Thank you, 1929Spanish. The article is quite correct. I, personally, can attest to its accuracy having had a small stroke this past January thanks to an overload of stress in my personal life...and I am otherwise extremely healthy. It pays to learn how to reduce the stress in ones life...or...at least...how to deal with it so it doesn't cripple you. As strong as some of us think we are...we all have a breaking point.

This is so important! My husband is very susceptible to the outrage addiction. I learned about it years ago when I was working on counseling troubled teens and also building project teams through effective leadership. At one training, the mantra was "words are tools" and we learned that it takes 20 positive comments to erase the emotional damage from one negative one. We also were constantly asked, "What's the positive opposite of that statement" when we were speaking. This was all designed to create a healthy environment for work and growth. And to be clear, this does not mean lying or covering up negative things that are going on, but so many things are just "glass half empty or glass half full" kinds of things, and it really helps to chose the glass half full. Also, many things that are seemingly negative are just a short, limited perspective. Even a deadly virus, for example, also has the flip side as spurring innovation and self reflection . . . not saying you need those negative things for that to happen, but we can't control the negatives but we can control our reaction to them. And you can be trained to have a positive "can do" outlook. Again, not the same thing as denial, the approach is more observant and detached as far as events, so as to free up your mind to many alternative ways of looking at the situation. This is how creativity can be used to cope with the negatives. But if someone is philosophically determined to reject these techniques, well it's "problematic" so say the least . . .

A lot of research has gone into this, some of it related to people who were in prison camps, one of the most horrible negatives, but on how they managed to survive. Sadly, our parents generation (at least mine) had lots of "hands on" practice on coping with many bad things happening in the world and meeting those physical and emotional challenges. Some did better than others at it, but they did leave behind quite a bit of research, writing and tested techniques . . .

Thanks Pink. I see this addiction in social media and how it leaks out to face-to-face communications. People jump from post to post, or on their own page topic to topic, just to express outrage. Similar to someone chasing a drink, doing too much shopping, cutting themselves or looking for drugs.

I have a situation with someone close who's outrage, anger and negativity towards our president has outpaced anything this person has focused on for over three years. Candidly, I'm worried what will happen to this person if the source of this anger is removed. You can't turn it off immediately and either it will go inward or target someone else.

There's a point where the target of anger is no longer the cause. That's where I see a lot of it right now.

OMG, thank you SO MUCH for posting that!! It made total sense, and validated what I have been instinctively feeling.

Thanks, 1929Spanish -great article.

I learned the hard way to limit my exposure to traumatic news unless I could actually learn and put into use something new. The first time I experienced real trauma was during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in SF. DH was on the subway under the Bay when it happened, and because of inaccurate reports on the news at the time, it looked as if he had perished. As it turned out, the subway car barely felt the quake, and had simply backed up into the station, and let all the passengers out. Four hours later, DH suddenly showed up at our front door, having walked about 7 miles to his car and then driven home the rest of the way. How do I describe my relief, except to say I was a blubbering puddle? But the overall damage and destruction was everywhere, and we all sat glued to our TVs for days and days. And then one day, a week or two into it, I realized, "I'm getting worse, not better." The constant stream of traumatic images and info was pummeling away at me, and I was actually more traumatized two weeks later than I was the day after I thought DH had perished. So I stopped watching and listening, except for a brief focused session in the morning or evening. I took that lesson forward with me when 9/11 happened. That time it took me just a few days, not a few weeks. And I'm using that lesson this time too. Avoiding the constant stream of traumatic info and images has become more difficult because everything is more prevalent, but it is still doable if you are purposeful about it. DH is not on the same page as me about this, and watches and listens to much more than is healthy, IMO.. I either avoid the room or use my headphones. I have to keep reminding myself -it's very easy to get up in a conversation the whole world is engaged in. But I believe it truly does affect our brains, as the article describes, and I'm eager to protect mine.

Regarding the news, I want to organize a watch party for Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. While it's a ridiculous comedy, it's take on "24hour news" is spot on! Houzz needs a watch party function!

