A woman who can't feel fear

You tried to counter it first by lumping fear together with pain.

Next, you tried to counter it by pointing to some hypothetical group of fearless people that were dead specifically due to lacking fear. I asked if you could point who these people were. I'm genuinely curious to learn and understand how in modern times -- where people with their elaborate plans, not snakes with their instantaneous attacks, are the common threat -- a person of average or above intelligence could end up risking their own lives without having to involve fear.

Your argument for evolutionary conservation doesn't hold at all. Intelligence evolved fairly recently (in evolutionary terms) and thus, pending genetic tampering by us, it should take a plenty of time for any such adaptations to be successful. Besides, fear was indeed essential to us prior to intelligence evolving, as the quick and dirty survival mechanism of instincts was all that we had to survive and reproduce successfully.

> Why does the only cited example lead an extraordinarily risky life?

What I'm asking, specifically, is: are their other (cited or non-cited) examples of a woman or a man with no fear whatsoever leading an ordinary or below-ordinary life? I'm more that happy rescind all that I've written to you here if you could successfully provide them. After all, you have a track record of doing meticulous research.

> How many white female artists ever get held up like that? Or 4 times? Hell of a coincidence...

Are you suggesting that those 4 gunpoint/knifepoint perpetrators were influenced to do so, in part, due to SM being fearless? It really is hard to say without understanding her life context. Besides, this is going down the speculative path.

>> All that these scientists could come up with over the years to justify their (and the general public's) fear of lack of fear is those four incidents of being held at knifepoint and gunpoint. > 'All'?

Yes -- and I'm not too sure what you were aiming to point here -- I took the liberty to assume that people like Antonio Damasio wanted to specifically find out/ bring out incidents from her life to buttress their opinion of fear being essential even to modern humans (he did say this in his book 'The Emotional Brain'). Of course, these scientists are also interested in the larger goal of understanding fear itself -- they have published a plenty of useful material -- but it also helps to know they have biases of their own to bring to the table.

If you are using this expression to express frustration, exasperation, annoyance[1] - say so explicitly, I'll stop right here. My experience indicates that when people are frustrated at any point during a conversation involving strongly held personal beliefs, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, as that is usually the best for both the parties.

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_goodness'_sake

>> SM is indeed that proof -- she is admirably surviving without fear, and being mostly happy at it as well. > When a nuclear power plant nearly melts down, there are two possible reactions. > One is to infer that the plant design is less safe that calculated, and reason accordingly. > The other is to say, 'hey, the plant almost melted down but it didn't actually melt down! > Nuclear power plants must be really safe! This is great!' > Which do you think you are doing?

So that is your third attempt to counter? Be that as it may, SM admirably surviving those four incidents is nothing at all like your analogy; there is no nuclear plant to nearly melt down (she actually survived those four incidents). What I'm doing, then, is to point out that she actually survived (despite the lack of fear), and on top of that, I'm saying that fear is overrated. You are saying that fear is a gift, and I requested for those people you think actually needed fear to survive. Even if you could not provide citations, could you at least provide reasonable situations where a normal person would need the instinctual reaction of fear to survive in modern times?

> (In statistical terminology, we are dealing with heavily censored data: deaths are not recorded because of the rarity of the disorder, and we have a filtered distribution of only the datapoints/people still functional enough to have survived at all. If one of the uncensored datapoints, or the only datapoint, is an extreme outlier on a variable, such as experienced violence, that implies the whole distribution will be as or more extreme outliers.)

There are only 400 reported cases of the Urbach–Wiethe disease (what you refer to as the disorder). And only some of the 50–75% of thoses case affect the amygdala (which is associated with fear). Even that subset doesn't necessarily experience a complete a loss of fear as SM did. So it is not just about deaths not being recorded. It may very well be that SM is the only patient with complete loss of fear, out of all those patients with Urbach–Wiethe disease. Indeed many patients actually suffer mood, anxiety and psychotic disorders (hardly an indication of lack of fear). To summarize, it makes no sense to use the dataset -- censored or not -- of people with Urbach–Wiethe disease, as not all of them experience complete lack of fear. Even if there are patients other than SM with complete lack of fear, we do not know the cause of their death to make any conclusion as to their lack of fear being the cause of their death (such as to continue treating fear as a gift, appreciated or not).