What would happen if anger disappeared?

[Green Xenon]

Hi:

 

Let's say the emotion of anger -- in all mammals [including humans] -- were to suddenly, completely, and permanently vanish. What would be the effects?

 

Would it be a good thing to lose the emotion of anger? What would be the drawbacks of the elimination of this destructive emotion?

 

 

Thanks,

 

GX

[CaptainPanic]

Why would anger be destructive? Anger can mean you stand up for your right. It can be a self-preservation. It can be a form of self-defense.

 

When applied in the right way, anger can be very useful and effective in telling someone you disagree with something. Communication is a combination of cooperation and opposition. Sometimes it is useful to oppose someone.

 

Without anger, it would therefore be a lot easier to oppress someone. And I disagree that it is only descructive.

Edited April 24, 2012 by CaptainPanic
fixing a typo

[Phi for All]

Confrontation is inevitable. Violence is not.

[dimreepr]

Why would anger be destructive? Anger can mean you stand up for your right. It can be a self-preservation. It can be a form of self-defense.

 

When applied in the right way, anger can be very useful and effective in telling someone you disagree with something. Communication is a combination of cooperation and opposition. Sometimes it is useful to oppose someone.

 

Without anger, it would therefore be a lot easier to oppress someone. And I disagree that it is only descructive.

 

 

Also it’s very useful in teaching young children.

Instinctively, when the mother or father, see’s their child in danger (stepping into the road for instance) the first reaction is to grab the child (ensuring the child’s safety) followed in short order by the angry slap, followed later (when the parent has calmed) by the reassuring hug. The lesson the child takes from this experience is measured (instinctively) by the nature and length (time between the slap and the hug) of the parents anger. So no anger no lesson learnt.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Why would anger be destructive? Anger can mean you stand up for your right. It can be a self-preservation. It can be a form of self-defense.

 

A few thoughts.

I can stand up for my rights quite calmly- in fact I think things through better that way so I do a better job at winning the argument.

 

Against whom would it be a defence?

I undserstand that those skilled in martial arts seek to avoid becoming angry- for it leads to a loss of control which is bad for winning a fight.

[CaptainPanic]

A few thoughts.

I can stand up for my rights quite calmly- in fact I think things through better that way so I do a better job at winning the argument.

 

Against whom would it be a defence?

I undserstand that those skilled in martial arts seek to avoid becoming angry- for it leads to a loss of control which is bad for winning a fight.

Yes indeed.

You can be angry and calm. For example, at this moment, I am angry at my government for collapsing in a time of crisis. But I haven't lost my calm.

I am sitting behind my computer, and I feel pretty good actually. I am not boiling over. Still, I am angry about certain things at this very moment.

 

Anger and violence are not the same.

Anger and losing your temper are not the same.

 

When applied correctly and functionally, anger can be useful.

 

If you stand up for your rights (calmly!), you defend yourself against any kind of injustice, or you at least protect your own interests.

[Phi for All]

I undserstand that those skilled in martial arts seek to avoid becoming angry- for it leads to a loss of control which is bad for winning a fight.

Actually, any strong emotion, not just anger, increases the heart rate and floods the body with physiological responses that inhibit fine motor control functions. I think one can have a level of anger that is manageable and actually beneficial if it brings on strong convictions and focused responses, as long as those convictions and responses are aimed in a beneficial direction.

 

When applied correctly and functionally, anger can be useful.

This is where most anger misses the mark, imo. It's not properly focused.

 

And we don't always recognize where our anger stems from. I think a lot of anger is misplaced, coming from one source but applied to another.

 

Yesterday, I was driving on a street with a 40mph limit, the day was beautiful, I was in a good mood, there were cars in front of me and cars behind me. I don't like following too closely and I probably left a bit too much room between me and the car in front of me, but for whatever reason I suddenly became aware that the car behind me was right on my bumper, less than a car length away, the driver practically frothing at the mouth. I looked down, realized I was going about 36mph, but there was only about four car lengths between me and the car in front of me. I sped up a bit and shortly we came to a right turn lane which the driver behind me turned into and sped past me. The man was red in the face, mouthing what I can only assume were obscenities, and he gave me the finger as he passed.

 

I thought about it afterwards. I couldn't have gone too much faster because of the cars in front of me. I could have left less room between me and the next car, giving the illusion of more speed, but I feel it's unnecessarily dangerous and futile. I could have reacted quicker and sped up at a higher rate when the man behind me expressed his anger but I frankly thought he was being overly aggressive, I don't like to encourage tailgating as a means to encourage faster speeds and I've gotten used to conserving my fuel.