Thank you for sharing this. To me it feels like both media and social media are fueling these intense emotions.

"Because the media business relies on audience feelings for success—and anger, fear, and anxiety are all potent emotions—individual reporters and news outlets are then motivated to generate sensations."

"And the more we communicate extremes, the more normal they seem until no middle ground can be reached."

And it does feel like our society as a whole is polarizing more and more. To me this is a good reminder to work on finding common ground with others and to be thoughtful when you feel an emotional response to something you read. Thanks for sharing!

It's also not just a news media or social media thing. Before even these technologies, there are people in groups or communities or families who were "stir the pot" people, people who thrived on conflict and if there wasn't one, would create one. Drama queens. We had a few in our family, they caused a lot of problems and they would create a problem and were addicted to that behavior, it could be counted on. It was not IF it was always WHEN. And then anticipating the "when" would cause trauma too. This is absolutely a mental illness. I had a work colleague fall victim to it. He had experienced trauma as a young person, and he devolved into mental illness and ultimately lost his job and ended up on disability. No one could figure out how to break the cycle with him. It started off slowly, but then he became a walking grievance machine. And it was not related to national politics at all . . .

Edited to add that at the same time my colleague began his descent (It took ten years for it to get so bad he could no longer find work), I was also doing the counseling training and then a consultant colleague of mine who was a psychotherapist started a group therapy program for a bunch of people who were all dealing with a similar situation, a highly negative person or environment either at work or at home. One guy had his work management change drastically to negative, and it was affecting his relationships at home. Another married and was now dealing with a troubled teen stepson. Another woman was dealing with a very negative father in law . . . and I began to see clearly the patterns and how destructive they were, and began to realize I needed to really work at developing strategies for dealing with this type of situation. It comes up over and over again. You may find yourself away from it for long periods of time, but it does keep popping up, because it is part of the human experience. But it also helps to recognize it and realize the negative effects it can have, and develop techniques to guard against it.

Pink - I think the difference now is with the availability of the trigger and the outlet. Social media and 24 hour news (no mater what side) provide both at levels unheard of 30 years ago.

Thank you for the links but I would remind everyone that without outrage things seem to stagnate. Would you still like forced marriages, child labor, women treated as salable items, slavery, unsafe working conditions. Sometimes outrage is justifiable other times not. Look at what the outrage is actually saying rather than with your feelings and moral superiority.

Maifleur - a friend who had been a member of Earth First said the same thing. The point of this article is not to say "don't be angry", but instead to understand the impact of too much anger. My Earth Firster agreed with me on that and reposted the article.

The article does touch on the fact that outrage is vital to motivate progressive change. There's definitely truth in the old adage that "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." But I do think there's a line that can be so easily crossed where one becomes caught up in the feelings that accompany outrage. It is true that even negative emotions have a way of being very compelling, and can make us feel more "alive" than normal when experienced. It's a rush to become angry, and I do see how people could become truly addicted to such a thing.

I think focused outrage is a good thing in moderation but too many people seem to use outrage as the driving factor in their lives these days. It seems to accumulate in their very being which is very unhealthy as the OP article does a very good job explaining.

I have learned over time to distance myself from people what require a high level of drama in their lives and try to drag others into it and I am a much happier person for it. I feel sorry for those people that live for it.

I think the article is quite good, in that it makes us take a look at ourselves and realize that we ALL possess the propensity for "outrage addiction." In my opinion -- and my opinion only, nobody has to agree -- it seems a bit holier-than-thou to maintain that we are above it all when it comes to drama, or that we are completely adept at keeping it all at bay, all the time. I think this is something that everyone struggles with at some point in their lives, and while it's true that we may not live there 24/7 in the way that some people seem to do, we ALL have the human "attraction" to the high of even negative emotions. It's how we're wired, and understanding why this is so is a healthy thing, IMO.

