Is anger often the last stand for those who are wrong?

[Willis Gravning]

I remember when there was a commonly held idea that one should 'vent' when angry. Later it was discovered that those who vent more were more often angry. The latter makes sense from a physiological standpoint. Our thought patterns develop into pathways which become reinforced with use. In a way, we become the person we practice to be. It is better to learn to release an angry thought and let it fly away.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, and

this was already well known by Buddhists, one of the 8 spokes of the wheel of Dharma is 'Right Speech'

And by the Native Americans, that the wolf that survives is the one you feed

 

[Ahermit]

...
2. Wikipedia defines anger as an intense emotional response... to a perceived provocation.
3. Anger can be expressed by someone who has been wronged, such as someone whose country has been bombed, but I would suggest the most intense anger without any good cause would be found more often among those who know they are wrong.
4. So why can't a person in the wrong change their mind?

Anger is an expression of fear.
1. The fear is usually about some person, place, thing or situation that is not going the way the fearful person wants it to.
2. A deeper truth is that this fear is about losing self-esteem (ego-energy) if it does not go their way.
3. Deeper still, is the fear that if things don't go their way they will appear to others as being less than they have projected themselves to be (ego-pride).
4. Worse still, is that they may expose themselves as not being able to cope with the unknown or the unfamiliar of change of plan (of how they want it to go).
5. Deeper still is the truth that they only feel okay if things went their way. But if it does not, then they will not feel okay. In extreme cases, this can even cause them to be suicidal or homicidal.
6. Deeper still, and the real sad part is that they don't have anybody else but themselves to trust. They lack faith in a Power (God) greater than themselves (at that point in time). They really do not think they are okay unless they are in control.

Angry people are scared people.
Unfortunately, most angry people also scare others and in turn they too become angry.
The best way to deal with an angry person is to understand that they are scared and ego-fragile at that point.

 

[loveofourlord]

it really depends on the subject, some things people can get angry about wether they are right or wrong because of the subject, abortion/circumcision/gay rights and such, the anger of both sides doesn't indicate someone thinks they are wrong or are nescarily. When it comes to things like morality anger can come from compassion a anger at seeing someone attacked unfairly or such, or the things someone says.

I see it also with science, you defend evolution and get angry at the ignorant arguments put forth by others, the insulting and downright hate ful comments you might get from others.

I think it's way too narrow minded to just say anger shows wrongness, it's trying to fit things into boxes that can't always be fit into them.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are onto something, but I believe it has more to do with having their basic premises questioned. Most of these angry white Republican types consciously believe they are correct, but they don't know why... because it would mean questioning long cherished assumptions. And questioning is not in most of their natures.

Western culture, at least in the US, is so egocentric and self-centered that you find a lot of this type of defensive behavior. People no longer recognize it as a bad thing, the idea of virtuous behavior actually being virtuous is out the window. That's why I don't have a lot of faith left in this country (the US). They call good evil, and evil good (wow, a Bible reference...

 

[razzelflabben]

You are onto something, but I believe it has more to do with having their basic premises questioned. Most of these angry white Republican types consciously believe they are correct, but they don't know why... because it would mean questioning long cherished assumptions. And questioning is not in most of their natures.

Western culture, at least in the US, is so egocentric and self-centered that you find a lot of this type of defensive behavior. People no longer recognize it as a bad thing, the idea of virtuous behavior actually being virtuous is out the window. That's why I don't have a lot of faith left in this country (the US). They call good evil, and evil good (wow, a Bible reference...

now, isn't this the type of talk that gets a lot of people angry and it has nothing to do with being right or wrong but rather about being judged for their ideas rather than heard for the value they bring, a value that you claim to be there, but then argue isn't?

 

[durangodawood]

....In my own experience it is mainly the Republicans who get angry.....

Anger and radicalism go hand in hand.
These days its the right wing pushing in radical directions.
So, on average, Repubs are angrier!

But it wasnt always so.
In earlier times, radicalism was the inclination of the left.
Right up to the mid 70's, I think.

Also, anger does not correlate well to being wrong, I think.

 

[FireDragon76]

now, isn't this the type of talk that gets a lot of people angry and it has nothing to do with being right or wrong but rather about being judged for their ideas rather than heard for the value they bring, a value that you claim to be there, but then argue isn't?

You know a tree by its fruit.

 

[razzelflabben]

You know a tree by its fruit.

yet, the post in question did not look at fruit, but at stereotypes and inflammatory remarks about others based on their beliefs and not on how they carry out those beliefs or talk about them etc. IOW's making excuses for sinful behavior doesn't address the comments. The comments were in response to the stereotypical jargon we are taught by the media to believe and not the individuals fruit at all. Therefore, I surmise that at least part of the anger is coming from stereotypical jargon we are taught by the media to believe rather than the fruit you speak of here. How much less anger and hostility would we see in conversations if we stopped catering to the stereotypical responses that are designed to stir anger and hostility and instead, behaved as true believers, dismissing with the lies and looking only at the fruit?

 

[FireDragon76]

Therefore, I surmise that at least part of the anger is coming from stereotypical jargon we are taught by the media to believe rather than the fruit you speak of here. How much less anger and hostility would we see in conversations if we stopped catering to the stereotypical responses that are designed to stir anger and hostility and instead, behaved as true believers, dismissing with the lies and looking only at the fruit?

There are valid critiques of conservatives but they just tend to get conservatives riled up, because conservative people by nature are not into questioning... it's what makes them conservative. They are attracted to tradition and authority, neither of which have much to do with whether something is true.

 

[razzelflabben]

There are valid critiques of conservatives but they just tend to get conservatives riled up, because conservative people by nature are not into questioning... it's what makes them conservative. They are attracted to tradition and authority, neither of which have much to do with whether something is true.

Now see, this is just more of the same....in fact, we are very conservative in this house and we love questions, the harder the better and we know lots of other conservatives that share that same love for questions and the answers that go along with them. In fact, from our experience it is the liberals that don't like questions. So instead of discussion, we (as we as a people) resort to stereotypes that suit our agenda then accuse those caught in the middle of anger for what we ourselves don't know or care to know. IOW's it's based on willful ignorance and nothing more that stirs the anger in discussions that are relying on emotions rather than facts.