What are you afraid of?

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02)]

I’ll bet that everyone on CSGNet has perceived fear. Did you know that anxiety/fear is, according to the Journal of Psychology, anxiety/fear related problems has overtaken depression as the top emotional or mood disorder suffered by Americans.

Now, I am no psychologist. I do not understand what words like fear, anxiety or depression actually mean. Perhaps some practicing psychologist like David Goldstein can help me out with not only what these terms mean, but whether he agrees that anxiety is not only a significant problem for people in the USA, but is the #1 problem and still ahead of depression?

Perhaps David could explain at what level in the HPCT hierarchy is fear perceived? Is fear some variable that humans can control? Even better, what has PCT revealed about fear that other theories of psychology have failed to grasp correctly? How does PCT/HPCT contribute to a better way for people to reduce their emotional suffering or mood disorders? What hard data on successful fear reduction via PCT/HPCT do we have? What scientific experiments have been performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of PCT/HPCT methods for treating fear and anxiety?

If the current construct of an 11 Level hirearchy of perceptions produces answers and results, it would certainly reduce any potential benefit of looking for still higher levesl in human beings. If not, perhaps new levels or a different hierarchal construct itself is needed? Or, would that just increase anxiety in those who are satisfied with the current structure?

2

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.03.11.12NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02)]

I’ll
bet that everyone on CSGNet has perceived fear. Did you know that
anxiety/fear is, according to the Journal of Psychology, anxiety/fear related
problems has overtaken depression as the top emotional or mood disorder
suffered by Americans.

That’s probably because pain is
built into the very cellular structure of cells. (Nociception).

Now, I
am no psychologist. I do not understand what words like fear, anxiety or
depression actually mean. Perhaps some practicing psychologist like David
Goldstein can help me out with not only what these terms mean, but whether he
agrees that anxiety is not only a significant problem for people in the USA,
but is the #1 problem and still ahead of depression?

Perhaps
David could
explain at what level in the HPCT hierarchy is fear perceived? Is fear
some variable that humans can control? Even better, what has PCT revealed
about fear that other theories of psychology have failed to grasp
correctly? How does PCT/HPCT contribute to a better way for
people to reduce their emotional suffering or mood disorders? What
hard data on successful fear reduction via PCT/HPCT do we have? What
scientific experiments have been performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of
PCT/HPCT methods for treating fear and anxiety?

Good questions.

I’ve designed a profiling system
around these very issues. If you want to equate my profiling system to HPCT it’s
right at the top.

If the
current construct of an 11 Level hirearchy of perceptions produces answers
and results, it would certainly reduce any potential benefit of looking for still
higher levesl in human beings. If not, perhaps new levels or a different
hierarchal construct itself is needed? Or, would that just increase
anxiety in those who are satisfied with the current structure?

3

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.02.1520)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02)--

I'll bet that everyone on CSGNet has perceived fear.� Did you know that
anxiety/fear is, according to the Journal of Psychology, anxiety/fear
related problems has overtaken depression as the top emotional or mood
disorder suffered by Americans.

Not surprising given the direction of this country over the last 3 decades

Now, I am no psychologist.� I do not understand what words like fear,
anxiety or depression actually mean.

You should read the "Emotion" chapter in the latest edition of B:CP.

Perhaps David could explain at what level in the HPCT hierarchy is fear
perceived?

Wrong question. Fear is an emotion which, in PCT, is a function of
both error and the kind of perception that is in error (not at its
reference). So fear can occur at any level of the hierarchy.

Is fear some variable that humans can control?

To the extent that fear is a "side effect" of error, then fear can be
controlled to the extent that the perception in error can be brought
under control.

Even better, what has PCT revealed about fear that other theories of�psychology have
failed to grasp correctly?

That fear, like other emotions, is a function of an acute or chronic
inability to control.

How does PCT/HPCT contribute to a better way�for people�to reduce their emotional
suffering or mood disorders?

It depends on why that emotional suffering (failure to control) is
happening. If it's a result of internal conflict, then PCT offers the
Method of Levels. If the suffering results from lack of skill then PCT
can recommend that the individual seek the relevant
education/training. If the suffering results from insuperable
disturbance then PCT can't help much, other than suggesting that the
person might try to remove themselves from the situation, if possible.

What hard data on successful fear reduction via PCT/HPCT do we have?

Since the increased ambient fear level in the US probably comes from
the difficult employment situation (people are fearful about being
able to control for paying their bills because they either can't get
jobs or are underpaid in the jobs they have) and since PCT would
suggest that a successful fear reduction program would be teh
existence of a generous safety net of unemployment and health
benefits, I would guess that some hard data would be provided by
comparing the fear level in the US to that in, say, Canada. My guess
is that the fear level is much lower in Canada (or any other
industrial democracy) than it is in the US.