 

I thought it was an incredible waste of good anger. If he was late for something, he had many opportunities to pass me, so I ruled that out. What had I really cost the man, maybe a dozen seconds? In the few minutes of thought I gave it, I concluded that the man was either angry about something else and just taking it out on me, or he thought I was purposely slowing down to vex him because he was following too closely (and I really only noticed him when he came right up on my bumper the one time). Either way, his anger was misplaced and improperly focused. I think there is a lot of that going on these days.

[Royston]

Yes indeed.

You can be angry and calm. For example, at this moment, I am angry at my government for collapsing in a time of crisis. But I haven't lost my calm.

I am sitting behind my computer, and I feel pretty good actually. I am not boiling over. Still, I am angry about certain things at this very moment.

 

Anger and violence are not the same.

Anger and losing your temper are not the same.

 

When applied correctly and functionally, anger can be useful.

 

If you stand up for your rights (calmly!), you defend yourself against any kind of injustice, or you at least protect your own interests.

 

I can't see how it's possible to be angry and calm simultaneously. Anger is a general term that could mean slightly peeved, to blind rage. If you're irritated (slightly peeved) by something, you're not calm by definition.

 

You may have knowledge that your government is collapsing, but for the time being, it doesn't irritate you.

 

To address the OP. Our government decided to do away with heritage sites, which could increase development in rural and protected areas. When I first heard about this, I was furious, so I decided to post this to my friends and acquaintances, to encourage them to sign a petition.

 

If I had made the post during my initial outrage, it would of read something like 'those f**king money hungry Tory s**t cakes, with their short-sighted w**ky polices, do they have the slightest idea what a f**king ecosystem IS ?!?'

 

However, with a bit of time to relax and compose myself, I just posted their plans, mentioned the effect on ecosystems, and asked that anyone who opposes this move, please sign the petition. Anger (in this instance) is a necessary precursor to resolve a conflict. It's an initial kick-start for someone to take action, so if that's taken away, I think we'd be in a bit of a mess.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Royston

[CaptainPanic]

I can't see how it's possible to be angry and calm simultaneously.

Let me explain. In my post, "calm" means that you try to remain in control of a situation, despite the anger. For everyone, anger leads to an increased heart rate, and the release of some hormones (like adrenaline). This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to remain in control of yourself.

 

So when you're angry, you put yourself in a position of the opposition (you're angry at someone or something after all). In addition, you have these physical effects like the increased heart rate. That doesn't mean you have to lose your temper. And it doesn't mean you can no longer think rationally.

 

To an outsider, it does not have to be visible that you're angry, and you will often achieve far more if you don't show that you're angry (difficult as it may be). And that's what I meant by being "angry and calm at the same time".

 

Also, regarding what you described about the destruction of the heritages: I believe you were still angry when you wrote your 2nd (polite) message. But even on wikipedia, there are multiple definitions of what anger is... so maybe my definition is just different from yours. I admit that wikipedia's explanations include a lot of physical and physiological responses, which I claim you can suppress.

 

One of the problems talking about a natural emotional state like anger is that such a word is used in many different ways, and might actually have multiple meanings in popular language. So, in addition to the multiple scientific explanations, the use of the word anger in popular language obscures it even more.

[Royston]

Let me explain. In my post, "calm" means that you try to remain in control of a situation, despite the anger. For everyone, anger leads to an increased heart rate, and the release of some hormones (like adrenaline). This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to remain in control of yourself.

 

So when you're angry, you put yourself in a position of the opposition (you're angry at someone or something after all). In addition, you have these physical effects like the increased heart rate. That doesn't mean you have to lose your temper. And it doesn't mean you can no longer think rationally.

 

True, I was being a nit-pick on how you worded being in control of your anger, you then went on to say 'I feel pretty good actually', so I just needed some clarification on precisely what you meant.

 

Also, regarding what you described about the destruction of the heritages: I believe you were still angry when you wrote your 2nd (polite) message.

 

Of course, if I was *calm as a Hindu cow, it's possible I would not of even made that post. However, logic would of superseded that emotion, but that's beside the point. It was really in response to the OP, where he/she described anger as destructive, so I just illustrated how such an emotion can be used productively.

 

But even on wikipedia, there are multiple definitions of what anger is... so maybe my definition is just different from yours.

 

Maybe, I did make it clear that anger could be a spread of emotion, from irritability to blind rage, but point taken.

 

One of the problems talking about a natural emotional state like anger is that such a word is used in many different ways, and might actually have multiple meanings in popular language. So, in addition to the multiple scientific explanations, the use of the word anger in popular language obscures it even more.

 

Yes, in retrospect, calm could also be a general term, from quite relaxed, to practically unconscious. I'm not sure if there's a strict psychological definition. In fear of arguing of semantics, I'm pretty sure were in agreement with each other.

 

*excuse the Fight Club quote, it just seemed appropriate.