Why You SHOULD Get Angry!

[Dien Rice]

How many times have people told you... "Don't get angry." ... "Keep control of yourself!" ... "Keep your cool"...

Well... That's all HOGWASH!

Well, Here's the truth... Here's

WHY YOU SHOULD GET ANGRY!!!

It's not something about the government (and how they use your tax dollars to line their own pockets), or any of that stuff...

It's about getting angry for your own benefit! Okay, enough already, let's get to the point...

Some recent research suggests that there can be a BENEFIT to getting angry!

That's because - when you are angry - you may make better, more logical, decisions!

Don't believe me?

Here's the article...

Anger Fuels Better Decisions

What do you think?

(And, by the way - it's okay if you get angry about it!)

Cheers,

Dien

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

I have to Agree with Sandi...

If Anger was that good, then past Anger type posts such as Don related topics and a few others would benefit Sowpubbers But Unfortunately they Don't...

Notice how nice and quite it is lately...

Although that could be a Bad thing... Knock on wood...

Here's another Terrible Problem anger and People wanting Power causes...
http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15310

Phil

[Dien Rice]

Hi Sandi,

I think I essentially agree with your post. I must admit, my post was written in a way to try to "stir the pot" a little...

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman

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.

After looking at the article again, I think you're right! They do only induce a "superficial" degree of anger, and the participants certainly didn't fly into a rage (I don't think)...

Maybe there's a benefit to this "superficial" level of anger, however?

Actually, it might then also fit in with this other article I saw too (there's a link to this at the bottom of the other article)...
http://www.livescience.com/health/051103_anger.html

Here's a short quote from that article...

"Anger is good for you, as long as you keep it below a boil, according to new psychology research based on face reading.

"People who respond to stressful situations with short-term anger or indignation have a sense of control and optimism that lacks in those who respond with fear."

Anyway, I find it all quite fascinating! I often do find I'm more "motivated" to "get off my rear" and DO something when I am a bit miffed about something...

Speaking of rages, I think I remember reading something in one of Tony Robbins' books (which I've only skimmed, I haven't read any of his stuff cover-to-cover). I think he said something like, when he feels himself getting angry at someone, he makes sure to use a certain word. He says something like...

"I'm very peeved that you forgot to close the window!"

He says, when you use the word "peeved" - somehow, it's hard to remain in a rage for too long!

Cheers

Dien
(not huffy or miffed or even peeved - I better find something to get peeved about!)

Dien,

Thanks for raising this.

I question the entire premise drawn from their Research.

Let me break it down...

the researchers induced anger in a group of college students by either asking them to write about a past experience that had made them very angry, or by having their stated hopes and dreams harshly criticized by another participant

The researchers later checked to be sure that the subjects were as riled up as they were supposed to be.

HOW was the level of Riled Up-ness determined? HOW was it decided the students had reached this level? Sounds a bit Thin to me.

The two groups were then asked to read either compelling or weak arguments designed to convince them that college students have good financial habits

WHO decided the arguments were compelling or weak and WHAT CRITERIA did they base this decision on?

Two Arguments are presented to two groups. One group is Angry the other is not. The angry group is influenced by one argument while the other group is not influenced by one argument any more than the other.

ALL they have determined is, certain arguments will Influence angry people more than calm people. After the results, they would then know that one argument was, by conclusion, more compelling.

The angry students were also better at weighing the arguments appropriately depending on which organization had made them.

Another way to assess this result is to say, the angry students were More Easily Influenced by the presentation of Credentials claiming some kind of Authority over the subject matter.

The researchers repeated the experiment... This time, they tested only those subjects who were the least analytical, or in other words, those who were the least likely to make logical decisions.

How was it determined these people were the Least Analytical? Surely not based on their Hard To Influence nature which they exhibited in the previous questionable conclusions, which the researchers deem not to be Hard To Influence but rather Least Analytical? Interesting choice of words from these Researchers.

they found that the angry subjects were better able to discriminate between strong and weak arguments than the ones who were not angry

Let me fix it... they found the angry subjects were more easily influenced by one set of arguments over another. The argument which had more influence was Then deemed a Strong argument.

suggesting that anger can transform even those people who are, by disposition, not very analytical into more careful thinkers

Funny, I find the research Suggests something else. That Angry people are more easily influenced by some things and not others. If the influencing thing is in agreement with the researcher, the researcher deems it to be a logical decision made after a strong compelling reason. If the thing is not in agreement with the researcher, the researcher deems it a weak argument.

Their findings, suggest that anger helps people focus on the cues that matter most to making a rational decision and ignore cues that are irrelevant to the task of decision-making.

No, their findings show angry people are more easily influenced by some arguments and not others. That is all. Nothing new here. Like...

The father who discovers his Best Mate has raped his 12 year old daughter. He thus finds it Logical to lure his mate to a location and execute him for the crime, instead of informing the police and letting Their form of justice take its course.

Depending on your point of view, you will deem one argument and action to be Right Action and another to be Wrong Action. If your deeming of Right Action and Wrong Action is in agreement with the Govt's deeming, then you will be said to have acted Logically by some, maybe even by many.

On the other hand, if Your deeming of Right Action and Wrong Action is in disagreement with the Govt's deeming, you will be said to have acted illogically, even rashly, by some and mabe even by many.

Why is it wrong for the father to execute the man but alright for the govt to do it? Due process? What if the man confessed to it? Is it right or wrong Then to do it instead of the govt? Explain your answer.

And even with this simple example we will have those who say No Death Penalty is justifiable, and those who don't think the death penalty is wide enough. They all get very Emotional (Angry?) over the subject. Two groups of angry people with opposing views. Seems to contradict what those researchers claim, doesn't it? I mean, going by the researchers, the anger should make the angry all agree as they would all see which argument is the best one.

Their research is questionable and their conclusions even more so as they are riddled with their own bias and opinions and not neutral in the ideal scientific way. Also, as they are both employed by a university their research can be nothing more than trying to justify their jobs - as they don't need to perform like those outside of academia do - and even get Grant Money for the Research. Also, as they are part of the university system as well as in the Psychology department, there is a better than average chance these Researchers are raving lefties trying to nullify an idea of anger being harmful.

With such research ulitmately finding its way into the Court room were criminals can be deemed to be not as bad after all (let off a bit). And once again the criminal thrives on the indulgence of society's understanding.

I am sure they deem their research and credentials to be Strong Compelling Arguments for the case. And yet, somehow I know, whether angry or not, people will not be influenced into accepting their erroneous conclusions. After all, the results speak for themselves - angry people take actions they would not normally take, which result in detrimental results to themselves. And anything that results in a detriment to the self is Wrong Action and goes against our prime motives of Self Preservation.

I wonder how those researchers would try to Justify those who sit in jail because they let anger get the better of them?

Michael Ross