• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

What we choose to fear makes no sense.

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Today, 14:25
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
582
Location
Victoria, Australia
It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.

A few examples;

- People afraid of strangers should also fear friends and family as statistically we are more likely to be hurt by a loved one.
- People afraid of animals should fear people because once again we are statistically more likely to be hurt by other humans.
- People that are afraid of flying should also be afraid of driving.


I'm not talking about phobias here as they are specifically irrational fears.

Maybe I am the robot that others have accused me of being, or maybe I just can't stand inconsistency.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
The first one is fear of the unknown which doesn't have a discrete statistical chance.

The second one is also a relative fear of the unknown, that is you may not be familiar with the animal, you are "unknown" to its mental process and thus cannot reason with it.

Well, cars can decelerate quickly, you can get out of a car once it does. Roads have traffic in your immediate vicinity, planes do not. I think there's little differentials as well: To fall from the height of 20,000 feet in the sky you can't use any tactics to manipulate your environment, you're just falling through the sky. While if you're driving you do have agency, you can determine the outcome to some degree.

It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.
Are you saying that fear is determined by the probability of that event occurring? If people are afraid of dying then yes this should be the case.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 17:25
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,839
I've had a similar thought this evening, being a robot, specifically that people are only able to understand tragedy on a certain scale, that if you murdered some multinational executive that's been buying up all the water used for agriculture in a third world country you would be put on trial for what should numerically speaking make you a folk hero.

I think people can only understand the tragedy of death as it pertains to the individual, that whether you murder a dozen or a hundred the number doesn't really matter, it's too much for any mere human to grasp, we can't contextualize it. As far as I know in every national legal system whether you murder a dozen people or a hundred you're going to get the same penalty. Granted it's a bit morbid to sit around inventing ever more torturous punishments for a given number of kills but it just goes to show how absolutely we see murder on an individual basis, that if someone who killed twelve and someone who killed a hundred ended up together in the same cell serving the same life sentence that it's hard to see the miscarriage of justice even though their crimes are objectively vastly different.

How many people died on the Hindenburg or when the Titanic sank, do you even know and why don't you know, are those numbers not important, are they not essential for grasping the true scale and severity of these disasters, is not every single digit as important as a human life?

A Million Is a Statistic

Getting back to my original example we seem to have a blind spot for impersonal/indiscriminate murder, that if someone cuts the break lines in a bus they didn't murder a busload of people, they "caused an accident". Now what if instead of cutting the break line we're talking about an executive in a bus manufacturing company that signs off on cutting costs on the bus-breaks manufacturing line. The result is mass murder on a massive scale, possibly dozens of buses crash before the true cause is uncovered, many people have died and hundreds more have been seriously injured and what is the precedent for such a crime against humanity? A FUCKING FINE!!!

The exact thought I was having this evening was that if my brain was augmented and I had computer-perfect mathematical abilities on a whim that I might not be able to stop myself from killing said multinational executive. My human brain may be unable to objectively assess the scale of a tragedy but for my augmented mind it might be something too egregious to ignore. If you had the trolley problem in front of you and on one track there's the multinational executive merrily talking about how he's glad he's safe and on the other there's a hundred people who are going to die how could you not pull that lever? Could you live with the consequences of not pulling it if you knew without a doubt what would happen and it happens exactly as you predicted?
 

Ex-User (14663)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,939
I've thought about this because I have no fear when I for example get on a motorcycle (depite having been in 3 accidents at this point), yet feel a slight worry when getting on an airplane although I'm like 10,000x more likely to get killed on an mc.

to me it feels like it's about the way one would potentially die – like, I'm good with getting turned into mush while going 100mph on a motorcycle because there was a duck in the road or something, whereas pathetically sitting in a plane that's falling towards the ground and waiting to die while everyone is losing their shit around you seems much worse.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,834
It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.
Amygdala. Processes fear based on how many times you feel afraid, which should reflect how many times you're in that situation and have reason to feel afraid, which would in turn reflect how likely that danger is of occurring.

