What anger really is.

[Perfection]

This thread reminds of David Lewis mad pain thought experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_pain_and_Martian_pain

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm sort of disgusted that psychologists find emotions so hard to explain, or treat them as if they were qualia-sensations; irreducible to anything else. What anger at least is seems obvious to me: dissonance between the way things are and the way that you think it should be. This causes mental anguish, and an urgent straining to alter the situation, but regardless it is the dissonance that you 'feel.' The interesting part, and the only healthy path to preventing anger, is examining how we arrive at the 'should.'

Wikipedia's definition of anger:

This is a bit like describing a heart attack as a process wherein your chest and left arm hurt and you sometimes faint or die. I found my conclusion through simple introspection, if you're curious (and if you're skeptical about one person's feelings being more effective than a hundred years of psychological theory than I ask you think about something that makes you angry and tell me if I'm wrong).

many years ago when I teaching elementary school I was in a training session that included how to deal with anger as a teacher or parent. The facilitator, and I think rightly so, described anger like so: It is a secondary response to another emotion that can be very fleeting and hardly noticed. Event A happens and we feel something (pain, frustration, sadness, selfishness, guilt, hurt, etc.) and rather than bear that emotion, we turn to anger as the response because it is less painful for us. Lashing out in some fashion is simpler than wrestling with sadness or frustration. Her theory was that just before we get angry there is a transition emotion which we often prefer to avoid. It can last a very short second or longer, but if the anger comes, it is usually to get away from some other pain. As I have watched myself over the years I find this to be mostly true.

Anger is one of our avoidance mechanisms.

 

[Mouthwash]

Let's say you mishear someone insulting your mother. They didn't, but you thought they did, so you have a knee-jerk emotional response.

I can't see how this is a counterexample. Sorry.

That's an interesting idea, that cognitive dissonance is a feeling in of itself. It's not always associated with anger. Distraction is a more common response--have you ever been aware of your cognitive dissonance without overcoming it? It's a strange mental space. When I have, I notice that I have conveniently tuned out and ignored the information that caused it. I won't even be mad, just ignorant.

I can make myself angry upon the instant. All I have to do is think about someone like Ali Abunimah, who says that Israelis are racists or anti-Semites, and then juxtapose that in my head with the Israel I see every day. Admittedly I am kind of obsessed with the subject but it's my experience regardless. When people won't do things the way I think they should be done it gets me mad, even irrationally. I'll think no, Wikipedia isn't that bad of a source for this subject, why are you excluding it, even though it doesn't make a whit of difference with so many other websites to look up. And I'll start an argument over that.

many years ago when I teaching elementary school I was in a training session that included how to deal with anger as a teacher or parent. The facilitator, and I think rightly so, described anger like so: It is a secondary response to another emotion that can be very fleeting and hardly noticed. Event A happens and we feel something (pain, frustration, sadness, selfishness, guilt, hurt, etc.) and rather than bear that emotion, we turn to anger as the response because it is less painful for us. Lashing out in some fashion is simpler than wrestling with sadness or frustration. Her theory was that just before we get angry there is a transition emotion which we often prefer to avoid. It can last a very short second or longer, but if the anger comes, it is usually to get away from some other pain. As I have watched myself over the years I find this to be mostly true.

Anger is one of our avoidance mechanisms.

Well, I've never gotten that impression. Things that I want to fix are what make me angry, and the anger is continuous until something distracts me. This may imply a certain kind of respect for the thing in question; what I typically value is 'rightness' even when it doesn't seem productive.

(Actually, now that I've heard this, I think you're on to something. I think anger is an active counterpart of cognitive dissonance; an 'assertion' designed to override your feelings. That is what makes it a natural response to the feeling of struggling with an idea you don't like, which is the passive dissonance. Convincing?)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

many years ago when I teaching elementary school I was in a training session that included how to deal with anger as a teacher or parent. The facilitator, and I think rightly so, described anger like so: It is a secondary response to another emotion that can be very fleeting and hardly noticed. Event A happens and we feel something (pain, frustration, sadness, selfishness, guilt, hurt, etc.) and rather than bear that emotion, we turn to anger as the response because it is less painful for us. Lashing out in some fashion is simpler than wrestling with sadness or frustration. Her theory was that just before we get angry there is a transition emotion which we often prefer to avoid. It can last a very short second or longer, but if the anger comes, it is usually to get away from some other pain. As I have watched myself over the years I find this to be mostly true.

