Everyone wants to feel happy. Some regard happiness as a supreme good and goal in life. Others expect it as an entitlement, assuming that they deserve to be happy, perhaps perceiving it as a birthright. Many people “work” at becoming happy, engaging in various activities and disciplines, striving for achievements and material things they believe will make them happier.
Ironically, happiness can become elusive the more we pursue it as an end in itself. Happiness often comes as a byproduct of other endeavors as we grapple with life’s tasks along the way and develop knowledge, skills, insights, and wisdom through accumulated experience.
This awareness doesn’t dismiss purposeful endeavors to become more content, peaceful, fulfilled, and satisfied. States of happiness are not constant, but intermittent and often fleeting. We enjoy what we can, and we remember “magic moments” or periods when things seemed just right and mostly well. Those memory states are reference points for joy and well-being.
Surely, there are many interruptions, hiccups, and obstacles to enjoying states of feeling really good. Life besets us with plenty of situations to drag us down. Many circumstances are beyond our individual control. However, a greater contribution to our well-being and happiness resides within us: our perceptions, attitudes, responses, and choices. In how we respond to what happens to us, a prevalent and peculiar mind reaction can predictably disrupt and reduce the happiness we seek.
The condition to which I refer is RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION (RI). You won’t find this diagnosis in the medical or psychological manuals. That’s because I invented it! Though not aspiring to be legendary or eponymous in the annals of diseases, as a neuropsychologist, I do lay claim to labeling this syndrome on the basis of measurable brain functions as well as patient history and clinical presentation.
Righteous indignation is the habitual reaction to events, circumstances, and the behavior of others that overcomes the thoughts and feelings of the mind with perceived offense, taken very personally—a readily provoked experience of anger or annoyance in response to what is interpreted as unfair treatment.
RI carries a sense of entitlement, though the mind hides and defends against this prideful reality. We all want things to go our way despite overwhelming evidence that much of the time they do not. The RI mindset simply cannot accept adversity, displeasure, and the uncooperative universe as anything but a personal and egregious affront. From traffic jams, bad weather, power outages, and unpleasant people, to the legion of disappointing and distressing occurrences, we confront that which vexes and evokes challenges to acceptance, accommodation, equanimity, and self-control. Righteous indignation is a maladaptive way of coping that thrusts victimization to the forefront of emotional response, defense, and justification.
We naturally partake in this indulgence of combined self-pity and blame. Licking wounds and feeling sorry for ourselves is understandable. For many, however, the RI response becomes paramount, the go-to method for dealing with life’s indifference, injustice, and our native self-orientation. RI is obstructive, destructive, and detrimental to happiness, contaminating relationships and interfering with satisfaction and contentment. RI distorts and disguises reality in the service of self-protection and attempts to defuse anger.
It’s easier to recognize RI in others than ourselves, as is often the case with spotting others’ faults or even projecting our own shortcomings on others, because it’s difficult to face and accept in ourselves. We may shrink back or bristle when someone is nitpicking, harshly critical, overly sensitive, or “touchy” on certain matters. Some people exude a disposition that routinely takes umbrage and offense, casting the behaviors and motivations of others in a least-favorable light. Most of us can recognize some glimmerings of this tendency in ourselves (if we are honest in self-examination); but it’s a matter of degree that determines how pervasively or detrimentally this tendency exerts itself in daily life and relationships. Living in RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION skews perceptions, feelings, and attitudes toward our being right and the world being wrong. It’s a lonely and often misguided frame of reference.
For the righteously indignant, things going awry are the faults of others.
What causes this and what can we do about it
Vanity, egocentrism, entitlement, and self-justification contribute to thin-skinned oversensitivity to what the world does to us, to not getting what we want, and to the perception of offense and irritation by others. From a neuropsychological brain perspective, people who take things too personally often have dysfunction to some degree in the right hemisphere, along with a history of trauma. This finding comes from decades of neuropsychological practice, including brain studies, testing, and ameliorating treatment. The narrowness of perception and immediate defensiveness that characterize thin-skin reactions disallow the flexibility to consider alternative explanations of possible intentions and/or motivations to interpret someone’s behavior that may seem offensive.
