Actions

Difference between revisions of "FFFF"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(Created page with "==הסבר== ===כללי=== '''Fight or Flight''' was a trem coined by Walter Cannon<ref>Cannon WB, 1932, The wisdom of the body, New York, Norton</ref>, and it describe a sy...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==הסבר==
 
−
===כללי===
 
−
 
 
'''Fight or Flight''' was a trem coined by Walter Cannon<ref>Cannon WB, 1932, The wisdom of the body, New York, Norton</ref>, and it describe a system that react to threats. In the begging only to reaction were detected -  Fight or Flight. But as the research in this area proressed it is now knowen to consist of one imdiate reaction, and three optional coarse of actions<ref>[http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/45/5/448 S. Bracha at al, 2004, Does "Fight or Flight" Need Updating?, Psychosomatics 45:448-449, October]</ref>. The first is ''Freeze''. When a threat is suspected or detected, the brain will give order to freeze and try to detect or estimate the what kind of threat it is. Then three options will follow. In most cases it is better to run a way from danger (Which is named Flight). When the danger is unavoidable, then either the brain will give instruction to ''fight'' the danger, and if it is to strong and we can not escape, the last option we be to surrender in hope that the attacker will leave us alone and will not atack us. The last option is called ''Fright''. So today we can calll this reaction Freeze, Flight, Fight or Fright (FFFF).  
 
'''Fight or Flight''' was a trem coined by Walter Cannon<ref>Cannon WB, 1932, The wisdom of the body, New York, Norton</ref>, and it describe a system that react to threats. In the begging only to reaction were detected -  Fight or Flight. But as the research in this area proressed it is now knowen to consist of one imdiate reaction, and three optional coarse of actions<ref>[http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/45/5/448 S. Bracha at al, 2004, Does "Fight or Flight" Need Updating?, Psychosomatics 45:448-449, October]</ref>. The first is ''Freeze''. When a threat is suspected or detected, the brain will give order to freeze and try to detect or estimate the what kind of threat it is. Then three options will follow. In most cases it is better to run a way from danger (Which is named Flight). When the danger is unavoidable, then either the brain will give instruction to ''fight'' the danger, and if it is to strong and we can not escape, the last option we be to surrender in hope that the attacker will leave us alone and will not atack us. The last option is called ''Fright''. So today we can calll this reaction Freeze, Flight, Fight or Fright (FFFF).  
  
−
It seems that most of the system is located in Amygdala<ref>Davis, M., Whalen, P.J., 2001. The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol. Psychiatry 6, 13 – 34.</ref><ref>Halgren, E., 1992. Emotional neurophysiology of the amygdala within the context of human cognition. In: Aggleton, J.P. (Ed.), The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 191 – 228.</ref><ref>LeDoux, J.E., 1998. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Touchstone, New York.</ref><ref>Phan, K.L., Wager, T., Taylor, S.F., Liberzon, I., 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage 16, 331 – 348.</ref><ref>Zald, D.H., 2003. The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli. Brain Res., Brain Res. Rev. 41, 88 – 123.</ref> and in other areas of the limbic system<ref>[http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7916235 Graeff FG, 1994, Neuroanatomy and neurotransmitter regulation of defensive behaviors and related emotions in mammals, ''Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research'', 27(4):811-29]</ref>. The system in due time and with [[effortful control]] can be thought and mainpulated.  
+
It seems that most of the system is located in Amygdala<ref>Davis, M., Whalen, P.J., 2001. The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol. Psychiatry 6, 13 – 34.</ref><ref>Halgren, E., 1992. Emotional neurophysiology of the amygdala within the context of human cognition. In: Aggleton, J.P. (Ed.), The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 191 – 228.</ref><ref>LeDoux, J.E., 1998. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Touchstone, New York.</ref><ref>Phan, K.L., Wager, T., Taylor, S.F., Liberzon, I., 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage 16, 331 – 348.</ref><ref>Zald, D.H., 2003. The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli. Brain Res., Brain Res. Rev. 41, 88 – 123.</ref> and in other areas of the limbic system<ref>[http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7916235 Graeff FG, 1994, Neuroanatomy and neurotransmitter regulation of defensive behaviors and related emotions in mammals, ''Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research'', 27(4):811-29]</ref>. In due time and with [[effortful control]] the system can be thought and mainpulated. When signals of threat are intiated, a reaction signals are send from the amygdala to the brain steam and to the prefrontal cortex<ref>[http://www.somasimple.com/pdf_files/brainstem_fear.pdf Liddell et al. A direct brainstem–amygdala–cortical dalarmT system for subliminal signals of fear, NeuroImage 24(2005)235– 243]</ref>.  
  
