Woman Missing Some Brain, Is Totally Fearless As a Result
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
This sounds like it would be good for soldiers. Like modern day spartans (only wearing more then a cloak and a loincloth).
Aw MAN, I'm missing some brain and all I can apijhfgpIuahweripuhpapia7yrf809a7hsdo8fayps9duhfiajshdfiuahsdifuhaisduhfiasudapodsifjaposdjfpoaisjdfhfiasudhfasiduhf do is black out sometimes.
And minus having gay sex with your fellow soldiers in order to develop a stronger bond, I assume.Xan Krieger said:
I wonder if you could have this and William's Syndrome at the same time. You'd be an elfish, fearless individual who would be unable to determine people based on race. Add that with a form of higher functioning autism and you've got an ubermensch, hang on, I need to find my cloning vat...
Wow so I guess she can handle J horrors with ease (the ring girl and the grudge boy got nothing on her!) and I guess this mean she is a perfect candidate to become a Green Lantern (wasn't it Hal Jordan being mention as a man without fear or was that Batman?).
Still I can understand why some people view this as a bad thing since sometime when we are scare, it mean we have to be caution or escape the danger while for her, it will make her vulnerable to danger which will lead to her own death. (Like a real life Leroy Jenkins)
Still I can understand why some people view this as a bad thing since sometime when we are scare, it mean we have to be caution or escape the danger while for her, it will make her vulnerable to danger which will lead to her own death. (Like a real life Leroy Jenkins)
By Muad'Dib do I love this community for the continuous Dune references. *wipes away tears of pride*
However, eschewing Mentat levels of logic, some basic perception of consequence should help her avoid dangerous situations. I think some are tying fear and self-preservation too closely to one another. Fear is the most basic, animal level drive that helps us avoid danger. But even after suffering the lost of that primal driver, one should be able to use simple cause and effect to avoid even the low-conscious threshold dangers fear helps us to avoid.
Case in point, SM's mugging/near-assault encounter. General lack of fear may have lessened the gravity of the situation, but she's a higher functioning being. Where was the presence of logic in her actions? "This is an individual I do not know, beckoning me when I am alone, in a place where I am not likely to be seen. Should this individual mean me harm, I've no means of self-defense. Heeding this individual's call is unwise."
Perhaps the loss of her amygdala has lead to more than mere fearlessness, but an actual inability to comprehend dangers to her person, something with much more severe ramifications. Several of the tests they led her through: the haunted house, the scary movies, etc. Seem prone to individual interpretation, unless they were all based around acute, sudden shock. I'd be more interested in measuring her willingness to pass her hand through an open flame to reach a desired object. Something most wouldn't consider fearful, but would consider stupid.
However, eschewing Mentat levels of logic, some basic perception of consequence should help her avoid dangerous situations. I think some are tying fear and self-preservation too closely to one another. Fear is the most basic, animal level drive that helps us avoid danger. But even after suffering the lost of that primal driver, one should be able to use simple cause and effect to avoid even the low-conscious threshold dangers fear helps us to avoid.
Case in point, SM's mugging/near-assault encounter. General lack of fear may have lessened the gravity of the situation, but she's a higher functioning being. Where was the presence of logic in her actions? "This is an individual I do not know, beckoning me when I am alone, in a place where I am not likely to be seen. Should this individual mean me harm, I've no means of self-defense. Heeding this individual's call is unwise."
Perhaps the loss of her amygdala has lead to more than mere fearlessness, but an actual inability to comprehend dangers to her person, something with much more severe ramifications. Several of the tests they led her through: the haunted house, the scary movies, etc. Seem prone to individual interpretation, unless they were all based around acute, sudden shock. I'd be more interested in measuring her willingness to pass her hand through an open flame to reach a desired object. Something most wouldn't consider fearful, but would consider stupid.
Dangerous but also really cool. I wish I could turn of the fear center of my brain once and a while. It would be nice.
Fear is the main force driving self preservation. Even if you know the consequences of a dangerous act if you can't fear the result then you won't care.EnigmaticSevens said:
If you lost your ability to fear than you probably would do things like stick your hand in an open flame with little hesitation. If you remove your fear all that dominates you is your curiosity. Ideas like, "How much would it hurt if I do this",or "Wonder how long I can keep my hand over the flame?" would be the only things springing to mind. Sure you might know it could damage your fingers but...who cares? I want to see what happens dammit!
I feel terrible for her. I don't feel like she's going to live very long.
Exactly what I was thinking. We have progress!Dr.Nick said:
Thought like others have said, this is not fully the best thing for self-preservation...
Well destroying it completely seems make logic fly out the window with the singing pigs playing harpsichords, but what if you only say, damaged the fear apryflgfhsocx (cannot be assed to go back and read what this gland was called)?
Would you be more prone to enter dangerous situations, but still retain some aspect of common sense?
Not saying it's wise but.. Space Marines.. *cough*
Would you be more prone to enter dangerous situations, but still retain some aspect of common sense?
Not saying it's wise but.. Space Marines.. *cough*
People thinking that a fearless person should be able to avoid danger based on logic are missing something.
Yes, logically, you avoid snakes because they might bite you. Why? Because you're afraid of being bitten by a snake. You can go another level, but then it still comes down to being afraid of the consequences of that bite, be they pain, paralysis, or death.
Even if danger is recognized via logic, it is still fear that gives us a reason to avoid it.
Yes, logically, you avoid snakes because they might bite you. Why? Because you're afraid of being bitten by a snake. You can go another level, but then it still comes down to being afraid of the consequences of that bite, be they pain, paralysis, or death.
Even if danger is recognized via logic, it is still fear that gives us a reason to avoid it.
