A new study on the upside of anger...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 3:26 PM GMT
    Turns out for all those people on here who think calm is the way to go when a situation arises may be interested in knowing...

    According to a recent article in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    "Irate individuals are better at thinking critically than their calmer counterparts".."Why?-Anger motivates you to pin point the cause of an issue so you can resolve it."

    So by channeling those hostile feelings can help you find serenity.

    Guess that puts a new spin on "Logically Speaking" huh guys?

    Note: The article was written by Wesley Moons and can be found in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.



  • Nudista

    Posts: 158

    Oct 11, 2007 6:14 PM GMT
    Sounds to me like a valid point Slayer, however, I've always backed up the idea that Balance is the key to anything in life.
    Withdrawing too much and you have put 0 influence...becoming overly excited and emotional can and usually does derail any undertaking. Political gatherings and other rally type events are an example...so many start off well but when emotions redline suddenly chairs start flying and chaos ensues!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 6:22 PM GMT
    There's anger and the excitement it generates within and there's being over-excited. Being over-excited, yeah, is gonna get you thinking less clearly than you need. Anger should be expressed somehow, not stifled. Keep stifling anger and you'll get an ulcer, or you'll end up pulling a Tim McVeigh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 7:21 PM GMT
    "The amygdala is so efficient at warning us about threats, that it gets us reacting before the cortex (the part of the brain responsible for thought and judgment) is able to check on the reasonableness of our reaction. In other words, our brains are wired in such a way as to influence us to act before we can properly consider the consequences of our actions."

    Anger Management
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 7:30 PM GMT
    jeez NNJ

    you take things so seriously. lighten up icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 7:32 PM GMT
    Caslon

    Anger doesn't always equal being rash. Some of us can be fueled to the extreme and never say a word icon_smile.gif
  • art_smass

    Posts: 960

    Oct 11, 2007 7:32 PM GMT
    Wasn't there a Princess Amygdala in that awful Star Wars movie with Jar Jar Binks?

    I agree about the balance part. I've been channeling my anger into high-intensity cardio since I was a teenager. I never punch walls, throw things or get into screaming matches. However, I've also learned to detach myself from situations that have little or no bearing on me personally. Watching my dad get apoplectic while watching baseball games did that to me. It's a lesson everyone needs to learn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 7:36 PM GMT
    FROM: Keeping One's Cool: Trait Anger, Hostile Thoughts, and the Recruitment of Limited Capacity Control

    "High levels of dispositional anger are associated with numerous adverse consequences. These include an increased likelihood of aggression (Bettencourt, Talley,Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006), relationship difficulties(Deffenbacher, 1992), and cardiovascular health problems(Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004). As such,understanding the underpinnings of trait anger is an important goal for psychological research.

    In the present studies, we take a social-cognitive approach to trait anger. Social-cognitive theories of personality(Cervone & Shoda, 1999; Mischel & Shoda,1995) suggest that individual differences in emotional and behavioral outcomes may be best conceptualized in terms of individual differences in reactions to particular situations and the associated cognitive processes that mediate such reactions. This approach to trait anger appears to be particularly useful because individuals high in trait anger are more reactive to hostile situations such as interpersonal provocations [my emphasis]. This is true in relation to dependent measures such as state anger(Deffenbacher, 1992), retaliatory aggression (Bettencourt et al., 2006), and cardiovascular arousal (Smith et al., 2004). It is thus likely that individual differences in the cognitive processing of hostile stimuli are an important determinant of individual differences in anger (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2007)."

    Is this the study cited above? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin September 2007, Volume 33, No. 9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 7:37 PM GMT
    Well, now I'm good and pissed.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Oct 11, 2007 7:43 PM GMT
    Well I don't think there is anything wrong with getting angry or showing any emotion, provided its appropriate and the anger is worked through the right way.
    I think someone who gets angry and throws things or gets physical isn't appropriate. Engaging anger and losing the ability to think through it isn't a path I'd choose, but showing anger at various points (and situations) yeah.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 8:48 PM GMT
    I always find people who don't get angry rather annoying and, quite frankly, not very bright. That doesn't mean that going ape-shit is the better alternative, but simply saying "Oh, well" doesn't lead to any sort of useful results either.

