- 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. 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? 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.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).
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.”
Brooks original column aside, conservative vs liberal viewpoints aside, he has a point. This country is getting addicted to politics, outrage culture, echo chambers, what have you. Behaving in ways that allow us to feel smug and indignant and self righteous is not helping anyone and in a lot of ways we're hurting ourselves as much as we're hurting each other. Worse yet, these feelings are addictive as shit and when we get addicted to them we engage in behavior that reinforces and therefore perpetuates those feelings, which only exacerbates the problem little by little. Things need to start changing.
No. I reject this entire line of reasoning out of hand. You should too. Nobody was whingeing for people to "come together" while the Right was going batshit about "death panels." Nor were they when the Right was accusing anyone opposed to the Iraq War of "hating freedom." There was none of this when Reagan was selling the Iranians Stinger missiles to pay for Nicaraguan death squads. For my entire goddamn life, it has been the Right going cuckoo for cocoapuffs over some unhinged whackball shit and the Left being calm. Now that we've got literal Nazis marching the streets with torches, now that the President of the United States is a puppet of Russia, now that the Department of the Interior is defunding national parks, now the fucktards on the Right are asking for calm. No. There's a line in the sand and we can't even see it in the goddamn rearview mirror anymore. People who should know better are hectoring each other about whether or not an AR-15 is an "assault weapon" so they don't have to address the reality that nobody - nobody needs to own a fucking AR-15. "Everyone should calm down" is a 'winger way of saying "you should stop freaking out about the batshit insane stuff I'm doing." And I'm not going to do that. And neither should you. You know what an extreme left-wing position is? Welfare, universal healthcare and a confiscatory tax on wealth. You know what an extreme right-wing position is? Rescinding human rights, Victorian inequality and, apparently, this shit. Things aren't going to change by the Right arguing they're being reasonable. They're fucking not.
I'm worried that you're conflating my perspective with that of the two opinionists and therefore taking up an argument that I'm mot certainly not. Forget what they said. Forget what you think what I said. This is my argument. I'm not saying we should tolerate extremism, nor am I saying that we should tolerate group think, fanatical ideology, or voting lockstep with party identity. All of those behaviors have socially deleterious effects. I'd also like to take a moment to remind you, as well as myself and anyone reading this, that the whole left/right spectrum is horribly oversimplified and woefully inadequate in painting the picture of our collective social philosophy. It'd be more appropriate to imagine it as some nebulous gas cloud, constantly shifting in shape, density, and hue. What I am saying is that it's important to forget politics a lot of the time and remember our collective humanity. To that extent I disagree with you on personal philosophical and moral grounds. I don't want you to take that personally, cause after all we disagree with each other about as much as we agree and I respect your views. That said, it is my sincere and firm belief that people are not only capable of insight, growth, and change, but that it is a core part of the human experience. Each and every one of us can look at ourselves today and compare who and where we are with ourselves five, ten, and twenty years ago and see immense differences. Some changes come from significant, seemingly explosive moments in our lives. More often than not though, those changes are gradual and if left unexamined the causes of those changes can be easy to miss. To that extent, concepts like education, encouragement, forgiveness, and reconciliation need to be embraced to direct individual and social growth in a positive direction. When we trivialize, marginalize, and alienate others, we see adverse effects. By marginalizing others, even just because we might disagree with them, we're robbing people of opportunities to grow and develop in a positive manner and we're robbing them of the chance to see themselves as a key part in society where they must take their actions and beliefs seriously. It is absolutely crucial that we never forget that any person is capable of change at any time in their lives, for better or for worse. Knowing this, it's important to realize that we cannot rob ourselves of the opportunity of being influential in the positive development in the people in our lives. A lot of times people mistakingly believe we have to act deliberately and forcefully to exert change or that we have to be a constant presence in people's lives. More often than not though, it is the gentle and continuous presence of multiple people in someone's life that brings about change and that change is often more powerful and the results more enduring. We have had terribly difficult times in our past. We're living in difficult times now. I honestly worry that we're going to continue to see more and new difficulties down the road. As you often like to quote though, "The long arch of history bends towards justice." If we are to be agents of change and attempt to preserve and promote justice, we can’t let ourselves become perpetually overwhelmed with anger and despair. These emotions, even when they seem justified, only cloud our judgment and close us off from the world and the people in it who are so needing of our love. They keep us from seeing the good and humanity in each other. Agree or disagree, our neighbors need us and we need them just as much. A little change in an immeasurably large number of people often has a greater impact than immeasurably large change in a small number of people. With that in mind, it’s important to think about ourselves, our families, and our communities and what we can do as individuals as well as collectively to help each other out.
