A woman who can't feel fear(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
A woman who can't feel fear
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/20/meet-the-woman-who-cant-feel-fear/
8 comments
Emotions are there for a purpose. Specifically, they're big levers in the brain for getting certain kinds of actions in certain kinds of situations. Anger, sadness, excitement, and everything. If you take a look at what causes them, and what people do when they have those feelings, you can get an interesting glimpse at our ancestral environment.
Neuropathy (from diabetes or otherwise) is unusual in that it both causes pain constantly (when no stimuli is present) while simultaneous blocking real pain. It's the worst of both worlds. You don't notice when something is actually wrong while you are also constantly suffering.
> Neuropathy is unusual in that it both causes pain constantly (when no stimuli is present) ...
Only some types of neuropathy are like that (and there are many kinds). In other cases there are no sensations at all.
Only some types of neuropathy are like that (and there are many kinds). In other cases there are no sensations at all.
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.
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.
I don't mind feeling fear occasionally if it helps me live out my natural lifespan.
I don't mind feeling fear occasionally if it helps me live out my natural lifespan.
> 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.
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.
> Who are these other people, who are likewise fearless (like SM), that are not around to be studied & interviewed?
People who were not survivors of 4 (and counting) violent assaults with deadly weapons, or of other dangerous behavior which might have not have happened if they had functioning fear.
> I'm asking if there is an evidenced based count, or if you are purely speculating.
I think the burden of proof here should be on anyone who thinks that lacking fear is great. If so, why does the rare disorder not spread? Why is fear an almost universal and evolutionarily-conserved emotion? Why does the only cited example lead an extraordinarily risky life? (How many white female artists ever get held up like that? Or 4 times? Hell of a coincidence...)
> 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'?
People who were not survivors of 4 (and counting) violent assaults with deadly weapons, or of other dangerous behavior which might have not have happened if they had functioning fear.
> I'm asking if there is an evidenced based count, or if you are purely speculating.
I think the burden of proof here should be on anyone who thinks that lacking fear is great. If so, why does the rare disorder not spread? Why is fear an almost universal and evolutionarily-conserved emotion? Why does the only cited example lead an extraordinarily risky life? (How many white female artists ever get held up like that? Or 4 times? Hell of a coincidence...)
> 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'?
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.
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.
Oh for goodness sake...
> 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?
(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.)
> 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?
(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.)
> Oh for goodness sake...
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.
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_goodness'_sake
>> 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).
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.
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_goodness'_sake
>> 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).
I think you miss the point. She describes herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times because she is also unable to notice the real dangers that fear is there to help us handle. 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.
> I think you miss the point.
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.
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.
I've had the privilege of working with the patient described in the podcast. She's unique in any sense of the word.
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)?
First, I should point out the original work of Ralph Adolphs, the Damasios, and Dan Tranel on this case [0]. It's a short, important paper that started this whole line of investigation based on the single extraordinary case of SM.
In my interactions with her, SM was uniformly happy, and it's my impression that she's like that in everyday life as well. A former labmate, Justin Feinstein, wrote an interesting paper based in part on observing her in real-world settings [1]. He didn't observe fear in any of a variety of potentially frightening contexts — she generally confronts such contexts with laughter or wonder.
Regarding love, she's deeply attached to her family. I distinctly remember stopping when we walked past the hospital chapel so that she could pray for members of her family. I can't say as much about grief, but she never seemed anxious in any of the time that we spent together, and she certainly never got angry or even upset.
[0]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7990957
[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167712
In my interactions with her, SM was uniformly happy, and it's my impression that she's like that in everyday life as well. A former labmate, Justin Feinstein, wrote an interesting paper based in part on observing her in real-world settings [1]. He didn't observe fear in any of a variety of potentially frightening contexts — she generally confronts such contexts with laughter or wonder.
Regarding love, she's deeply attached to her family. I distinctly remember stopping when we walked past the hospital chapel so that she could pray for members of her family. I can't say as much about grief, but she never seemed anxious in any of the time that we spent together, and she certainly never got angry or even upset.