    I am slow to anger, but when I get there I can be very...um...expressive. I've dated or been friends with guys are totally Zen and I wasn't impressed. I've found that if guys don't get upset over the things that justify anger, then they don't get excited or register delight in other things either.
  • cacti

    Posts: 273

    Oct 11, 2007 9:17 PM GMT
    Of course, though, this study cannot cover all indivuduals- One of the most brilliant, level-headed guys I know(astro-physicist[rocket scientist] studying with the Air Force and NASA) does indeed stay very calm during any heated discussion. It's one of his most admirable qualities, and I've always observed that he is far more effective at getting his point across than those who are riled up into a frenzy. It's actually fairly intimidating because you know he's 100% confident with his point of view. To me, he has a very valuable trait.

    Not getting upset does not equal concession ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:23 PM GMT
    there is resolution out of anger but there is also impulsive knee jerk response more often known as fight or flight.

    That is the balance you should achieve knowing that to antagonise a situation is not always the best course of action and being humble is the order of the day
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:23 PM GMT
    Cacti

    no where was it ever stated this anger meant going into a frenzy, I said anger, not lashing out.

    had it been to go ape-shit I would have posted it that way.

    Just letting you know icon_smile.gif
  • cacti

    Posts: 273

    Oct 11, 2007 9:25 PM GMT
    Right on, slayer, I was just referencing instances with my friends- not your article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:26 PM GMT
    how does the study define then when a person is irate and angry then? Not everyone shows anger and may appear calm?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:32 PM GMT
    Idk there killer

    Didnt say I conducted the study nor was present in it and Im pretty sure i did not say Live by it.

    It was opening a door to broaden horizons on reactive behavior and to maybe come at it from a different angle.

    Im not placing this reference here to have it disproved, we'll leave that to the experts and not just the overly opinionated.

    it was food for thought.

    plain and simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:34 PM GMT
    Maybe, to clear up furthur confusions in the future regardng posts such as these

    I should start them with

    "Consider this..."

    that may be a better solution.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:37 PM GMT
    take a chill pill

    it was a question as you obviously found it of interest so thought you may be keen to discuss it.

    I aint into disproving anything but a meaningful discussion never mind icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:38 PM GMT
    hm, chill pill?

    I wasnt lashing out Im sorry you considered the tone of my writing to reflect such.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:45 PM GMT
    There's a difference between being angry and lashing out with demeaning or condescending language, or name-calling.

    We also need to keep in mind that while anger is an appropriate response in many situations, it is most certainly NOT an appropriate response when someone is merely trying to engage someone else in a dialog.

    In the case of the Forum model used on RJ, if one starts a thread on something, such as:

    I believe that rutabagas are the key to nirvana, studies show.

    And someone says "interesting you believe that, but the studies are flawed and you're wrong, in my opinion..." it most certainly is NOT appropriate to react in anger as in: "...it's my opinion, so keep yours to yourself."

    What I've been seeing on and off for about three months are some guys on the Forums actually getting angry when someone appropriately wants to debate the opinion they are espousing.

    John










  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 9:50 PM GMT
    hm, Im sorry fastprof nothing of the sort has been displayed here.

    no name calling or condescending language.

    maybe someone interpreted it as such but was not an intended meaning. Which as been rectified by the two parties and an apology extended.

    so, to engage you in a conversation...your third party motives were placed in a situation not directed to you for the purpose of doing ____________.
  • cacti

    Posts: 273

    Oct 11, 2007 9:56 PM GMT
    slayerstrppd03we'll leave that to the experts and not just the overly opinionated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 10:00 PM GMT
    Cacti

    it was not a direct comment to anyone, I myself am overly opinionated, yet I was not here trying to prove or disprove anything with my forum post.

    and neither was he, I was wrong and I had apologized.

    I do apologize for this as well...given your acceptance of a certain members extreme behavior yesterday here on the forums please, do not take it offensivly if I find your comments such as the one just stated above nothing but to stir aggitation.

    Kindest Regards
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2007 10:04 PM GMT
    Anger is conveyed in different ways, somtimes it's not obvious, sometimes it's thinly veiled and glaring. Sometimes children will claim not to be angry when they're very angry. "I am not mad!" when indeed they are. Sobbing, "I am not crying!". Young balding guys will say "hey baldie" to an older balder guy. Some people try to be clever with their anger and just come out looking really stupid.