ETA: I'm thinking of a time recently when I felt outrage due to a personal situation. I "rallied my troops" around me, and was able to find those with similar thinking who supported my viewpoint and enabled, in a sense, more of a freeflowing sense of angry "righteousness", for lack of a better term. This generated a tremendous amount of discussion with those I'm closest to, and it took on sort of a life of its own -- a time of bonding, often peppered liberally with a dark, cutting humor that somehow took a bit of the edge off the anger -- and became downright fun and entertaining at times. The situation went on for some time, and I can honestly say that during this time, I felt mentally and physically ENERGIZED in a way that I don't often. Thank goodness, though, because that energized feeling was exhausting after a time, but before it ran its course, there was something about it that felt GOOD. I cannot deny that. I'm neither ashamed nor proud of it; simply acknowledging what was, and how it affected me. The "fight or flight" response is very, very real.

Fear and outrage are emotions, and they do spur action. But like the "fight or flight" response, if it is low level and constant and there is neither fight nor flight, then it is mal-adaptive. One can be aware of issues, outraged, but if one cannot immediately address them, it becomes something that eats away at you, causes anxiety and depression. So the antidote is to focus on action training and doing things you can do something about for the release of the "fight" response, and detach and also find time to counter it with positive experiences, for the "flight" response. Otherwise, if you spend too much time in the outrage state, everything becomes something you do NOTHING about because you are caught up in just the outrage part/cycle. This happens to a lot of traumatized teens, this is why they can't "settle" into productive lives . . . but it is a perfect time to catch them early enough to harness their energy for the response. They have the energy! That's why social movements are led by youth. But they need focus and training . . . which is also why great leaders focus on training up the next generation of leaders . . .

Edited to add that spending time with outraged people is what it is like to teach Jr. High/Middle School. At that age, kids have enough intellectual capacity to see big picture issues and problems, but lack the temperance/maturity to detach, and also the skill set to act effectively. They get outraged easily and are often sullen. But that is precisely the stage where they are primed to receive both types of instruction. That is why working with youth is both emotionally draining and energizing. But also can be tragic when you see some kids get "stuck" in just the outrage part.

I like outrage when it is directed at something that has truth to it. Too many things people are outraged about are lies that are sent and resent as truth.

I understand the need to avoid the negative. Still I hate the fact that people who have the thoughts running through their head that are based on unscientific proof and are unhealthy for them become isolated in an echo box often. Some people need new to them information and for it to be there at the right time to break their cycle perhaps.

Meditation and prayer are said to help to alter the brain back from unhealthy stress. Some people find nature is very helpful too. I do walking meditation and a version if you will of Japanese Forest bathing.

https://time.com/5259602/japanese-forest-bathing/

I never really thought about it but I guess this is part of why I've dropped social media from my life along with most of the news. I just don't care to spend time being angry or outraged - I'm not into negative energy. I have positive opinions and negative opinions on things but I am not consumed by them. I take in a minimal amount of news from mainstream media each day to ensure I'm not completely uninformed. My preferred source is the BBC.

This is such an amazing and interesting discussion. I have long thought that the people who watch the news 24/7 are the ones that are the least flexible, least likely to see any other viewpoint. I never thought it was about how addictive that could be. Thanks for opening my eyes and mind to that fact.

As for anger, I don't have children but wasn't that something that parents worked with their children to learn early on to identify and how to handle those feelings? Do they do that anymore? Children almost always take on the political leanings of their parents (if they are interested at all) and being taught to think for oneself is one of the most valuable lessons that can be taught.

Yeonassky: I read this part of your post and thought of it in terms of the conversations I've been having with the people I know who are currently experiencing too much energy from negativity & outrage.

Please allow me to point something out about the context and not the content of your comment. I'm only singling this out as an example and not trying to point fingers.

I understand the need to avoid the negative. Still I hate the fact that people who have the thoughts running through their head that are based on unscientific proof and are unhealthy for them become isolated in an echo box often. Some people need new to them information and for it to be there at the right time to break their cycle perhaps.

In context together, I think this is a good example of how we all get drawn toward anger and outrage. We know what we should do, but our minds gravitate to what makes us feel good.

We know we should avoid negative, but the topic is so outrageous we still feel anger. So we start with a "hall pass" of sorts and pass the responsibility to the topic. That's where I said at some point the topic no longer becomes the cause of our anger.