Anger is one of our avoidance mechanisms.

Interesting way to look at it, that seems very true to me. But to merely view anger to an avoidance strategy seems too limited to me. In general, I think I see a fundamental bias of viewing anger as a negative thing.
But anger also does have favorable attributes in its own right, and not just as a way to blank out other undesirable emotions. It can give you drive and determination, for instance. Anger isn't just to avoid less pleasant negative emotions, IMO, it is about not surrendering to sth. Those are less pleasant negative emotions as well as circumstances, challenges etcetera.
To illustrate the principle a bit more, because I find it fascinating:
One can choose to direct negative emotions outwards (anger) or inwards (guilt) or one can choose to be in a principal emotional opposition to something (anger) or to accept the badness of it and let it flow through you (sad) or... etcetera.
But that isn't all bad, it isn't just about hiding from "yourself". It is also about not surrendering. And "yourself" is the anger and the drive to opposition as much as surrender and letting the sadness flow through you.

And the bias inhibited in your post is not very surprising, either. In the context of a school the emphasize is on docile easily handled kids.

That said, I'd fully agree that to surrender to your emotions is a quality of much greater need to be educated in then to follow your anger. since the latter just does come easier, for the reason you laid out.

@Mouthwash
The way I see it our minds are full of dissonance. Personally I think that is how the mind comes to be to begin with. Out of the conflicting dynamics of different parts of our brain. Working together in some instances and fighting each other in other instances, all the time. Occasionally a rush takes over, drowns all the little on-going conflicts and gives clarity and assonance. But I feel this is the exception rather than the rule.
Anger is strongly connected to dissonance in so far as that Anger always is about challenging something. And dissonance is also about a conflict. But that is a incredulously broad connection which doesn't seem like it says much.

 

[Ryika]

I mean what anger simply is.

An evolutionary program that helped our ancestors be the dominant (which more often than not meant victorious) ones during confrontations.

Now that was easy!

many years ago when I teaching elementary school I was in a training session that included how to deal with anger as a teacher or parent. The facilitator, and I think rightly so, described anger like so: It is a secondary response to another emotion that can be very fleeting and hardly noticed. Event A happens and we feel something (pain, frustration, sadness, selfishness, guilt, hurt, etc.) and rather than bear that emotion, we turn to anger as the response because it is less painful for us. Lashing out in some fashion is simpler than wrestling with sadness or frustration. Her theory was that just before we get angry there is a transition emotion which we often prefer to avoid. It can last a very short second or longer, but if the anger comes, it is usually to get away from some other pain. As I have watched myself over the years I find this to be mostly true.

Anger is one of our avoidance mechanisms.

These "Anger just means your suppressing other emotions!"-speeches sound way too philosophical for me - an interpretation that focuses purely on the mind, while ignoring the actual physical side of things and the way things became what they are now.

 

[Mouthwash]

These "Anger just means your suppressing other emotions!"-speeches sound way too philosophical for me - an interpretation that focuses purely on the mind, while ignoring the actual physical side of things and the way things became what they are now.

Interpreting the mind is not as useless as you think. I might try a thousand different actions to get my dog to stop chewing furniture. I might grow frustrated enough to hit him. Or I could read some dog psychology, and puzzle out things from his perspective.

 

[Ryika]

Interpreting the mind is not as useless as you think. I might try a thousand different actions to get my dog to stop chewing furniture. I might grow frustrated enough to hit him. Or I could read some dog psychology, and puzzle out things from his perspective.

Oh, I don't think it's useless, quite the opposite, ignoring the mind would lead to an analysis that would be incomplete as well. I just think focusing on the mind alone is not what I'd expect to yield proper results. It's searching for reasons in a system that operates on causes.

The idea that "Anger just means you're suppressing other emotions!" seems to stem from the thought that anger is not a very useful emotion, so it must be some kind of "misfiring" of emotions, because we cannot express what we really want to feel. But this is of course ignoring that anger was very useful in times where physical violence or the threat of violence were way more "accepted" as a response. Where conflict favored physical strength over more civil responses.

So if anything this line of thought seems to suggest that it's the other way around - that anger is the most direct response we have and that it fires whenever we don't have learned (or internalized) a more appropriate response to override that emotion (yet), especially when we feel like we're being attacked or are pumped up anyway.

