Personal Space Is a Fear Response
nautil.us
nautil.us
Oh, and, edit, just because amygdala is partial to fear responses, it doesn't make all the actions that it takes part in "fear". It controls a lot of other functions, such as pleasure, sexual behavior, aggression, memory consolidation; not to mention that a lot of information passes through it both into the brain and out of it. Please, age of phrenology is over. It's not coming back. Human brain and human behavior is not "black and white" anymore, it's never going to be. It's a complex system of neuron junctions and pathways some of which are more specialized than others, sure, but, to reiterate, the incredible malleability and the sheer number of connections in human brain make neuroscientists even doubt the necessity of well established "centers" such as Broca's area. God. Damn. It.
Yeah; this article (or at least the headline) seems to be engaging in the reverse inference fallacy [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_...
Aren't those neurons fundamentally firing on and off, like that of a binary system? On and off is analogous to "black and white"
If neurons only responded to each other at the min and max value (or a couple thresholds/ranges rather than strictly matching values), then it could be seen as binary. But they respond differently along the range of their inputs to produce a range of outputs, so not binary.
I actually somewhat carefully read the article to see if it ever suggested that fear in response to personal space violation was bad, and I don't think it did. I do think that it poorly supported its case, as a couple of other people are arguing, because just because certain activations look the same doesn't mean they are the same, but it never claimed this was a bad response.
Personally, based on how it feels from the inside, I can well believe that personal space is related to fear, and may activate some of the same circuits as fear, but that it "is" a fear is going beyond the evidence. Especially given the overloading of the word "fear". I am "afraid" of touching a hot oven, but I'm not running around in constant fear. It's a perfectly rational, controlled, situational "fear", not "a fear". Personal space violations strike me as rather more like the rational, controlled, situational case even if we are going to call that a "fear" response, which is perfectly fine scientifically, but serializes into conventional English poorly.
But sometimes the emotion is absent, see generalized anxiety disorder. I wasn't afraid, but if you observed my heart rate, breathing, blood pressure two summers ago you would've thought I was having a constant panic attack. I wasn't experiencing any fear (emotion), if anything it was confusion (I'd not experienced anxiety on that level in years so I wasn't prepared for it again).
I get that "space spaces" and "personal space" both have the word "space" in it. But if we're discussing scientific studies, it's not constructive to compare the two. Unless you have something really substantial (and accurate) that adds to the conversation, I think it's time better spent to discuss the article at hand.
I personally think it's a fascinating insight into how humans interpret physical space and the implications in social situations.
The parent gave a few arguments why he/she dislikes the article (if they are valid or not is another question), that's something you did not do.
Neither did you engage in any follow up comments to yours.
-"Wait, how exactly is [...]?" as if indignant.
- Scare quotes, as in "personal space"
-The "First, [...]. Secondly, [...]." dialectical pattern, suggesting someone feeling attacked on multiple fronts.
- "drop the pretense", suggesting said author was ostentatiously holding up a lie.
- "fear is bad, mkay", characterizing the author as a South Park hick.
- "[...] work just fine, thank you.", subtextually suggesting the person had crossed a boundary of decorum.
- "Oh, and, edit, just because", which is a common semantic pattern of emotional self-defense, e.g. "And another thing!"
- "Please, age of phrenology is over.", a red herring, attempting to undermine a theory by associating it with a formally disproved theory.
- "God. Damn. It.", resorting to frustrated cursing post-rant, suggesting the person has more feelings they'd like to elate.
Generally, when someone responds with language of that sort it suggests the idea struck a chord. My interest in the parent's comment was purely jocose.
...are you sure you're not reading way too much into it because you feel attacked? :)
Also, parent admitted as much: "histrionic", "the article violated my perceived personal belief space", "I am an angry and unpleasant person."
You can't just lump things into two categories: https://youtu.be/bXKvRNnXF3A
In The Gutenberg Galaxy, McLuhan infers that "close talkers" are often tribal cultures who rely primarily on the spoken word for means of communication whereas highly literate cultures like to be able to see the whole person because of the stress the print medium has on the eye.
