In inter-group relationships, anger makes people think in more negative and prejudiced terms about outsiders. Anger makes people less trusting, and slower to attribute good qualities to outsiders.

    When a group is in conflict with a rival group, it will feel more anger if it is the politically stronger group and less anger when it is the weaker.

    Unlike other negative emotions like sadness and fear, angry people are more likely to demonstrate correspondence bias – the tendency to blame a person's behavior more on his nature than on his circumstances. They tend to rely more on stereotypes, and pay less attention to details and more attention to the superficial. In this regard, anger is unlike other "negative" emotions such as sadness and fear, which promote analytical thinking.

    An angry person tends to anticipate other events that might cause them anger. They will tend to rate anger-causing events (e.g. being sold a faulty car) as more likely than sad events (e.g. a good friend moving away).

    A person who is angry tends to place more blame on another person for their misery. This can create a feedback, as this extra blame can make the angry person angrier still, so they in turn place yet more blame on the other person.

From the Cognitive Effects Section on Wikipedia's Anger Article


Oh FFS Damon.

    Take the response to David Brooks' Tuesday column in The New York Times. It seems like the most anodyne argument imaginable: If liberals want to make progress on passing gun control measures in the wake of last week's awful school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead, they should stop demonizing those on the other side of the gun issue and try to engage them in respectful conversation and debate about matters of common concern (like how to keep everyone's children safe).

David Brooks' column was "let's find crazy gun nuts on Facebook and make them hang out in rap sessions with liberals." NOWHERE does he suggest this will change things. What he does say?

    After the stereotypes are discussed, the room feels different. As one Red in Ohio told Lawson, “I think we are all pretty clear on one thing: Don’t tell us who we are and what we think.” Another Red was moved almost to tears by the damage categories do. “We’re not just cookie-cutter people; we’re individuals. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t have to ridicule it — you probably don’t understand it,” she said. “When someone’s heart is full up with something, and then you demean it without even listening to them — I hate that.”

You know where the terms "liberal" and "conservative" come from? The French Revolution by way of John Locke and François-René de Chateaubriand. "Liberals" were those that argued natural law, in that all men are created equal and no monarch could rule other men without their consent. "Conservatives" argued that the House of Bourbon was God's chosen ruler of France. Liberals were "liberating" humanity. Conservatives were "conserving" God and Country.

Two hundred years now liberals have been about suffrage, healthcare and universal human rights. Two hundred years now conservatives have been about gentry, prayer in school and bathroom bans.

At some point, it has to be acknowledged that one side is right and the other is wrong.

In this case, the wrong side is the one that believes the right to go plinkin' with a militarily-derived weapon outweighs the right to not get randomly shot in the face.

posted by user-inactivated: 361 days ago