 

[Kyriakos]

Being able to feel anger and use that to attack, is the analogous of being able to feel bored and watch dumb tv. There are other options, but there is a catering to the lowest common denominator as well.

The human body often has alternative means of releasing tension. Few people are actually creative.

 

[warpus]

I can't see how this is a counterexample. Sorry.

It doesn't fit with your definition of what causes anger, so your definition of what causes anger must be wrong or incomplete.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Interesting way to look at it, that seems very true to me. But to merely view anger to an avoidance strategy seems too limited to me. In general, I think I see a fundamental bias of viewing anger as a negative thing.
But anger also does have favorable attributes in its own right, and not just as a way to blank out other undesirable emotions. It can give you drive and determination, for instance. Anger isn't just to avoid less pleasant negative emotions, IMO, it is about not surrendering to sth. Those are less pleasant negative emotions as well as circumstances, challenges etcetera.
To illustrate the principle a bit more, because I find it fascinating:
One can choose to direct negative emotions outwards (anger) or inwards (guilt) or one can choose to be in a principal emotional opposition to something (anger) or to accept the badness of it and let it flow through you (sad) or... etcetera.
But that isn't all bad, it isn't just about hiding from "yourself". It is also about not surrendering. And "yourself" is the anger and the drive to opposition as much as surrender and letting the sadness flow through you.

And the bias inhibited in your post is not very surprising, either. In the context of a school the emphasize is on docile easily handled kids.

That said, I'd fully agree that to surrender to your emotions is a quality of much greater need to be educated in then to follow your anger. since the latter just does come easier, for the reason you laid out.

About bias. At the time the training was all about ways for teachers to control their anger and keep it from getting in the way of good teaching. Classroom teaching can be very frustrating and difficult and when things do get difficult because of children acting out, good teachers are able to minimize their anger and stay on task. It had nothing to do with keeping kids docile. Understanding how anger affects oneself, though, helps in understanding how it can affect others too. Angry kids are usually frustrated, in pain, struggling etc. Knowing that can keep one from responding with more anger.

I never said that getting angry was always bad. I said it was a coping mechanism to avoid more painful thoughts. I think whether one directs that anger outwardly towards others or inwardly at oneself is more contextual and depends upon the relationship between the parties involved. And for some people it can be a personality trait.

Planned or deliberate anger is not really anger. It is a mask to drive others to respond in a way you want. it is a tool to manipulate others and can be used for good or ill. It is no different than fake praise. The problem with anger is that when it gets out of control it can be very destruction. On balance we have way too much anger in the world and it breeds unkindness. It is better to deal with our demons than to live in anger.

An evolutionary program that helped our ancestors be the dominant (which more often than not meant victorious) ones during confrontations.

Now that was easy!


These "Anger just means your suppressing other emotions!"-speeches sound way too philosophical for me - an interpretation that focuses purely on the mind, while ignoring the actual physical side of things and the way things became what they are now.

We may get angry because of our evolutionary past, but we have to live with the consequences of that past now in this modern world. The fact that we get angry doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

BTW, my comments were not philosophical at all. They are grounded in the reality that we do get angry and that understanding why, is the first step to controlling that anger. Watch yourself and watch others as you/they make the transition from not angry to angry.

 

[Narz]

I agree the the psychiatric community's understand of emotions is really infantile & misguided. It's already come a long way since the 80's when I was growing up (and unfortunately subjected to it).

Anger is pretty simple, it's a call to action. Something is wrong, it may be another person or yourself, something must be done.

What to do with anger is a different thing entirely but trying to talk it away or suppress it thru heavy drugs is almost never the answer.

 

[Mouthwash]

It doesn't fit with your definition of what causes anger, so your definition of what causes anger must be wrong or incomplete.

Why doesn't it fit with my definition? I think it fits pretty well.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

About bias. At the time the training was all about ways for teachers to control their anger and keep it from getting in the way of good teaching. Classroom teaching can be very frustrating and difficult and when things do get difficult because of children acting out, good teachers are able to minimize their anger and stay on task. It had nothing to do with keeping kids docile.

As much was clear from your first post. I am stupid and very sorry for not noticing it / acknowledging it at the first round of conversation.

