> I hope I haven't implied that they're exactly the same thing as logic

When you said:

> If you fail to rein in your anger with the idea of empathy or patience, how about using logic?

First, (and possibly not relevant to your question) I did interpret that as implying that the act of (a) using empathy and patience is a mutual exclusive act from (b) using logic. (I often use logic to broaden my viewpoint, which increases my capacity for empathy and patience, in some specific scenario).

More relevant to your question, I also interpreted this as suggesting that 'using logic' was a good characterization of the strategy being advocated by the article. I would disagree. I think 'using logic + embracing a value system + desiring specific results' would be better characterization. For example, if I use logic and a different value system, then I might set aside my anger simply in order to experience greater joy and happiness in the moment, and/or possibly increased ability to have a harmonious interaction with the other party (for the pure satisfaction of it). With other value systems and variation in the specifics of 'desired results', I might logically arrive at courses of action which none of us have mentioned.

> I frankly don't see a problem with "self-serving rationalizations."

Yes. In general, as we are using the phrase, I don't disagree.

> Is it not enough to just be nice to people, do we have to always have unselfish intentions too?

Okay, this could become a semantic quagmire - I'm not sure how to address this briefly. Ultimately, I'm not sure it is possibly to have purely 'unselfish' intentions, as even the desires to see other points of view, to be kind to people, to be patient, are ultimately still 'selfish' in some way. My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - not whether or not those values align with an (impossible?) idealization of 'unselfishness' (or even more confusingly, a 'degree' of unselfishness). I'm sorry if this is a non-constructive tangent, it can be hard to understand what people mean with all the limitations of language.

> I don't understand what you consider to be so wrong about this article, or about this concept.

I'm curious about the word 'so' in there. It is true that I stated that I agree with the great-grandparent - because I agree with the basic sentiment and the direction of the criticism, not that I agree with the strong language used and the implied strong feelings. I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever, but I do think (a) there are important missed opportunities here, with respect to exploring deeper and more compelling reasons to widen one's perspective and emotional flexibility in moments of anger, and (b) it does strike me as an overt, unapologetic embrace of self-censor in order to get the direct benefit of some immediate results.

If this blog post really appeals to someone, then they might be particularly selfish or impatient. If that person implements the strategies presented simply in order to have better material results in the interaction (and no other reason), then it seems to me that we have encouraged them to become more fake. Acting civil can have the same short term results as being a better person. I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil, esp. while also missing an opportunity for introspection and re-evaluation of their values.

I don't mean this as an indictment of the blog post, just a criticism.