Nobody escapes Group Dynamics.
Even if you attempt to hang out with like-minded people.
Some good points have already been made that anger happens in almost any forum, for any hobby.
But some of the anger points particular to audiophiles is certainly the clash between objectivism and subjectivism. I'm going through this yet again as I write this: in another forum someone started a thread saying audiophile power cables make a difference. I offered my own experience in blind testing some highly lauded AC cables - sighted it seemed like I heard a difference, blind tested couldn't hear any difference vs a stock power cord.
Pointed out I wasn't therefore declaring no audible differences are possible from changing AC cables, but gave various reasons for skepticism.
I don't even need to tell anyone here what the responses were. Inevitably the "gear or ears" implications start coming. Either your gear isn't up to showing these sonic differences, or your ears are made of clothe.
Others trying to tread the middle ground inevitably chime in "Look, why don't you just try LISTENING to the cables-in-question in your system, and if you like them or don't like them, just make your own decision. Otherwise you have no stance on which to hold an opinion!"
I explain that simply asking me to engage in a method I'm already pointing out to be dubious is missing the point. I'm as likely to come to fallacious conclusions using a fallacious method as anyone else.
Any suggestion of the utility of blind testing is greeted by the subjectivists as a cross is greeted by a vampire. Then the insults start coming of course: I'm a cold hearted dogmatist, blinded by science. And btw blind testing is nonsense and doesn't work! Who are YOU to tell ME what I did or didn't hear? I can trust my ears. I know what I heard!
The charge of close-mindedness and dogmatism - as sure as the sun rises - is always the deepest irony. A skeptic like me is saying "Well, this MIGHT be making a sonic difference, but I might also be mistaken because I'm fallible that way. So I'll try to use a method that controls for my own fallibility, e.g. blind testing, so I can have more confidence that what I"m hearing isn't some form of perceptual bias on my part. It sure would be cool if the difference turns out to be reliably audible!
The Pure Subjectivist is the one who has declared his own subjective perception to be infallible; so inviolable that if a scientific blind-test method doesn't produce results supporting that subjective impression, well it must the the scientific method that's wrong, NOT ME!
And yet We are the ones accused of personal arrogance not being open minded to being wrong!
The mind bottles!
Anyway, more directly to the point of the OP: The fireworks between obectivist/subjectivist in this hobby does make some psychological sense.
Our subjective experience is essentially what we use to navigate the world most of the time. People are trying to put together their own coherent understanding of the world, often informed by their personal experiences, and to challenge the very things they perceive can feel destabilizing.
Wait, you are saying I can't trust my own senses???? The beliefs produced by subjectivity and inference from one's subjectivity are so deep, and often so tangled with personal intuitions, that they seem almost bedrock and "who is anyone else to tell ME I didn't experience what I experienced??!!!!"
It feels intuitive to immediately want to blame this on a general lack of scientific literacy and critical/skeptical thinking. But it also can show up in the conversations of very intelligent, scientifically literate people. Even the most "science-minded" of us can find it hard to shake personal experience, and even in the "objectivist" forums there will be disagreements on technical claims, much of it informed from personal experience as much as from any particular data set.