
3 Differences Between Fear and Phobia - antoniokorpo
http://anxietydisordersymptom.com/3-differences-between-fear-and-phobia
======
sridca
> the source of fear resides in a healthy and rational judgement

LOL. The _actual_ source of fear lies in the emotional reaction (involving the
amygdala), not "a healthy and rational judgement" (involving the cortex).

To quote Mr. LeDoux, "The low road is a pathway which is able to transmit a
signal from a stimulus to the thalamus, and then to the amygdala, which then
activates a fear-response in the body. This sequence works without a conscious
experience of what comprises the stimulus, and it is the fast way to a bodily
response."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_conditioning#Joseph_Ledou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_conditioning#Joseph_Ledoux.27s_research)

> Fear is what protects us from danger and it’s healthy, up to a point.

Here is a test of rationality, O dear reader. See if you can rationally
challenge my point, instead of viscerally reaching for the down-vote arrow.
Fear (the emotional reaction, not the bodily reflex action) is unhealthy no
matter up to what point. There is a reason why that "woman with no fear" is a
little more comfortably living her life.

~~~
dawnbreez
Emotions _are_ , in fact, rational, inasmuch as they act in the person's best
interest.

Take, for instance, fear. If you are face to face with something dangerous,
you feel fear, which drives you to get away from the feared object--a rational
response to danger.

Anger works on a similar principle; when you are slighted or hurt, you feel
anger, which drives you to attack the thing that hurt you. Again, rational
response, assuming no external factors (i.e., the person who hurt you is your
boss and hitting them back doesn't end well).

All emotions behave like this. They take certain inputs and return certain
outputs. They are inherently logical, and assuming that the inputs are known
and complete (you're not missing any details, in other words) they result in
rational decisions.

The reason we think of emotion as irrational is because Spock said it, and
Spock only said it because he correlates emotion with the Romulans and their
insanity.

As a final note, "Rational" really just means picking the option most likely
to achieve your goals. By this measure, joy and sadness are both rational, as
one indicates to others that you enjoy something (hopefully leading them to do
it more often) and sadness provokes the opposite reaction. Why do you think
we're hardwired to get upset when we hear crying? It helps the species as a
whole to achieve their goals if we work together to avoid things we don't
like.

~~~
sridca
> Emotions are, in fact, rational, inasmuch as they act in the person's best
> interest.

Nope. Quite the contrary in fact. Emotions are, in fact, emotional, inasmuch
as they act in best interest of one's genes. Such as raping multiple women and
getting away with it. Or killing another's tribe's men and women and children
to acquire their resources. In modern times the same game is often played out
although not to the same extent.

> Take, for instance, fear. If you are face to face with something dangerous,
> you feel fear, which drives you to get away from the feared object--a
> rational response to danger.

First of all, fear is not a result of facing with "something dangerous" (which
danger was appraised at the cognitive level) as the emotion of fear is
instantly -- with no conscious forethought, much less "rational response" \--
triggered in response to sensory cues that are indicative of danger in an
evolutionary sense. A fast moving snake for instance. In modern times however
the 'cues' for fear often have underpinnings on one's socialized identity
(such as fear of getting rejected by whomever).

> Anger works on a similar principle;

As explained above (and below), no emotion works on a rational principle.

> when you are slighted or hurt, you feel anger, which drives you to attack
> the thing that hurt you. Again, rational response, assuming no external
> factors (i.e., the person who hurt you is your boss and hitting them back
> doesn't end well).

The emotion of anger itself -- which viscerally drives you to kill, maim or
wound a fellow human being come what may -- is an emotional response sourced
in the survival of the individual/species. It is not a rational response "in
the person's best interest". Indeed, your tactically placed nebulous qualifier
"assuming no external factors" tacitly implies that such an (instant)
emotional response needs a (slow) cognitive rational appraisal to "control"
it, lest one end's up killing, maiming or wounding the other person leading to
grave consequences (such as getting hurt back, or being sent to jail or losing
what one holds dear).

> All emotions behave like this.

As explained above (and below), no emotion is (much less "behave like") a
rational response.

> They take certain inputs and return certain outputs.

The inputs are sensory cues (and also thoughts/beliefs themselves), and the
outputs are war, rape, murder, domestic violence, etc. as demonstrated by
human history.

> They are inherently logical, and assuming that the inputs are known and
> complete (you're not missing any details, in other words) they result in
> rational decisions.

As the original comment is about "source of" emotions like fear, you are going
on a tangent here talking about "result[ing] in" rational decisions.

> The reason we think of emotion as irrational is because Spock said it, and
> Spock only said it because he correlates emotion with the Romulans and their
> insanity.

Not everyone in this world is familiar with American Television, and yet all
throughout the world peoples consider emotions are irrational visceral
response (hence the need to cognitively "control" it, albeit with feeble
success)

> As a final note, "Rational" really just means picking the option most likely
> to achieve your goals. By this measure, joy and sadness are both rational,
> as one indicates to others that you enjoy something (hopefully leading them
> to do it more often) and sadness provokes the opposite reaction.

You are watering down the word rational. Going by your definition if say a
sociopath has set his "goal" to rape as many women as he can, then picking the
best option in every day life situations to achieve that goal would be
considered "rational". Just so there is no confusion, here is what the word
means:

1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic: I'm sure there's a perfectly
rational explanation. • (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and
logically: Andrea's upset—she's not being very rational. • endowed with the
capacity to reason: man is a rational being.

Also sadness is a silly reaction, and has no rational use towards any
felicitous goals.

> Why do you think we're hardwired to get upset when we hear crying? It helps
> the species as a whole to achieve their goals if we work together to avoid
> things we don't like.

First of all as the "woman with no fear" has plentifully demonstrated,
emotions are not "hardwired". Secondly, not everyone gets upset when hearing
crying in any situation. Lastly, as a sensible goal of the human species can
be said to be live in peace and harmony, I fail to see how the aforementioned
emotions can help achieve the said goal (to the contrary, they lead to war,
rape, murder, sorrow, and the like).

~~~
dawnbreez
A lot of what you said is correct, assuming that 1) all humans have the same
goals and 2) all humans are sociopaths.

If different humans have different goals, then your argument falls apart; if
one of my goals is "do not rape", then I will feel disgust at the idea of
raping someone.

And if not all humans are sociopaths, then your claim that sadness serves no
purpose falls apart, as sadness enables us to signal to others that something
is wrong, and humans whose goals include "help others" will see a chance to
accomplish that goal.

~~~
sridca
Emotions arise well _before_ any cognitive notions of "goal" or "concience",
and it seems you have overlooked this key point.

To help others is a considered act, not an emotion. The emotion of sadness can
only hamper such helping ... and Miss. Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu is an extreme
example of that.

~~~
dawnbreez
You have a fair point on emotions coming before goals.

However, your definition of sadness seems to hinge on sadness in a void. You
assume that the only thing that can act on that sadness is the person who is
sad; and you assume that the only reaction to sadness is inaction.

I have said it before, but let me be clear: Sadness is a social emotion. It
drives you to do things that signal to others that something is wrong--crying,
for instance. Assuming you've spent any time around a decent human being,
you'll notice that sadness is met with efforts to create comfort, to fix the
problem. This leads to a better existence for everyone involved, which is
probably why we value the idea of helping each other so much.

------
vixen99
Words of the form 'xphobia' meaning an irrational fear of x, abound these
days. What term should be used for a rational fear of x? It is very often
assumed that no thinking person could ever have such motivations grounded in
rationality? Well they may not or they may.

