I did find your original comment interesting, but wasn't sure about its relevance to this article. This comment is more clarifying, thanks.
I agree with your evopsych explanation. Political correctness is to do with status, as noted by Kristian at http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correc... but even he doesn't go so far as to connect it to sexual competition. Sexual competition, especially without enforced 1-on-1 pairings (e.g.: marriage of the past), does lead to conflict. Cases like that of Elliot Rodgers come to my mind.
However I'm not convinced that enforced monogamy has seen less conflict than modern times. Can you back this argument with statistics? For example, did crime rate increase? My feeling is that even in the good old days where 1-on-1 marriage was the norm, high-status males still surreptitiously poached females paired with lower-status males. Per certain writers even the Victorian Era was not immune to it.
> And segregation wasn't offensive to most southern whites.
Does racial segregation offend you, then? If so what are you actually doing about it? Are you putting your kids in a diverse school? Are you encouraging them to date people from other races? Are you married to one currently? How much of your social circle, other than acquaintances, involve non-whites?
There is no way you are going to "fix" societal issues without demonstrating a resolution in your own life.
Someone finally said it! I have often remarked that much of the so-called anti-racism is in fact designed to keep a lid on actual racism itself. People are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Uhh, what is the connection here? And how are you so sure that status wars did not happen as much, if only in different forms, during the days of "enforced monogamy"?
As Kristian wrote "Political Correctness is really just a special form of conspicuous consumption, leading to a zero-sum status race. The fact that PC fans are still constantly outraged, despite the fact that PC has never been so pervasive, would then just be a special form of the Easterlin Paradox" http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correc...
> Surely you can admit that Americans are less caste-loving. We treat talented individuals of all races+genders+GLBTQBBQ pretty damn well compared to the majority of the world
I'm not really sure about that. If you are talking about overt treatment, sure we tend to be nice and well-mannered compared to the majority of the world. But underneath that facade we really aren't any different from the rest. Why do you think an HN user had to create a throwaway account (throwaway6761) to denigrate an entire race of people? I'm sure he tends to be nice and well-mannered to the minorities outside the Internet. Finally note that the comment you are responding to points to the class/status system between Americans (not just between races): http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/class-di...
> racial groups (indian males are amongst the worst)
> The influx of H1-B, caste loving people is making the push for equality a difficult one.
I'm not going to call you a racist, but the least you could do is provide examples or, at best, statistics to backup your allegations. None, but one, of the feminist accusations of the tech industry in the American media involved a non-white male.
You are welcome, and thanks for acknowledging without getting defensive. My hypocrisy comment was not directed at you, but to the general HN crowd that upvoted yours while downvoting that of puranjay (it had negative votes at the time of my comment). I have seen this happen with my own comments which, although meticulously researched and not offensive, sometimes get down voted to oblivion just because I challenge a dominating belief here. It shows me that people can be all smart as they want, and yet continue holding on to their beliefs like a tribe member defending tribe values.
>> Minimalist apps are for people who want to play 'pretend' at writing.
> this comment is single-handedly the most pompous one of all.
It is interesting to note that HN's commenting guideline is to "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." yet, the folks here are downvoting puranjay's neutral 'pretend' comment (not targeted at anyone in particular) while upholding yours (you don't tell someone to their face that they made a pompous remark). What hypocrisy.
Thank you. I find it interesting that you describe her to be "uniformly happy" yet your former lab mate, Justin Feinstein (along with Adolphs, Damasio, Tranel), uses "adverse consequences of living life without the amygdala" to describe her.
And when he (they) concluded the paper by writing "[SM's] behavior, time and time again, leads her back to the very situations she should be avoiding, highlighting the indispensable role that the amygdala plays in promoting survival by compelling the organism away from danger." were they thinking of the experimental situations (snakes, haunt houses) in mind or real world situations? I ask because for someone living in a "poverty-stricken area replete with crime, drugs, and danger" at the age of 44 being held at knifepoint/ gunpoint 4 times seems par for the course.
Even so, what evidence is there that SM went back to the very situations she should be avoiding in real life (i.e., not experimental situations of poking snakes and monsters). For example, did she go back to the situation that put herself at knifepoint (the incident which she handled fearlessly by saying "go ahead and cut me")?