However, add in newspapers, TV, internet and social media, and you then see/experience the same situation many times more than you would in reality, which then multiplies the effect on the amygdala.

Here's an example:
I've thought about this because I have no fear when I for example get on a motorcycle (depite having been in 3 accidents at this point), yet feel a slight worry when getting on an airplane although I'm like 10,000x more likely to get killed on an mc.

to me it feels like it's about the way one would potentially die – like, I'm good with getting turned into mush while going 100mph on a motorcycle because there was a duck in the road or something, whereas pathetically sitting in a plane that's falling towards the ground and waiting to die while everyone is losing their shit around you seems much worse.
We hear lots about plane crashes. When there are plane crashes, we hear about it for days. So the same event stimulating your amygdala dozens of times, and plane crashes stimulating your brain's fear centre several dozen times a year.

But we hardly hear about motorcycle crashes, and when we do, they get one mention, for a few minutes, and don't hear about it again. Very likely to not hear of even one motorcycle crash on the news in a year. So very little stimulation of the brain's fear centre.

What happens to Serac as a result of hearing about lots of plane crashes multiple times? Gets very afraid of planes.

What happens to Serac as a result of not hearing about lots of motorbike crashes multiple times? Doesn't get afraid of motorbikes at all.
 

Rook

drown the wabbithole
Local time
Today, 07:25
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
1,972
complex is man.

the answer is simple: expect no consistency.
 

fishhead

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 12:25
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
18
I think these fears can be traced to a couple of primary fears that do make sense.
The first one is fear of the unknown which doesn't have a discrete statistical chance.

The second one is also a relative fear of the unknown, that is you may not be familiar with the animal, you are "unknown" to its mental process and thus cannot reason with it.

Well, cars can decelerate quickly, you can get out of a car once it does. Roads have traffic in your immediate vicinity, planes do not. I think there's little differentials as well: To fall from the height of 20,000 feet in the sky you can't use any tactics to manipulate your environment, you're just falling through the sky. While if you're driving you do have agency, you can determine the outcome to some degree.
So like Rebis said, the fears go:

1 - Fear of the unknown
2 - Fear of the unknown
3 - Fear of losing control

Which kind of comes down to humans not wanting to admit their positions in the grand scheme of things. We want to be all-knowing, we want to be in charge, we want to live on forever and be gods. But we can't.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
The first one is fear of the unknown which doesn't have a discrete statistical chance.

The second one is also a relative fear of the unknown, that is you may not be familiar with the animal, you are "unknown" to its mental process and thus cannot reason with it.

Well, cars can decelerate quickly, you can get out of a car once it does. Roads have traffic in your immediate vicinity, planes do not. I think there's little differentials as well: To fall from the height of 20,000 feet in the sky you can't use any tactics to manipulate your environment, you're just falling through the sky. While if you're driving you do have agency, you can determine the outcome to some degree.

It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.
Are you saying that fear is determined by the probability of that event occurring? If people are afraid of dying then yes this should be the case.
1) Dismissal by statistical chance is not valid, as you don't quote the required statistics to dismiss the concrete case having been made, instead you cite an almost universal phenomenon of fear of the unknown.

2) same problem, if you were to cite the statistics and weigh it against the fear, you would be able to conclude that the fear is extrapolated from fear itself rather than being substantiated by statistical facts

3) There were 1.25 million road traffic deaths globally in 2013
vs. 232 deaths in aviation
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Today, 14:25
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
582
Location
Victoria, Australia
Thanks for all the responses. I've only just woken up so this will just be a few quick points.

- I'm not sure that it is fear of the unknown as I doubt these people are fearful of tomorrow pr turning a corner or crossing a crested hill.
- A fear of losing control would also result in being fearful of all public transport and taxis and possibly even sleep.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
Clearly we have to talk about biases. Whether they be conceptual or anticipated, they are still irrational biases that can't be positively related to the actual statistics.
One more, you are a few thousand times more likely to be struck by lightening vs. being the victim of a terrorist attack.
What role do the media play in forming, upholding and escalating biases?
 

fishhead

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 12:25
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
18
- I'm not sure that it is fear of the unknown as I doubt these people are fearful of tomorrow pr turning a corner or crossing a crested hill.
- A fear of losing control would also result in being fearful of all public transport and taxis and possibly even sleep.
I think what a person is afraid of and to what extent are they afraid depends on how often they come into contact with those things and how essential these things are to their life.