The knee-jerk hostility and lack of any sense of irony is quite telling.
(I think the initials you were looking for there were FDR)
(Just as an additional anecdote of the flip side of this, I have no personal space issues -- I like crowds and subways -- and have somewhat reckless tendencies)
What got to me is not the title, but the way how an fascinating topic was dragged down to the gutter and then just choked to death.
I mean personal space is just another boundary, which one has to cross to "get up close and personal". It is an act of aggression. Now who displays that aggression, is what determines what kind of response you'll get. If it's your sweetheart in a sexy mood, the response will be sexual. If it's a skinhead with a knife, it will be a fear response. The action is the same: violation of personal space; the circumstances are not. You could write a dissertation on that alone. And well here we have a person obviously not in the field, writing a biology column on neuroscience using one quote of neuroscientist and a case study of a brain-damaged patient to drive her point that "personal space is a fear response" and not even doing that well. Sorry. The article is just bad.
I have never really thought about personal space being a fear response before. I always just thought I hated other people breathing on me.
Personally, since personal space is known to be very culturally specific, I'd like to see if the physiological responses they measured similarly differ by culture. (They may not be measuring personal space phenomena at all.)
I'm also not afraid of the colleague entering my personal space, I'm just not interested in friendship with that particular person.
When someone stands too close behind me, particularly if it's unexpected or a stranger, while I'm not afraid (I am not concerned about being assaulted in any form), my body still tenses up. That's a fear response.
Something comes quickly at you, seen in your peripheral vision, you react by flinching, perhaps some adrenaline. A fear response, it may cause an emotional response of fear, or it may not. But it creates the physiological response to it.
But yes I agree, if a stranger is for some reason standing very close behind me in an unexpected situation (in public transportation it would be okay) then of course there would be a fear response directly leading to either moving away from that person or showing aggression. (fight or flight)
But I don't believe that this fear is wrong on my part and that I should do something about it.
It is unexpected and unwanted behaviour in our Western societies and this person should be aware of this and behave appropriately. If the person does not then he/she either doesn't know what our social rules are (can be dangerous) or something is wrong with that person (also dangerous)
For example: I am at a party and go home at night through some lonely street, in front of me (10 meters or so) there is some unknown women going the same way. The appropriate thing to do is to keep more distance so she is not afraid, even though I don't have any intentions of harming anyone. (but she cannot know this, I'm a stranger)
What do you propose how she should feel if for some reason a person would not keep a safe distance? Is she wrong if she is afraid in such a situation? I don't think so.
I agree. And I think the article is saying the same. Fear (the emotion) is an appropriate response to numerous things, including someone entering your personal space.
My response, poorly worded, sorry, was intended to say that a fear response is different from fear (the emotion). Even a non-stranger could elicit a fear response from you, even a trusted person or lover, by entering your personal space. But it may not trigger the emotion of fear. That is, if I know you and trust you, you could be in my face during a conversation. I wouldn't fear you or the situation. But I may still experience the heightened senses, the increased heart rate, due to your proximity because of a physiological response (fear response).
Even animals has this right except farm animals.
Why model a future after a fear?
You do realize that fear isn't always (or even usually) irrational, right?
What if a person is afraid of guns. Would the solution be for the government to subsidize body armors?
I think we should model a future where individuals are empowered to control their lives and their information instead of ceding control to governments and corporations.
Your views on privacy have been questioned ad nauseum on HN, and your replies frequently do not address the very real concern that people raise: the misuse of "private" information by those in authority. Or, if you do, it's a very hand-wavy statement to the effect of "if information was freely available to anyone, that power wouldn't be a big deal". It's simply not a response that addresses the facts: the concern by those with a desire to protect their privacy stems from their "private" information being used by someone in a position to do physical, economical or psychological harm to them. You've never addressed that, that I can see. Your government, unless you are the sole government of your own little island somewhere, is in a position to harm you. They give a vanishingly small number of fucks about your life as an individual, and wouldn't bat an eye at taking your "private" information out of context and using it to disrupt your life if it suits their needs.