I can't help but think that the authors are bringing their own bias (that fear-response is essential in modern times) when concluding as that. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I'm very interested in the topic of fear.
If you are using this expression to express frustration, exasperation, annoyance[1] - say so explicitly, I'll stop right here. My experience indicates that when people are frustrated at any point during a conversation involving strongly held personal beliefs, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, as that is usually the best for both the parties.
>> SM is indeed that proof -- she is admirably surviving without fear, and being mostly happy at it as well.
> When a nuclear power plant nearly melts down, there are two possible reactions.
> One is to infer that the plant design is less safe that calculated, and reason accordingly.
> The other is to say, 'hey, the plant almost melted down but it didn't actually melt down!
> Nuclear power plants must be really safe! This is great!'
> Which do you think you are doing?
So that is your third attempt to counter? Be that as it may, SM admirably surviving those four incidents is nothing at all like your analogy; there is no nuclear plant to nearly melt down (she actually survived those four incidents). What I'm doing, then, is to point out that she actually survived (despite the lack of fear), and on top of that, I'm saying that fear is overrated. You are saying that fear is a gift, and I requested for those people you think actually needed fear to survive. Even if you could not provide citations, could you at least provide reasonable situations where a normal person would need the instinctual reaction of fear to survive in modern times?
> (In statistical terminology, we are dealing with heavily censored data: deaths are not recorded because of the rarity of the disorder, and we have a filtered distribution of only the datapoints/people still functional enough to have survived at all. If one of the uncensored datapoints, or the only datapoint, is an extreme outlier on a variable, such as experienced violence, that implies the whole distribution will be as or more extreme outliers.)
There are only 400 reported cases of the Urbach–Wiethe disease (what you refer to as the disorder). And only some of the 50–75% of thoses case affect the amygdala (which is associated with fear). Even that subset doesn't necessarily experience a complete a loss of fear as SM did. So it is not just about deaths not being recorded. It may very well be that SM is the only patient with complete loss of fear, out of all those patients with Urbach–Wiethe disease. Indeed many patients actually suffer mood, anxiety and psychotic disorders (hardly an indication of lack of fear). To summarize, it makes no sense to use the dataset -- censored or not -- of people with Urbach–Wiethe disease, as not all of them experience complete lack of fear. Even if there are patients other than SM with complete lack of fear, we do not know the cause of their death to make any conclusion as to their lack of fear being the cause of their death (such as to continue treating fear as a gift, appreciated or not).
SM is indeed that proof -- she is admirably surviving without fear, and being mostly happy at it as well.
You tried to counter it first by lumping fear together with pain.
Next, you tried to counter it by pointing to some hypothetical group of fearless people that were dead specifically due to lacking fear. I asked if you could point who these people were. I'm genuinely curious to learn and understand how in modern times -- where people with their elaborate plans, not snakes with their instantaneous attacks, are the common threat -- a person of average or above intelligence could end up risking their own lives without having to involve fear.
Your argument for evolutionary conservation doesn't hold at all. Intelligence evolved fairly recently (in evolutionary terms) and thus, pending genetic tampering by us, it should take a plenty of time for any such adaptations to be successful. Besides, fear was indeed essential to us prior to intelligence evolving, as the quick and dirty survival mechanism of instincts was all that we had to survive and reproduce successfully.
> Why does the only cited example lead an extraordinarily risky life?
What I'm asking, specifically, is: are their other (cited or non-cited) examples of a woman or a man with no fear whatsoever leading an ordinary or below-ordinary life? I'm more that happy rescind all that I've written to you here if you could successfully provide them. After all, you have a track record of doing meticulous research.
> How many white female artists ever get held up like that? Or 4 times? Hell of a coincidence...
Are you suggesting that those 4 gunpoint/knifepoint perpetrators were influenced to do so, in part, due to SM being fearless? It really is hard to say without understanding her life context. Besides, this is going down the speculative path.
>> All that these scientists could come up with over the years to justify their (and the general public's) fear of lack of fear is those four incidents of being held at knifepoint and gunpoint.
> 'All'?
