We're taught to recognize we won't have as much self-control, train ourselves to avoid letting emotions control us in an encounter, spend times when we're calm to prepare for likely situations with rehearsed reactions, and defined points when we stop attacks. The combination of these, esp with repetition, lets us handle a highly stressful and illogical situation with low risk of permanent consequences. An ability almost nobody in these classes started with.
Same is true in customer service, management, etc where you're dealing with stress, anger, and/or uncertainty. Same principles. The customer service people most of all since they deal all day with people saying or doing things that would piss them off. By not getting pissed, they keep customers, get paid, and keep their companies from loosing customers. So, the principle to avoid acting in anger where possible just keeps showing up with financial losses or jail time avoided many times over by following it.
The fact that a trait has been selected says nothing of its intrinsic value or its utility in a different context. It certainly bears no moral value.
Surely, you would agree that the context we experience today is a little different from the time where selection pressure could favor anger?
That matches my own personal observation at least.
That is the whole argument of western civilization, that suppressing anger is what allows us to be an intelligent species.
I think the author of the article is confusing anger with someone being mean. He mentions don't be angry with the guy on the other end. Why not say don't be mean to the guy on the other end but let him know that your not happy/angry/upset.