That's what I am trying to make myself aware of when I take that path. I have at least one topic that I find very difficult to think of in context. Ironically, my personal Achilles heel has nothing to do with the state of things at large and should be something I let go of quite some time ago.

I so agree with you 3Katz!! We watch very limited news here; actually the Mr. reads more news than we watch and shares with me. I don't understand watching the news all day, seems like it's basically most of the same stories over and over anyway. For me personally, negativity doesn't do much other than bring me down. That's not something I need right now.

sjerin - the article talks about how anger and outrage can be addictive. I'm not a fan of the current administration, but I think it's safe to say that the possibility resides within us all.

The presence of media in our lives, IMHO, has heightened feelings of outrage, for example when watching 24-7 news channels in which as Tina Marie mentions, the same news stories are shown over and over. It seems as though the catastrophic events in the news stories are happening repeatedly instead of just a single time. So the blood pressure continues to rise with the "repeated" outrage and unfairness of the event. The media also is fond of using the word "outrage" to describe peoples' reactions to events, serving as a trigger that we should also feel this emotion or otherwise react to it.

I think it's true that outrage is addictive to some people, depending on their physiology, and they need the "fix" if they can't find a healthy way to deal with and disconnect from emotional conflict.

Outrage also is making a lot of people rich. It sells. It's rating.

Charlie - I think it can become true for many people based on the biology. Some may be more prone to in, but I believe it's something we should all be aware of.

I know it's easy to blame media, but if I'm looking back to the 80's/90's I remember some people in my life that seemed at the time to "get excited" when they were offended and escalate their anger at others at a much faster rate than social norms would dictate.

For that reason, I think social media/news/etc is both instigator and barometer for the situation. If we train ourselves not to react to the outrage, we stop "buying" it and society - hopefully - begins to move on to some other state of being.

I don't know, I think the current political situation calls for outrage. If we are not outraged by what is being done to us, we won't be motivated to change it. I think (hope) much of the current outrage will turn into major relief after November 3rd.

I completely agree with you kadefol. The destruction of the institutions that make our democracy work should outrage everyone.

Outrage seems to be the enemy of empathy and, as sjerin says above, logical thinking.

I don't watch much American news, but at the start of Covid lockdown, I spent 7 hours in emerg with an elderly relative and the tv was tuned to it. I found it appalling. It made me feel physically nauseous. Not the actual news itself, but the hysterical and biased way it was presented ( both the left and right viewpoint). I remember thinking, at the time, that it was like a caricature or parody of badly done news. It was obviously done just to get an emotional reaction rather than to deliver information.

Some of the outrage buildup has been building up previously to 2016 by a bit.

Outrage seems to me to be a specific type of anger, a reaction to a moral wrong. It is useful as a motivation to do something to right the wrong, but what if we are unable to achieve that?

"It's not fair," is probably one of the first 'outrages' we voice as children -- and one of our early experiences of being powerless.

When we cannot right the wrong, we feel powerless, and there's a danger of getting stuck in the outrage/anger. Death is a good example of something we experience as a 'wrong', but are powerless to change. Anger is the first stage of grief.

The issue isn't whether outrage is good or bad, it motivates behavior. The problem becomes when outrage is constantly presented as a way to get attention, ultimately then to fuel either donations or purchases of goods. It's monetized. Outrage addicts jones for the adrenaline rush, which is why they get bored and stir it up for another hit. The adrenaline rush is the motivation hormone, so it can be used to get people to spend money, which is also addicting for non survival stuff. But advertisers create an itch, a fear, an "issue" so as to motivate the need for the purchase. The same is for Facebook or the news. If there is advertising dollars being spent on those platforms, they want to keep you there as long as possible. Hence the use of "outrage." However, these techniques have been going on for centuries. The difference with TV now and FB is that we are allowing ourselves to be constantly subjected to the media. Trust me, if you had a drama queen or king in your work environment or family, you would be familiar with this problem long before FB. And if you recognize the problems it causes, you might be able to devise strategies to mitigate its effects.

