4 ms·

Title is misleading; article is about PTSD, phobias, and other mental disorders, rather than fear.

by dawnbreez 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
return0 11y ago
Phobias and PTSD are pathological fear conditions. The title is not misleading.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  Fear itself is healthy, PTSD and phobia is not. The title is akin to using "Pill to Cure Talking" as a headline for a Tourette's cure.
  - return0 11y ago
    No, it's akin to "pill to cure pain".
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  I agree with the OP - getting rid of fear is foolish. Most of us are fearful of rattlesnakes. This is about managing the memories of fearful situations. PTSD sufferers were right to be fearful in the original case - it's just the repeating of that fear in other situations is less helpful.
  - sridca 11y ago
    > getting rid of fear is foolish Name one instance of sensibility in retaining fear-response in this modern world.
    - lukas099 11y ago
      You need to cross a busy street. You could cross in the middle and get to your destination faster, but your fear of getting hit impels you to go to the crosswalk instead. That wasn't even hard.
      - sridca 11y ago
        Is that an excuse for a chipmunk crossing the road? Seriously, as a member of intelligent species you don’t need fear to inhibit yourself from doing such a senseless and risky act of crossing in the middle of a busy street. A rephrasing of Hanlon’s razor is appropriate here: “Never attribute to lack-of-fear that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Indeed, normal people with fear intact perform such risky acts on a daily basis (i.e., despite being fully capable of fear); I was raised in India, where busy streets with erratic traffic patterns are usual, so I should know.
    - return0 11y ago
      That is also pathological http://www.wired.com/2010/12/fear-brain-amygdala/ http://www.wired.com/2010/12/fear-brain-amygdala/
      - sridca 11y ago
        What is your point exactly? I've followed stories around SM for quite a while, and she comes across as living a normal life, only without the debilitating fear-response. If curiously approaching a deadly creature is what it takes to be labelled "pathological", I would gladly allow myself to be pathological if it means the ending of fear.
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        Have fun. I'm going to stay away from that hungry, pissed-off tiger, you can play with it all you want.
        sridca 11y ago
        > Have fun Yup, life is certainly way more fun without fear around. > you can play with [that hungry, pissed-off tiger] all you want. I can also choose to not play with it. That is the beauty of intelligently responding (free choice) instead of affectively responding (limited choice).
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        Since I apparently cannot reply to sridca's comment directly: The point is that the fear-response tells you to not play with the tiger, you astounding idiot.
        sridca 11y ago
        > The point is that the fear-response tells you to not play with the tiger, you astounding idiot. Last I checked, the fear-response "tells" more than not to play with the tiger. For example, it tells (via moral conditioning) not to kill or maim or wound (not to mention insult as you evidently are doing here) one's fellow humans - yet reading the daily news will confirm that such violence does happen on a regular basis (despite fear "telling" them not to do it). Therefore, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding?
    - summerdown2 11y ago
      The difference in mortality rates between teenage drivers and middle age drivers suggests a number of factors, but one that springs to my mind is that the teenagers don't have a fear level that reflects the danger accurately enough. Edit: Also, this book by a threat assessment specialist talks about problems faced by women in particular who have the fear response in mild form, but suppress it. His conclusion is that the emotional response can actually be a lot clearer and more accurate than the intellectual one in a dangerous situation and it is wise to listen to it. If that man chatting you up is making you nervous, it's a sign you ought to be careful. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0747538352 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/... The lesson from the book is that fear is a second signal (in addition to reasoning) that may heighten perception of a dangerous situation and should not be ignored.
      - sridca 11y ago
        Okay then ... name one instance of fear being a second signal (in addition to reasoning) heightening perception of a dangerous situation. And consider how effective such a course of action is, in minimizing the risk of that dangerous situation, in comparison to handling it with no fear at all. While I haven't read the book, I bet Mr. Gavin de Becker never considered the option of "no fear" (not ignored fear) in all his threat assessments.
        summerdown2 11y ago
        I think maybe you need to read the book. Your question is the essential topic it deals with, and the author comes down heavily on fear being a net positive in those life threatening situations. One example: a girl is being chatted up by a guy. He seems nice, says all the right things. Intellectually everything seems fine. But there's a feeling nagging at her that something isn't right. A feeling of fear. Mr De Becker is saying that in all the cases he's examined, the women went on to ignore their fear - eg by the socially expected action of returning reciprocated trust. Someone tells you a bit of information, you return it. Someone reveals a bit more, you do the same. Ultimately, these women put themselves in danger by not listening to their fear. Now I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between "no fear" and "ignored fear." Plainly they have ignored their fear. But if a situation seems off due to a feeling of fear, not having that feeling isn't going to help in any sense. Its a signal that is no longer available, so you lose one data point to make a decision. Decisions with less data tend to be less reliable.
  - LinuxBender 11y ago
    I also agree. There is a significant difference in treating anxiety vs. nullifying fear. PTSD is trauma induced conditioning and the result is irrational, but expected. Primordial instinctive fears are required for survival of all living things. e.g. fight or flight, reflexive reaction to danger, etc...
    - sridca 11y ago
      > Primordial instinctive fears are required for survival of all living things. It is one thing to regurgitate a widely believed aphorism, but an entirely another thing to justify it with facts. Primordial instinctive fear is not required for the human species. Name one example where it is required (where an intelligent response is deemed insufficient).
      - dawnbreez 11y ago
        Tiger.
      - LinuxBender 11y ago
        Certainly. 1. Here is an example of reckless behavior associated with a lack of fear as it pertains to humans taking anti-fear drugs. [1] http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-the-tiny-pill-fuelling-syrias-war-and-giving-fighters-superhuman-energy http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-... And then there are studies of animals changing their behavior to be more reckless. I am curious to see your thoughts on correlation of animal and human testing. [2] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-discover-anti-anxiety-circuit-in-brain-region-considered-the-seat-of-fear.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-di...
        sridca 11y ago
        Reckless behaviour is not associated with lack of fear, as reckless behaviour is not uncommon among normal human adults with fear intact (also the aforementioned drug does more than inhibiting fear). If one is going about life "without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action", that is more a sign of being unintelligent (quite often a case of native intelligence being hampered by such strong emotions as ideological feelings) than merely being fearless. Animals (especially early primate ancestors of humans) do not have fully developed intelligence, so it not unsurprising that they unlike us require primitive emotions such as fear to survive as a species.
  - return0 11y ago
    Regardless of everyone's definition, the study of pathological fear conditions is done with animal models involving fear conditioning and the amygdala.The relevant research is fear research. Fear us used as a technical term here.
sridca 11y ago
How exactly? Would not taking propranolol after 2 minutes of exposure to normal fear object eventually eliminate the fear-conditioning on that object?
sandworm101 11y ago
Agreed. This is about "curing" disease, about dealing with abnormal fears. There is already a drug for numbing one's self to everyday fears: beer.