So someone could definitely be afraid of turning a corner, especially if it's dark and they are in an unknown area. And most people aren't afraid of sleep because it is essential to our living and we sleep every night. There are of course exceptions, such as Somniphobia.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
- I'm not sure that it is fear of the unknown as I doubt these people are fearful of tomorrow pr turning a corner or crossing a crested hill.
- A fear of losing control would also result in being fearful of all public transport and taxis and possibly even sleep.
I think what a person is afraid of and to what extent are they afraid depends on how often they come into contact with those things and how essential these things are to their life.

So someone could definitely be afraid of turning a corner, especially if it's dark and they are in an unknown area. And most people aren't afraid of sleep because it is essential to our living and we sleep every night. There are of course exceptions, such as Somniphobia.
I would contradict you on that theory by paraphrasing factual data that shows that the most xenophobic and racist people are those who have very little contact to the very people they project all their fears upon.
I don't have the data today, because i will have to source german data, but i hope to eventually substantiate my claim.
 

fishhead

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 12:25
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
18
I would contradict you on that theory by paraphrasing factual data that shows that the most xenophobic and racist people are those who have very little contact to the very people they project all their fears upon.
Wait, doesn't that actually support my theory because the less contact they have with things they are afraid of, the more fearful they are? I guess I wasn't clear enough on the last post.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
I would contradict you on that theory by paraphrasing factual data that shows that the most xenophobic and racist people are those who have very little contact to the very people they project all their fears upon.
Wait, doesn't that actually support my theory because the less contact they have with things they are afraid of, the more fearful they are? I guess I wasn't clear enough on the last post.
Yeah, i thought from your presented argument the inverse of what is actually true could be made.
People may say "Oh well, there are so many Xs in my town, it's no wonder why i worry about my town being overrun by Xs", but when you pull up the numbers you'll see the more people are being confronted with factor Xs, the more welcoming they become, while other regions become more xenophobic because they have no experience with factor X.
I presume we both mean, more or less, the same thing but have different means of expressing it.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
1) Dismissal by statistical chance is not valid, as you don't quote the required statistics to dismiss the concrete case having been made, instead you cite an almost universal phenomenon of fear of the unknown.

2) same problem, if you were to cite the statistics and weigh it against the fear, you would be able to conclude that the fear is extrapolated from fear itself rather than being substantiated by statistical facts

3) There were 1.25 million road traffic deaths globally in 2013
vs. 232 deaths in aviation
I'm not dismissing it by statistical chance, you're completely missing the point. Fear of the unknown is not quantifiable, therefore I don't need to cite statistics. If you want a theoretical foundation chaos theory or any multi-varied situation.

I find fear to be implicit, in the sense that kids are afraid of many things without explicitly understanding the threat itself. Any fear I've had is of a situation I don't have a grasp of, I used to be afraid of many things but now that I understand most people's fears can be reasoned with in a rational way I'm not controlled by fear. The Fear that we feel is usually afraid of not being in control, i.e. fear of the unknown. For me, I'm afraid of the insignificance of my existence relevant to the universe. The vast expanse of space, black holes that could completely disassemble our planet, the continuous expanse of space and the exponential speed at which matter distances itself via phantom energy. I only fear the unknown and cosmological horror is by far the apex of that fear.
 

sushi

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
837
defining your fears helps alot i conquering them

differentiatie have you experienced your fear in the past or is it just something that your mind invents also helps.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
794
Location
Between concrete walls
It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.

A few examples;

- People afraid of strangers should also fear friends and family as statistically we are more likely to be hurt by a loved one.
- People afraid of animals should fear people because once again we are statistically more likely to be hurt by other humans.
- People that are afraid of flying should also be afraid of driving.


