Reply
Mon 26 Jan, 2004 03:39 am
Don't you think that in general, we as human beings exhibit a lot of irrational fears and behaviours?
Take the travel industry after 9-11. I understand people had fears, but if I'd had some time off then to travel? I would definitely have taken advantage of some of the rock bottom prices that were available back then. It would have been the safest time to travel! Even if security wasn't up to snuff, terrorists wouldn't have been so stupid as to make another attempt at using a commercial aircraft as a weapon. At least that is what seemed logical to me.
I recall a restaurant in Vancouver, Canada that was temporarily shut down due to botulism. (The restaurant was part of a chain and I've no doubt other locations suffered fallout.) When they re-opened, business was REALLY slow. But a friend of mine and I went there for dinner one evening soon after they re-opened. It had to be the safest restaurant in Vancouver at the time, wouldn't you think? They really were trying hard to regain their customer base because I'd never had better service or fresher, great tasting food from that chain than I did that night.
So what do all of you think? Don't we often respond with fear rather than common sense? And why?
I understand where you are coming from, Caprice, but some fear is not irrational -- and I dare say that people who were afraid of getting onto an airplane after watching those horrible pictures of planes flying into the World Trade Center -- were not being especially irrational.
That having been said -- I have lots of trouble with irrational fear of the unknown -- and the implications of that fear.
I suspect - if there is any truth to evolutionary psychology at all - that anxious proto and early humans were the ones who survived - ie the ones who took that last look for the predator at the water hole, who stampeded early...
I suspect we are also strongly programmed to be very wary of any situation where we have seen/known about our fellow humans being harmed - as part of our group defence processes.
So - irrational, perhaps, re an individual situation - but probably rational in a different way in terms of our deep history.
dlowan wrote:I suspect - if there is any truth to evolutionary psychology at all - that anxious proto and early humans were the ones who survived - ie the ones who took that last look for the predator at the water hole, who stampeded early...
I suspect we are also strongly programmed to be very wary of any situation where we have seen/known about our fellow humans being harmed - as part of our group defence processes.
I agree. But also, I think it's relevant to note that Social Rulers always seem to nuture fear in society as a way of keeping control. So we are programmed by this also.
Irrational fear is paranoia, but I think the way people have responded to 9-11 is phobic. They were reminded, in a horrific way, that people die in plane crashes, and they responded to this by avoiding getting on a plane. If you don't get on a plane, you can't die on one.
Given that more people died on 9/11 who were not on airplanes....
Craven de Kere wrote:Given that more people died on 9/11 who were not on airplanes....
It may just be a coincidence, but I have not been up in any tall buildings lately either.
We had to fly right after 9/11 because my wife's father passed away. Had to take our entire family back for the funeral. While the cross country flight was quite full (many people were still trying to get home, etc.), the puddle jumper we flew on the second leg was empty. We were the only people on the plane other than employees.
I think that 9/11 was, collectively, an extremely traumatic event for many people, even those who did not live in the area of the WTC. Day after day, we saw the horrendous pictures of the plane crashing into the 2nd tower. I think that it was adaptive for a person to hold a terror of planes, for awhile.
I know of many people who would not fly right after 9/11. Most of those returned to flying after enough time elapsed so that emotionally they could work through what had happened, and get past the fear. I would say that people who refuse to fly now, (out of fear, and not out of annoyance of the inconvenience of the heightened security)may possibly have a deeper seated problem.
I grew up just across the water from Boston's Logan Airport. I remember a plane that crashed on takeoff because a flock of starlings flew up and were sucked into the engines. Now whenver I fly, I'm a basket case untl the plane is well into the air.
Phoenix, having just flown to Vancouver, then on to Honolulu and back over Christmas I can understand why anyone would refuse to fly out of sheer annoyance!
Hey soccerGeorge, welcome to A2K. Just for your peace of mind, geese have been known to fly up to altitudes of 29,000 feet.
I was on a plane that hit some geese, sucked at least one right through the engine I was sitting next too. It smelled like Thanksgiving in the back of that plane. I finally got the co-pilot to come back and look at the dent in the intake cowling, and turn the plane around. He was white as a sheet. Turns out a second goose had hit his side of the windshield.
Surprised he didn't crap his pants.
Thanks for the reassurance, cjhsa! First I've heard of a plane being goosed.
Phoenix32890 wrote: I would say that people who refuse to fly now, (out of fear, and not out of annoyance of the inconvenience of the heightened security)may possibly have a deeper seated problem.
How interesting. Although I don't refuse to fly, I am more leary at this point than I would have been after 9-11, just because the heightened awareness of security is not as prevalent now as it was then.
All of you bring up valid points re: post-911. As I said in my initial post, I understand people had fears and all. Perhaps I was a little too hasty in saying those fears were irrational due to the nature of the event. But regarding the more mundane incidences in the world, like my restaurant example, don't all of you feel that there are often times when common sense goes out the window, and people's fears become almost contagious? A sort of "follow the herd" mentality?
cjhsa : *LOL* (Re the 1st and last sentences.)
I feel so reassured!
At least the odour wasn't entirely unpleasant for you. Poor goose!
Craven de Kere wrote:Given that more people died on 9/11 who were not on airplanes....
Yeah - but it is harder to not be on the ground than it is to not be in the air.....
"A sort of "follow the herd" mentality?"
Yep - I suspect, as social animals, this is partly built in. I suspect that it has, overall, had a positive effect on survival.
But not always - certainly not for anyone whom the herd does not accept!
I suspect it has less survival value now - generally.
truth
Does "irrational" refer to both phobia and paranoia? How come we are generally not afraid to drive our cars, despite the fact that far more people die from auto accidents each year than died on 9/11, in the worst terrorist year of our history?
Hmmm...I guess more so paranoia. I feel sympathy for people with real phobias. It's something I don't believe is based on irrational behaviour, but more like a psychological disorder that can manifest itself physically.
What really p.o.'d me after the September 11th thing, was that the airlines, who were losing money, raised their fares. It seemed to me that they'd want to attract some business, and try to get competetive. Of course, the tax-and-spend conservatives in Congress rushed in to assure them billions in aid, so they probably took it as business as usual.
I would say a little more judgment is in order. I've not worried much about the likelihood of a turbo-prop flight between Columbus, Ohio and Toronto, Ontario being hijacked for terrorist purposes, so the event did not have any appreciable effect on my travel choices. The new security measures at airports are something i applaud, and to which i respond: "About damned time."
truth
Setanta, I'm trying to imagine why the airlines raised rather than lowered their fares after 9/11. Aside from the anticipation of being bailed out by the "tax and spend conservatives' (nice phrase). Could it be that they felt that lowering fares would not attract people who were paralyzed by fear, so they tried to recover some of their losses by sticking it deeper into those who were willing or forced (say by business imperatives) to fly?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace