[From Bruce Gregory (990902.1136 EDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (990826.1203 EDT)
<It is not obvious that it is a controlled variable.>
Why not? If I fear that a thunder storm is coming and it
will blow rain in
my bedroom window.
I don't think fear is quite the correct word here. Concern might be
better. But let's put that aside. If fear is a controlled variable you
must be able to perceive fear and to act in a way to reduce it. In your
example you have the thought that rain will blow into your bedroom
window. You presumably have a reference level for "no rain through the
bedroom window." Closing the window matches the perception with the
reference level. So I would say that the controlled variable is the
state of the bedroom window. The concern you feel could be associated
with many different controlled variables, each of which has to be
brought to an appropriate reference level. I am suggesting that the fear
serves as a signal that actions must be taken, but in itself is not a
controlled variable. If it were, you might take actions to simply reduce
the fear--pouring yourself a stiff drink, perhaps. But most people would
feel this action was not the appropriate one to take. If nothing you can
do will reduce the fear, drinking, drugs, or prayer might be the only
course of action.
<To a certain extent many people enjoy fear as long as they feel that
their ability to exercise control is not threatened--horror movies,
carnival rides.>Sounds like they are controlling some perception of a type of
fear to me.
Are you refuting your own claim that fear is only an
experience of error?
I hope not. Riding the roller coaster is controlling the perception that
you are riding the roller coaster. Feeling mild fear is an accompanying
emotion. Otherwise, you could simply stay at home and set the reference
level for fear to slightly positive.
It seems to me that fear may have nothing to do with
survival-like intrinsic
variables.
I'm afraid we differ here.
I fear thunder storms for reasons quite apart
from being struck
by lightening and being fried. We deal with and control fear
all the time.
See my example above. Do we control fear or do we control other
variables which are associated with fear. Putting on a safety belt
reduces the fear associated with imagining that you may be thrown from a
car. The controlled perception is "wearing a safety belt". Attempts to
control fear directly don't work very well for me. Perhaps you have a
different experience.
Some people fear flying not because of possible life ending
crashes but from
a likelihood of becoming nauseous and being embarrassed,
hardly survival
related intrinsic internal mandates for random
reorganization.
I disagree. Nausea is definitely associated with threats to survival and
being embarrassed is associated with loss of status.
Becoming
nauseous generally does not stop college students from
drinking too much
beer. I doubt they fear barfing. If they did, would they
control that fear
by drinking within limits?
In this case, I suspect status is more important than nausea. This
phenomenon is familiar in young males. They make the best soldiers
because they are able to subordinate their survival "instincts" to their
need to preserve status--"being a real man and showing courage in the
face of adversity."
Well what exactly does the HPCT model say fear is? How is it
experienced?
Is it a discrete event, a variable event? What? Does anyone know?
Again, look at Bill's chapter on emotions in LCS II. I re-read it over
the weekend. It is very interesting.
Fear, you admit, is certainly part of our experience. What
do we do when we
experience fear?
Depends. Fight or flight are two major responses.
Reorganize?
Only if fighting or fleeing are blocked, I would say.
Act by experience to reduce
fear?
Yes.
Behave differently? Suffer because we can't reorganize?
Yes.
Control
the perception of
fear?
Very hard to do. But your experience may be different from mine.
Both? Neither? It depends? On what? If HPCT is a
complete model of
what people do and perceive, what is the explanation for what
this experience
is and how does the PCT model address it?
I've tried to answer those questions above.
Can fear be modeled? Can we do experiments and test for fear
as a controlled
variable?
Lot's of animal experiments. Some with human beings.
Has anyone tried? When you tell someone who is
afraid to fly that
its all in their head, and irrational, do they resist your action?
Probably not. It simply does nothing to reduce their fear. Most people
do not feel it is important to convince others that their fear of flying
is rational, so they don't resist people telling them that it is
irrational. They _know_ it is irrational.
When we recall a frightening experience, are you sure we
don't recall our
perception of how it felt to us?
No.
Can we be afraid of the
unknown, something
we have never experienced before?
Sure. In fact, we are often afraid of the unknown (the noise in the
"empty" garage). When we discover what the unknown is (the cat is
trapped in the garage), we experience relief.
Can we perceive what it is
like to be
afraid in an of itself, regardless of any frightening
experience accompanied
to it?
I don't know. Can you?
Is there a kind of conceivable fear that can be resolved only by
reorganization?
Fear associated with falling off a bicycle.
Does this mean an intrinsic variable must be
threatened?
No.
Is there a kind of system level fear perception like the fear
of germs, the
fear of an abusive father, the fear of being caught
misbehaving, which are
built on combinations of beliefs, that could be eliminated by
looking down on
these phobia-like neuroses produce errors to our higher
levels of perceptions
for having a joyful spirit in our heart afraid of nothing?
Sure. But heed A.E. Housman's observation:
... And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man
Bruce Gregory