What scientific
experiments have been performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of PCT/HPCT
methods for treating fear and anxiety?

None that I know of. But I bet you could come up with some ideas now.

If the current construct of an 11 Level�hirearchy of perceptions produces
answers and results, it would certainly reduce any potential benefit of
looking for still higher levesl in human beings.� If not, perhaps new levels
or a different hierarchal construct itself�is needed?� Or, would that just
increase anxiety in those who are satisfied with the current structure?

As I said, fear is not something that exists at a particular level of
the control hierarchy. Fear can exist at any level, from intensity
(fear of pain) to system concepts (fear of communism). Reducing fear
(if that's important to you) has nothing to do with how many levels
one imagines the control hierarchy to consist of. It has to do with
increasing control. When people are in control, they have no fear.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

4

[Martin Taylor 2010.11.03.17.40]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.02.1520)]
Wrong question. Fear is an emotion which, in PCT, is a function of
both error and the kind of perception that is in error (not at its
reference). So fear can occur at any level of the hierarchy.

Is fear some variable that humans can control?

To the extent that fear is a "side effect" of error, then fear can be
controlled to the extent that the perception in error can be brought
under control.

Don't forget that we fear what is not present or that has not yet happened. The error is an error of control in imagination only. If in imagination we cannot control the perception -- we perceive no environmental affordance that would allow us to influence the imagined perception toward its reference value --, then we are likely to fear what will (perhaps) come. If we believed we could deal with it, we wouldn't fear it.

I don't think we experience fear when the evil condition is present and we are actively behaving in the environment to influence the perception that is far from its reference value.

Martin

5

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.03.1700)]

Martin Taylor (2010.11.03.17.40)

Rick Marken (2010.12.02.1520)]

To the extent that fear is a "side effect" of error, then fear can be
controlled to the extent that the perception in error can be brought
under control.

Don't forget that we fear what is not present or that has not yet happened.
The error is an error of control in imagination only. If in imagination we
cannot control the perception -- we perceive no environmental affordance
that would allow us to influence the imagined perception toward its
reference value --, then we are likely to fear what will (perhaps) come. If
we believed we could deal with it, we wouldn't fear it.

The emotion I call "fear" happens in real time; a perception that I am
controlling suddenly goes away from it's reference and I can't bring
it back. So I feel fear when a bear walks onto the trail or a
lightening bolt hits nearby. When I imagine those same things, I have
an emotion that I would call "anxiety" or "stress".

I don't think we experience fear when the evil condition is present and we
are actively behaving in the environment to influence the perception that is
far from its reference value.

I think it's just the opposite. What you call "fear" is what I would
call "anxiety" and vice versa. I think the same somatic components are
involved in both; I "feel" the same things in my body in both cases.
It's the cognitive components that differ.

Best

Rick

···

Martin

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.03.23.30]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.03.1700)]

Martin Taylor (2010.11.03.17.40)

Rick Marken (2010.12.02.1520)]
To the extent that fear is a "side effect" of error, then fear can be
controlled to the extent that the perception in error can be brought
under control.

Don't forget that we fear what is not present or that has not yet happened.
The error is an error of control in imagination only. If in imagination we
cannot control the perception -- we perceive no environmental affordance
that would allow us to influence the imagined perception toward its
reference value --, then we are likely to fear what will (perhaps) come. If
we believed we could deal with it, we wouldn't fear it.

The emotion I call "fear" happens in real time; a perception that I am
controlling suddenly goes away from it's reference and I can't bring
it back. So I feel fear when a bear walks onto the trail or a
lightening bolt hits nearby.

Do you fear the bear's location on the trail or what you might expect the bear may shortly try to do to you? Do you fear the lightning bolt that has happened, or are you initially shocked by the light and noise and fearing what may come next, and then are you not imagining what might have happened if you had been standing in a slightly different place.

  When I imagine those same things, I have
an emotion that I would call "anxiety" or "stress".

There could be a language difference between us. To me, anxiety in one sense of the word is a less focussed feeling, and stress even less so. In another sense, anxiety that can be referred to a particular imagining is just a weaker form of fear. For example, I fear what will happen to the US economy if the politicians and the public listen to the formal economists, but I'm anxious about how Obama will try to deal with the new Congress.

I don't think we experience fear when the evil condition is present and we
are actively behaving in the environment to influence the perception that is
far from its reference value.

I think it's just the opposite. What you call "fear" is what I would
call "anxiety" and vice versa. I think the same somatic components are
involved in both; I "feel" the same things in my body in both cases.
It's the cognitive components that differ.

I agree with this last sentence, but I suspect that the other difference is of language, using different words to refer to the same thing, and the same words to refer to different things, rather analogous to the difference between the US and UK meanings of "to table" a meeting topic.