−
המערכת נמצאת באמיגדלה, וניתנת ללימוד ושליטה. כאשר יש סיגנלים של איום נפתחת מערכת תגובה המחברת בין גזע המוח, האמיגדלה והאונה הקידמית<ref>[http://www.somasimple.com/pdf_files/brainstem_fear.pdf Liddell et al. A direct brainstem–amygdala–cortical dalarmT system for subliminal signals of fear, NeuroImage 24(2005)235– 243]</ref>. אנשים שמורגלים לתקוף בזמן איום, יטו ל[[שמרנים|שמרנות]],  יגיבו בקלות רבה יותר במצב סכנה (תוקפנים, אגרסיביים). אנשים שמתרגלים להכנע, יכנעו (בד"כ יתבטא בדכאון). אנשים שמתרגלים לברוח, ימנעו ויברחו (פחדנים, חרדתיים).
+
People how feel thretend or intimidated from social circumstances, will become more conservatives. A socail stress will occuer and the FFFF system will intiate a reaction to the threat. They will be more aggresive (fight) or detached (flight) or depressesed (fright), depending of their patern of reaction.  
  
−
בגלל סיבות שונות, כמו ילדות במשפחה ביקורתית, או תוקפנית, או בגלל ניסיון חיים אלים, אנשים יטו להגיב יותר דרך ה-FFF, ולא דרך ה-[[PFC]].
+
The FFFF system will be more active in people who grow in a harsh invoriment with social threats and parental criticism.
  
−
המערכת הלימבית קשורה לתהליכי קבלת החלטות עם תגמול לטווח הקצר<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5695/503.short Samuel M. McClure, David I. Laibson, George Loewenstein and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004, Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards, Science 15 October 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5695 pp. 503-507]</ref>..
+
The limbic system is connected to [[Decision Making|decision making]] with rewrds in the short range<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5695/503.short Samuel M. McClure, David I. Laibson, George Loewenstein and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004, Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards, Science 15 October 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5695 pp. 503-507]</ref>.  
  
−
ישנם כמה אזורים האחראים על [[המעבר מ-FFFF ל- PFC]].
+
The modulation between FFFF reaction and normal [[sysytem 1]]-[[system 2]] decision making mechanisem is seems to be by the right CBF<ref>[http://people.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/jli/reference/212.pdf Hariri Ahmad, Bookheimer Susan, Y Mazziotta, John C, 2000, Modulating emotional responses: effects of a neocortical network on the limbic system, Neuroreport:17 January 2000 - Volume 11 - Issue 1 - p 43-48]</ref> and the [[ACC]].
−
===תגובת לחץ אצל נשים===
+
−
ישנו מאמר מצוטט מאד של טיילור ואחרים מ-2000 שמראה שתגובת הלחץ הנשית שונה מתגובת הלחץ הגברית והיא מתבטאת כ"טיפול והתחברות" שנועדה להגן על הצאצאים ולחזק את הרשת החברתית כדי לחזק את ההגנה הקבוצתית<ref>[http://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.iq.harvard.edu/files/marianabockarova/files/tend-and-befriend.pdf Behavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-Befriend not Fight or Flight, 2000, Taylor et al. ''psycological review'' 107(3), 411-29]</ref>. יתכן שתגובה זאת קיימת גם אצל גברים במידה מסויימת והיא אחראית על מה שכינתי Solidarity. בקהילות מצוקה אכן ראיתי את אותן "אמהות מרוקאיות" שדואגות לכולם, ופעולת על פי הדגם של Tend-Befriend.
+
===Threat reaction in women===
  
