Tuesday June 18th 2013

Archive for June 8th, 2010

The Four Stages Of Fear: Being Attacked By A Mountain Lion

An absolutely stunning article about the biological response of fear humans can have, when confronted with extremely threatening situations. In this case, a 25-year old woman gets attacked by a mountain lion in Colorado. The article works in detail through the experience, both the narrative of being attacked by the predator, as well as the instinctive reactions and emotions of the woman, and the biological impulses behind that.

Basically, in situations like these, you turn into a robot. Freezing, fleeing, surrendering, fighting, these are all reactions determined by the workings of your brain, which in situations of danger goes in overdrive, taking you over. It turns out, moreover, that instead of “fight or flight”, people experience four stages: freeze, fright, flight and fight.

Well, just read it, as its a very intense story as well. I’ve excerpted a number of highlights.

In the throes of intense fear, we suddenly find ourselves operating in a different and unexpected way. The psychological tools that we normally use to navigate the world—reasoning and planning before we act—get progressively shut down. In the grip of the brain’s subconscious fear centers, we behave in ways that to our rational mind seem nonsensical or worse. We might respond automatically, with preprogrammed motor routines, or simply melt down. We lose control.

(…)

When the danger is far away, or at least not immediately imminent, the instinct is to freeze. When danger is approaching, the impulse is to run away. When escape is impossible, the response is to fight back. And when struggling is futile, the animal will become immobilized in the grip of fright. Although it doesn’t slide quite as smoothly off the tongue, a more accurate description than “fight or flight” would be “fight, freeze, flight, or fright”—or, for short, “the four fs.”

On a winter morning a few years back, a young woman named Sue Yellowtail went through them all in about 10 minutes.

(…)

At the top of the bank, not 30 feet away, stood a mountain lion. Tawny against the brown leaves of the riverbank brush, the animal was almost perfectly camouflaged. It stared down at her, motionless.She stood stock-still.

Yellowtail had entered the first instinctual fear-response state, the condition of freezing known as attentive immobility. Even before she was aware of danger, subconscious regions of her brain were assessing the threat. Cued to the presence of a novel stimulus, the brain deployed the orienting reflex, a cousin of the startle reflex. Within milliseconds Yellowtail’s heart rate and breathing slowed. A brain region called the superior colliculus turned her head and slewed her eyes so that the densest part of the retina, the fovea, formed a detailed image of the cat. The visual information then flowed via the thalamus to the visual cortex and the amygdala, the key brain center for evaluating threat. Her pattern-recognition system found a match in the flow of sensory information. It recognized a pair of eyes, then the outline of a feline head. In less than half a second, before her cortex even had time to complete the match and recognize what she was seeing, her emotional circuitry had already assessed the situation: It was bad. Subconsciously, her brain also determined that the threat was not immediately pressing, and so a region called the ventral column of the periaqueductal gray (PAG) triggered attentive immobility. This is generally considered the first stage of the fear response, because it tends to occur when the threat is far away or not yet aware of the subject’s presence. The goal is to keep it that way.

(…)

The mountain lion was close now, near enough to pounce. As she splashed once more across the stream, the need to run surged over her like a shiver. She bolted, splashing madly through the shallow water, her legs churning over the rough, slippery cobbles of the streambed.

She ran with everything she had.

Yellowtail was now in the grip of the second phase of the fear response, flight. The sudden movement of the mountain lion had broken the spell of her attentive immobility and gotten her moving, but while the animal was still a fair distance off she had managed to keep her wits and suppress her fear centers’ automatic panic reaction. But as the cat drew closer, reason and willpower wavered as the fear grew stronger. At last they gave way altogether.

(…)

She remembers feeling the warmth of the animal’s mouth on her head. She remembers looking up toward the surface through her sunglasses and thinking, with a perplexing degree of calm: “When your time’s up, your time’s up.”

Yellowtail had entered a third phase of the fear response, a state known as tonic immobility, or quiescence—in lay terms, playing possum. When an animal is seized by an attacker, the caudal ventrolateral region of the PAG generates a response that from the outside looks like total collapse. In the teeth of a full-blown sympathetic response, the parasympathetic system now swings into overdrive. The body, insensitive to pain, goes completely limp, often falling to the ground as awkwardly as rag doll, limbs splayed, head thrown back. Eyes closed, it trembles, defecates, and lies still. It looks, in a word, dead.

(…)

Her next thought was to stab it in the eye with the hemostat. “It just dawned on me: ‘I’ve got to get to the brain,’ so the eye was the best bet.” Without thinking twice, she clutched the hemostat and stabbed it over and over again into the cat’s left eye. The beast screamed a horrifying yowl. She kept stabbing.

