Fearlessness

[visceral]

Could you somehow alter the brain so that a person was unable to feel fear? Like that girl Gaia Moore in that series by Francine Pascal?

[Mokele]

In theory, but I doubt it could be accomplished without serious damage to many associated systems.

[Glider]

Yes. You can induce a condition known as Kluver-Bucy syndrome which can result from lesions (bilateral) in the anterior temporal horn or amygdala (medial temporal lobes).

 

In humans, this condition can be seen occasionally in survivors of herpes simplex encephalitis.

 

However, fearlessness is not the only effect of such lesions.

[visceral]

If you can do complex neurosurgery, surely you could make the necessary alteration without doing damage?

[insane_alien]

If you can do complex neurosurgery, surely you could make the necessary alteration without doing damage?

 

not when the alteration itself IS damage.

[visceral]

Just removing the ability to feel fear is not damage, it would be useful.

 

I mean: if you can do complex neurosurgery, surely you can do this without injuring any other part of the brain?

[insane_alien]

fear is more useful than not being able to feel fear.

 

fear keeps you alive and in many instances can be used for motivational purposes.

 

but yes, it should be possible to perform surgery to prevent the fear response without physically damaging the rest of the brain. however, the part of the brain responsible for fear will be irreversably damaged.

[visceral]

I would prefer not being able to feel fear - you would still have the rational judgement to know you were in danger, without the unpleasant emotional effects and clouding of reason that fear causes.

[iNow]

I would prefer not being able to feel fear - you would still have the rational judgement to know you were in danger, without the unpleasant emotional effects and clouding of reason that fear causes.

No, actually, you wouldn't. The part you seem to be missing is that the fear infrastructure is almost entirely overlapped with the neurophysiology of every other emotion and feeling.

 

You seem to be of the impression that our fear mechanism is some sort of lego piece which can simply be removed without effecting other systems. It's not. You could stick a screwdriver through your amygdala and left thalamus, but you'd do more than just remove your ability to feel fear.

 

In short, absolutely not. Yes, you can remove the fear response, but you cannot do so without removing a multitude of other mental responses we REQUIRE for survival.

[Glider]

I would prefer not being able to feel fear - you would still have the rational judgement to know you were in danger, without the unpleasant emotional effects and clouding of reason that fear causes.

Or the sympathetic arousal (which is a significant part of the emotion) that is so often necessary to get you out of danger.

 

It is an interesting question though. In many cases, how would you know you're in danger if you don't feel threatened? The absence of fear wouldn't increase your capacity to deal with threat, but it would delay your recognition of threat significantly, which would surely have a negative impact on your ability to deal with it appropriately.

 

It is one of these widely accepted, but unwritten priciples that the difference between a courage and stupidity is fear. A brave person feels fear but but doesn't let it control their actions and so still manages to do the right thing. Stupidity is simply failing to recognise a threat (as in Kluver-Bucy).

[visceral]

No, actually, you wouldn't. The part you seem to be missing is that the fear infrastructure is almost entirely overlapped with the neurophysiology of every other emotion and feeling.

 

You seem to be of the impression that our fear mechanism is some sort of lego piece which can simply be removed without effecting other systems. It's not. You could stick a screwdriver through your amygdala and left thalamus, but you'd do more than just remove your ability to feel fear.

 

In short, absolutely not. Yes, you can remove the fear response, but you cannot do so without removing a multitude of other mental responses we REQUIRE for survival.

 

So there is absolutely no way you could isolate it from other emotions?

 

It is an interesting question though. In many cases, how would you know you're in danger if you don't feel threatened? The absence of fear wouldn't increase your capacity to deal with threat, but it would delay your recognition of threat significantly, which would surely have a negative impact on your ability to deal with it appropriately.

 

 

On the other hand, fear messes you up. You are overwhelmed by emotion, you can become irrational or just seize up. A brave person can fight their way through these things but they're still affected.

 

Do you really need to feel threatened to react in the appropriate way?

 

I don't fear mild to moderate pain, but it doesn't mean I'm going to crush cans with my head.

[iNow]

So there is absolutely no way you could isolate it from other emotions?

 

I'd suggest cognitive behavioral therapy, and exposure therapy techniques.

[Kyrisch]

Haha, forgive the trite aphorism, but "braveness is not absence of fear, it is conquering of fear". I think the aspect of bravery goes a little beyond not fearing something.

[Glider]

So there is absolutely no way you could isolate it from other emotions?

Unlikely, especially as it (by which I mean both the emotion and the associated patterns of sympathetic arousal) is a component of so many other emotions.

 

If you eliminate fear, things like riding a roller coaster become an intellectual exercise. There would be no point to paragliding, skiboarding and surfing would be boring and asking somebody you really like out on a first date would be a rather dull and mundane event and not memorable at all. Life would be really rather pointless.

 

On the other hand, fear messes you up. You are overwhelmed by emotion, you can become irrational or just seize up. A brave person can fight their way through these things but they're still affected.

Of course, but it's largely a question of degree (although there are other factors).

 

Pain, or the capacity to experience it, is absolutely neccesary for life. Those who are born with a universal insensitivity to pain rarely live into their 20s. Pain has both protective and restorative functions, but too much pain can completely immobilise a person, and so is maladaptive.

 

In the same way, the ability to detect threat and the immediate physiological arousal that brings are absolutely necessary for life. But, as you say, too much arousal can be overwhelminng and result in people 'freezing' and so is maladaptive. However, fear, with practice and training, can be better and more effectively controlled than pain.

 

Do you really need to feel threatened to react in the appropriate way?

Yes, the feeling of threat is your signal to react in a particular (adaptive) way.

 

Monkeys with Kluver-Bucy don't react to large snakes appropriately. They will approach them without caution and poke at them (increased levels of curiosity is another symptom of Kluver-Bucy syndrome). Even if the snake isn't hungry, being poked at or mounted (oh yeah, hypersexuality is another symptom of Kluver-Bucy syndrome too), by something the size of lunch is going to piss it off sooner or later.

 

I don't fear mild to moderate pain, but it doesn't mean I'm going to crush cans with my head.

No, that would be pointless. But mild to moderate pain does mean that you will act appropriately in its presence. You will change position if lying down (that'll prevent you getting bed sores). If the pain is in a joint in your leg, you will walk with an antalgic gait . That will facilitate healing. If the pain is in your body, you will sheild the area. If the pain is due to your leaning against a radiator, you will get off it before any damage is done.

 

People with congenital universal insensitivity to pain will do none of these things, which is why they don't live very long.

 

Fear is exactly the same in principle. Mild levels of arousal will keep you from approaching a dodgy looking pit bull without appropriate caution. It will stop you from walking backwards into the road and keep you a safe distance from the platform edge at train stations. It will keep you from doing things with a parasail that you don't feel you are competent to do and from climbing higher up a cliff than you think you can get down from. It will keep you from approaching a certain kind of bend above a certain speed on a morotcycle.

 

It does all these things all the time and mainly on an unconscious level. We become aware of it only when we aproach, or accidentally exceed our limit. That's the sudden flush and tingle you feel when, for example, you trip at the top of a flight of stairs, but don't actually fall. A major part of the more adventurous passtimes (like paragliding) is to get close to that limit and experience those levels of arousal; the levels you get just before everything goes tits up.

 

The threshold of arousal is different for different people. This is partly congenital and partly determined by experience (for example, particularly high arousal thresholds in children is associated with ADHD). We need a certain level to function properly, so knocking out your ability to feel fear or percieve threat would be a really bad thing. Even if you didn't get yourself killed really quickly, you would find little point to living.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Glider