This is actually an ongoing issue I have been dealing with for my husband. As I mentioned, he is very susceptible to the lure of outrage manipulation. For example, I had to "unfriend" him on FB because all he does is post angry memes. He isn't good a communicating in real life, has few communicative relationships with people anyway, so he gets the angry memes mostly in his feed, little true dialog with "friends," and the reposts them. A few of our mutual friends that I knew before I met him have commented how angry and vitriolic his feed is. They tolerate it I guess because I am their friend so they think they should be FB "friends" with him. Not so, FB is not about friendship, it is about communication. If I have someone constantly posting angry pointless or inaccurate stuff, no matter how much I like them in real life, they go off my feed. With regards to my husband, he is frustrated but I am too so we both are working on taking actions that we can, and staying away from the outrage stuff.

I just unfriended someone last week and it made me quite sad, but this goes to show you how FB both feeds and reflects our problems with outrage. The woman was a former student and work colleague of mine. She is a single mother who worked her way through college and got a degree in social work. She's also black and socially conscious on a whole host of issues. She has not been able to leverage her degree into any type of work that channels her people-skills or passions. She works at Walmart now and I imagine is subjected to very stressful situations with customers and management on a regular basis. She's also now cut off from her church community, and has kids in the military that are far away and she doesn't get to see them plus she worries about them. Her feed became loaded with nothing more than outrageous post after outrageous post, many not even close to reality and with no vetting as to the source of the original post. And I could see her "friends" list dwindling. We no longer live in the same part of the country, but I worry about her and wish I could help her find more positive outlets for her anger. But that kind of thing is not always on me or something I can do for everyone. So sadly, I turned away. These are basically the two helpful options for the addiction: turn away from it and stay away from it, and solve the problems that stimulated the addiction in the first place.

The problem I see with modern culture is we are stuck in adolescence. All the anger but no maturity and application of skills to implement any type of action. In fact, do almost anything and someone will be very negative about that too. This is the tragedy of modern mainstream news. They take one simple issue and then analyze it for a month, all day long, day in and day out. DT is the perfect foil for this type of situation, he loves that. Right or left, he is gold for outrage. And for many people, that's fine. Those long boring explainers with compromising plans of action don't win elections sadly. It's too expensive to actually go out and do in depth reporting on a wide range of issues so we get what used to be called "muckracking." DT was the doyenne of that type of reporting for decades in NY. I hear a lot of older, long time activists happy that we have folks motivated for racial justice, but very skeptical that they will accomplish anything if they don't' follow it up with achievable action plans or leadership training to get the job done.

I stick to public radio and public television. The depth and variety of public media is so much greater than the commercial stuff. And there are still good print news magazines and papers out there too, just fewer. My friend listens to podcasts and there are great blogs too. So the real deal is out there if you make an effort to find it.

I'm used to a lot of high drama from work, and so it really doesn't phase me. My last boss had the reputation for being the drama queen of the furniture industry in Los Angeles, but I did not get swept up into it.

One time my sister came to visit me when my boss was in her office (which was next to mine), and my boss was screaming at people in the office and on the phone, but of course I never flinched. Later my sister said that she could not understand how I could work in an office like that. I told her that I had experience much worse in New York when I was in the fashion industry, and so I didn't think that much of it. BTW, one year I gave me boss a DVD of The Devil Wears Prada, and she told me later that she identified with the Meryl Streep character.

My take on it at work was that it is just furniture and people's lives are not at stake. With politics, it is a different matter, as peoples lives are at stake. Therefore I try to avoid conversations about politics and limit the amount of news I watch. I had an argument with my BIL when I limited the amount of CNN he could watch on my TV, and I told him that he shouldn't visit me if all he wanted to do was watch TV.

@Pink - you can "unfollow" without "unfriending" on FB. I've exercised that option many times!

I agree with charliecooks. TV news programs are all about the ratings and making the owners/stockholders rich(er). Once you understand that, you begin to look at the news differently. You see how the facts are being sensationalized, twisted, manipulated, and even ignored altogether. You wouldn't watch if it was boring, would you ? They have to get your attention and hold it, regardless of what it takes.