[0]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7990957
[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167712
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.
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.
Seems like after every popular science radio show / podcast, a raft of 'articles' appear that are just cribbed summaries of the show.
Either there's just not enough material out there, or writers are very lazy, or these are essentially promos for the original show. In any case, if you consume science journalism with any appetite, this is pretty frustrating.
How about writing a new story, people?!
Either there's just not enough material out there, or writers are very lazy, or these are essentially promos for the original show. In any case, if you consume science journalism with any appetite, this is pretty frustrating.
How about writing a new story, people?!
I wonder whether she has done truly awesome things with her life. One of these pieces of advice you hear often regarding your true vocation goes something like _what would you do if you had no fear?_.
Well, she literally hasn't. So is she an Olympic champion who fights crime during the night and writes amazing novels during the day and commutes to work swimming together with a school of piranhas, or has she led a relatively normal life? She can follow her passion with no fear of failure or success or whatever!
I'm genuinely curious to find scientific evidence about whether fear is the only thing holding us back or there are other factors.
Well, she literally hasn't. So is she an Olympic champion who fights crime during the night and writes amazing novels during the day and commutes to work swimming together with a school of piranhas, or has she led a relatively normal life? She can follow her passion with no fear of failure or success or whatever!
I'm genuinely curious to find scientific evidence about whether fear is the only thing holding us back or there are other factors.
I think what they really mean by fear, in those advice, is actually "learned helplessness". You refrain from applying that great position you've always dreamed of, because you "fear" that being rejected would crush your dreams. This is a complex thought. What this woman lacks, as I understand, is something more elementary.
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).
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".
What would stop a person like this from killing herself if she is truly depressed ?
What stops her from killing herself out of curiosity ?
Would she make a better or worse soldier ?
I wish this woman did an AMA.
What stops her from killing herself out of curiosity ?
Would she make a better or worse soldier ?
I wish this woman did an AMA.
Fear of death is not the only motivation for survival.
It is possible to rationally realize that dying would have negative utility, even failing to take into account fear of death.
In general, evolution tends to produce redundant systems for reproduction-critical activities.
It is possible to rationally realize that dying would have negative utility, even failing to take into account fear of death.
In general, evolution tends to produce redundant systems for reproduction-critical activities.
I wonder if you can be truly depressed if you don't fear anything? Or does her lack of fear not encompass anxiety?
>I wonder if you can be truly depressed if you don't fear anything?
I would say yes, often times depression manifests itself not as a feeling of fear or dread but as apathy. See for example Hugh Laurie's personal life [1,2] or Nine Inch Nails' Everyday is Exactly the Same[3] which captures that exact feeling. Or of course the wonderful Hyperbole and a Half's account of depression[4], especially the second part makes the point that depression at its worst is a void. No positive feelings, but also no negative ones.
Now I made myself sad^H^H^H apathetic going through those sources. Why does Trent Reznor have to be so good at projecting?
As for the anxiety bit (anxiety and depression are to completely different things), the article mentions her response to having her blood-co2 levels elevated, which seems to me to be a standard anxiety response. A feeling of restlessness and dread.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie#Personal_Life [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2316880/Playing... (I know, I know, Daily mail but the quotes are worth it) [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aj9_8t1eQc [4] http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.nl/2011/10/adventures-in-d...
I would say yes, often times depression manifests itself not as a feeling of fear or dread but as apathy. See for example Hugh Laurie's personal life [1,2] or Nine Inch Nails' Everyday is Exactly the Same[3] which captures that exact feeling. Or of course the wonderful Hyperbole and a Half's account of depression[4], especially the second part makes the point that depression at its worst is a void. No positive feelings, but also no negative ones.
Now I made myself sad^H^H^H apathetic going through those sources. Why does Trent Reznor have to be so good at projecting?