I'm not talking about phobias here as they are specifically irrational fears.

Maybe I am the robot that others have accused me of being, or maybe I just can't stand inconsistency.
Being good at assessing danger is either done by having the experience or knowledge.
People have some hardwired fright instincts. In fact most of our behavior starts with instinct. Overriding instincts sometimes is the only solution to problems. People face lot of dangers in life.
 

peoplesuck

caretaker of machines
Local time
Yesterday, 23:25
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,623
Location
only halfway there
People that are afraid of flying should also be afraid of driving.
you are almost guaranteed to die in a plane crash, where as, almost everyone I know has survived a car crash. you are more likely to die in a plane crash. its like playing russian roulette with a hollowpoint 22, vs, lets say a 44mag. even if you are more likely to be shot with the 22, you will probably survive.

It seems to come down to survival, not pain. People find other people useful, so as unfortunate as it is, you are more likely to be used, than killed. Same thing goes for animals, animals have no use for you, other than food.
I think a psychologist determined we are only naturally afraid of 3 things, loud noises, falling, and...something else.

also you seem to be neglecting the amount of time people take, before they hurt you. typically ur creepy uncle is decent enough to wait until you are like 13, where as, that sketchy dude in the van, may not care. I think most people have some aversion to killing others, which is handy, if you are a human. animals dont seem to care as much.
I had a pet water moccasin when I was a little kid, it never bit me.

The affect heuristic states, the more something could hurt you (amount), the more likely you are to think it will hurt you.
 

peoplesuck

caretaker of machines
Local time
Yesterday, 23:25
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,623
Location
only halfway there
I've thought about this because I have no fear when I for example get on a motorcycle (depite having been in 3 accidents at this point), yet feel a slight worry when getting on an airplane although I'm like 10,000x more likely to get killed on an mc.

to me it feels like it's about the way one would potentially die – like, I'm good with getting turned into mush while going 100mph on a motorcycle because there was a duck in the road or something, whereas pathetically sitting in a plane that's falling towards the ground and waiting to die while everyone is losing their shit around you seems much worse.
You dont have any control on an airplane, I think that is a huge part. If we are going to die, let it be our own mistake.
I dont think most people feel this way though.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
But "fear of the unknown" just doesn't hold.
Fear of the unknown is, i don't know 200 years old by now, the element of every cheap horror novel.
That's too simple, you need to quantify or qualify this statement to make a relevant observation, everything else is just lazy.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
Enjoy an empty victory, by all means.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
But "fear of the unknown" just doesn't hold.
Fear of the unknown is, i don't know 200 years old by now, the element of every cheap horror novel.
That's too simple, you need to quantify or qualify this statement to make a relevant observation, everything else is just lazy.
I browsed on this again:

A) Why did you quote a post that I didn't actually make? I haven't made a post in this thread of elipsis.
B) You've told me to define and quantify the unknown that is literally a paradox, understand what you're asking.
C) It's not simple, by sheer virtue you can never understand it because its an abstract concept that takes formation in an infinitely endless amount of forms.
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
But "fear of the unknown" just doesn't hold.
Fear of the unknown is, i don't know 200 years old by now, the element of every cheap horror novel.
That's too simple, you need to quantify or qualify this statement to make a relevant observation, everything else is just lazy.
I browsed on this again:

A) Why did you quote a post that I didn't actually make? I haven't made a post in this thread of elipsis.
B) You've told me to define and quantify the unknown that is literally a paradox, understand what you're asking.
C) It's not simple, by sheer virtue you can never understand it because its an abstract concept that takes formation in an infinitely endless amount of forms.
A) I just tacked into, because i found your position to be the most unreflected and simple.
B) There are statistical and explanatory means of quantifying or qualifying "fear of the unknown" or, which i concern to be an entirely different subject "xenophobia", although, on the literal sense seeming identical, to be two very distinct complexes.
C) Mathematics is also infinite, should we therefore have stopped in the kindergarten, declared the pursue of discovery, experimentation and formulation of laws impossible and fruitless, also? In contrary, the physiological, logical and psychological limits of human mind dictates the limitedness of the actual matter at hand. Therefore, it is nothing but lazyness to declare that we can't know, explain, or demonstrate the functions at play.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
You express my viewpoint as simple but all I can see from your opposition is a simple form-fitted argument for a 14 year old that generalises "The fear of the unknown". That neither lands anywhere near my understanding nor does it even approach nuance. Stop taking me for a chump in your psychological model of yourself vs others and perhaps I will actually explain something to you but from the outsets it seems you're so fine tuned into your model of reality that you're not willing to factor in other perspectives.

