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 t

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.