Can we inoculate fear?

[waxwing]

I've been researching some of the epidemics that have occurred over the past century, most notably the "Spanish Flu" of 1918 and and the "Swine Flu" of 1976, the latter which has also become known as "the epidemic that never was."

It is estimated that between 30-50 million people died from the Spanish flu of 1918 and from complications that resulted, including pneumonia and heart failure.

Jump to 1976.

Apparently, after 40 million people were vaccinated to prevent against what was expected to be a pandemic, only one person was confirmed dead as a result of the actual virus. It has been said that approximately 1, 000 people died from complications of the vaccine, however.

Jump to present.

While many scientists work on a human vaccine (extracted from hen eggs) for the current H5N1 avian flu, others are focusing more on attacking the virus within the bird population itself -- developing vaccines for birds, killing diseased and at-risk birds in a controlled, scientific manner, and trying to compensate bird owners for their lost income source. The idea here is to not become inordinately fearful of a virus that has not even yet mutated to the form that would even allow for human-to-human contact.

So, in light of scientists using eggs to create the human vaccination for H5N1, we encounter an obvious dilemma: Either we must go the route of human vaccination (and potentially nurture only our fear) or we must kill the birds most at risk, leaving fewer eggs for vaccination. It is in some ways a no-win situation, as was demonstrated in the swine flu fiasco of 1976.

Obviously we have made significant progress since 1918 and then 1976, evidenced by new capabilites in scientific research and implementation. Shouldn't we be better equipped to handle a potential pandemic such as H5N1? Maybe so, however it appears that while we may be better equipped in medicine, science, and technology, we also have become more vulnerable due to our tendency to spread the virus of fear towards epidemic proportions.

I wonder how this more imminent virus of fear can be inoculated against. The problem is that while humans continually increase in knowledge and power for combatting medical crises, nature in raw form still maintains the instinct to know what to fear and what to ignore when faced with a predator. Are we missing the danger immediately before us in favor of immunizing against a far more remote danger?

Finally, lethality or death toll isn't an accurate indicator of epidemic; rather, the ability for a virus to spread inconspicuously without killing its host too quickly is a sign of a virus being a serious risk. Thus, it seems to me that fear is one of the most overlooked infectious diseases, and that in an effort to quell it, we run the risk of nullifying the effects of any upward human advancement.

Discuss.

[Biff_Loman]

The innoculation against fear concept is intruiging. I'd say it's education, really, but adult humans are remarkably well innoculated against education, the poor bastards. Also: a good dose of fear might prevent people from exposing themselves to, say, HIV. People get so foolhardy when they think they're in control, and so skittish when events seem beyond their control.

1000 people out of 40 million? That's amazing. That's only one in 40 000. How many of the people who survived the vaccination subsequently died (for argument's sake) in that year? How many of them buckle their seatbelts?

All in all, I'd say administer the vaccine en masse. It's just one of the hazards of modern civilization.

Edit: for style

[Nemesis]

I think that the only thing we can do to innoculate fear is to arm ourselves with information. I remember when I was watching a show on nickolodeon as a child about an alien who took the form of an African American child who lived as being adopted with a human family. In one episode he was visited by one of his own kind who told him something that stuck with me "Be wary. Humans are violently fearful of that which they do not understand." It rang so true with me. I think the best thing we can do is learn as much about this virus as we can and go from there. If it becomes a pandemic, well, tough. We'll survive as a species and life will go on.

An interesting tidbit. The vast majority of those who died in the 1918 flu pandemic were those with the healthiest immune systems between the ages of 20 and 40, because the virus caused their immune system to go into overdrive and overwhelm the body they were supposed to be protecting. On top of that, nearly half of all pregnant women died.

[Chimera]

You're right, irrational fear is a bigger problem than avian flu. A few years ago it was SARS, now it's avian flu, once this blows over I'm sure people will find a new bogeyman. Fear really is the primary driver in controlling public opinion. You don't tell people what to do you tell them what to be afraid of and they'll come to you and ask what they should do.

Avian Flu, Global Warming, Terrorism, those damn Republicans/Democrats/Insert Political Party Here/Gays/Homophobes/Minorities/Racists/ect. ect.

Best innoculation against irrational fear? Stop watching the news.

[Biff_Loman]

You're right, irrational fear is a bigger problem than avian flu. A few years ago it was SARS, now it's avian flu, once this blows over I'm sure people will find a new bogeyman.

I don't watch the news. I figure that, if and when the (overdue) flu epidemic does strike, I'll be warned via other means.

I think we're more pissed about having our emotions played upon by unscrupulous journalists. A really big flu epidemic would be very dangerous, and I'd want to know, but STFU until it happens.

I still feel that if there is significant chance of one of these things sparking, we might as well start innoculating now and nip it in the bud. Maybe the reason why no one died the last time was because 40 million people were innoculated. Yeah, I can't prove that, but I'd say it beats standing around waiting to see if the death toll is massive or not.