Yes -- and I'm not too sure what you were aiming to point here -- I took the liberty to assume that people like Antonio Damasio wanted to specifically find out/ bring out incidents from her life to buttress their opinion of fear being essential even to modern humans (he did say this in his book 'The Emotional Brain'). Of course, these scientists are also interested in the larger goal of understanding fear itself -- they have published a plenty of useful material -- but it also helps to know they have biases of their own to bring to the table.
> She describes herself as happy... and yet somehow has been at gunpoint and knifepoint, both of them multiple times. Most people manage to never have either. This suggests such people have extremely high death rates, and she's just lucky enough to still be around to be studied & interviewed.
Could you elaborate on what you are getting at here? Who are these other people, who are likewise fearless (like SM), that are not around to be studied & interviewed? I'm asking if there is an evidenced based count, or if you are purely speculating. Say, if there are 19 other people like SM with no fear, and all 19 of them of died due their frisky disregard for some 'risky behaviour' or 'real danger' ... then, I would accept that fear is indeed a gift.
> I don't mind feeling fear occasionally if it helps me live out my natural lifespan.
It is not just about the initial feeling of fear -- even then I hardly think fear helps a modern human live out his natural lifespan, as intelligence does a much better job of it -- but also the lack of fear-induced complex emotions, such as separation anxiety. Also it helps to remember that stress (much of it based on fear) shorten the said lifespan tremendously. So you may very well be looking at negligible loss vs substantial profit.
It seems to me that SM is the first candidate to demonstrate that fear can be disregarded like an appendage in modern times. All that these scientists could come up with over the years to justify their (and the general public's) fear of lack of fear is those four incidents of being held at knifepoint and gunpoint.
Gabriel, I'm delighted to read this comment by you (and that of David Warren) as you folks get this article in a positive light. Look at others bringing in sociopathy and "real dangers".
Isn't the "complex thought" of "learned helplessness" actually based on the elementary "fear" instinct? That is: no fear, no learned helplessness (only intelligent appraisal).
I do get gwern's implication of fear being a gift. His applauding of fear was (presumably) in response to Rachel Feltman's (WashingtonPost's journalist) "a bad thing" appraisal of her lack of fear during those two incidents of being held at knifepoint and those two other incidents of being held at gunpoint. Whereas you completely miss the point I was trying to make. That, it matters not that in her entire lifetime she failed to feel afraid in those four instances (of being held at knifepoint or gunpoint) -- and we do not yet know if she actually handled them intelligently or not (i.e., had the time and energy to think through her responses instead of them being, say, flippantly knee-jerk) -- as they are nothing in the large scheme of an entire of life of being mostly happy. Say, she has lived for some 50 years with this condition, then she has been happy the whole 45 years. An ordinary "healthy person" would have been happy say 25 years with ordinary "healthy" incidents of fear, even trauma, peppered throughout their lifetime.
> She describes herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times because she is also unable to notice the real dangers [...]
What 'real dangers' are they (other than the four incidences noted above)?
> [...] real dangers that fear is there to help us handle.
How exactly does fear help you handle 'real dangers'? It seems that SM had no trouble handling those four incidents (of being held at knifepoint or gunpoint) admirably. Most "healthy people" on the other hand would cringe/freeze and even develop "traumas", much less have the energy to think through their responses.
> While it may be great to not feel afraid, as the article points out it also leads her to risky behaviour that most healthy persons would avoid.
You are merely speculating trying to justify your fear of lack of fear, unless by 'risky behaviour' you only refer to those four incidents (of being held at knifepoint or gunpoint) which this women seems to have handled admirably.
Being fearless is indeed under appreciated, even at HN.
By lumping them all together, you are implying that fear is a gift. The NPR podcast on the other hand suggests otherwise. SM describes herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times, and she has no past trauma. Sounds like being fearless is in fact the under-appreciated gift.
Excellent! Could you say something about her emotional life? In the podcast, she described herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times. I wonder if she experiences love. And if she does, does she also experience grief? What about fear-based emotions (such as separation anxiety)?
> Yes. This is what therapy is. It's a professional teaching you tools to deal with anxiety. [...] The anxiety still exists
Is it your anxious self leading you to foolishly conclude that "shut anxiety off" == "deal with anxiety"?