Your perspective, while admirable and worthy of emulation, is inapplicable to the situation at hand. Sure - people individually are great. People as a group are shit. There's a platitude I coined - "the collective intelligence of any group is inversely proportional its size" - that I've stopped using because nobody smarter or more famous than me has popularized it. It doesn't make it any less true. When talking about group social perspectives, we're not dealing with individuals. 650,436 people cast a vote for Roy Moore. I'm never going to talk to a single one of them. None of them give the first fuck what I think. There will never be an opportunity for me to sit down in a rap session with a single one of them to pass around the talking stick, sip some warm cocoa and gently expound on why a racist child molester twice expelled from the bench is a poor choice for representing their interests in the Senate. But vote for him they did. They felt that a racist child molester twice expelled from the bench was exactly what my country needs to deal with. So us elitists over here on the Left Coast with our sanctuary cities and paid family leave can suck it. You can sing koom bay ya about that all you want: I'll bet I could find something admirable about each and every one of them. I'll bet we could hang out drinking sweet tea and eating pimento sandwiches and having a jolly good time. But the fact of the matter is, they think my courts and schools need more Jesus and disagreeing with them, however politely or convincingly, will not dissuade them in their quest. Because, you see, from a national standpoint we've determined that we get no Jesus in courts and schools and they need to change that for everyone. It's fucking hilarious that we're talking about those poor marginalized white people. Those poor marginalized Christians. Those poor marginalized gun owners. Are they capable of change? Not really. So the 20-year-old Nazis? Yeah, there's maybe hope for them. The 50-year-old Nazis? Goose-steppers until they die. Yeah it ain't good right now. That doesn't mean it's gonna get any better by saying "so what do you Nazis really want?" They wanna Nazi. Full stop. What's changed? They've been emboldened to Nazi. How do you deal with Nazis? Curb-stomp 'em. Individually? Collectively? We stand to benefit more through shame and alienation than we do by mainlining. Make no mistake - conservative politics have gone completely around the bend (been shot at? Been on TV? It's probably because you're a crisis actor, not a victim). The way to nip that in the bud is through zero tolerance. I grew up with the Moral Majority demanding prayer in school. What happened? They went so fuckin' crazy against gays, drugs, punk, rock, fun that the kids stopped coming to church. Now the evangelicals are sucking wind and it's glorious. Granted, I'd trade Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard for Alex Jones any day. But I also know that acting as if Alex Jones is somehow okay is the fastest way to breed Alex Joneses. I'm fine. My family is fine. My community is fine. Those crazy fucks insisting national parks are communist and that we oughtta arm teachers? They're a problem and I ain't normalizing them.On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.”
My philosophy is applicable in this situation because it is applicable in every situation. To live is to influence and be influenced by the world, while the effects and degrees may change over time, it is an inescapable fact of life. I think it’s important that I point out again that I never have nor will I ever take up the position that we should tolerate or normalize bigotry, fanaticism, or extremism. However, I do think that we can not use that as an excuse to shut people out of our lives, especially if we’re to have any hope for change. Who has a better chance of kicking heroin? A man who is isolated and alone, a man who allows himself to be in the company of other drug users, or a man who is surrounded by love ones and medical professionals who are patient, understanding, and supportive? Who has a better chance of reintegrating into society after they’re released from prison? A man who is isolated and alone, a man who allows himself to be in the company of other criminals, or a man who is surrounded by people willing to help him find a home, a job, and a sense of normalcy? We cannot solve problems of social ills by cordoning people off and ignoring them. Problems must be faced head on, otherwise they’ll perpetuate themselves in the dark until one day the problems break out into the world again throwing things into disarray. One of the difficulties many of us have, including me, is the unrealistic desire for swift and complete change in individuals and groups. We want people to realize how destructive their behavior is and sometimes we think and act and speak in hopes that if we just say and do the right things, others will magically realize the error of their ways and aim to do right. It doesn’t work that way though, because there are so many mechanisms that make change slow and gradual, once again, both for individuals as well as groups. But that slow gradual change is often more enduring and more impactful than abrupt changes, for many reasons, some I know and understand, some I don’t. Abrupt, forced change though? It’s pretty fragile and can quickly become undone. We can take heart though in the fact that as certain situations get worse and worse, more people are able to realize them for what they are and are motivated to address them. As many steps back this country has taken in the course of history, it’s taken many, many more forward, and it will continue to do so as long as enough members of society take a conscious effort to make change. As for individuals, young and old, even if they’re incapable of changing completely, any small step towards progress is a victory that should be recognized and celebrated. Our behaviors compound on top of each other, for better or for worse. So even the slightest change in a person, whether it’s being a little more accepting, a little more understanding, a little more kind, will ripple out and impact the world in a positive way. Conversely, we need to be more mindful of who we are and where we are, because a little anger, a little insensitivity, a little carelessness, can have similar effects. Me personally? I’m not perfect. In fact, I’m a pretty big fuck up. But I understand the importance of that concept and I embrace it wholly and I strive to be a little better each day, to change a bit more each day, and I think if you compared me now to who I was five or ten years ago, you’d see a very different person. Hopefully for the better. I’m afraid of this conversation devolving into circular talk and hair splitting and nit picking. You’ve said your bit and I said mine, so I’ll just leave with this thought. We don’t have to actively seek out racists and lend them a hand, if that’s not what we want to do. We don’t have to actively try and change people’s minds, if that’s not what we want to do. We have our own lives, we have our own limits, we have our own problems. But when people come into our lives, however briefly, we should strive to do our best, because when people interact with us, they take a piece of us with them, so let’s make it wholesome and good.