[lexiphanic]

Why is a flu bad? Don't we get the flu every other year or so?

AFAIK, it will just kill old people, or people with weak immune systems.

[Biff_Loman]

Why is a flu bad? Don't we get the flu every other year or so?

AFAIK, it will just kill old people, or people with weak immune systems.

Periodically a particularly virulent strain will emerge and wreak havoc. The 1918-19 pandemic killed something like 19 million people, primarily servicemen living in close quarters. The epidemic killed more people than WWI. The irony is rich here, as young men in the armed forces missed getting killed by shells in order to be killed in the millions by a virus.

The fact that we haven't seen another major outbreak is a cause for curiosity on the part of health researchers, according my to wife.

[Nemesis]

Why is a flu bad? Don't we get the flu every other year or so?

AFAIK, it will just kill old people, or people with weak immune systems.
The kinds that turn into pandemics usually kill people with the healthiest immune systems, because they send the system into overdrive, which overwhelms the person. In the 1918 flue half of all pregnant women died, and the vast majority of those who died were between the ages of 20-40.

[waxwing]

By the way, I didn't realize until researching that approximately 36, 000 people die from seasonal flu each year. That adds an interesting dimension to the whole inoculation against fear debate.

[lexiphanic]

And if there were 15 billion people in the world, over 100,000 people would die.

Not necessarily relevant. More people die from being overweight.

[Serotonin]

Human fear is a well-evolved response that harks back to the days when we had to avoid attacks by wild animals or being clonked over the head by our adversaries. Living by your wits was needed then, but less so now. In peacetime, the fear "virus" I guess has mutated to the form of anticipating threats that aren't there, and exaggerating problems beyond rational comprehension, in order for our fear "centres" to be satiated, I guess. It's one more reason to be depressed, to realise that your body is anachronistically putting so much neurological effort into finding threats, when it doesn't need to. However, people need some element of fear in your lives, to prevent them from walking blithely into traffic expecting not to get hurt. So fear itself I don't think is the pathogen, more the overexpression and hairtrigger nature of it in some people. Which, of course, explains its contagiousness.

I read an article in new scientist that confronting one's fears head on actually showed significantly positive effects. Arachnophobics forced themselves, fingers jammed into their seats, with a spider crawling across the table in front of them, working their way up to physical contact. I immediately doubted if such therapy worked in an "across the board" manner, as many people deal with their fear in different ways. Sure, aggressive contact with your fears may work, but only if you come out of a situation unscathed. I remember aggressively attacking my social anxiety at parties a few years ago by forcing myself into conversations with people, surviving, and then walking out the back into the garden cursing the moments when I was tongue-tied, and when people looked at me puzzlingly if I segued into an abstruse Ne concept (as is my tendency). It didn't make things any better.... in fact there was one time only a couple of years ago when I excused myself from a party during a panic attack and drove into the next suburb, sitting in the car beside a car park, breathing heavily and dreading to go back. This was after an entire year of going out every weekend and coping with it to various degrees.

To throw in a "left-field", hypothetical analysis, I propose to use the enneagram. 5s, 6s and 7s form the "fear triad". 5s deal with their fear by retreat and avoidance, strategically plotting the situation from an objective viewpoint so they can save themselves. 6s thrive on fear, and deal with it more socially, with the "safety in numbers" philosophy, and loyalty to a group of people who share their cause. 7s aggressively attack their fear, trying to hammer it down with risk taking, adventurism, and hedonism - as if the knowledge of the experience reduces your fear of it next time: "Aw it isn't that bad!". The "confront your fears" tactic as expressed in that scientific study I guess would work best for sevens. Is this the sort of "inoculation" you had in mind waxwing?

Knowing that it doesn't work for me, firstly it shows that I'm not a seven, and secondly it probably means that being a five, withdrawal is my best bet to keep my fears at bay. Bad news for my social life and contacts with my friends, of course. My best friends understand my wallflower tendencies anyway and accept my desire to simply sit on the couch with my drink, and either be alone or to talk to them one-on-one.

In terms of dealing with a mutated bird-flu, an isolationist policy would work best for me, I guess. Taking people's paranoia with a large grain of salt and making the majority of my decisions independent of the media/community I would be happy with as well.

[waxwing]

And if there were 15 billion people in the world, over 100,000 people would die.

Not necessarily relevant. More people die from being overweight.

I'm not getting what you mean. Elaborate?

[Nemesis]

I think he's asking why should we worry so much about the flu when more people die from obesity.

[waxwing]

I think he's asking why should we worry so much about the flu when more people die from obesity.

I'm not really saying we should worry so much about the flu. Did you read anything I wrote, lexi? ;)

Somebody else take this one.

[Nemesis]

I was just trying to put what he said into coherent terms. sheesh.

[waxwing]

I was just trying to put what he said into coherent terms. sheesh.

Lol, I know, I was talking to him.

[Nemesis]

Ah.

