Good decisions like this one I guess. From Live Science:

Previous research has shown that anger biases people’s thinking—turning them into bigger risk-takers and making them less trusting and more prejudiced, for instance.

But little has been done to study how, exactly, anger affects a person’s thinking.

So Wesley Moons, a psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and his colleague Diana Mackie designed three experiments to determine how anger influences thinking—whether it makes people more analytical or careful about their decisions, or whether it leads people to make faster, rasher decisions.

In the first experiment, the researchers induced anger in a group of college students by either asking them to write about a past experience that had made them very angry, or by having their stated hopes and dreams harshly criticized by another participant. In a second group of students, anger was not induced.

The researchers later checked to be sure that the subjects were as riled up as they were supposed to be.

The two groups were then asked to read either compelling or weak arguments designed to convince them that college students have good financial habits. The strong argument cited research from numerous scientific studies, whereas the weak argument contained largely unsupported statements. The subjects were asked to logically evaluate the strength of the arguments they read and indicate how convinced they were by them.
The researchers repeated the experiment with a second group of students, this time giving the subjects an additional piece of information: who had made the arguments. Some students were told that the argument was made by an organization with relevant expertise in financial matters; others were told that the argument was made by a medical organization whose expertise was irrelevant to the financial topic being considered.

In both studies, the researchers found that the angry subjects were better at discriminating between strong and weak arguments and were more convinced by the stronger arguments. Those who were not made to feel angry tended to be equally convinced by both arguments, indicating that they were not as analytical in their assessments.

The angry students were also better at weighing the arguments appropriately depending on which organization had made them.

If being angry makes one make more rational arguments, then it stands to reason that the angry side of the blogoshpere would have the most compelling arguments. Let’s see if that holds up to some informal, unscientific scrutiny.

Robert Lindsay, a somewhat angry dude, explains why he’s moving:

This outrageous spectacle of a brown-skinned nuclear bomb detonating on the working class of America (including the Hispanic working class) has been outrageously cheered on by the entire US liberal-Left.

The farther to the Left (and the more supposedly pro-working class) the more they cheer on the illegal alien destroyers of jobs and wages. It is for this reason that I say that the US Left is the most anti-working class Left on Earth (because they support the illegal alien job- and wage-destroyers).

What is most sickening of all is that the only people complaining about t he job and wage-destroying effects of the illegal alien hordes are people on the Right, of all places, especially the Center-Right. Outrageous! The only defenders of the American working class against the illegal alien invaders driving them to penury are conservatives! Where is the Left? Siding with the enemy!

O.K., so his argument, whatever it is, isn’t the most rationally thought out. What about our friends at DailyKos, they seem angry. Let’s see if it helps their critical thinking. DavidNYC writes this of Lieberman’s hard line stance on Iran:

I could say a million things here, but I’ll just stick with the most obvious: If Lieberman really wanted to stop what he believes are Iranian-sponsored attacks on our troops, well, then, he should be demanding that we bring our troops home.

I guess that would stop Iranians from killing Americans in Iraq, but doesn’t Iran have plans that would lead us to butt heads later anyway? Plans like lobbing Nukes to and fro, cutting off America’s oil supplies when they rule the middle east and establishing a world wide caliphate? Wouldn’t a more rational argument be that we just can’t open another front in the war?

MYDD takes illogic a step further by juxtaposing generic comments made by Ricard Nixon and Joe Lieberman, which by their similar word structure are supposed to prove Lieberman is today’s Nixon.

This seems like a good decision.

This is rational.

Hmmmm. Maybe they’re reading the data wrong?