I know statements like mine will never convince you that your perception of how the real world works is quite different from its realities; I do not make them to convince you. I appreciate the seed of hope for the future that you believe you're sowing by arguing your point on HN, and it would be an amazing place to live. Given, however, the ways in which the human condition manifests itself in a society where there are people with power over others - no matter where that power comes from - that world is a fiction. In our reality, we lowly citizens have few advantages over the powerful few, and until the human condition evolves to allow a Gene Roddenberry-esque utopian society to form on Earth, the right to privacy will always be sacred to those of us who want to have some semblance of control over our future.
Nobody is saying that society is perfect, nor does anybody claim that we can get rid of all forms of privacy today and live happily. That wouldn't be reasonable.
The reason I comment is because I'm convinced that a lot of people here never asked themselves - not even once - what privacy is and what purpose it serves. People blindly accept the idea that privacy is not only necessary, but a desired aspect of society. I find that idea destructive.
The worst (and most telling) part is the blatant contradictions that people demonstrate across recurring debates. Gun control, SOPA/PIPA, Net Neutrality, Privacy/NSA, Patents/Copyrights, are all the same debates. They're all precisely the very same issues. Yet, people (who I feel lack the ability to generalize) appear to see these issues as different and unrelated things. The worst part, they hold different positions across these topics, effectively contradicting themselves. That is baffling.
You can probably tell that I'm not a great communicator. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful, but most people don't put any effort into trying to understand what I'm struggling to convey. I don't blame people for that, but that sure is frustrating to me.
TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others.
And there's the rub: you have been unable to give that credit. You've been given insights, raw honesty, carefully considered and thoughtful replies, and to each you've carefully and artfully worded a response that almost seems to show the same considered sympathetic thoughtfulness you are seeking from others.
I don't know if it was a particular incident or if the particular way you perceive the world and how it perceives you is due to literal differences in your wiring, but I fear that you will find yourself butting up against the same walls every time you choose to engage in this dialog. It's not because I or the others responding are being recalcitrant, it's because you do not seem to be able to participate in that step beyond turn-taking: perspective-taking.
I don't mean any disrespect, and if you care to read my past comments you will learn that I am sincere when I share the perception I have about you. I feel, for others reading, the need to disclaim more overtly that I do not share this perception in any derogatory way, and it comes from a place of understanding. My perception is that your difficulty with placing yourself in the mind of others, or your challenges with understanding why on earth people don't think the same thing you do... Well, both are very much the kinds of issues that those, like my son, on the autism spectrum have. I'd very much like to chat with you. Drop me a line at my username at gmail dot com if you feel there is something to what I've said.
In fact, the people I know who have actually thought about privacy and its implications the most, myself included, are the ones who hold it dearest. The people that I know who have never stopped to think about these issues are the ones who don't care what information big companies and the government has about them.
>TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others.
Hmm. Maybe try another approach? Maybe try being specific about what you want and/or advocate for?
I also don't think you understand at all why humans have sex in private. Hint: it's primarily for security purposes. In the animal kingdom, in the more frequently compared species to humans - chimps, gorillas, etc - weaker males are often murdered or otherwise prevented from mating, mating is by force and not consensual, it's ruled by the most dominate males. The dominant males breed at a drastically higher rate than the weak males. Is that how you want to compete as a human, by your capability to deliver violence? How do you think that will work out in practice for most men and most women today? Have you ever seen what happens to women in a violent or agitated crowd in some more dangerous parts of the world - and how do you think sex in that same crowd, or any crowd, would turn out? Turns out security is an excellent reason for having sex in private.
http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/why-do-humans...
BTW: Hygiene is a fear reaction (kindof, but in any case not less so than privacy). Fear of infections! It's totally irrational!
Yeesh, what is it about this topic that is making everyone act like such an assholes? There's no harm in dismissing a politely-stated assertion that you find bizarre without being a dick about it.
Humans, obviously, fall into the second category, but we're quite far from being alone there.