[Biff_Loman]

In terms of dealing with a mutated bird-flu, an isolationist policy would work best for me, I guess. Taking people's paranoia with a large grain of salt and making the majority of my decisions independent of the media/community I would be happy with as well.

I hope you'd be happy to be vaccinated rather than act as an unwitting host for the virus. -? Everyone who isn't innoculated is a potential propagation mechanism for the virus.

By the way, humanity has almost eradicated another horrible virus. We got smallpox, and another one's on the way out - only it doesn't infect humans, so it gets little press. Rinderpest could be extinguished easily if only Somalian warlords would allow medical personnel access to their cattle herds. But the trigger-happy thugs aren't too keen on that, so the disease is still there, just waiting to pop out and ravage the cows of Africa. The last time that happened (1980s), 2 million Kenyan herders lost their cattle and were reduced to destitution. They and their children now live in shantytowns around Nairobi.

We're all in this together. . .

[Serotonin]

I hope you'd be happy to be vaccinated rather than act as an unwitting host for the virus. -? Everyone who isn't innoculated is a potential propagation mechanism for the virus.



I wouldn't want to be one of the first batch to be inoculated. I'd wait for trials to determine the efficacy of the inoculation and then make my decision.

[waxwing]

Human fear is a well-evolved response that harks back to the days when we had to avoid attacks by wild animals or being clonked over the head by our adversaries. Living by your wits was needed then, but less so now. In peacetime, the fear "virus" I guess has mutated to the form of anticipating threats that aren't there, and exaggerating problems beyond rational comprehension, in order for our fear "centres" to be satiated, I guess. It's one more reason to be depressed, to realise that your body is anachronistically putting so much neurological effort into finding threats, when it doesn't need to. However, people need some element of fear in your lives, to prevent them from walking blithely into traffic expecting not to get hurt. So fear itself I don't think is the pathogen, more the overexpression and hairtrigger nature of it in some people. Which, of course, explains its contagiousness.
Interesting point. I did not think of fear versus "the overexpression and hairtrigger nature of (fear)." I sort of understand the concept of healthy fear, but only when it comes to fear as in "awestruck," or as in a healthy reverence for that which acts as a predatory, dominant, and/or powerful force.



I read an article in new scientist that confronting one's fears head on actually showed significantly positive effects. Arachnophobics forced themselves, fingers jammed into their seats, with a spider crawling across the table in front of them, working their way up to physical contact. I immediately doubted if such therapy worked in an "across the board" manner, as many people deal with their fear in different ways. Sure, aggressive contact with your fears may work, but only if you come out of a situation unscathed.What if you come out scathed, repeatedly? Isn't there something to be said for overcoming fear through aggressive contact followed by eventual desensitization?



I remember aggressively attacking my social anxiety at parties a few years ago by forcing myself into conversations with people, surviving, and then walking out the back into the garden cursing the moments when I was tongue-tied, and when people looked at me puzzlingly if I segued into an abstruse Ne concept (as is my tendency). It didn't make things any better.... in fact there was one time only a couple of years ago when I excused myself from a party during a panic attack and drove into the next suburb, sitting in the car beside a car park, breathing heavily and dreading to go back. This was after an entire year of going out every weekend and coping with it to various degrees.
Out of curiosity, were you at the time able to separate your fear from the social situation? Or was it more of a nondescript panic?



To throw in a "left-field", hypothetical analysis, I propose to use the enneagram. 5s, 6s and 7s form the "fear triad". 5s deal with their fear by retreat and avoidance, strategically plotting the situation from an objective viewpoint so they can save themselves. 6s thrive on fear, and deal with it more socially, with the "safety in numbers" philosophy, and loyalty to a group of people who share their cause. 7s aggressively attack their fear, trying to hammer it down with risk taking, adventurism, and hedonism - as if the knowledge of the experience reduces your fear of it next time: "Aw it isn't that bad!". The "confront your fears" tactic as expressed in that scientific study I guess would work best for sevens. Is this the sort of "inoculation" you had in mind waxwing?
Hm, I hadn't thought of the relation to the Enneagram, but now that you delineate the types' attitudes towards fear, I would say that I definitely see myself in 7-camp. I can't remember the last time I said "I'm afraid" and not "This is challenging. I kinda like it." Of course, sometimes it seems like an outright denial of adverse conditions, but it is definitely my way of coping and optimizing negativity.



In terms of dealing with a mutated bird-flu, an isolationist policy would work best for me, I guess. Taking people's paranoia with a large grain of salt and making the majority of my decisions independent of the media/community I would be happy with as well.
That sounds good to me as well, in part. The other part, well, I think it would have to do with making the fear around me go away somehow. I have always had a strange reaction to people overacting to potential disasters (it hasn't been the friendliest reaction either. Often I laugh or make fun). I recognize that you and I probably differ in how we process fear, but I'm not entirely sure how to explain the difference in this context.

[Architectonic]

I hope you'd be happy to be vaccinated rather than act as an unwitting host for the virus. -? Everyone who isn't innoculated is a potential propagation mechanism for the virus.

