Actionable, yes, but it’s lacking specificity. What phrases or concepts in the post were condescending?(Not saying I agree or disagree, but I’m a fan of making feedback more effective.) Ideal feedback should also have examples of an improved version of the behavior, if possible.
I can corroborate, anecdotally, the behavioral side of this.
When I have conversations with notoriously angry people and can maintain my chill and treat them with dignity (despite whatever behavior they’re exhibiting), they usually chill out. The more of angry person they are takes more effort, but patience, calm, and respect diffuse things very effectively. The patience is really hard, but it has worked for me.
The problem, which is relevant to the physical changes you described, is that the effect is only temporary in isolation. I have found the repeating this over time with a person does cause their baseline anger level to reduce over time, but it’s a fuckton of work and difficult to scale due to the time commitment. It also doesn’t scale via media because this kind of behavior doesn’t draw attention. It’s an unfortunate bug in our psychology
My ideas are similar to a couple of other comments, but maybe I’ll phrase them in a way that unites them and is easy to understand. Let’s see.
American exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in culture and associated with patriotism. See reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools. This includes the concept of the American dream: working hard = good life.
I’m not sure if the US was ever like that, but it’s certainly not like that now. The key thing is that it’s becoming more evident if you pay attention. There’s a rift between people paying attention and people not paying attention. The people paying attention have discarded the American dream and maybe even exceptionalism, but those not paying attention have not. Additionally/alternatively, people may see different reasons for the American dream no longer being valid.
So you kind of have 2 + N camps. One camp still believes in American exceptionalism and the American dream and gets pissed that other people are seemingly trying to change/ruin it. One camp believes these concepts are dead and blames on various systems that need changing. (More on that later.) N camps believe these concepts are dead because of <insert media bias here>, e.g. blacks, Muslims, communists, foreigners, pick your poison. Sadly, this last group is the most visible because they’re the most rage-inducing.
So the first and last sets mentioned above provide pretty clear reasons for anger: either frustrations at what should be fellow Americans in solidarity or bigots. The systems people also have a reason to be angry: the systems are well entrenched via various methods, and it’s unclear how to start untangling the mess. Some blame billionaires. Some blame politics. Some blame both. But even if there’s agreement about which problem is the highest priority, people get frustrated about conflict around potential solutions or the general inability to acquire focus on solutions due to the sheer number of them.
Combine all of this with an economic squeeze on standard of living, the rage-bait nature of social media and mainstream media, psychological negative bias, and just general (unfortunate) virtuous cycles, and you get a recipe for an ever growing angry society.
The people with the most ability to fix this have no incentive to. The people in power benefit from the current system. An angry and divided population is easier to manipulate and control. It also helps that the US is very geographically large, making physical threats less of an issue (except for CEO assassinations, I guess).
Lastly, the internet fucks us. Research shows (normally I’d cite sources, but I gotta get back to work in a minute. Internet points to whomever can find the source and share) that the social media echo chambers aren’t actually the problem. People can be very open to new ideas depending on the presentation and the source. We already had echo chances of geography before the internet, and people were generally more trusting of the people physically nearby, even if their ideas differed. The problem is the anonymity of the internet, the volume of conflicting/unfamiliar ideas, and the way they’re presented (e.g. rage-bait). Given that Americans are spending more time on the internet, they’re exposed to more seemingly madness from crazy strangers and sometimes associate even the people around them with those crazy online strangers. We group them into these tribes and define them as the enemy. When we start recognizing that these people could be our neighbors, societal trust plummets. When you can’t trust the people around you, how are you supposed to relax and feel safe? If you feel like you’re always in psychological or physical danger, won’t you be more prone to anger and defensiveness?
We weren’t ready for the internet