The brain’s right hemisphere is the seat of emotional processing and regulation. It’s the part of the brain most active and responsible for fight-or-flight responses and their associated perceptions of threat or danger. We need these survival mechanisms, of course, for danger detection, self-protection, and evasive action. But these biological reactions should be limited to actual threats, most of which are spotty or rare. Continual flooding of the bloodstream and nervous system with the alarm response creates manifold stress and a cascade of unhealthy reactions. Moreover, this overreaction implants a habitual state of vigilance that promotes a stream of cognitive rationalizations to justify the physiological state.
When we are confronted and overwhelmed by adversity (actual or perceived), automatic physiological responses sponsor thought patterns to make sense of neurological sensations. Though this is normal, the habitual stress response gives rise to maladaptive patterns of interpreting and coping with ourselves in relation to the world. It seems like them against me. Righteous indignation is a brittle defense that externalizes this neurological pattern and associated mental and emotional responses.
The established relationship between the physiological aspects of the emotional brain and the analytical interpretive brain (typically the left hemisphere) explains and predicts how our mind affixes “stories” to events and the happenings in which we participate.
Our left hemisphere wants appeasement and explanations. Our right hemisphere wants calming and removal of fear and threat. The left hemisphere won’t forgive the right hemisphere for its lack of explanation and justification. This demand falls on a “deaf ear” (literally above the ear in the right temporal and parietal regions) where the right hemisphere is intransigent to appeals for logic and rationalization. This gives rise to the conflicts between thoughts, values, judgments, plans, and the emotional modulation and fight-or-flight mechanisms that are the right hemisphere’s province.
The resultant thought patterns comprise the narrative. I refer to this mentally active narrative as the “White House press secretary” of the mind. Just as the job of the White House press secretary is to report upon, justify, and favorably “spin” the administration’s policies, the job of our mind’s narrative is to support and rationalize how we feel physiologically through the filters of our beliefs and values, according to the events and circumstances evolving around us. These “stories” concocted by the narrative—though contributing to the stress—is our mind’s way to interpret perceptions, organize reality, and help us navigate a complex and ambiguous world.
If your neurophysiology is pumping you with a vigilant response posing a perceived threat, your narrative will then flood and overcome you with negative imagery in an attempt to mobilize you to defend or protect yourself. The hormones and neurotransmitters are very real, even when the information your thoughts provide is “fake news” regarding the actual cause of the vexation or the motivation or intent of the person whose actions cause consternation.
Though it’s true that the neurophysiological and primitive brain responses interact reciprocally with cognitive functions, the neurochemical responses are primary. With habituation, they may seem indistinguishable, thus appearing as if the thoughts cause the distressing feelings.
The RI response in the emotional and thought patterns serves to defend psychological vulnerability and displace anger and frustration. People who are easily irritated or who hold prejudicial beliefs about others or society’s biases and unfairness rely on the indignation card to excuse or exonerate themselves from causation of their experiences and the susceptibility to hurt or offense they cannot ward off or defend.
Many people have anger issues and may even have a generalized attitude of being “pissed off at the world.” In extreme forms, this can manifest in unrestrained and targeted violence. Those who go on shooting sprees justify feeling wronged. This is righteous indignation run amok.
The payoff from the RI reaction is the mitigation of anxiety, a type of self-soothing by blaming others in the service of letting off steam. The indignant individual represses anxiety and converts it into externalization of cause.
Since so many events are beyond our individual control, those given to threat sensitivity use righteous indignance to exert some control (as a poor substitute for adjustment or acceptance) over situations that violate their emotional boundaries.
In order to justify the overly aroused RI reaction, the mind tends to attribute intention or motivation to perceived offensive experiences. Whereas even the most easily irritated person would not think that the weather or traffic is out to get them, actions by people are taken too sensitively and personally. This concoction of another’s maleficent intent is often way off the mark—again, a reflection of the mind’s effort to justify the right brains visceral neurophysiological response. This is known as misattribution.
