Talk:Anger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Suggestion to expand
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Article seems very short, should probably be marked as a stub. Someone please double check me on this and add the notice if they agree. -FunnyMan3595 03:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, no one has voiced on either side so I'll trust my first instinct and add it. -FunnyMan 21:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Physiological effects
What about the physiological effects of anger?--SunTzu2 07:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
That person in the picture doesn't look very angry... I'll look for something else. -BazDM 00:05, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I get angry having to see her face though. --168.56.111.51 19:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why is half this article concerning how Buddhists perceive and define anger? Shouldn't you be more concerned about the sociological and psychological implications?-Mr Meepers
How about just removing the picture? Its hardly like we don't know what anger looks like.
- I agree with whoever posted the above - I don't think we really need a picture at all, but I'll wait for a consensus before removing The Hulk. Comments? JP | Tark 22:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think the Hulk is better than what was there before. No strong opinion either way. --BazDM 05:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I don't think that everyone necessarily subscribes to Buddhist philosophy. Since the majority of this article seems to be written from this perspective (even going so far as to use inclusive terms such as "we"), I think that some people might find it offensive.--4.63.17.196 04:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved the religious stuff into a section "Religious perspective on anger", but the information inside that section still remains largely silly (inclusive terms, etc.). --huwr 06:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything NPOV about the short section on religious perspectives on anger. It looks to me like someone's gone and fixed it, but left the NPOV tag up. Would anyone mind if I take it down? (If no one responds, I'll assume the answer is 'no' after a reasonable amount of time.) It's been about 2 weeks and no one's raised any objections, so I'm going to go ahead and take down the NPOV tag. Of course, anyone who thinks it's still NPOV can put it back up and explain why here. -Unknown
I think we need a picture of anger, its a very expressive emotion and most of that is displayed in a visual way, the hulk might be a characture but he's better than nowt, more anger pics says me. 7legs 100706
[edit] Genetic predisposition?
- In 1988, the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association reviewed all the research and concluded that we are not genetically predisposed to violence...
This statement seems incorrect, based as it is on nearly 20-year-old data. A quick Medline search for "genetic AND violence" returns results like the following (all citations below date from 2003 or later)
- "Although no genetic tests for violent behaviour are currently available, research is ongoing to isolate genes related to a propensity for violence." [1]
- "A genetic contribution to the risk of suicidal behavior is now supported by many studies." (I'm considering suicide here to be violence directed towards self.) [2]
- Toward an animal model for antisocial behavior: parallels between mice and humans.
- "The goal of this article is to examine whether mouse lines genetically selected for short and long attack latencies are good animal models for antisocial behavior in humans...We believe that SAL and LAL are good mouse models to study the development of antisocial behavior and will yield valuable and testable hypotheses with regard to the neurobiological and genetical architecture of antisocial behavior." [3]
In light of these recent findings, I'm going to make a minor edit to the article to indicate that science has in fact established, in at least some cases, a genetic component to anger and violence. -Brad
[edit] ================================
I've reviewed several solid references that support genetic predisposition to anger with relatively large empirical data sets. One of the more in depth references is:
Irene Rebollo and Dorret I. Boomsma. (2006) Genetic Analysis of Anger: Genetic Dominance or Competitive Sibling Interaction. DOI: 10.1007/s10519-005-9025-8 Behavior Genetics, Vol. 36, No. 2
Even the info on the American Psychological Association's website currently supports the view that genetics plays a key role in the expression of emotional anger:
http://www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html
What I can't seem to find is the 1988 APA/AAA references that are mentioned.. perhaps the intended reference is the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (Revised 3rd Edition 1986/ 4th Edition 1994)??
If it is the American Psychological Association that originally stated "Anger is not hereditary" then they have clearly recanted such views.
The most eloquent answer that I've read in regards to the question "Can anger be inherited?" is by Dr. Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc. from the National Institute of Mental Health (Nov 2006):
"There is certainly a genetic (heritable) component to anger but whether it's minor or major is still being debated (the heritability - the fraction that is due to genetics - is estimated to be somewhere between 12% and over 60%), and anger or any other complex phenomenon is almost never caused by any single thing but arises from a complex interaction of genes, environment, and life history."
Hopefully someone will have more info on the 1988 APA reference in question for historical purposes as the non-hereditary "theory" was reiterated several times and made a significant impression on anger management curriculum, many "orphaned" aspects of which are still in circulation without a proper reference to the original APA conclusion.
-Burns
[edit] Wrath Redirect?