There is something fundamentally wrong in how you view people and ideas. Your attempt here seems to oversimplify the cognitive faculties of another person by projecting your understanding of a concept onto them. Yet, there seems to be no margin of self-reflection where one would consider the possibility that another person has a different understanding to you, and understanding outside of your own experiences. You have placed your own contextual frame to a point and expected others to have the exact same frame.

Nothing in your points counterpoint effectively explains my understanding of the fear of the unknown. By unknown I mean that which we can explicitly describe as implicit fear is incommunicable.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
See, even responding with that common rebuttal fails to realise how basic of a rebuttal it is. Your mentioning of it implies that I am not aware of this, and that I am simply biding time or cannot answer your question.

Yet this is not the case: I never asked for your unquestionable approval and you never asked a question. You assumed and then asserted you were right, I was wrong, but you've created a strawman of my understanding. No question was ever asked, all I can read from your opinion of anything is that your counterpoint to anything I have ever said actually represents my opinion. Nothing you're expressing is matching with my point, you've judged me before even giving me the ability to speak, or considering I am beyond a meagre few words explaining a evolutionary function called "fear".
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
337
See, even responding with that common rebuttal fails to realise how basic of a rebuttal it is. Your mentioning of it implies that I am not aware of this, and that I am simply biding time or cannot answer your question.

Yet this is not the case: I never asked for your unquestionable approval and you never asked a question. You assumed and then asserted you were right, I was wrong, but you've created a strawman of my understanding. No question was ever asked, all I can read from your opinion of anything is that your counterpoint to anything I have ever said actually represents my opinion. Nothing you're expressing is matching with my point, you've judged me before even giving me the ability to speak, or considering I am beyond a meagre few words explaining a evolutionary function called "fear".
The problem with "your understanding" is, that you don't substantiate it with any independently verifiable facts.
In sum, this is just an opinion.
Therefore any opinion in contrast to your own has to be viewed as equally correct.
Obviously this is an insufficient method to arrive at truth about anything.
This is the third time i explicitly ask you to put some facts behind "your understanding" and you still don't face up to the challenge.

Take an example:
"I believe unicorns are responsible for gravity.
I won't even explain why and how, but please respect my opinion."
This is not how it works.
Nobody should ever take this line of reasoning serious.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
I just sense there is no point in explaining anything to you. I specifically don't feel any motivation to prove anything to you, and I think the only reason I'm responding to both your posts and your messages is because I'm trying to find a reason. I think it's pointless. To answer a challenge I must have a point to prove, or respect the challenger. Or, the challenger is someone who I value. Nothing is matching up here unfortunately.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:25
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
Location
Ireland
1) Dismissal by statistical chance is not valid, as you don't quote the required statistics to dismiss the concrete case having been made, instead you cite an almost universal phenomenon of fear of the unknown.
Let's take his first proposition: "People afraid of strangers should also fear friends and family as statistically we are more likely to be hurt by a loved one. " The reason why we're afraid of strangers is because they are unknown by the definition of the word. The fear we feel the most is a lack of agency, an ability to change and influence our environment. While statistics may say we're statistically more likely to to be hurt by a loved one the process in which we arrive at fear is not an objective, rational analysis of the case at hand. Even if you disagree with this it is an inherent property of our evolution to veer on the side of caution when faced with something we don't know. I think fear is a perfectly valid reason to site evolutionary biology where an animal cannot be aware of exterior forces. We are not omniscient, therefore there must be a driver for us to take action in a situation we can't evaluate. We cannot solely operate on a basis of knowledge so the force of fear in the unknown accounts for that which we don't understand. It is not to say we cannot come to an understanding at the progenitor of this fear and evaluate statistical likelihood but it is to say you cannot rationally evaluate all fears to an objective standard.