We all have tendencies to perceive things through the filters of our previous experiences, prior conditioning, and our values and beliefs. These mental sets prime us toward confirmation bias: the tendency to filter and selectively favor information that confirms or reinforces what we already believe. This is a form of stereotyping. If, for example, you think that certain dog breeds are dangerous, you might immediately conclude when you notice such a dog barking that he is likely to bite. Similarly, if you have negative attitudes or experiences with certain groups of people, then you might generalize (or even assume before any new evidence) that an individual from that group is or will be a certain way (e.g., dangerous, stingy, lazy, etc.).
With familiar people, confirmation bias can lead to expectations or foreclosure based on characterizations of how someone has behaved previously. Suppose your partner has been customarily negative or critical of new suggestions or monetary spending. Confirmation bias may sway you to conclude, even before asking or sharing, “Oh, s/he would never go for that.”
Though not usually conscious, confirmation bias orients us toward noticing and magnifying information that supports what we already believe.
Attribution is the attachment of explanatory motive or intent to behavior and the result of actions. Misattribution is the false or erroneous characterization of behavior as purposefully meant to annoy, obstruct, or hurt.
The righteously indignant typically slant their observations toward the negative intent of others.
At the core of righteous indignation is a sense of entitlement: the world owes me, and it has no right to treat me with crudeness, “unfairness,” or even indifference. How dare they?! It’s easy for others to see through this attitude (usually unavailable in self-perception) and discern that fairness, in the perception of RI, is all about what serves the interests of the individual. Rather than a basis in rules, fairness is determined by getting one’s way. The underlying “rule” is simply: Don’t cross me!
If one is given to some persuasion of spiritual awareness or belief, that person is conscious of reigning powers beyond and greater than oneself. This necessarily implies that individual desires and opinions are important but very small components of an exceedingly larger cosmic picture. Righteous indignation controverts this by placing preeminence on individual needs and attitudes. Those who claim belief or adherence to spiritual doctrines are not exempt from this practice. It may seem hypocritical to espouse spiritual deference and yet become indignant—but such is the human condition.
The incompatibility between righteous indignation and spiritual deference highlights this conflict and can also serve to enlighten and progress toward better resolution. The sense of entitlement that underlies RI is to the opposite of humility. A reduced view of one’s own importance is foundational to spiritual deference. Those who are humble know that life, the world, and others are not owing or beholden to desires to get one’s own way.
Along with the impetus from internal needs and impulses, we take our cues from and respond to the influences of the environment and the actions of others.
We live in an “all-about-me” culture. We are urged to “go for it,” get what we can, and do what’s good for number one. We are exhorted to stand up for ourselves, often encouraged by a “You go, girl” shout out of support. RI becomes easier to justify when many around us are doing it too. We experience a vicarious reinforcement for self-indulgence and frequently relational support from those who have our backs, echoing support and validation for our RI.
Unfortunately, the prevalence of racism, prejudice, misogyny, and other negative, self-justifying attitudes reinforce the “legitimacy” of entitlement and responding with umbrage to unpleasant, unflattering, or adversarial events.
Sadly, even much of contemporary entertainment comedy focuses on RI to underscore the helpless victim act that seeks to gain audience identification with the “poor me, look what the world has done to me” routines.
Given that righteous indignation corrodes personal happiness and exerts destructive impact upon relationships, it’s helpful to know what to do about it.
It’s more difficult to exert conscious control over our reactions and attitudes when our brain becomes overly aroused and reacts impulsively with emotional and neurophysiological overload. In such a state, we become preoccupied with trying to calm down and/or making up reasons why we can’t.
A great solution for this is attained through training the brain with EEG neurofeedback. This proven non-drug and non-invasive intervention gradually allows the brain to self-regulate and remain composed even in the face of challenges and adversity. I have found this tool to be indispensable in building the capacity for resilience, calmness, maintain an even keel, and for quelling RI.
