns as tools for hunting or protection exclusively. They see them and are attracted to them as killing machines. They think guns are cool and they think that the bigger the gun in their hand, the tougher they are. They are the ones who have bumper stickers that read, “Don’t mess with the 2nd Amendment and I won’t be forced to exercise it” or signs up in their yard that read, “Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.” More to the point, they are the people who created, sold, and/or bought the gun range targets designed to look like Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old, unarmed, boy who was killed by George Zimmerman in February, 2012 (these targets sold out before anyone had a chance to complain about them).
I like to cling to the idea that the people I’m talking about are rare. I’m not so sure, though. In trying to get a better sense of what gun-enthusiasts are like, I visited the website of Guns and Ammo, the self-proclaimed, “World’s Most Widely Read Firearms Magazine.” Quite honestly, the things I saw and read there are more than a little upsetting.
The first thing I saw on their website was the article, “Gift Guide for the Tactical Guy,” featuring a photo of Santa, in dark sunglasses, holding a rifle. Incidentally, it’s actually one of two photos of Santa holding a gun on their homepage. The other is for a caption contest and shows Santa in what looks like a war zone, firing a large gun. If you click on the link, you will find hundreds of submissions to the contest, including the following:
- Instead of coal, you get lead
- Delivering gifts in Afghanistan….
- We wish you a merry Christmas to you and your kind
- Merry CHRISTmas–taliban–These ROUNDS are on me..gifts delivered!!
- Naughty, Nice, Expendable….its all good!!
- If you’re against Christians you’re against me. If you’re against me I’m against you. Since I have a bigger better rifle and more ammo, I’ll win. Too late, you loose.
- Ho Ho Holy War.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about people finding joy in the idea of killing.
I went back to read the article about gifts for tactical guys where my first question was, of course, “what’s a tactical guy?” I know what it means to be tactical and think of myself as tactical about a great many things (the use of words, for example) but I don’t think that’s what they were referring to. A quick glimpse at the gift guide reveals that, to them, a tactical guy is someone who is prepared to kill at a moment’s notice. A tactical guy carries an assault rifle or automatic pistol whenever they leave the house. A tactical guy carries a tactical tomahawk that is “built to pound” and is perfect for “breaching operations.” Finally, a tactical guy also has dress pants specially designed to conceal weapons for a night on the town.
And this isn’t all. I found articles explaining why assault rifles are better for home defense than you might think, on what the media doesn’t understand about guns (full of unverified claims), and even an article on what your assault rifle says about you. But what was most revealing to me was what I found in the discussion forums. The good news is that most of the people who posted seemed relatively responsible, though a little paranoid. They discuss things like strategies for using ATM machines late at night, the best types of holsters, and gun-related current events. Though I disagree vehemently with the politics, most of it was pretty similar to what you find on any political thread on any Facebook page or discussion forum.
Scattered within these relatively reasonable posts, however, were hauntingly upsetting comments about killing. In response to this story about a recent shooting in Minnesota, one person wrote that no good deed goes unpunished and how unfair it was that the shooter would be punished after doing the cops a favor by taking out two criminals. Later, regarding a law he/she opposed, one person made reference to lynching the politicians who passed it. Finally, in response to President Obama’s speech at the vigil in Newtown, one person wrote, “Why don’t idiots with guns ever target some of the gun grabbers? 20-something innocent kids die, and at least that many worthless congress-critters live on to trample on our rights. There’s something way wrong with that picture!”
To this person, the tragedy wasn’t that 27 people were killed, it’s that the wrong 27 people were killed.
As I was writing this, a friend alerted me to the story on NPR about the AR-15, the gun used by the shooter in Connecticut. Melissa Block interviewed gun expert, Malcolm Brady, who described the gun as “cool” several times, even referring to it as “the Rambo effect.” When pressed about his description of it as cool, he couldn’t really answer other than to say that some may be reliving their days in the military. Later in the interview, he estimated that sales of this gun will go up in response to this tragedy. Again, when pressed, he couldn’t really give a clear answer other than to say that “the people who will be buying them will be buying them in the premise that I can prevent that same thing happening at my house or my business or my location.”
But I think the real answer is something he already said several times. I think the reason sales are going to go up is largely because some people think this gun is cool and will make them tough. They don’t think of it as a tool. They think of it as accessory. They want to be like Rambo and on some level they hope they get a chance to use it. The question that needs an answer is the one Melissa Block asked but didn’t get a real answer to:
“I have to ask you, Mr. Brady, you’re talking about the coolness of a weapon that was just used to mow down 20 children?”
By Ryan Martin
Last June, I posted on article titled, Avoiding the Angry Email, directed at students who get frustrated with their instructors and respond with angry emails. You can read it here but, basically, it offered an explanation for how email tends to exacerbate problematic expressions of anger and offered tips on how to better handle such situations.
Like many of my posts, I decided to write it based partially on personal experiences. I had been teaching a couple of online classes that summer and had gotten a few angry emails from students who were upset about grades, policies, etc. The topic had been on my mind and, after talking with some colleagues with similar experiences, I decided to write the post. My hope was that it would be a helpful resource for instructors who wanted to share it with their students.
Interestingly, one of my students who I had had a very minor disagreement with over email read it and posted about it the online discussion forum for a class of mine that he was enrolled in. He wanted to know if he had been the motivation for the post and also wanted to express his regret over the original dispute.
Though he had not been the primary motivator for the original post, it did provide the opportunity to get feedback from the students in my class about how they would like instructors to respond when such situations arise.
Here is what they came up with:
- Call them on it. They said they do not think students intend on being rude most of the time and probably do not realize how they are coming across. Having an instructor let them know that their email came across as rude is good feedback for them and will help them develop better insight and learn to communicate more effectively in the future.
- Acknowledge that they care. One pointed out that a student has to care about the class and his or her grade in order to get angry over it. While the way they expressed it is not a good thing, the fact that they are angry probably is a good thing and it is nice for them to have that acknowledge. Something like and instructor writing, “I can see that this is important to you” or “I appreciate that you care about how you do in the class” can go a long way.
- Model politeness and professionalism in response. They felt that one of the best ways to let students know what is expected of them is to model it for them. Make sure your emails to them, whether it is in response to a rude email or not, reflects the courteousness and respectfulness you want them to show.
- Invite them to talk about it in person. They acknowledged that sometimes they are intimidated by their instructors and choose email as an easy way out. Having their instructor invite them to talk about the issue in person might open the door to healthier communication.
- Do not withhold assistance. One student who had experienced an email dispute with an instructor said that they appreciated that the instructor still addressed the original problem that prompted the angry email in the first place.
- Set the expectations ahead of time. They said that part of the problem is that students don’t always realize what their instructors want from them with regard to electronic communication and said they appreciate it when those norms are made clear at beginning of class.