Title is misleading; article is about PTSD, phobias, and other mental disorders, rather than fear.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

return0 11y ago

Phobias and PTSD are pathological fear conditions. The title is not misleading.

dawnbreez 11y ago
Fear itself is healthy, PTSD and phobia is not. The title is akin to using "Pill to Cure Talking" as a headline for a Tourette's cure.
- return0 11y ago
  No, it's akin to "pill to cure pain".
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
I agree with the OP - getting rid of fear is foolish. Most of us are fearful of rattlesnakes. This is about managing the memories of fearful situations. PTSD sufferers were right to be fearful in the original case - it's just the repeating of that fear in other situations is less helpful.
- sridca 11y ago
  > getting rid of fear is foolish Name one instance of sensibility in retaining fear-response in this modern world.
  - lukas099 11y ago
    You need to cross a busy street. You could cross in the middle and get to your destination faster, but your fear of getting hit impels you to go to the crosswalk instead. That wasn't even hard.
    - sridca 11y ago
      Is that an excuse for a chipmunk crossing the road? Seriously, as a member of intelligent species you don’t need fear to inhibit yourself from doing such a senseless and risky act of crossing in the middle of a busy street. A rephrasing of Hanlon’s razor is appropriate here: “Never attribute to lack-of-fear that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Indeed, normal people with fear intact perform such risky acts on a daily basis (i.e., despite being fully capable of fear); I was raised in India, where busy streets with erratic traffic patterns are usual, so I should know.
  - return0 11y ago
    That is also pathological http://www.wired.com/2010/12/fear-brain-amygdala/ http://www.wired.com/2010/12/fear-brain-amygdala/
    - sridca 11y ago
      What is your point exactly? I've followed stories around SM for quite a while, and she comes across as living a normal life, only without the debilitating fear-response. If curiously approaching a deadly creature is what it takes to be labelled "pathological", I would gladly allow myself to be pathological if it means the ending of fear.
      - dawnbreez 11y ago
        Have fun. I'm going to stay away from that hungry, pissed-off tiger, you can play with it all you want.
        sridca 11y ago
        > Have fun Yup, life is certainly way more fun without fear around. > you can play with [that hungry, pissed-off tiger] all you want. I can also choose to not play with it. That is the beauty of intelligently responding (free choice) instead of affectively responding (limited choice).
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        Since I apparently cannot reply to sridca's comment directly: The point is that the fear-response tells you to not play with the tiger, you astounding idiot.
        sridca 11y ago
        > The point is that the fear-response tells you to not play with the tiger, you astounding idiot. Last I checked, the fear-response "tells" more than not to play with the tiger. For example, it tells (via moral conditioning) not to kill or maim or wound (not to mention insult as you evidently are doing here) one's fellow humans - yet reading the daily news will confirm that such violence does happen on a regular basis (despite fear "telling" them not to do it). Therefore, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding?
  - summerdown2 11y ago
    The difference in mortality rates between teenage drivers and middle age drivers suggests a number of factors, but one that springs to my mind is that the teenagers don't have a fear level that reflects the danger accurately enough. Edit: Also, this book by a threat assessment specialist talks about problems faced by women in particular who have the fear response in mild form, but suppress it. His conclusion is that the emotional response can actually be a lot clearer and more accurate than the intellectual one in a dangerous situation and it is wise to listen to it. If that man chatting you up is making you nervous, it's a sign you ought to be careful. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0747538352 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/... The lesson from the book is that fear is a second signal (in addition to reasoning) that may heighten perception of a dangerous situation and should not be ignored.
