Young Writers Society

Anger. It is something of an enigma. Why is there such an emotion? Is anger vital to our evolution? Anger might have been a mutation that is non-beneficial to us. Then again it might have benefits. We all have experienced anger at one time or another. Something inside us is programed to explode when we are frustrated. Perhaps this is driven by a mechanism.
The bombardier beetles have pressurized gases in their bottoms that, when depressurized, will give off an explosive reaction. Now imagine this inside our heads, instead of our bottoms. When we are frustrated, we release some of these gases, which will heat up our brain. The heating activates our anger. Unfortunately, this will also tend to cloud our minds.
How could we have evolved something that usually clouds the mind? Some people justify anger, saying it brings focus. Does it really bring focus? Not quite. It actually is destructive to our focus. This is because anger drives us to give it appeasement. It forces us to dismiss our calmer judgment in favor of more indiscreet actions. Studies suggest that a great majority of hate-crimes were committed in anger. When we look at determination, we see that it enables us to focus, without the destructive power of anger.
But maybe we have grown out of our need for anger. It has become a ‘vestigial organ’ of the emotional world. Anger would have most definitely have helped us in our early evolution. Because we were not as intelligent, anger would have been our drive.
Did we evolve this emotion from apes? Zoologists suggest that the amount of time apes spend in anger is far less, proportionately, than humans. This could have been the edge over the apes. Those who evolved more anger evolved further than those who did not.
This must force us to ask the question, ‘Does anger help us in our modern civilization?’ The answer is no. Great leaders of time-past always had the most level of heads. This leads us to another question, ‘Why does not natural selection eliminate anger?’ Anger may actually be a safeguard of sorts against future barbarism from evolving apes.


This is an edit, I hope it is better than the last time!

Oh my gosh I hate to sound mean but here:

I found myself unable to connect- and therefore care or take interest in- this piece. Perhaps that's just my own mental malfunction, and you should disregard this comment because it is my own fault for not being able taking an interest, but if other people feel the same way, then maybe adding something that relates to the reader would help the quality of this?

Hi there!

What I think this piece might benefit most from is a bit more structure. Right now I would write down an outline, just to give yourself a frame of reference, and then start organizing your thoughts around it so you end up with a more coherent finished product. For example, I see a few main points in your article, such as:

1. Why is there anger (why did it evolve, and so on)
2. When anger controls one's actions, it also clouds one's mind.
3. Determination without anger can still drive


Is this what you want your essay to be about? If so, then add some more supporting details with each idea, and expand expand expand! Another thing to be careful of is generalizing, eg. "From what I know, apes do not spend time in anger" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get it.) How do you know this? (Also, remember that we did not come from modern day apes but rather diverged from them.)

Lastly, one of the things that was on the top of my mind throughout the entire essay as I read was "What, exactly, is anger?" Since it seems like you're going for a scientific approach (by using examples from evolution) perhaps you could try defining the actual, biological definition of anger. You could also just add a few sentences at the beginning describing the emotion, just to give your audience a clearer idea of what, exactly, you're trying to talk about.

Good luck with your edits and let me know if you need anything!

See you around,

Lupis

Anger. It is something of an enigma. Why is there such an emotion? Is anger vital to our evolution? Anger might have been a mutation that is non-beneficial to us. Then again it might have benefits. We all have experienced anger at one time or another. Something inside us is programmed to explode when we are frustrated. Perhaps this is driven by a mechanism.

An introduction should get the readers attention, and give an idea of what the article is about. Your first two sentences are really good for getting attention, but the rest of it doesn't really go anywhere. It feels like you've sort of thrown together sentences which don't really belong next to each other. Try to rewrite it more to the point - give an idea of what your main points are. You have begun to do that but it needs to be clearer and more coherent.

The bombardier beetles have pressurized gases in their bottoms that, when depressurized, will give off an explosive reaction. Now imagine this inside our heads, instead of our bottoms. When we are frustrated, we release some of these gases, which will heat up our brain. The heating activates our anger. Unfortunately, this will also tend to cloud our minds.

This is a cute little example. However, it is also an odd one because it is clearly false (we don't actually release gases which heat up our brains), although the article as a whole has a scientific slant. I think you should either stick purely to facts, or purely to fiction.

How could we have evolved something that usually clouds the mind? Some people Which people? Don't generalise too much. justify anger, saying it brings focus. Does it really bring focus? Not quite. It actually is destructive to our focus. You've just gone full circle. 'Some say it brings focus. does it? no.' This is because anger drives us to give it appeasement. It forces us to dismiss our calmer judgement in favor of more indiscreet actions. Studies suggest that a great majority of hate-crimes were committed in anger. When we look at determination, we see that it enables us to focus, without the destructive power of anger. This bit about determination doesn't quite seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph.

I think you should get rid of these three sentences: "Some people justify anger, saying it brings focus. Does it really bring focus? Not quite."
It would be smoother if you skipped them and had something like this: "How could we have evolved something that usually clouds the mind and is destructive to our focus? Anger drives us to give it appeasement; it forces us to dismiss our calmer judgement in favor of more indiscreet actions. Studies suggest that a great majority of hate-crimes were committed in anger. It is quite different to determination, which enables us to focus, without the destructive power of anger."