But in this case, you would be miscalculating the risks.
In the individual case, not being immunised gives you the risk of getting the virus in full and getting sick - and possibly die depending on the severity of the virus. Or you could get the immunisation and have a small scale infection from the virus (which helps a healthy person build up immunity). But not all people react the same way to immunisations. I know that most people (including at least one MD) I know tend to report a 1-2 week illness after getting the annual flu immunisations. But in a few cases, there will be people who have abnormal reactions - from immune disfunction disorders such as chronic fatigue to neurological disorders (such as paralysis), or even death.
In the big picture, it may seem that yes, a large scale immunization program eliminates much of the dangers of viruses - but you also have to consider the adverse reactions to the immunizations, otherwise you are not accounting for the consequences correctly.

Saving ten lives at the cost of 100 people with chronic health problems and one death won't necessarily be a rational tradeoff - at the very least, it is a complex compromise.

But the next problem is the fact that it is hard to account for these dangers before the fact - but after a few years, a picture will arise, which may allow for some degree of prediction. But often some of the disorders that arose from the vaccination may be misaccounted for and deemed to be caused by something else. Secondly, those who make the decisions may not want to change their mind, desipite significant evidence as they may not agree with the accuracy of the data (whether the data is likely to be true or not) and be accountable for the adverse effects of the previous decision. Not to mention the fact that the biochemistry of humans is extremely complex and there is a complete lack of money going into the research of many disorders (CFIDS for example) and no where near enough money to generate an unbiased and relatively accurate prediction of the outcome of any particular immunisation program.

Edit - my discussion on risk vs fear will be in my next post.

[Serotonin]

Interesting point. I did not think of fear versus "the overexpression and hairtrigger nature of (fear)." I sort of understand the concept of healthy fear, but only when it comes to fear as in "awestruck," or as in a healthy reverence for that which acts as a predatory, dominant, and/or powerful force.
True, but my reverence needs a bit more hard work than that. The force must be predatory upon other forces that are destructive, instead of the indefensible. The "protecting the weak" characteristic is important to me. I think that's a characteristic of healthy E8.



What if you come out scathed, repeatedly? Isn't there something to be said for overcoming fear through aggressive contact followed by eventual desensitization?
I don't argue that it works for some people, but more sensitive souls I imagine would just end up weaker and debilitated after constant exposure. Much as I'd like to put myself in the former category, I've learnt through experience that I identify more with the latter.



Out of curiosity, were you at the time able to separate your fear from the social situation? Or was it more of a nondescript panic?

No, in that particular situation I couldn't delineate the two. "Nondescript panic" is a good descriptor. If I had been in that sort of situation for the first time I may have been able to draw a logical conclusion of "noisy party= me out of my depth and panicky". But when your body reacts negatively to something you've been able to cope with before, your panic increases since you rationalise that the trigger has to be something else, when in actual fact in retrospect I hadn't developed a desensitisation to social situations at all, which fuelled my feeling of hopelessness and incompetence.



Hm, I hadn't thought of the relation to the Enneagram, but now that you delineate the types' attitudes towards fear, I would say that I definitely see myself in 7-camp. I can't remember the last time I said "I'm afraid" and not "This is challenging. I kinda like it." Of course, sometimes it seems like an outright denial of adverse conditions, but it is definitely my way of coping and optimizing negativity.

I envy you, well done. At certain times when the testosterone is pumping, I will embrace this attitude as well. These moments are few and far between however, and my instincts overwhelmingly tell me to step back and observe rather than confront.



That sounds good to me as well, in part. The other part, well, I think it would have to do with making the fear around me go away somehow. I have always had a strange reaction to people overacting to potential disasters (it hasn't been the friendliest reaction either. Often I laugh or make fun). I recognize that you and I probably differ in how we process fear, but I'm not entirely sure how to explain the difference in this context.

Maybe it's an upbringing thing. My father is unbelievably scrupulous and watertight with personal security measures. I don't know what you're parents' attitudes towards potential threats are, but maybe this could explain the difference.

[Ka.avik]

it seems to me that fear is one of the most overlooked infectious diseases, and that in an effort to quell it, we run the risk of nullifying the effects of any upward human advancement.

Haven't really read more than perhaps a third of the responses, but ...

I think you have it backwards, WW; I think the drug companies, ever mindful of how much of our cash they don't yet have, are injecting fear to drive up profits. If a few people die, then what of it? People, die, and the living want to buy product. Moreso if they're afraid of what you offer protection from.

More horse analogies, but: If you blanket a horse, it will adapt to being blanketed at night/in snow/what have you, and you'll need to vigorously keep them blanketed or else your beloved pet will die of hypothermia. If you never blanket them, they'll shiver when it's pouring rain and barely 35F and a strong wind whips through the trees. But they'll live, and dry out, and forget about it.