As for the anxiety bit (anxiety and depression are to completely different things), the article mentions her response to having her blood-co2 levels elevated, which seems to me to be a standard anxiety response. A feeling of restlessness and dread.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie#Personal_Life [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2316880/Playing... (I know, I know, Daily mail but the quotes are worth it) [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aj9_8t1eQc [4] http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.nl/2011/10/adventures-in-d...
Great questions.
> I wonder if you can be truly depressed if you don't fear anything?
In the podcast, she does describe herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times.
> Or does her lack of fear not encompass anxiety?
I asked someone who had met her in person a similar question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8927905
> I wonder if you can be truly depressed if you don't fear anything?
In the podcast, she does describe herself to be happy 9 out of 10 times.
> Or does her lack of fear not encompass anxiety?
I asked someone who had met her in person a similar question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8927905
This didn't feel like much of an article. I'm super interested in hearing her responses to the interview questions, but the article just kind of stops!
Reminds me of this podcast from earlier this week..
http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/
That's exactly what they reference in the first couple of paragraphs.
Great episode - I highly recommend it.
This sounds a lot like sociopathy. I've read that sociopaths are not scared like normal people are in frightening situations. Maybe dysfunction of the amygdala is part of that too.
I've read that sociopathy may be related to a dysfunction of the brain's ability to sympathize with others. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.
Who knows, it might have conferred a survival advantage in our distant past--bands of nomadic hominids might have had to kill and even eat each other at times.
Who knows, it might have conferred a survival advantage in our distant past--bands of nomadic hominids might have had to kill and even eat each other at times.
Sociopathy is more likely related to mate competition than cannibalism, which is almost never practised for food, but rather for its ritual significance. Cannibalism was fairly widely and routinely practised in pre-political states--to the extent that in Polynesia there is a prion disease that appears to have evolved with cannibalism as a vector--but even amongst peoples where it was practised, in times of starvation people would mostly starve rather than eat each other.
A number of early European explorers (including Champlain, if memory serves) describe ritual cannibalism--generally the consumption of prisoners, who were first tortured to death in that holistic and natural way First Peoples had--but also describe people starving to death in times of want without resorting to it.
In the case of this woman, her amygdalae have been damaged by Urbach-Wieth disease, which according to the article is extremely rare.
That said, it is likely that there is a wide distribution of various types of emotional response in the populace due to variations in neurological capability.
A number of early European explorers (including Champlain, if memory serves) describe ritual cannibalism--generally the consumption of prisoners, who were first tortured to death in that holistic and natural way First Peoples had--but also describe people starving to death in times of want without resorting to it.
In the case of this woman, her amygdalae have been damaged by Urbach-Wieth disease, which according to the article is extremely rare.
That said, it is likely that there is a wide distribution of various types of emotional response in the populace due to variations in neurological capability.
> pre-political states
How is this not a contradiction in terms? Non-political humans seem impossible.
How is this not a contradiction in terms? Non-political humans seem impossible.
>"I've read that sociopathy may be related to a dysfunction of the brain's ability to sympathize with others."
Perhaps they fail to empathize or sympathize with their "future self", which is who they view as the recipient of whatever it is they should be scared of currently.
Though of course, IANAP.
Perhaps they fail to empathize or sympathize with their "future self", which is who they view as the recipient of whatever it is they should be scared of currently.
Though of course, IANAP.
That's a very interesting thought. If that hominid was indeed superior, there would be more of those genetic traits still around, but it's fear which is a double edged sword - it makes some wiser, and some not-so-wise.
Or maybe it's our turn (the homo sapiens who have fear) turn to die out, letting more fearless ones take place. Although, this sounds more of a fictional novel waiting to be written.
Or maybe it's our turn (the homo sapiens who have fear) turn to die out, letting more fearless ones take place. Although, this sounds more of a fictional novel waiting to be written.
Interesting connection, the article mentions she is an artist and is often unable to draw or read a fearful expression on someone.
Fear, pain, guilty - the gifts no one appreciates.