I learn better when I frame learning as Vengeance for losses incurred through ignorance, and you might too

I like the thought behind this. You've hit on something I think is important for being productive: if thinking about the alternative makes you want to punch through a wall, that's great, and you should try to make yourself feel that way. I do a similar thing, but more toward general goal-accomplishment; if I have an objective in sight that I'm heavily attracted to, I identify every possible obstacle to the end (essentially murphyjitsu'ing), and then I cultivate a driving, vengeful rage toward each specific obstacle, on top of what motivation I already had toward the end goal. It works reasonably well for most things, but is by far the most effective on pure internal tasks like editing out cognitive biases or undesired beliefs, because raw motivation is just a much more absolute determinant of success in that domain. Learning is a mostly mental task, so this seems like a very strong application of the general principle to me.

On your question of how to respond to pointless suffering, though, I don't think your response would work for me at all. I'd just snap back, "well, what does it matter at that point?!". I think I actually prefer a Buddhist-ish angle on the issue, directly calling out the pointlessness of suffering per se (I'm nonreligious and agnostic myself, for the record). To paraphrase a quote I got from a friend of mine, "one who can accept anything never suffers". Pain is unavoidable, but perspective enables you to remain happy while in pain, by keeping whatever is not lost at the front of your mind. In your hypothetical scenario, I think I'd frame it something like, "Have your reasons for joy be ones that can never be taken from you." Does that ring right?

I think I did experience something like that. When learning new skills to change positions, I found myself eager to learn even after a long and tiring day or week if I concentrated on my dissatisfaction with the job I had that time. When contemplating about the phenomenon I kind of described it how a Sith is supposed to work, using his negative emotions to channel energy into the task. And indeed, by using this "passion" to "gain strength/power", I did "gain victory", so it worked out, as the Sith code preaches:)

Slightly off topic, but I like how user "chaosmage" made this post about using "Vengeance". I wonder if this can be classified as a case for Nominative Determinism.

One failure mode esp. kids run into is anger at or revenge against uncaring things. Think: Stumbling over a rock and trying to take revenge on the rock. Chaosmage argues for something superficially similar: Stumbling over a rock and taking revenge by learning from the experience and making sure it doesn't happen again. Kind of taking revenge on all rocks. I think that's a distinction worth making clear: Take revenge on the abstract generalized problem.

I continue to stand by this post.

I believe that in our studies of human cognition, we have relatively neglected the aggressive parts of it. We understand they're there, but they're kind of yucky and unpleasant, so they get relatively little attention. We can and should go into more detail, try to understand, harness and optimize aggression, because it is part of the brains that we're trying to run rationality on.

I am preparing another post to do this in more depth.

Statements like "the best vengeance is to live a great life" do not include a call to violence, but they very much do harness vengefulness.

Sometimes deep wisdom makes best sense when interpreted in cultural context of other deep wisdom.

"The best vengeance is to live a great life."

"And what kind of life could be considered great, oh Wise One?"

"To scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

A lot of cultural wisdom is aimed to shift our time preference from short-term to long-term. (Delay gratification! Stop procrastinating!) The same pattern also applies to our attitude towards revenge.

Is revenge rational? Hurting your opponent, often getting hurt yourself in the process, doesn't seem like a utility increasing move on average. Mere thinking about revenge can already be harmful, by distracting you from your other tasks at hand. Therefore, many people conclude that vengeance must be irrational. 

That would of course make it a great mystery how such strong emotion could have evolved by natural selection. The answer, from the game-theoretical perspective, is that it is the precommitment to take revenge that provides an advantage. It discourages other actors from hurting you.

That does not imply that the right time for revenge is "right now". Well, it depends. If the situation is repetitive (such as being bullied at school, every day), each day of inaction signals that you are unlikely to take revenge, which is a bad thing. But if the damage is more of a "once in a lifetime" type, there is probably no need to hurry; the damage is done, it will not increase by taking your time. Realize that the voice the urges you to act soon (or to keep fantasizing about taking revenge all day) is the same voice that urges you to eat your marshmallow now.

What you should do instead, is... well, I guess as a reader of LW, you are probably familiar with the idea of "convergent goals [? · GW]". Amass resources; gain power; maximize your options. Then you will be in a much better [LW · GW] position to take the revenge.

Every time you need some extra motivation to eat your vegetables, exercise, or log off the social networks, consider this: each step you take towards living a better life in general, each step on your way towards the convergent goals, increases your capabilities in general, which includes the option to take revenge for every grudge you have. Plus, you get everything else as a bonus. That is, literally, what a convergent goal means.

Miyamoto Musashi said: "The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this."

Directing your vengeance the proper way, understanding the concept of convergent goals on a visceral level, there is no longer a difference between taking revenge and living a great life. Every step you take towards a great life, simultaneously increases the probability of cutting your enemy, sometimes completely literally, at the end of a long causal chain. This is the timeless ancient wisdom of productive life.

-- Viliam the Psycho, All I Know About Serial Murder I Learned in Kindergarten

Solve your Problems by Fantasizing sounds related. Maybe there is a common pattern? It mentions laziness, greed, and envy as generators of solutions.

And this is the type of content I want to see more of in LW.

There is some association between vengeance and the just-world hypothesis. How does this resonate with you?

To me, this framing seems like it might be taking advantage of some human cognitive biases like loss aversion and attribution biases like the fundamental attribution error. It feels like a hack that exploits known bugs.