Likewise a retirement plumber told me, that if you laugh at germs, and never wash your hands, you never get sick from those germs because you've adapted to their presences. Or you'll get sick, but not die from it....

This has been tonight's paranoia-mongering; we now return you to your scheduled and sponsered placations...

[Architectonic]

Likewise a retirement plumber told me, that if you laugh at germs, and never wash your hands, you never get sick from those germs because you've adapted to their presences. Or you'll get sick, but not die from it....

But this is totally ancedotal and doesn't really have basis in reality....

[Hypnos]

Likewise a retirement plumber told me, that if you laugh at germs, and never wash your hands, you never get sick from those germs because you've adapted to their presences. Or you'll get sick, but not die from it....
I find that amusing. Half of the diseases borne by contaminated water (http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/saneng/commercial_sewage/sewage_diseases.htm) just aren't worth it.

Anyway, if you innoculate people for fear, but not pain, you'll just produce more psychopaths (currently ~1% of the population). Primary psychopaths have an innate lack of fear or guilt. Apart from the immediate discomfort, pain fascinates them. Because they have no guilt, they don't plan for the future or care about themselves or others -- it's all just fun.

[Architectonic]

Finally, lethality or death toll isn't an accurate indicator of epidemic; rather, the ability for a virus to spread inconspicuously without killing its host too quickly is a sign of a virus being a serious risk. Thus, it seems to me that fear is one of the most overlooked infectious diseases, and that in an effort to quell it, we run the risk of nullifying the effects of any upward human advancement.

Fear is natural - something inherent in being human as Serotonin suggested. What we are in fact doing is attempting to quell risk. Perhaps the issue is that our evolutionarily determined fear response is inconsistent with the level of fear response required for the risks involved in our current societies. So our fear now drives us to attempt to control new risks, such as those involving terrorists, viruses etc. The problem is that not all risks are fully quantifiable. Even those that we do have significant amounts of information on, people often choose to neglect basing their decision on this information. People therefore may choose potentially irrational reactions in response to various risks.

[euterpenc]

If you find something for this... let me know... or no... that'd be cheating.

[Hexchild]

As irrational as it can be, I believe fear does have its place and can be a life-saver in extreme situations, as well as keep you from doing things you'd regret later. The problem arises when it hinders you from doing the things you need or want to do.

But there are different types of fears. Some fears are instinctual, designed to keep us from falling too far or being bitten by poisonous bugs. Some fears are conditioned responses, such as when we get burnt one time too many and thus learn to stay back from the hotness of fire. Some fears stem from ignorance urging on our imagination, such as when we accuse strangers of things they might not have done, based solely on vague, empirically determined likeness. From my limited experience, the strongest fears (and often the most difficult to overcome) seem to be those that have resulted from traumatic experience, personal or historical, forming some sort of conditioned phobia.

In general, I think the effectiveness of various strategy implementations for overcoming fears vary depending on both the nature of the fear itself and the source it stems from. In some cases some strategies may even backfire and end up reinforcing the fear, such as when a person who is afraid of heights is made to take an involuntary bungy jump and ends up further traumatized.

The word "inoculate" seems to suggest confronting a fear by defiantly subjecting oneself to the very thing one fears. I don't believe this alone is enough, however I think doing so is an important part of the process of overcoming any fear. But unless there is a feeling of safety, trust or at least consistency, confrontation can easily have the opposite effect.

I think it is important to determine the source (or sources) of a fear in order to fight it. If you believe a fear is unwarranted, then it stands to reason there should be some inconsistency between the perception of reality and the reality being perceived. The goal should be to get to the core issue and expose its inconsistencies, or failing that, at least to locate and examine some of the contributing issues and, if possible, amend the conditions that cause them in order to relieve some of the tension. Then reiterate, in a reasonable pace, until the fear goes away or until it no longer poses a problem.

[euterpenc]

As irrational as it can be, I believe fear does have its place and can be a life-saver in extreme situations, as well as keep you from doing things you'd regret later. The problem arises when it hinders you from doing the things you need or want to do.

But there are different types of fears. Some fears are instinctual, designed to keep us from falling too far or being bitten by poisonous bugs. Some fears are conditioned responses, such as when we get burnt one time too many and thus learn to stay back from the hotness of fire. Some fears stem from ignorance urging on our imagination, such as when we accuse strangers of things they might not have done, based solely on vague, empirically determined likeness. From my limited experience, the strongest fears (and often the most difficult to overcome) seem to be those that have resulted from traumatic experience, personal or historical, forming some sort of conditioned phobia.

In general, I think the effectiveness of various strategy implementations for overcoming fears vary depending on both the nature of the fear itself and the source it stems from. In some cases some strategies may even backfire and end up reinforcing the fear, such as when a person who is afraid of heights is made to take an involuntary bungy jump and ends up further traumatized.

The word "inoculate" seems to suggest confronting a fear by defiantly subjecting oneself to the very thing one fears. I don't believe this alone is enough, however I think doing so is an important part of the process of overcoming any fear. But unless there is a feeling of safety, trust or at least consistency, confrontation can easily have the opposite effect.

