- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Are you suggesting that "freeze" is the only appropriate action? I mean if you read what I actually posted you wouldn't ask such a question of me. there is more excuse making for the "freeze" instinct you made than there is that "fight" is the only appropriate action. I have been clear that fight is not the only reaction. attempt to egress.
I presented all three possible instinctive responses. I believe that indicates that I have suggested that there are three possible actions. I am focusing on "freeze" because that is what happened.
You have only focused on "fight" which is not what happened. This indicates to me, that this is what you believe is the only appropriate action. If it isn't please explain how it is not.
if there is no chance to escape, however, than for numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17, Freezing here was NOT the appropriate action. do you disagree?
Yes. 2-17 had no idea what was to come next. They had no idea how long it would continue. Instinctively, they did not draw attention to themselves. This was mostly situational but probably had some personality traits mixed in, too.
This is the response of the sheep. no offense. but which of the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17 should have figured out the wolf came for the slaughter? Again you stick to psychology, I will stick to tactics.
Psychology trumped tactics in this case. As in most.
the number of bullets is irrelevant. your "wait and see" attitude is not instinct. it is a simple fear of doing what must be done. you are not alone though Captain, you apparently would have been 18, "Waiting and seeing" based on what your "instincts" tell you, that "freezing" is the best thing in a massacre.
Reverend, you do not understand this instinctive response. Do you have training? If you do, that alters the situation, which mitigates your instinctual response, or ability to suppress the instinctual response...as I said previously. Your training would alter the situation. Not the instinct. You still seem to be focusing on blaming the victim. It is not about fear and it is not about choice.
This is both nature, and nurture you are arguing here.
Kind of.
freezing made 14 people more dead and 3 more wounded. Please go ask thier families if "freezing" was the best response.
No. The gunman made 14 people more dead and 3 more wounded. Don't blame the victim.
We have as you say, 3 responses, but that is not entirely true. there is fight or flight. Freezing is an "instinct" of indecision. indecision can be trained out of most anyone. you doubt me? go take a two week kick boxing class, or a bjj class and free roll/spar with someone. why don't soldiers, police, etc freeze in a tough situation?
Nope. Inaction is an action. Freezing is not indecision. If I take a course in self-defense, I have now altered the situation. The instinct that I would have had in a situation, no longer exists, because the situation is different.
If I am confronted with someone with a gun, and I do not have one, instinctively, I will react a certain way. If I have a gun, instinctively, I will react differently. The situation has changed, therefore the prior instinct no longer applies. This is the same as if I had training. The instinct is not altered. The situation is.
There is nature, and there is nurture. We have nurtured that warrior mentality out of our children. and not that does not mean always fight, but have the presence to mind to decide, fight or flight. "freezing" is indecision of the two and never the "best" response.
No, and I have explained this over and over. This is incorrect. A woman being raped, her best response may be to freeze. Fleeing may not be possible, and fighting might anger the attacker further. Since we know that rape is about violence, this violence could escalate to her death. Best chance of survival is to freeze.