No one can deny the primality of fear. A digestible analogy would be Tabula Rasa in which the precedence for all life, particularly our own species, is to comprehend the world around them. We can only know what we know, anything outside of this is beyond our scope of evaluation. That scope if the sum difference of our understanding subtracted from all information that exists in our reality. Fear is a navigation tool. Even the analogy of fear in terms of driving vs flying, people that view themselves as competent which generates an ego can invariably influence how people feel fear, so the idea of falling from a plane is a descent of powerlessness with no agency to influence the chance of survival. Compare this to a car crash: While the acceleration is probably high for a crash to occur, if it's in a car for example people would feel relatively safe. Even the idea of flying through the sky is one of mysticism: At a certain altitude all you see is clouds, the plane of perspective you've been adjusted to for millions of years which you see obstacles on the horizon or the sunrise quotient at just over average sea level is one of familiarity. In contrast, the idea of being in open spaces is scary (agoraphobia). We could give the evolutionary perspective that open spaces is a weakened position from an evolutionary perspective: We weren't precisely the most adept species in physical fitness so without concealment from predators we are uneasy. Now that we understand this, we can reject it from a logical standpoint. However, subjectivity is a core component of fear, We've inherited ancestral pictorial memories for millions of years, we've co-evolved with snakes to the degree in which we scan our environment for distortive faces, colour psychology with apiosamitism where over an evolutionary timeframe where we see colours like yellow and block which conjures an implicit caution, or an animal that categorically stinks which would diffuse the likelihood of predation on that animal. If we understood that logically we could ignore our sensorium but this is only a recent adjustment in our evolutionary timeframe: The paleo-life pre-civilization around 12,000 years ago was not a society based on extensive knowledge of recorded literary observations.

Take love for instance: Love is an implicit emotion which we feel at some point of our lives. It is not something we approach based on a logical evaluation of their utility to us, yet we can take measures to evaluate why we love someone. However, at a fundamental level we cannot describe love as it an experience. The Fear of the unknown and love are primal drives, I don't believe the human condition can be expressed objectively. We are not objective, mathematical models are perfect statistical abstractions but applying them to ourselves is taking a theoretical notion and expecting it to explain the practicalities of our behaviour. I believe this will change further into our evolutionary timeline, ancestral memories will weaken with regards to predation, perhaps it will take on a new form in the sight of exploitation.

2) same problem, if you were to cite the statistics and weigh it against the fear, you would be able to conclude that the fear is extrapolated from fear itself rather than being substantiated by statistical facts
This is correct. However, the proposition is underpinned by a few things, namely:
-An understanding of mathematical models.
-A faith in mathematics- Some people repress statistics and mathematical models, similar to saying a "Computer doesn't know everything". Ironically the precedence for this is probably they don't understanding mathematics, which leaves them to lead on faith with faith being a purely subjective approach, to which they could implicate another subjective approach to replace their faith in an unknown process (Mathematical modelling.) Fear of the unknown is implicit, a cultivates repository of associated factors that risk our existence. We co-evolved with animals, we did not co-evolve with cars. The object of a car, it's behavioural properties and the risk it places are all preceded on knowledge. Do you fear a car that's almost going to run you over because it's a car, or is it in that split second your mind doesn't go through the processes of a car and just recognises an object approaching your body at a high velocity? Cases of experience, vs that of rational evaluation (which is a posteori, after an event has occured, which you can use as a model for future encounters). If I had almost got hit by a car a few hundred times I would certainly pay more detail to the idea of it accelerating towards me, I'd evaluate the pivot of the wheels axles, the driver and their state if I could infer, I would look into their eyes to see where they were aiming, thus able to infer some objective that correlates with the direction the car will take. Instead of running I could know the direction of the car and understand if I run to a certain location I'll have a lower probability of being hit.

