Dien, there's the perfect nonsense argument, if you'll pardon me saying so. There are different DEGREES of anger and what they supposedly induced is only the first, most superficial, degree of anger. In that case their arguments are 'probably' valid. There is, however, no justification for broadening the scope of the findings to include various degrees and types of anger.

Most folks think of anger as a single stage of behavior or status or feeling etc. Not so!

Remember the red-faced, angry young boy who'd been teased unmercifully and who flew into a rage? It was, for all intents and purposes, counter-productive to what was actually needed and called for to protect himself from further harrassment and teasing. That's not rational and it's not in line with their conclusions any more than 'road rage' is an appropriate response for a rational human being. Both happen, both are counter-productive for the individual and often lead to an escalation of the precipitating events.

My assessment: inconclusive at least and negatively damaging at worst when it comes to telling folks they should get angry. Baloney! Anger actually clouds the thinking when things really matter. It raises blood pressure and causes multiple negative system reactions that inhibit circulation of the blood, oxygenation, and the proper functioning of the higher thinking centers of the brain.

Their conclusions aren't conclusions...they're guesses supported by skewed testing. You can't really test anger as most folks experience it (in multiple ways/degrees) by inducing anger. We're not test tube subjects and anger isn't a static state that can be added or taken away from a person at will, except in a most superficial way.

Nice try, but I'm not buying their conclusions.

Sandi Bowman