I think it is important to determine the source (or sources) of a fear in order to fight it. If you believe a fear is unwarranted, then it stands to reason there should be some inconsistency between the perception of reality and the reality being perceived. The goal should be to get to the core issue and expose its inconsistencies, or failing that, at least to locate and examine some of the contributing issues and, if possible, amend the conditions that cause them in order to relieve some of the tension. Then reiterate, in a reasonable pace, until the fear goes away or until it no longer poses a problem.

Could logic not replace fear? Once we learn we can not be afraid because we know what would happen, say we would know we would die if we fell off a cliff. So, without being afraid we would still know not to do that action, and have more control as well.

[Hexchild]

Could logic not replace fear? Once we learn we can not be afraid because we know what would happen, say we would know we would die if we fell off a cliff. So, without being afraid we would still know not to do that action, and have more control as well.

I have a phobia that makes me panic when my head is below the water surface. I'm perfectly aware that I can hold my breath for at least 15 seconds, so logic dictates that there should be no particular danger in diving for at most that long. Still, that fear just won't budge, and I've never learned to dive for that reason. So no, I don't think logic can necessarily replace fear in all cases.

[Ivy]

Could logic not replace fear? Once we learn we can not be afraid because we know what would happen, say we would know we would die if we fell off a cliff. So, without being afraid we would still know not to do that action, and have more control as well.

This just came up on another thread. I say no. I know moths aren't going to hurt me, but I still jump around and go "eek." Logic has no effect on that fear.

[Biff_Loman]

I'd say the only antidote is courage.

[euterpenc]

I have a phobia that makes me panic when my head is below the water surface. I'm perfectly aware that I can hold my breath for at least 15 seconds, so logic dictates that there should be no particular danger in diving for at most that long. Still, that fear just won't budge, and I've never learned to dive for that reason. So no, I don't think logic can necessarily replace fear in all cases.

In universal practice perhaps not... or you're just weak minded. If you were entirely logical you wouldn't need fear... this is the same problem as with most everything else: people aren't reasonable.

[euterpenc]

This just came up on another thread. I say no. I know moths aren't going to hurt me, but I still jump around and go "eek." Logic has no effect on that fear.

That's because you're not being logical. If when it comes up you suddenly aren't logical anymore than you clearly haven't replaced it. That's the point, you should replace it.

[Ivy]

That's because you're not being logical. If when it comes up you suddenly aren't logical anymore than you clearly haven't replaced it. That's the point, you should replace it.

No, you're wrong. It's not as if in that moment I do think the moth is going to hurt me. In fact, at the same time that I'm jumping around and saying eek, on another level I'm going "what the fuck? it's a damned MOTH. just let it hit you, it isn't going to hurt anything." Logic doesn't go away in the midst of a phobia, it just doesn't have immediate effect. It takes reworking behavioral pathways to affect a phobia (which I've done, and it does work-- it's just not worth it in the case of the moth thing because it doesn't affect my life as a whole).

[Biff_Loman]

That's because you're not being logical. If when it comes up you suddenly aren't logical anymore than you clearly haven't replaced it. That's the point, you should replace it.

There are a lot of things I should do. Not all of them will be done by me.

[Ka.avik]

Could logic not replace fear?

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? No, I have to agree with hex and EnglishIvy -- the human machine is not built that way. You can use logic to tell yourself that the fear is irrational and useless, but that doesn't always (ever?) have a great effect on the fear -- in fact the best way to approach fear is through Fi, and acknowledging "I feel fear, but will work through this"....

[Architectonic]

Could logic not replace fear?

Well most irrational phobias are deeply subconscious and incredibly difficult to override with conscious logic. So no, that isn't always possible.

[joft]

I'm sick of people being cowards. I thought about it for a while, at first I thought the USA had become a nation of cowards and I really wanted to get out there and say it to everyone because it was pissing me off that nobody else is saying it. why are there no politicians who will bring everything crashing to a halt in the middle of a senate hearing by suddenly shouting that we're all cowards and it's disgusting? then I thought about it some more and decided that it was a little too suspicious for me to criticize my generation or "the way things have been lately" because people have always done that, so it would behoove me to extend my criticism. I think humans have an inherent interest in adventure and discovery, but that for the most part we satiate it with stories, mythologies, religions, harry potter books, movies, video games. we satisfy our need for adventure through safe proxies, and it just happens that lately we've had more free time (not spent trying to survive) and resources to do just that.

i want to see us break free of all these safety mechanisms and live our OWN lives. our governments are just going to keep growing, our lives are just going to become more and more delimited and determined for us. we just have to walk straight and not wander outside the maroon suade rope line boundaries. memorize a certain set of rules and follow them and we don't even have to think for ourselves. run on a treadmill, hike on the marked path, roll the windows up and turn on the AC, duck under an umbrella and hide beneath the spiritual protection of a designated leader, keep your cell phone close and leviathan on autodial. spend the first third of your life working toward financial security, the second third saving up to pay for retirement, and the last wasting away safely with enough money to pay to keep the machines you're attached to running

what would happen if we all killed our own leviathans, pastors, and gods? would we all be equal if everyone stopped looking up to anyone else?