−
===תגובת איחוד===
+
It seems the women have different stress reaction, which promote defending ofsprings and strengthening the social ties, so that the group can be stronger<ref>[http://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.iq.harvard.edu/files/marianabockarova/files/tend-and-befriend.pdf Behavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-Befriend not Fight or Flight, 2000, Taylor et al. ''psycological review'' 107(3), 411-29]</ref>. I suggest that such a reaction also exists in men, and it help them tight social bonds wthin the group, and though, strengh [[social capital]], and strength the group abilities to attack or defend as a whole<ref>Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2002). Sex differences in behavioral and hormonal response to social threat: Commentary on Taylor et al.(2000). ''Psychological Review'', 109, 745–750.</ref><ref>Kenrick, D.T., & Johnson, G.A. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in aversive environments: A problem for the classical conditioning paradigm? ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 37, 572–579.</ref><ref>Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L.,Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-orflight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.</ref>. The group become more conformtive (I belive it is because of FFFF reaction inhibiting the [[ACC]])<ref>Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N.J., Mortensen, C.R., Sundie, J.M.,Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 384–395.</ref><ref>Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.</ref><ref>Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B.,Miller, G.F., & Kenrick, D.T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,85–102.</ref>.
−
נראה שאנשים מעידים להתאחד במצב סכנה<ref>Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2002). Sex differences in behavioral and hormonal response to social threat: Commentary on Taylor et al.(2000). ''Psychological Review'', 109, 745–750.</ref><ref>Kenrick, D.T., & Johnson, G.A. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in aversive environments: A problem for the classical conditioning paradigm? ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 37, 572–579.</ref><ref>Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L.,Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-orflight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.</ref>. הכניסה למצב סכנה מגדיל את הקונפורמיות<ref>Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N.J., Mortensen, C.R., Sundie, J.M.,Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 384–395.</ref><ref>Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.</ref><ref>Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B.,Miller, G.F., & Kenrick, D.T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,85–102.</ref>.
 
  
−
==נושאים קשורים==
+
==Related subjects==
−
* קבלת החלטות מסוכנות - [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014440/?tool=pubmed מאמר מ-2010 הסוקר את המנגנונים המוחיים ואת ההקבלה שלהם לתורת קבל החלטות כלכליות בהחלטות מסוכנות].
+
* Decision making in dangerous situations<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014440/?tool=pubmed Tom Schonberg, Craig R. Fox and Russell A. Poldrack,Mind the Gap: Bridging economic and naturalistic risk-taking with cognitive neuroscience, ''Trends Cogn Sci.'' 2011 January; 15(1): 11–19.]</ref>.
−
* [http://www.rpts.edu/Courses/PT13%20Worship/Collateral%20Readings/AdrenalineAddiction1.pdf מאמר תיאולוגי נחמד על התתמכרות לאנדרנלין ורוחניות]
+
* [http://www.rpts.edu/Courses/PT13%20Worship/Collateral%20Readings/AdrenalineAddiction1.pdf Theological assay on risk, decision making and addiction to risks]
  
−
==יחוסים==
+
==References==
 
<references />
 
<references />
 +
 +
[[category: decision making]]
 +
[[category: psychology]]

Revision as of 10:29, 10 August 2012

Fight or Flight was a trem coined by Walter Cannon[1], and it describe a system that react to threats. In the begging only to reaction were detected - Fight or Flight. But as the research in this area proressed it is now knowen to consist of one imdiate reaction, and three optional coarse of actions[2]. The first is Freeze. When a threat is suspected or detected, the brain will give order to freeze and try to detect or estimate the what kind of threat it is. Then three options will follow. In most cases it is better to run a way from danger (Which is named Flight). When the danger is unavoidable, then either the brain will give instruction to fight the danger, and if it is to strong and we can not escape, the last option we be to surrender in hope that the attacker will leave us alone and will not atack us. The last option is called Fright. So today we can calll this reaction Freeze, Flight, Fight or Fright (FFFF).