If you feel the need to watch the news all day, or that you have to check the news frequently to see what going on, you're probably already addicted to outrage. Television news in particular manipulates people into believing everything they say.

Think about this. Donald Trump was a great guy before he ran for president. He created businesses that employed thousands of people, the city of New York loved him, he received awards for helping black people and minorities, celebrities and other famous people loved him, talk show hosts were thrilled to have him as a guest.etc. So, he runs for president and suddenly he's a horrible person, a racist, a xenophobe and every other vile name they could think of. Why, because the "news" says so, and they have told people that over and over every single day since. They have quoted, and shown you videos of politicians, celebrities and others saying bad things about Trump. Do you know what happens when someone is told the same thing over and over and over again ? Well, I do, and I don't want to be programmed to believe everything I'm told, whether it's by a person, or the news.

One of the best things we ever did was to get rid our TV. It was difficult at first and we missed watching a couple of our favorite shows and the news, but the freedom and relaxation it brought more than made up for the loss. I will never go back to watching that drivel !

Thank you for the great read, Spanish. Outrage has the potent and addictive benefit of making you feel superior to those who have committed the outrage or those who do not perceive it.

You got it right, blubird! No nice guy if you lived and/or worked in NY...or anywhere his long arm reached.

A number of the originators of the outrage and divisiveness are no friends of democracy or of a society and cullture where people respect people with differing and legitimate views.

If we are going to make democracy work we need to find ways that people with differing views can work through them to find legitimate and workable solutions.

Anybody prefer a system run by an autocrat who controls the news and pretty well all aspects of society and doesn't allow dissent?

How do we mobilize respect for others and building positive community and culture?

Maybe I should visit Hot Topics, but I have avoided it, having heard that there's little tolerance for differing viewpoints.

What a shame that so many on the social net disagree with one point presented by another, then judge the person to be an idiot or a moron ... or accuse them of shouting nonsense from the safety of their mother's basement.

ole joyful

For those of you who have transited to politics here, have you read the article?

I take side turns all the time during these discussions. I'm just curious if you read the piece.

I guess it was my bad for using a current political example. I should have known it would not be viewed dispassionately. Outrage stoking is a tactic, for a lot of reasons . . . The side issue I am most interested in is how to fight against the bad effects . . .

Lars you should go into politics. The ability to remain "cool as a cucumber" when in the presence of anger addicts is a skill that can be developed and practiced, but I envy people who just come by it naturally! I suppose everyone has their limits though . . .

I guess that's why I have never gone onto "Hot Topics." Cool rational discussion of ideas does not sound like a page turner of a forum . . . I even found myself avoiding the professional discussion groups on Linkedin. They were full of anger and then outrage. Because they were not moderated. I used to belong to a couple of old listserv discussion groups that came to you as e-mail. The good and useful ones were moderated, but that takes a lot of time and work . . .

One has to "self moderate" to some extent.

So the fake news is allowed to stand and my factual rebuttal is removed. Shame on you.

I have ignored the political aspect of this conversation because the topic is the propensity for outrage to become addictive. I have no idea what happened to your post.

1929, I certainly didn’t mean to imply you had the post pulled.

I usually don’t get pulled into political discussions, but in discussing outrage, I couldn't let the lies stated stand without challenge.

It seems that some people are afraid of hearing the easily verifiable truth and are more comfortable with lies.

ETA, and now my post appears to be back.

My friend and I were just discussing how auto-correct also seems to have a mind of its own lately. Perhaps my phone is preparing to vote for me!😂😂

Totally not to derail his thread, just as a point of information:

Bluebird, both your comment and Bookwoman's are missing from what I see.

Oddly, Winter's comment agreeing with bluebird is still there.

Bluebird, I don't see your post, never did. I wish I could. I think I know what you were responding to.

I don't see bookwoman's post either.

And it's back again but BookWoman's is still missing. The saying which goes” a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on,” seems to apply here.

blubird, I'm still not seeing your post refuting woodrose's post stating that people thought that Trump was a "good guy" before he ran from president.