[Pooja]

Politically speaking, the Bush admin. seems to have risen to power by feeding our nation's "fear". The admin. devotes all of its energy into national defense, and got reelected, b/c people feel like Bush would protect them more. That's crap. If people would just be 'unafraid' for long enough, they'd realize that our government is USING the fear...they exxagerage certain reports, and even put our country in situations that (ironically) put us a even greater risk towards being attacked by terrorists (Iraq...). Thus, there's more fear, and Bush's poll ratings increase. It's an evil, but brilliant manipulation tactic. I just wish that I lived in Canada ;) .

[euterpenc]

I'm sick of people being cowards. I thought about it for a while, at first I thought the USA had become a nation of cowards and I really wanted to get out there and say it to everyone because it was pissing me off that nobody else is saying it. why are there no politicians who will bring everything crashing to a halt in the middle of a senate hearing by suddenly shouting that we're all cowards and it's disgusting? then I thought about it some more and decided that it was a little too suspicious for me to criticize my generation or "the way things have been lately" because people have always done that, so it would behoove me to extend my criticism. I think humans have an inherent interest in adventure and discovery, but that for the most part we satiate it with stories, mythologies, religions, harry potter books, movies, video games. we satisfy our need for adventure through safe proxies, and it just happens that lately we've had more free time (not spent trying to survive) and resources to do just that.

i want to see us break free of all these safety mechanisms and live our OWN lives. our governments are just going to keep growing, our lives are just going to become more and more delimited and determined for us. we just have to walk straight and not wander outside the maroon suade rope line boundaries. memorize a certain set of rules and follow them and we don't even have to think for ourselves. run on a treadmill, hike on the marked path, roll the windows up and turn on the AC, duck under an umbrella and hide beneath the spiritual protection of a designated leader, keep your cell phone close and leviathan on autodial. spend the first third of your life working toward financial security, the second third saving up to pay for retirement, and the last wasting away safely with enough money to pay to keep the machines you're attached to running

what would happen if we all killed our own leviathans, pastors, and gods? would we all be equal if everyone stopped looking up to anyone else?

I agree with you. I also notice that more than ever before individual responsibility is being removed from our society.

We can't be equal. It's not possible. Even clones wouldn't be equal, because no one will have exactly the same experience. People are also born with unequal talents and abilities and different body types.

[euterpenc]

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? No, I have to agree with hex and EnglishIvy -- the human machine is not built that way. You can use logic to tell yourself that the fear is irrational and useless, but that doesn't always (ever?) have a great effect on the fear -- in fact the best way to approach fear is through Fi, and acknowledging "I feel fear, but will work through this"....

I don't think you're getting it. I was saying that logic can replace fear because if fear is only a defense mechanism we can use logic for the same purpose. If you are proposing that fear is more than a defense mechanism, it would be an odd pecurliarity to humans... just like logic.

[joft]

I didn't mean equal literally, I meant it in a metaphorical sense where we can all consider each other to be equals out of respect

[joft]

As far as the logic/fear thing, sometimes I'll wake up in the middle of the night from a crazy nightmare, with my sympathetic nervous system in overdrive, and it is difficult to apply logic to the situation sometimes because the neuroendochrine system is already deep in the fear process. but cool rationality can overcome it, when you start to consider the probability of whatever you were just dreaming about being in your house, and then extend the scope to consider that there are plenty of other things that could easily kill you any second or day now, and if you did die then you wouldn't be able to regret it anyway, etc

[euterpenc]

There is also the point that being afraid may inhibit your survival. If you pause or hesitate in fear, sometimes that could be your demise, be it bear fighting or getting chicks.

[Pooja]

Humans have evolved to act in a fairly homogenous fashion when confronted with a "fear" stimuli. This pattern of actions is probably the optimal fear response. Showing any more or less fear towards the 'fear' stimuli could probably weeds people out of the 'natural selection' contest. However, as civilization evolves, and this driving force that guides us towards this particular behaviour (of fear) will probably slow down. Nowadays, our "fitness" (reaching child-bearing age) is not really dependent on the efficacy of our fight-or-flight response. (Except perhaps in less developed parts of the world...?) This makes me wonder, in the future, how will people evolve (in terms of reacting to a 'fear stimuli') based on the pattern of natural selection that is currently taking place in today's modern world? Maybe, humans will grow increasingly fearless, because it takes that fearlessness to initiate conversation/find a mate...? I mean, in the modern world, people who are extroverted and socially fearless, will have a better chance of passing on their genetic material. In the past, natural selection favored those who had more fear (they probably survived longer in the wild).
Perhaps, over time, introversion (to the extent that is determined by genetics) will be weeded out. I don't know. I just got out of a Biol. lecture...can you tell?