I never said that getting angry was always bad.

No.
Yet you said bad things about anger while not saying a single good thing. And yet your whole story was constructed to service the narrative of a bad thing.

Coincidence? You just forgot the good things? Hardly, methinks. You were caught up in a narrative focusing on the bad things imo. Nourished by a context which is defined by exposed, weak, vulnerable little things and hence by the need for the exceptional ability to reduce opposition and strengthen understanding.

The trouble I saw and still see is that you look like you are confusing the actual nature of anger with the tool used to give school kids the necessary patience.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As much was clear from your first post. I am stupid and very sorry for not noticing it / acknowledging it at the first round of conversation.

No.
Yet you said bad things about anger while not saying a single good thing. And yet your whole story was constructed to service the narrative of a bad thing.

Coincidence? You just forgot the good things? Hardly, methinks. You were caught up in a narrative focusing on the bad things imo. Nourished by a context which is defined by exposed, weak, vulnerable little things and hence by the need for the exceptional ability to reduce opposition and strengthen understanding.

The trouble I saw and still see is that you look like you are confusing the actual nature of anger with the tool used to give school kids the necessary patience.

Damned with faint praise you say. Perhaps. Manufactured anger can be put to good use, but that is not real anger. We live with our anger everyday and it can wake people up and get them to pay attention. It shouts "Something is wrong here! Pay attention to me." Such warnings might be useful too, but there are better ways (IMHO) to express those without anger. Anger is so easy and feels so powerful that we persist with it.

What else do you see that's good about it?

 

[Ryika]

The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised.

It shouts "Something is wrong here! Pay attention to me." Such warnings might be useful too, but there are better ways (IMHO) to express those without anger.

I think you're making a fundamental error here: You're focusing solely on a situation where person A expresses their anger towards person B. I agree that in our personal life expressing our anger towards others is only seldom a useful reaction that really gets things done in an efficient way, that's mainly because it requires person B to understand (and be interested in) the reasons for why person A gets angry and person A to use their anger well-proportioned, which is a skill that also very few people have.

The real benefit of anger is the effect that it has on ourselves. It is both, the thing that shows us that something is wrong in the most direct level that is available to us, and it is the engine that drives us to making the first steps towards well-needed changes. The only person who doesn't get angry is the pessimist.

Of course it is an important skill to then channel the anger into more useful feelings and actions instead of just remaining angry, but that once again just shows that anger is the driving force towards better actions, not the expression of lack of a better solution.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised.


I think you're making a fundamental error here: You're focusing solely on a situation where person A expresses their anger towards person B. I agree that in our personal life expressing our anger towards others is only seldom a useful reaction that really gets things done in an efficient way, that's mainly because it requires person B to understand (and be interested in) the reasons for why person A gets angry and person A to use their anger well-proportioned, which is a skill that also very few people have.

The real benefit of anger is the effect that it has on ourselves. It is both, the thing that shows us that something is wrong in the most direct level that is available to us, and it is the engine that drives us to making the first steps towards well-needed changes. The only person who doesn't get angry is the pessimist.

Of course it is an important skill to then channel the anger into more useful feelings and actions instead of just remaining angry, but that once again just shows that anger is the driving force towards better actions, not the expression of lack of a better solution.

Reflective people can and will learn from their own anger. I'm not sure most people are that reflective. When they get angry, they reach out and touch someone...with a fist or shovel or broken bottle.

If you are saying that anger makes us aware of our weaknesses, OK. It can do that. But responding to one's anger as a path to improvement is more like treating the symptoms rather than the problem. If frustration with a friend's annoying habits leads you to get angry, Not getting angry is one approach. i would suggest that not being frustrated is a better approach.

If, as you say, anger is a positive driving force for change, then more anger would be better and move one towards improvement more quickly. I don't see that as a good solution at all. Anger is secondary and if one can reduce the triggers for anger, then one is angry less of the time. Anger only motivates one to strike out in some fashion. It is the post anger reflective time (some go through) that can create remorse and encourage change.

 

[Lord of Elves]

An evolutionary program that helped our ancestors be the dominant (which more often than not meant victorious) ones during confrontations.

Now that was easy!


These "Anger just means your suppressing other emotions!"-speeches sound way too philosophical for me - an interpretation that focuses purely on the mind, while ignoring the actual physical side of things and the way things became what they are now.

