5 ms·

> getting rid of fear is foolish Name one instance of sensibility in retaining fear-response in this modern world.

by sridca 11y ago

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?
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that fear tells one to not attack--have you never heard of cornered animals becoming viciously aggressive? Or humans, for that matter? You even contradict yourself, acting as though fear is an iron lock around your neck, and then noting that people do not respond to fear with subservience (which you seem to conflate with fear). I'm starting to wonder about your mental state, as well. You seem to be very focused on direct connections between emotion and full-on mental illness--all anger is violence, all fear is crippling phobia, all sadness is unending depression, at least to you. I can only guess at what led to these conclusions.
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.

> getting rid of fear is foolish Name one instance of sensibility in retaining fear-response in this modern world.

by sridca 11y ago

> getting rid of fear is foolish Name one instance of sensibility in retaining fear-response in this modern world.

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?
      - dawnbreez 11y ago
        I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that fear tells one to not attack--have you never heard of cornered animals becoming viciously aggressive? Or humans, for that matter? You even contradict yourself, acting as though fear is an iron lock around your neck, and then noting that people do not respond to fear with subservience (which you seem to conflate with fear). I'm starting to wonder about your mental state, as well. You seem to be very focused on direct connections between emotion and full-on mental illness--all anger is violence, all fear is crippling phobia, all sadness is unending depression, at least to you. I can only guess at what led to these conclusions.

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.