I was redirected to this page searching for Wrath. It seems to me that Wrath and anger are very disticnt concepts, and if Wrath should be redirected to anything it should probably be revenge. Any ideas?Shaggorama 10:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why do so many people hate anger? Without anger how would we want to kill those who need to be killed? For example, if we didnt have anger and someone ran into your house and murdered your entire family right before your very eyes (god forbid), we would just sit there, letting an evil man run free.
[edit] Merge irrational anger into anger?
I'm suggesting that we merge that article. It's only a stub authored by one person, and should really be redirecting here, mentioned as one of the more negative types of anger. Tyciol 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like the page to say more about rational anger. Anger usually (always?) has underlying sadness of losing something that is loved or underlying fear of losing something that is loved. Wikivek 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ========
Hi all, hope I'm doing this correct (first time joining a group discussion). Anywho, I came across the "Anger" info which requested "clean-up". I hope no one gets angry :) but I assisted in the "clean-up" effort based on established facts regarding anger.
1. Question was raised regarding whether to "redirect" or "consolidate" the "Anger" post with "Wrath" or something like "Extreme Anger". Please consider:
Anger, Wrath, Extreme Anger (I think it was) all have their separate areas. One section including all or cross referencing would be great. Because "anger" like anything else in life, whether the flu or love, comes in "degrees and measures". Further, anger is a huge subject.
If I get a chance to return to wiki soon, I'll check in on the haps! :D
Have a great day!
--Wikiwriters 03:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Wikiwriters
Ah! that's it! "Irrational Anger". Sorry, no anger is "irrational". Therefore, from a behavioral, psychological, and physiological perspective the term "Irrational Anger" is completely false, uninformed and misleading. No offense intended, but you never want to present such patently false information-label as reference material.
--Wikiwriters 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prophet
This comment was left at the end of the article. I have moved it to the talk page, where it belongs.
"it is Prohet Muhammad(PBUH) or Muhammad(SAW)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.77.218.168 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2006.
[edit] Religious perspectives
I don't know how I missed this, but apparently on October 8 User:Siobhan Hansa removed the section on Religious perspectives on anger saying, "The religious perspective on anger is not a NPOV". I'd like to know how a sourced and referenced section comparing the treatment of anger in various religions is inherently point-of-view. Admittedly, the removed section needed a great deal of improvement, but it wasn't POV.
Moreover, recently, User:Hallenrm has added a section on Anger and spiritualism, which discusses Anger from a Buddhist perspective, and only a Buddhist perspective. Digging deeper in the history it seems that at one time in the past the article was heavily Buddhist-influnenced, and the broader religious perspectives section was added to the article to try to balance the Buddhist views out with the views of other religions and to seperate religious views from psychological and other explanations of anger.
I'm going to re-add the religious perspectives section that was removed, and try to cut the influence of the Buddhist material. Lets discuss on the talk page before making major changes. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] definition of anger?
" Anger is an emotional response to a grievance. The grievance may appear to be real or imagined, it may have its roots in a past, present experience or it may be in anticipation of a future event. Anger is invariably based on the perception of threat or a perceived threat due to a conflict, injustice, negligence, humiliation and betrayal among others. " This is mis-understood, because sadness is also "invariably based on the perception of threat", but you feel sadness only when you are helpless! But anger you feel when you think that you have control of the threat!
" Anger can be an active or a passive emotion. In case of "active" emotion the angry person "lashes out" verbally or physically at an intended target whether justified or not. When anger is a "passive" emotion it charactererized by silent sulking, passive-aggressive behavior (hostility) and tension. " Nothing of this is helpful, because it is a self-evident fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sun gazed (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Getting the list of emotions consistent and correct
I noticed the list of emotions on this anger page is quite different from the emotions footer on the gratification entry. Certainly Wikipedia should be self-consistent (and defensibly accurate) in providing such a prominent list. I suggest we all refer to a referenced, consistent, and defensible list derived from: http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/recognizing.htm The list I suggest is: Anger, Anxiety, Compassion, Contempt, Disgust, Envy, Fear, Gratification, Gratitude, Guilt, Hope, Jealousy, Joy, Love, Pride, Relief, Remorse, Sadness, Shame, Surprise--Lbeaumont 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] tdk jon
If you wach full mittle alch. This is the name fof 1 of the "Homunculi "
02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Anger is nothing but a way of expressing the emotions and tears. When somebody may get anger about you, you analyse the situation why he/she get angry about me. So Control your eagerness because it will develop the angry mind on you.