It seems that most of the system is located in Amygdala[3][4][5][6][7] and in other areas of the limbic system[8]. In due time and with effortful control the system can be thought and mainpulated. When signals of threat are intiated, a reaction signals are send from the amygdala to the brain steam and to the prefrontal cortex[9].

People how feel thretend or intimidated from social circumstances, will become more conservatives. A socail stress will occuer and the FFFF system will intiate a reaction to the threat. They will be more aggresive (fight) or detached (flight) or depressesed (fright), depending of their patern of reaction.

The FFFF system will be more active in people who grow in a harsh invoriment with social threats and parental criticism.

The limbic system is connected to decision making with rewrds in the short range[10].

The modulation between FFFF reaction and normal sysytem 1-system 2 decision making mechanisem is seems to be by the right CBF[11] and the ACC.

Threat reaction in women

It seems the women have different stress reaction, which promote defending ofsprings and strengthening the social ties, so that the group can be stronger[12]. I suggest that such a reaction also exists in men, and it help them tight social bonds wthin the group, and though, strengh social capital, and strength the group abilities to attack or defend as a whole[13][14][15]. The group become more conformtive (I belive it is because of FFFF reaction inhibiting the ACC)[16][17][18].

Related subjects

References

  1. ↑ Cannon WB, 1932, The wisdom of the body, New York, Norton
  2. ↑ S. Bracha at al, 2004, Does "Fight or Flight" Need Updating?, Psychosomatics 45:448-449, October
  3. ↑ Davis, M., Whalen, P.J., 2001. The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol. Psychiatry 6, 13 – 34.
  4. ↑ Halgren, E., 1992. Emotional neurophysiology of the amygdala within the context of human cognition. In: Aggleton, J.P. (Ed.), The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 191 – 228.
  5. ↑ LeDoux, J.E., 1998. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Touchstone, New York.
  6. ↑ Phan, K.L., Wager, T., Taylor, S.F., Liberzon, I., 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage 16, 331 – 348.
  7. ↑ Zald, D.H., 2003. The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli. Brain Res., Brain Res. Rev. 41, 88 – 123.
  8. ↑ Graeff FG, 1994, Neuroanatomy and neurotransmitter regulation of defensive behaviors and related emotions in mammals, Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 27(4):811-29
  9. ↑ Liddell et al. A direct brainstem–amygdala–cortical dalarmT system for subliminal signals of fear, NeuroImage 24(2005)235– 243
  10. ↑ Samuel M. McClure, David I. Laibson, George Loewenstein and Jonathan D. Cohen, 2004, Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards, Science 15 October 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5695 pp. 503-507
  11. ↑ Hariri Ahmad, Bookheimer Susan, Y Mazziotta, John C, 2000, Modulating emotional responses: effects of a neocortical network on the limbic system, Neuroreport:17 January 2000 - Volume 11 - Issue 1 - p 43-48
  12. ↑ Behavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-Befriend not Fight or Flight, 2000, Taylor et al. psycological review 107(3), 411-29
  13. ↑ Geary, D.C., & Flinn, M.V. (2002). Sex differences in behavioral and hormonal response to social threat: Commentary on Taylor et al.(2000). Psychological Review, 109, 745–750.
  14. ↑ Kenrick, D.T., & Johnson, G.A. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in aversive environments: A problem for the classical conditioning paradigm? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 572–579.
  15. ↑ Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L.,Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-orflight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.
  16. ↑ Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N.J., Mortensen, C.R., Sundie, J.M.,Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 384–395.
  17. ↑ Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.
  18. ↑ Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B.,Miller, G.F., & Kenrick, D.T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,85–102.
  19. ↑ Tom Schonberg, Craig R. Fox and Russell A. Poldrack,Mind the Gap: Bridging economic and naturalistic risk-taking with cognitive neuroscience, Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 January; 15(1): 11–19.
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=FFFF&oldid=96"