In one way, I agree with you about "the emotion I call 'fear' happens in real time". The way I agree is that the real time situation is sufficiently well defined that few imagined continuations are reasonably likely, and at least one fairly likely continuation will lead to high error in some controlled variable. Your bear might well amble off into the forest, but it is reasonably likely that she might attack you, which she hasn't started to do. However, I don't feel either anxiety or fear when I simply imagine that I am walking in the woods and that a bear confronts me. So, yes, there is an element of real time in that there is a current situation to which I imagine an unfortunate future continuation.

Martin

7

[Oliver Schauman 2010.12.04 16:30]

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.03.23.30]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.03.1700)]

Martin Taylor (2010.11.03.17.40)

Rick Marken (2010.12.02.1520)]
To the extent that fear is a "side effect" of error, then fear can be
controlled to the extent that the perception in error can be brought
under control.

Don't forget that we fear what is not present or that has not yet

happened.

The error is an error of control in imagination only. If in imagination

we

cannot control the perception -- we perceive no environmental affordance
that would allow us to influence the imagined perception toward its
reference value --, then we are likely to fear what will (perhaps) come.

If

we believed we could deal with it, we wouldn't fear it.

The emotion I call "fear" happens in real time; a perception that I am
controlling suddenly goes away from it's reference and I can't bring
it back. So I feel fear when a bear walks onto the trail or a
lightening bolt hits nearby.

Do you fear the bear's location on the trail or what you might expect
the bear may shortly try to do to you? Do you fear the lightning bolt
that has happened, or are you initially shocked by the light and noise
and fearing what may come next, and then are you not imagining what
might have happened if you had been standing in a slightly different place.

  When I imagine those same things, I have
an emotion that I would call "anxiety" or "stress".

There could be a language difference between us. To me, anxiety in one
sense of the word is a less focussed feeling, and stress even less so.
In another sense, anxiety that can be referred to a particular imagining
is just a weaker form of fear. For example, I fear what will happen to
the US economy if the politicians and the public listen to the formal
economists, but I'm anxious about how Obama will try to deal with the
new Congress.

I don't think we experience fear when the evil condition is present and

we

are actively behaving in the environment to influence the perception that

is

far from its reference value.

I think it's just the opposite. What you call "fear" is what I would
call "anxiety" and vice versa. I think the same somatic components are
involved in both; I "feel" the same things in my body in both cases.
It's the cognitive components that differ.

I would also like to make an additional point in terms of "controlling
emotions". Psychology likes to use the term "emotion regulation" quite
frequently. Usually it is seen as a good thing, which I have some problems
with.

I think we are able to "regulate" emotions in an adaptive sense when we are
able to shift awareness to higher perceptual level and reorganise in order
to reduce error.

However, people who experience psychological problems may sometimes choose
to arbitrarily control their experience, in order to reduce negative
emotions. By this I mean that they are regulating the somatic component of
e.g. fear. An example might be a person who is afraid of snakes. Such a
person would notice changes in heart rate, sweating etc. in the presence of
a snake an strive to quickly gain control over those sensations through
fleeing the situation.

The point that I am trying to make is that perhaps it is important to
distinguish between controlling emotion-body sensations and adaptively
reducing error through reorganisation at a higher level.

I agree with this last sentence, but I suspect that the other difference
is of language, using different words to refer to the same thing, and
the same words to refer to different things, rather analogous to the
difference between the US and UK meanings of "to table" a meeting topic.

In one way, I agree with you about "the emotion I call 'fear' happens in
real time". The way I agree is that the real time situation is
sufficiently well defined that few imagined continuations are reasonably
likely, and at least one fairly likely continuation will lead to high
error in some controlled variable. Your bear might well amble off into
the forest, but it is reasonably likely that she might attack you, which
she hasn't started to do. However, I don't feel either anxiety or fear
when I simply imagine that I am walking in the woods and that a bear
confronts me. So, yes, there is an element of real time in that there is
a current situation to which I imagine an unfortunate future continuation.

I am not sure I agree with the necessity of "real time" experience in order
to experience fear. I think perhaps it has more to do with the "vividness"
of experience, which real time experience is a definite variant of. I think
fear has to do with specific imagined or experienced outcomes, whereas
anxiety is a sense of reduced control with regards to a higher level goal.
An example might be giving a presentation in front of a group of people. I
am anxious about how well I will be able to control my "social ego" in front
of a group of people and afraid of completely "blacking out" during the
presentation. There is of course a risk that I am getting too bogged down
with semantics, but that is nonetheless the way I choose to think about
qualitative differences between anxiety and fear.

Intriguing subject in my opinion.

Regards,
Oliver