Many techniques exist for self-soothing that can be utilized effectively to circumvent or subvert the RI response. Among these are breathing exercises, meditation, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), and exercise.
However we may try to get there, a calm brain is a prerequisite for dealing with RI.
We have innate capacities to reason, analyze, think logically, and apply the skills of planning and evaluation to solve problems and navigate our way. Unfortunately, we also have tendencies to overuse or apply logic to problems and events that don’t respond well to “figuring it out.” This arena primarily includes emotional processing. Though rationalizing or reframing thoughts are typically not effective for subsiding negative feelings, we can use rational thinking to hypothesize alternative explanations to taking things too personally.
Becoming aware of tendencies toward misattribution, and evaluating whether we are projecting false intention upon others, can help put the brakes on RI. When we ask ourselves, “Is it possible that there is a reason or explanation for that behavior other than that it was meant to offend me,” we assume a posture of more neutrality and less defensiveness.
Evaluating attribution, considering alternative interpretations, assuming better self-control through revised perceptions, and looking at larger contexts are rational cognitive tools to thwart the feeding and reinforcing of self as victim.
Each of us is a small but precious being in the eyes of our Creator. We are no more or less important than the next person. Humility is a natural and successful opponent to righteous indignation.
If you make it your guiding principle to serve rather than deserve, you will be surprised and pleased at your improving ability to let go of big and small slights. And you will be much happier.
Needing to be right, or always prevail, often results in being more alone. A mind and heart full of inner grudges is painful and isolating.
Humility is about putting others first, not only in actions but also in perception, forgiveness, and leniency of the heart and spirit.
Righteous indignation is one condition where self-diagnosis is recommended and preferred. We need to recognize our own tendencies to stew in this maladaptive habit. RI seeks confirmation and validation that grows insatiable. It looks outside itself to confirm what is only within itself.
Vanity, egocentrism, entitlement, and self-justification contribute to thin-skinned oversensitivity to what the world does to us, not getting what we want, and the perception of offense and irritation by others. As noted, from a neuropsychological brain perspective, people who take things too personally often have dysfunction to some degree in the right hemisphere of the brain, along with a history of trauma. The narrowness of perception and immediate defensiveness that characterizes thin-skin reactions disallow the flexibility to consider alternative explanations of possible intentions and motivations to interpret someone’s behavior that may seem offensive.
Developing a thicker psychological skin makes us more beautiful, more resilient, and is a great companion to emotional aging. (It’s good to grow emotionally older.) No callouses, no dermal conditioners, emollients, collagen, or medical procedures are needed. Psychologically, the thickness of our skin is a measure of the maturity and refinement of our character. Having a thick skin without being overreactive or judgmental is also compatible with holding others accountable. You shrug off taking things personally; you may still keep a record of others’ missteps but “pretend” to forget them in the interests of building trusting and positive relationships.
Righteous indignation requires a storehouse of cabinets to contain the wrongs committed by other people and an uncooperative world. Even if you have made such room, it’s best to leave those cabinets unopened. Let things go and watch your psychological skin become supple, resilient, and more attractive.
If you harbor a grudge against someone for mistreating you, that person may get over it, but you won’t. Regard other people with an eye toward cutting them some slack, seek opportunities to give people the benefit of the doubt, and practice restraint and forgiveness.
Have you ever experienced the refreshing pleasure of apologizing to someone for your overstepping, only to have that person shrug it off and show you that no harm or offense was taken? Wouldn’t you like that nonchalance to be a characteristic of you?
Happiness comes and goes as fluctuating states of intermittent contentment and appreciation. I view happiness as periodically living in a zone of contentment. This zone can be accessed more fully and frequently when we can more readily dismiss our grudges and judgments.
Getting rid of righteous indignation is an antidote to a pernicious disruption to happiness.
As a steppingstone toward examining your own possible sense of entitlement, take the Entitlement and Humility Test.
— Mark Steinberg, PhD