I'm not arguing with statistics trumping an implicit function, I'm simply stipulating that fear of the unknown is the source of all new experiences. Fear of the unknown is at the core of human experience, we only infer that something is safe due to acquiring knowledge on an entity, or as I said ancestral memories which pass on fears associated with various properties like colour, smell, geographical location, if we meet a new entity that we cannot associate with another model, i.e. The mammoth and Hominids, one of the reason given for the extinction of mammoths was because we ravaged the lands and hunted mammoths, we done this by encirculation, sticking around it and pointing it with a big stick. if it turns to face the human that poked it in the leg, the person originally facing the mammoth's trunk would strike it. Anyways, we were a co-factor in the extinction of mammoths because it didn't have the timeframe to evolve a implicit fear of humans, it saw us as we perceive a small cat. Anytime we stumbled upon a mammoth it didn't see us a threat. Mammoth's don't pay attention to that which lurks in the shadows, they were too large to conceal themselves in the bushes. A picture for representation: a prehistoric man, honing in on the mammoth:
1586525141559.png

[
3) There were 1.25 million road traffic deaths globally in 2013
vs. 232 deaths in aviation
The answer for this is among the two points above.
[
Fear of the unknown is, i don't know 200 years old by now, the element of every cheap horror novel.
It is infact the precedent for all good horror novels. Horror can only exist in the minds of someone who does not understand. Any horror element holds that of mystery and uncertainty. I liked lovecraft's writings, especially Colour of Space: He read the insurgent papers on quantum mechanics at the time and found himself fearful at the notion that the universe seemed fundamentally unpredictable (at the time) and the idea that there are so many forces that govern our existence which we cannot reliably control. If you took the element of mystery out of horror you would get a risk-assessment paper, I think this point alone is sufficient to illustrate why horror needs mystery.

B) There are statistical and explanatory means of quantifying or qualifying "fear of the unknown" or, which i concern to be an entirely different subject "xenophobia", although, on the literal sense seeming identical, to be two very distinct complexes.
C) Mathematics is also infinite, should we therefore have stopped in the kindergarten, declared the pursue of discovery, experimentation and formulation of laws impossible and fruitless, also? In contrary, the physiological, logical and psychological limits of human mind dictates the limitedness of the actual matter at hand. Therefore, it is nothing but lazyness to declare that we can't know, explain, or demonstrate the functions at play.
I do not concern myself with xenophobia, just because its basis could be in primological evolutionary benefits, i.e. the likes of disease transmission which wiped out tribes of aboriginees when white europeans visited, or a means to differentiate populations into the exploitative and dominant class, it has stuck with us. That is not to say it is inevitable, rather it says that fear of the unknown regulates most people's behaviours which are separate from your own. I don't have any racial inclinations, but perhaps that is because I understand the differences in skin colour and the differences in our environment. Some people understand the reason for differences in skin colour, others do not. If they do not understand the logical reasons why skin colour is different they are left to speculation. Speculation on matters we don't know leads to fear. Evolution is not racist, it is not bound by ideological principles. The ones that intermingled with another tribe could've transmitted or received a disease, their genes were not inherited due to something like a bacterial infection.

Fear is a force, I'm not being lazy in not applying it to every conceivable context, what I am doing is simply stipulating its existence and how it is the predominant force in people's minds. We are limited in our understanding and fear of the unknown supersedes that limited comprehension. We don't need to know anything to fear the unknown, and since evolution is the survival mechanism of all life, everywhere, there exists in a truth in adapting to a fear, whether it is known or unknown to the individual. I only said it was infinite because it is the contrapositive to knowledge, since we cannot know everything it is infinite in its application. I don't see how you can refute this. I'm not even making the point fear cannot be rationalized I understand fear cannot be quantified, but this is not the question of the OP: He is asking why people do not logically fear a more probabilistic means of dying compared to a less probable one but he also dismissed the idea of irrational fears. It seems to me he was asking why people possess illogical fears that they cannot explain, but he didn't want anyone to explain by referring to the unknown. I am giving him the correct answer to explain irrationality of fears, for many fear is not preceded by logic. That is the answer to this question. Fear of the unknown is that which exists when logic is absent.
 