[Ka.avik]

I don't think you're getting it. I was saying that logic can replace fear [...] it would be an odd pecurliarity to humans

I read where you said that, but I disagree: the two things operate on different planes. It would be like trying to replace your water bill with electricity. Yes you pay the PUD for both, but you just can't swap them out. There are places where you could choose either, but for most of what they do you cannot.

And, I think I disagree on logic being peculiar to humans -- I've seen animals work through a problem too often to believe they have no problem-solving skills, even if their capacity for understanding is quite limited. But, humans are peculiar, there is no question about that!

[Stillwater]

I think more logical effort is applied to creating a rational construct to support our fears, instead of countering them. Its more a matter of which fear trumps the other, rather than logic trumping fear. Just a thought :)

[euterpenc]

I read where you said that, but I disagree: the two things operate on different planes. It would be like trying to replace your water bill with electricity. Yes you pay the PUD for both, but you just can't swap them out. There are places where you could choose either, but for most of what they do you cannot.

And, I think I disagree on logic being peculiar to humans -- I've seen animals work through a problem too often to believe they have no problem-solving skills, even if their capacity for understanding is quite limited. But, humans are peculiar, there is no question about that!

This is not like paying bills. What does fear do? That is the question you must ask, and then once this has been answered, you must then ask Can logic do this?

[Stillwater]

This is not like paying bills. What does fear do? That is the question you must ask, and then once this has been answered, you must then ask Can logic do this?


Fear allows for split second decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes this is very useful, other times its tragic. Logic is slower, and demands more input- which may never come. Even on complex, big decisions (rather than obvious ones like ducking a punch) fear is the root decision tool simply because all the variables are not knowable. Bird flu and vaccinations are a good example. Afraid of dying unexpectedly from a virus? Take the shot, and accept mandatory compliance. More afraid of losing control over health decisions? Don't accept forced vaccination, and take your chances. Excellent logical arguments can be made for both positions-fear usually gets the last word, whether we are conscious of it or not. Logic cannot be isolated from fear, but fear can be isolated from logic.

[euterpenc]

Fear allows for split second decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes this is very useful, other times its tragic. Logic is slower, and demands more input- which may never come. Even on complex, big decisions (rather than obvious ones like ducking a punch) fear is the root decision tool simply because all the variables are not knowable. Bird flu and vaccinations are a good example. Afraid of dying unexpectedly from a virus? Take the shot, and accept mandatory compliance. More afraid of losing control over health decisions? Don't accept forced vaccination, and take your chances. Excellent logical arguments can be made for both positions-fear usually gets the last word, whether we are conscious of it or not. Logic cannot be isolated from fear, but fear can be isolated from logic.

Not if you train your mind. This is martial arts. You should fear a sword coming at your neck but fearing it nearly insures it's striking. Thus you must master your fear.

[Stillwater]

Good point zeitgeist. I'm not discounting the value of a premeditated logical response to fear- replacing instinct with conscious action is very important.
Training the mind requires anticipation, practice, and time. Often we are not afforded these luxuries. I would say its not possible to train your mind for all of life's situations, however I think this can be done on a specialized basis-ie martial arts. Is not the impetus of the training rooted in a fear of physical assault? In martial arts are you replacing one set of instincts for another, not necessarily relying entirely on logic during the 'heat of battle'?

[Master O]

The only diseases I've ever feared contracting were STD's, because how typical that the time when you're having the most fun/pleasure, is also the time that you are most careless. To me, all others [contractable diseases] can be avoided with a little common sense (except for the most unlucky).

I have no intention of accepting a Bird Flu vaccination into my body until: it is confirmed that catching it is almost as easy as just being around people; and enough people have taken the vaccination over enough time and shown that it is safe.

[euterpenc]

Good point zeitgeist. I'm not discounting the value of a premeditated logical response to fear- replacing instinct with conscious action is very important.
Training the mind requires anticipation, practice, and time. Often we are not afforded these luxuries. I would say its not possible to train your mind for all of life's situations, however I think this can be done on a specialized basis-ie martial arts. Is not the impetus of the training rooted in a fear of physical assault? In martial arts are you replacing one set of instincts for another, not necessarily relying entirely on logic during the 'heat of battle'?

It would be a lack actually... it's called "No Mind."

[Architectonic]

Not if you train your mind. This is martial arts. You should fear a sword coming at your neck but fearing it nearly insures it's striking. Thus you must master your fear.

I think you are massively overestimating the power of our conscious mind...

[Snowflake]

In universal practice perhaps not... or you're just weak minded. If you were entirely logical you wouldn't need fear... this is the same problem as with most everything else: people aren't reasonable.

And what makes reason so superior?

It has its own flaws, just like "normal" human behavior.

Also, if you think it's so easy to overcome irrationality, I think you should try for yourself.

Realize also, that the call for rationality is not really rationally based anyway.