Neither. It depends on the specifics. Should you be allowed to not serve someone who has anger issues? Does it matter if this anger issues are caused by genetic hormonal imbalance?
Too much anger is bad. Suppressing justified anger might be unhealthy though. So long as it's moderated, anger can be an appropriate response to some things.
It sort of depends on whether the fact that you might act impulsively matters to the other party. This makes all the difference in nuclear war or so some strategists say... In customer service, an angry customer could do damage to PR or if they are a big client, could cut off the company unpredictably so it would force them to decide if they want you or not and if they do act quickly. It pays to understand the difference between these situations. Anger should be used selectively and only when it will be effective (and preferably when the other party deserves it).
As with most things in life, there's an appropriate balance somewhere. People tend to say anger = bad because we have mostly experienced inappropriate anger on one extreme and have found that it isn't healthy for you.
I have several friends that work as psychologist, and the consensus seems to be that while it is unhealthy to not express anger in any way, it is neither a good thing to give in to anger. That is, if someones behaviour is provoking you, it would be good to air your troubles somehow. If you cant talk to the person in question, perhaps talk about it with your friends. But it would not be helpful to pick a fight or scream. Giving in to anger usually leads to more anger.
Nowadays I'm back in university, studying psychology (I just started).
As far as I know, the problem with anger management is not the anger itself, it's how you deal with it so it doesn't overwhelm you, and so you can have less of it. What I mean is that it's a symptom, not the issue itself. It's normal to be angry when someone is a jerk to you, it's healthy even, and so it's not* inherently "bad" (as we so often portray anger and sadness). The problem is when you let it get away from you.
I hope I understand correctly that your last paragraph is agreeing with my comment. If not, then I should have extended the notion of "necessary" to "useful", in the sense that you are describing. However the problem with evo psych is that it's largely non-falsifiable. The part you are describing is somewhat an obligatory aspect of evolution, but evo psychologists and anthropologists tend to draw conclusions that aren't rigorous (in my opinion). This is coming from someone who has 30 credits in Anthropology from a few years back :)
Generally there is no harm in theorizing, but I consider psychology and psychotherapy to be too important to allow ourselves to consider untested information. I do agree that other people may find Dr Eckman interesting... I don't but others might ;)
Yes, possibly even (rare) illegitimate anger is excusable, people are emotional beings and can blow up.
What this is IMHO truly about is when people more or less intentionally abuse the power inequality in such situations. Like you could manage your anger, but why bother, it's just a service worker who can't fight back.
I don’t know about that, I personally suppressed my anger with some individuals and they took it as a sign of weakness, looking back, I don’t regret it, despite setting boundaries, I feel like sometimes and with certain type of people, you should show them some anger as a deterrent.
Anger is more likely to trigger fear in other people. Anger is also more likely to lead to action, and therefore possibly mistakes. Being sad is just safer for the business.
But I agree there should just be a protocol for handling both and neither should be a big deal. Management should want to take time to sort either out.
I am not a perfect human being. I can react in ways that are not ideal when situations trigger my flaws. That's OK, as long as I accept responsibility for that.
I am responsible for my emotions, but that doesn't mean I have to apologise for them. If I think someone is acting like a dick, and my reaction to that is stress and anger, I'm OK with accepting responsibility for my anger and showing it anyway. I am human, I have inappropriate emotions at times.
However, blaming the other person because "they made me feel angry" is not helpful. They acted like a dick, and they have to accept responsibility for that. I got angry, and that's my responsibility. I could have chosen not to get angry, and I refuse to give the power to make that choice to someone who acts like a dick.
Responsibility and authority go together. Accepting authority over my emotions means I have to accept responsibility for them. Refusing to accept responsibility for my emotions also means I'm refusing my authority over my emotions. Giving others control over my emotions is not going to lead to good things.
reply