Yellowtail had worked her way through to the last of the four fs, the fight, or aggressive defense, response. Like quiescence, aggressive defense is a tactic of last resort. People in the throes of full sympathetic overdrive are capable of totally uninhibited, blind violence. They will use any weapon and inflict any injury they can. On the battlefield this impulse may be useful in the heat of fighting, but it can also lead to reckless, even mindless, behavior.

Read the entire story.

Obama Appearing In 1993 Hip Hop Video

If this guy in Tag Team’s 1993 Whoomp! video is not Obama, then it must be his twin brother. In 1993, Obama was 32 years old, working as a young attorney at a law firm in Chicago. So I don’t see why he could not be in this video.

See for yourself, at 1.02 (oh, and at 0.48 you can supposedly see Michelle Obama as well):

- Update: This higher-resolution screenshot from CNN makes me doubt again.

The Dangerous New Era Of "Extreme Energy"

An interesting article on Slate, which places the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in the context of the search for fossil fuels by increasingly extreme means.

While one might view the disaster as an incident, or as the result of failing government oversight and regulation (and thus as mainly a problem in this regard), in a larger perspective this environmental disaster can also be placed in the context of the dwindling of oil supplies and the almost desperate attempts to cling to fossil fuels. Rather than investing in green and sustainable energy, engineers find increasingly high-technological and risky means to extract traditional fuels from difficult sources. The consequences can be seen in the pictures below (taken from the Boston Globe’s The Big Picture).

“Drill, baby, drill”…

Slate:

The ongoing debacle in the Gulf of Mexico is a sign of many things: the incompetence of BP, poor oversight, and an industry that places too much emphasis on production technology and too little on safety technology. But it also highlights a larger truth. We’ve entered an age in which the production of energy, especially from fossil fuels, demands ever-more-expensive environmental trade-offs. We’ve entered what Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, calls the era of “extreme energy.”

Consider how oil production in the United States has evolved. In Texas in 1901, wildcatters didn’t have to work very hard to tap into the great Beaumont gusher. The oil was essentially at the surface, all but seeping out of the earth’s crust. When the land-based oil was exhausted, American prospectors went to sea. And when the shallow-water oil was exhausted, they went farther out. In 1985, only 21 million barrels, or 6 percent of the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, came from wells drilled in water more than 1,000 feet deep. In 2009, such wells produced 456 million barrels, or 80 percent of total Gulf production. Today, deep-water Gulf wells account for about one-quarter of the oil the United States sucks from the earth. The webcams broadcasting images from the spill provide a real-time measure of the environmental cost of this effort.

The Gulf of Mexico isn’t the only place where such so-called tough oil is to be found in North America. The environmental hazards of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are so obvious that even the Bush-era Congress and White House wouldn’t go there. Analysts have enthused about the rapid development of the Alberta tar sands in Canada—friendly, nearby, democratic, non-terrorist-promoting Canada. An Alberta government Web site notes that the oil sands are “the second largest source of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia.” The reserves there—171.8 billion barrels—amount to 13 percent of the global total and are about what Iraq and Russia combined have. But the gunk in the tar sands isn’t really oil. It’s bitumen. And it has to be ripped out of the earth, or pushed to the surface in a process that itself consumes a lot of water and natural gas. Producing a barrel of oil from tar sands creates more than twice as many emissions than old-school oil drilling.

Natural gas is supposed to be an easy form of energy—it burns more cleanly than petroleum, and the United States has vast supplies. In recent years, discoveries of reserves locked in shale rock in Texas (the Barnett Shale) and in the Appalachians (the Marcellus Shale) have spurred a boom. But shale gas is also tough energy. The gas is produced via fracking—fracturing the rock with water and chemical solvents to loosen up the gas molecules. The environmental risk? The water mixed with solvents could filter into underground aquifers. Inconveniently, the Marcellus Shale overlaps with the watershed of the New York City region. And then there’s the matter of earthquakes. Last year, experts in Texas grew concerned when rare seismic activity was detected in areas where natural-gas drillers had been fracking.

(…)

Thus far, we’ve deemed these risks—oil spills, more emissions, polluted water, the odd earthquake—to be worthwhile, in large measure because of the laws of supply and demand. “As the price of energy keeps drifting higher, we’re going to do more and more dubious things,” says Joseph Romm, an assistant energy secretary in the Clinton administration and editor of the influential Climateprogress blog.

But the response to the age of tough oil shouldn’t be engineering feats that allow us to drill deeper or to liberate hydrocarbons from rocks. Rather, we should apply our collective engineering smarts to figuring out ways to use less energy. If we want to avoid extreme energy, we need extreme efficiency.

like us

@lsdimension

  • Could not connect to Twitter

politics

calendar

June 2010
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

about



We just opened our new site. More site announcements here.

E-mail us