    - sridca 11y ago
      Okay then ... name one instance of fear being a second signal (in addition to reasoning) heightening perception of a dangerous situation. And consider how effective such a course of action is, in minimizing the risk of that dangerous situation, in comparison to handling it with no fear at all. While I haven't read the book, I bet Mr. Gavin de Becker never considered the option of "no fear" (not ignored fear) in all his threat assessments.
      - summerdown2 11y ago
        I think maybe you need to read the book. Your question is the essential topic it deals with, and the author comes down heavily on fear being a net positive in those life threatening situations. One example: a girl is being chatted up by a guy. He seems nice, says all the right things. Intellectually everything seems fine. But there's a feeling nagging at her that something isn't right. A feeling of fear. Mr De Becker is saying that in all the cases he's examined, the women went on to ignore their fear - eg by the socially expected action of returning reciprocated trust. Someone tells you a bit of information, you return it. Someone reveals a bit more, you do the same. Ultimately, these women put themselves in danger by not listening to their fear. Now I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between "no fear" and "ignored fear." Plainly they have ignored their fear. But if a situation seems off due to a feeling of fear, not having that feeling isn't going to help in any sense. Its a signal that is no longer available, so you lose one data point to make a decision. Decisions with less data tend to be less reliable.
- LinuxBender 11y ago
  I also agree. There is a significant difference in treating anxiety vs. nullifying fear. PTSD is trauma induced conditioning and the result is irrational, but expected. Primordial instinctive fears are required for survival of all living things. e.g. fight or flight, reflexive reaction to danger, etc...
  - sridca 11y ago
    > Primordial instinctive fears are required for survival of all living things. It is one thing to regurgitate a widely believed aphorism, but an entirely another thing to justify it with facts. Primordial instinctive fear is not required for the human species. Name one example where it is required (where an intelligent response is deemed insufficient).
    - dawnbreez 11y ago
      Tiger.
    - LinuxBender 11y ago
      Certainly. 1. Here is an example of reckless behavior associated with a lack of fear as it pertains to humans taking anti-fear drugs. [1] http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-the-tiny-pill-fuelling-syrias-war-and-giving-fighters-superhuman-energy http://news.nationalpost.com/news/there-was-no-fear-anymore-... And then there are studies of animals changing their behavior to be more reckless. I am curious to see your thoughts on correlation of animal and human testing. [2] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-discover-anti-anxiety-circuit-in-brain-region-considered-the-seat-of-fear.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2011/03/scientists-di...
      - sridca 11y ago
        Reckless behaviour is not associated with lack of fear, as reckless behaviour is not uncommon among normal human adults with fear intact (also the aforementioned drug does more than inhibiting fear). If one is going about life "without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action", that is more a sign of being unintelligent (quite often a case of native intelligence being hampered by such strong emotions as ideological feelings) than merely being fearless. Animals (especially early primate ancestors of humans) do not have fully developed intelligence, so it not unsurprising that they unlike us require primitive emotions such as fear to survive as a species.
- return0 11y ago
  Regardless of everyone's definition, the study of pathological fear conditions is done with animal models involving fear conditioning and the amygdala.The relevant research is fear research. Fear us used as a technical term here.

sridca 11y ago

How exactly? Would not taking propranolol after 2 minutes of exposure to normal fear object eventually eliminate the fear-conditioning on that object?

sandworm101 11y ago

Agreed. This is about "curing" disease, about dealing with abnormal fears. There is already a drug for numbing one's self to everyday fears: beer.