Elen

Cold and damp
Local time
Yesterday, 21:25
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
150
It seems only logical to me that if a person fears x then they should also fear anything with a greater chance than x of occurring.

A few examples;

- People afraid of strangers should also fear friends and family as statistically we are more likely to be hurt by a loved one.
- People afraid of animals should fear people because once again we are statistically more likely to be hurt by other humans.
- People that are afraid of flying should also be afraid of driving.
Scorpio's amygdala point is pretty spot on.

We are evolutionarily not very far removed from our Seregeti ancestors.

Our brains and nervous systems are primed to look for predators of a big and teethy variety. Therefore the strong fear of dark alleys. We are primed to seek out a social group because being alone meant almost certain death while dying at the hands of one of our social group may be possible but less likely than death from having to fend for ourselves without support. The same goes for finding a mating partner.

We fear plane crashes because we don't actually fly that often (as apposed to being around cars) but we see plane crashes on tv and in movies all the time. There is a false perception of a high likelihood of death by plane crashes coupled with a lack of habituation to that particular threat. I'd argue we would fear car crashes for the similar reasons except that we drive a car much more often then we fly. Most of us anyway. Or we see cars driven every day but we aren't up close to planes flying all the time. So our brains normalize and mitigate our fear of something we see and take part in all the time because otherwise we wouldn't be able to function on any given day.

Our key human trait of environmental adaptability helps us to become habituated to the things more likely to kill and harm us simply because we interact with those things regularly and develop strategies for dealing with them and giving ourselves a sense of control over them.

So, somebody who lives in a rough neighborhood might be used to the sound of gunfire. Might take certain precautions to avoid common threats in their environment like padlock the door, bar the windows, avoid specific alleys but they otherwise have become habituated to the violence and higher chances of death they face every day. But they can still fear flying in a plane because they don't do it all the time AND they have no sense of being able to controll their risk factors.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the data on how many people have a phobia of driving vs phobia of flying.
 

Child

Redshirt
Local time
Yesterday, 23:25
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
6
It seems that I, along with everyone else in this chat, has had the exact same thought and thought about this instead of participating in life for a day or two. Well, I think that people aren’t actually scared of death, darkness, the ocean, needles and other things, but of the unknown. Or maybe pain or getting injured.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,018
Location
germany
I've been ignorant about a super important aspect of typology for so long. Just woke up to that. The OTHER four functions are what the unknown really is to us. Not so much shadow function. Unlocks a new level of understanding people. For example how Ni types can be parnoid about how other peoples actions may affect them, because the straightforward and easy interpretation of intended impact of actions (causality) as seen by Ne is unknown to them - so instead Ni can only interpret the course of action in terms of how its opposed to the Ni intend - "ppl want to cross you" which is the incorrect understanding and that conditions fear. Its a bit like being blind while you sense that crows fly around your head. For Si types, Se is a blindspot that is inherently a source of fear, because we know something complicated needs dealing with, in a situation, but we can't sort it out. Corona made me so aware of that, because there were suddenly new ways of getting into shop, like ppl forming a line in a strange place and i dont even understand what they are up to and if its my line and i couln't handle that, in some cases, just didn't buy anything in those places at all.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 06:25
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,018
Location
germany
so to say this more simply: i think that if what ever u do about something is always the worst thing to do about it, that you begin to fear that thing.

you are actually afraid of provoking conflict with strangers by pure accident, to which they would respond with deliberately hurting you. with family, you know well how to avoid this. when they trash you anyways its not your fault, so you don't fear it. it doesn't feel like personal failure. its not insecurity. you may feel security in knowing how to best respond to their attacks, without provoking more attacks. so we fear learning information about us, that lowers or esteem about our survival chances. we fear discovering disabilities.

sorry for not at all reading the thread.
 
Top Bottom