The evolutionary psychology drek you're spouting is so pure, so unadultered. Cool.

Are you really so eager to reduce yourself to the role of the apex predator? Are you that confident in your physical superiority?

 

[Ryika]

Reflective people can and will learn from their own anger. I'm not sure most people are that reflective. When they get angry, they reach out and touch someone...with a fist or shovel or broken bottle.

Yes, most people don't react in a good way, that does not change anything about the premise though.

If you are saying that anger makes us aware of our weaknesses, OK. It can do that. But responding to one's anger as a path to improvement is more like treating the symptoms rather than the problem. If frustration with a friend's annoying habits leads you to get angry, Not getting angry is one approach. i would suggest that not being frustrated is a better approach.

You're basically making the case for anger as a good thing right here. Why did you get angry? Because your friends habits have caused you discomfort and for some reason you have avoided reacting to the discomfort. Your anger gets you out of the "It's annoying but I don't do anything against it."-phase and into the phase where try to change the situation.

Obviously you could have prevented getting angry by acting before it got that far and ideally you would have done that, therefore preventing the anger before it can even occur and yes, that would clearly have been the better solution. I don't think anyone is arguing that becoming angry as your main solution is a good thing, the better you manage things and the more proactive you are about problems, the better. But none of this changes anything about the fact that anger is an important mechanism.

Even the few among us who are able to phase out anger during their lives and replace it with very proactive and predictive problem-solving skills only got to that state after profiting from anger for quite a while. As I (probably?) said earlier... it's not the most efficient problem-solving tool, but it is one of the most basic ones.

If, as you say, anger is a positive driving force for change, then more anger would be better and move one towards improvement more quickly.

I don't see how that follows. Whether "X is good, so X+1 must be better" is true depends on the situation. Otherwise drinking a few liters of linctus (What a strange translation for "Hustensaft".) would have cut the amount of days I had to stay at home last year by a lot.

The evolutionary psychology drek you're spouting is so pure, so unadultered. Cool.

Are you really so eager to reduce yourself to the role of the apex predator? Are you that confident in your physical superiority?

Why does the thought that we are merely physical beings cause so much discomfort in you? What are you afraid of, little Elf?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, most people don't react in a good way, that does not change anything about the premise though.


You're basically making the case for anger as a good thing right here. Why did you get angry? Because your friends habits have caused you discomfort and for some reason you have avoided reacting to the discomfort. Your anger gets you out of the "It's annoying but I don't do anything against it."-phase and into the phase where try to change the situation.

Obviously you could have prevented getting angry by acting before it got that far and ideally you would have done that, therefore preventing the anger before it can even occur and yes, that would clearly have been the better solution. I don't think anyone is arguing that becoming angry as your main solution is a good thing, the better you manage things and the more proactive you are about problems, the better.

I agree.

But none of this changes anything about the fact that anger is an important mechanism.

Even the few among us who are able to phase out anger during their lives and replace it with very proactive and predictive problem-solving skills only got to that state after profiting from anger for quite a while. As I (probably?) said earlier... it's not the most efficient problem-solving tool, but it is one of the most basic ones.

I don't see how that follows. Whether "X is good, so X+1 must be better" is true depends on the situation. Otherwise drinking a few liters of linctus (What a strange translation for "Hustensaft".) would have cut the amount of days I had to stay at home last year by a lot.

If anger is a involuntary response to some event, then how can it be a tool? Tools are things we use deliberately towards some end. Anger is not a good tool if a tool at all. It is a response mechanism that is only useful when in conjunction with real, valuable tools like reflection and thoughtfulness. If anger is a given in most of us, then the profiting comes through our reflective nature and not through the anger.

 

[Ryika]

If anger is a involuntary response to some event, then how can it be a tool? Tools are things we use deliberately towards some end. Anger is not a good tool if a tool at all. It is a response mechanism that is only useful when in conjunction with real, valuable tools like reflection and thoughtfulness. If anger is a given in most of us, then the profiting comes through our reflective nature and not through the anger.

Tool in the evolutionary sense. Not a tool that we actively use, but rather a tool that our body uses to change our state of mind when the mind has made a decision that causes problems for us (like not doing anything against the friend's habits).

I agree that it is generally not a good tool in the sense that it is something that a person can actively use to get what they need, at least not in our society.