Talk:Rage (emotion)

Untitled
The article has been completely rewritten, as a properly sourced stub, to address the concerns about unsourced original research. See /Archive 1 for the concerns. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
There's a lot more to say on this subject. If you read the encyclopaedia cited in further reading, you'll find discussions of how rage attacks can be caused by neurotransmitter imbalances, clinical assessment of rage, and its psychopharmacological and cognitive-behavioural treatments. Wikipedia should be no less of an encyclopaedia than that. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Tone
The whole tone of this article seems very amateurish. The grammar is poor and there is a sort of folksy, anecdotal quality about it that makes me think (although I might be wrong), "whoever wrote this knows very little about the subject."

For example (see italicized phrases):

Every person who has set behind a wheel has experienced some form of road rage; whether it be cursing at someone who has cut you off in traffic or giving the middle finger when someone steals your parking spot, most people have succumb to rage while in the car. Giving the finger when a driver cuts you off in traffic may be a normal reaction. However, when that normal reaction escalates, psychologists may call it intermittent explosive disorder (IED). A study has found that at least one in twenty people suffer from this disorder. IED is an aggressive overreaction to everyday stress, and may be a cause to severe road rage (Kashef, 2006).

It seems to me that an important topic like this needs some expert commentary.

I hope I haven't stepped too hard on anyone's toes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menyaman (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 April 2008

Edit
I have made a few of the changes listed above to include valid references. Doyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianJohn (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Headlines
Is it me or are the subsections of the article rather bigger than normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.160.46 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They were, but I fixed them. Oddity- (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

put a picture of a really really mad person
i know a good idea. put on a picture of a really mean person with a red face, sweat, steam comimg out of the head, and most of all... BARING TEETH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.141.105 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

While your statement is rather, crude; I would have to agree. I don't see the point in putting ancient artwork for rage, if it doesn't really convey the meaning or image. The image for bite was quite apt, I can't imagine it would be too difficult to attain an image of a person expressing rage.&#39;&#39;&#39;Aryeonos&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This one should work alright? :) logixoul 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Improvements
The Aticle seems as if it is missing some of the information about this suject. I recommend you look more into this subject, and do more research to get all the information out there about Rage. You might want to look in the Encyclopedia or ask questions on a informational website.--Smanion0623 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rage
You need to add causes and symptoms of rage (Mudak568 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Anger, Rage, and Wrath
We currently have articles on both anger and rage (emotion) (with "wrath" redirecting to anger). I'm wondering: do we need separate articles on "anger" and "rage", or can they be combined? The current segment on "rage" in the "anger" article doesn't say very much, doesn't link to the main rage article, and in some ways seems to contradict it. (Rage is described in anger as "the inability to process emotions or life's experiences" either because the capacity to regulate emotion has never been sufficiently developed or because it has been temporarily lost due to more recent trauma, whereas rage (emotion) describes it as associated with the fight-or-flight response and often activated in response to an external cue, such as the murder of a loved one or some other kind of serious offense, which isn't quite the same. Also, if anger and rage are distinct enough to have separate articles, would "wrath" be better redirected to rage? Iapetus (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One certainly could amalgamate infrared into the same article with ultraviolet, but I wouldn't advise it (the only difference between the two, deep down, is that one is slightly more energetic than the other). But as a practical matter, ultraviolet eats almost everything (or at least turns it yellow), whereas most materials stand up to fairly intense infrared without undergoing internal decomposition. Rage is a highly activated form of anger, as distinct in practice as a hurricane differs from a breeze. One fills your sails, the other rips your sails to tatters. On a windmill farm, a stiff breeze is a bounty; a windstorm is a mad scramble to tether all the blades into safe mode, so that they remain intact in the morning. Distinction by degree is a real thing. Police are terrified to show up at a domestic not because the disputants are angry, but because the disputants have leveled up to pitchforks and machetes; normal psychological inhibitions to inflicting actual physical hard tend to go MIA in a rage for the ages. Wrath for me is anger at a low boil, not yet frothing over the sides; it's anger waiting for a good excuse to go over the top, but not yet over the top—the normal inhibitions are organizing to strike, but they're not actually gone yet. This is why "fly into a rage" is idiomatic whereas "fly into a wrath" sounds a bit stilted—departure of the last lingering inhibition is not yet complete &mdash; MaxEnt 23:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hitchcock preferred the use of suspense over the use of surprise in his films. In surprise, the director assaults the viewer with frightening things. In suspense, the director tells or shows things to the audience which the characters in the film do not know, and then artfully builds tension around what will happen when the characters finally learn the truth. Hitchcock often used public places as scenes to heighten terror and suspense. Hitchcock was fond of illustrating this point with a short aphorism – "There's two people having breakfast and there's a bomb under the table. If it explodes, that's a surprise. But if it doesn't..."


 * This often goes by the name of Hitchcock's bomb theory. The bomb goes off or it doesn't go off ... two distinct genres. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sensitive to word distinctions, so I'm having a hard time letting this one go. One could categorize a berserker as a form of rage, though there isn't necessarily any anger involved (hated, contempt, disgust, dislike, or even a Mad Max Thunderdome mutual admiration, probably some fear, but not necessarily anger). Also, in rebellion, after long oppression, the disinhibition is often one of self-preservation (the rebellion is often entirely doomed from get go), but the lid pops as if entirely out of control, from a hard-baked seething resentment of relentless indignities. So are we going to now escalate this merger to a three-way of resentment, anger, and rage (surely all on the same spectrum), or leave things alone, as they stand? &mdash; MaxEnt 23:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary sense by a landslide
Maybe this has been discussed before in the archives, but for me this page name absolutely should be "Rage" and the disambiguation page should be "Rage (disambiguation)". In my view, there's no question here that rage as anger is the primary sense here. Most of the other senses are popular culture crufties and media spam. There are no contending primary senses in there even as close as fury and furies (disambiguation). &mdash; MaxEnt 23:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Off topic material (2021 January)
The section "Symptoms and effects" starts out okay but then seems to stray very far. There is a lot about memory and neurobiology with honestly tenuous to no connection to the article topic. The section tries to pull everything together via "This leads to questioning the role that epinephrine has played on the evolution of the genus Homo as well as epinephrine's crucial role during fits of rage" but this seems highly likely to be original research or improper synthesis of the cited papers (which have to do with things like "Astroglial regulation of sleep homeostasis"). Even if paragraphs 2-7 were in an article about the neurobiology of memory, a few sentences in isolation sound suspicious and might not be supported by the sentences.

I elected not to remove this text en masse and park it here. I may have time within the next week to look into some of the cited sources (and the article as written) more deeply. Just wanted to tag in case anyone else wants to get a head start. If someone reads this, I do think that cutting out the text entirely would be within the realm of reasonable actions. I just decided not to do it yet at this point.

--Officiallyover (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient references
Can someone familiar with the intended sources complete the reference information? A lot of the cited references are just author names and dates. That's far from enough information to identify the source materials. Popoki35 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)