But maybe we have grown out of our need for anger. It has become a ‘vestigial organ’ of the emotional world. Anger would have most definitely have helped us in our early evolution. Because we were not as intelligent, anger would have been our drive.

Again, I think you need to change the phrasing. You ask too many questions. In an article you should take an authoritative tone, as though you are an expert in the field. Also, you haven't linked it to the previous paragraph. Maybe something like this would work better:
"One explanation is that we have grown out of our need for anger. It has become a ‘vestigial organ’ of the emotional world. While it appears to serve no purpose now, anger would certainly have helped us in our early evolution. This is because in those early days we were not as intelligent, and so anger would have been our drive. "

This leads us to another question, ‘Why does not natural selection eliminate anger?’ Anger may actually be a safeguard of sorts against future barbarism from evolving apes.

Um, what? This is far to vague and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Elaborate on 'safeguard of sorts', 'future barbarism', and also 'evolving apes'. You need to define exactly what you mean by all those phrases.
Also, that was your conclusion. A conclusion should summarise the points and concisely express the main argument of the article. I'm not sure if this article had a main argument, but you should make sure one is clearly expressed throughout, and then sum it up in the conclusion.


All in all, you have some interesting ideas, you just need to make sure you're expressing them fully. As canislupis already said, that just means lots of structure. The only other thing would be that you might want to footnote your sources for some of the facts and concepts in the article, I believe that is common practice with these sorts of articles.

I hope this is helpful!

- pigeon

Hello again! I noticed that you made some edits and couldn't resist commenting. So, first off, I think this version is better! You're definitly getting closer to organizing your thoughts and creating a coherent argument. I also like how you got rid of some of the vague " I think it's probably like this" to a more concrete "zoologists believe this."

On the other hand (and there's always another hand) I do think you're still having problems with making your ideas flow logically. I like the example of a bombardier beedle, but after I read that example I expected the next paragraph to have something to do with the ideas presented there. Instead you have each paragraph almost totally separate and that's giving the impression that the whole thing is a collection of random thoughts. I think you need to ask yourself what the point of your essay is. If your main "question" is "Why did we evolve anger?" then you need to write a thesis statement about it and then re-organize your essay so that you actually answer that question. If not, then I'm confused.


The other critique I had is that you have some factual issues. First of all, you do need actual cites. You can just say "a study" you have to find that study and then cite it. Otherwise you sound like you're making stuff up. For example, this sentence:

Did we evolve this emotion from apes? Zoologists suggest that the amount of time apes spend in anger is far less, proportionately, than humans. This could have been the edge over the apes. Those who evolved more anger evolved further than those who did not.

Actually, many scientists still argue over whether or not animals even feel emotion (believe it or not.) While Zoologists may very well suggest that apes spend less time angry, how are we defining anger? As agressive behavior? As a biological response? Or simply an emotion? Furthermore, we did not evolve "from" modern apes. Rather, we share a common ancestor. There is no such thing as evolving "further," there are only species who are better adapted to different environments.

I'm going to repeat that; evolution is not progressive. Later forms are not "better." So saying anger allowed us to evolve in a way that was "better" than apes is a fallacy.

Another fact is that anger actually does have several evolutionary advantages (obviously there's a reason we evolved with a larger percentage of our time spent in anger, or it wouldn't have happened, which means you also need to cover this side of the story).

Good luck with revisions and let me know if you ever need anything.

Lupis

Hey there ZYLF
The main problem here is that you're trying to espouse several ideas, but you seem to lack depth of analysis on any one of them.
Before I continue, a few factual points:
Bombardier beetles actually mix two corrosive fluids in their bodies to spark of a hot chemical reaction. It isn't pressurized gas, it's more like putting a spark to gasoline.
In humans, the physiological effects of anger are caused by the secretion of hormones such as catecholamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine by the pituitary gland.

You touch upon the subject of anger clouding thought and judgement. You talk about the importance of level-headed leaders. Give the reader an example of this. Pontius Pilates, Brutus, Caesar, history is filled with examples. You need to talk about why it's bad for a nation - the Isreal-Palestine conflict, Pakistan and India, the US and Cuba - and what the consequences are.
Secondly, you briefly question its development as an evolutionary mechanism. expand on that. When our ancestors ran wild on the fields of Africa, the scent of the hunt would fill their nostrils. Imagine the raw emotion they felt bringing down a mammoth, the primal rage that drove them to kill or starve. Why do we need anger? It kept us alive.
I really liked the bit about thinking of anger as a vestigial organ. Is it necessary for the functioning of our society today? You say no, you say it's harmful. Why? Expand, explain, create depth. What use does it serve today? What would an idyllic world without anger be like?
Explore every aspect of your article in greater depth.

I hope that has helped.

Ok, just a note to all reviewers, this is a piece of fiction, and is not meant to be science! Thanks anyway for the reviews and this piece is still in the editing process, so your comments are appreciated!

Then perhaps you should have put it in general fiction, not general articles?
The problem is in article form - so research having happened, and a main argument being made, are just assumed. Also, your tone is scientific sounding, and you point towards many scientific ideas. You have some scientific theories in there, and also some stuff which is purely made-up. As I said in my review: stick purely to facts, or purely to fiction.
The fact that you needed to point out to us that it isn't supposed to be science shows that you haven't been clear enough.
I'm sure you can fix it up just fine though, and as you said, it's still in the editing process so it isn't meant to be polished yet.