Why am i afraid of spiders? [Archive]

andyandy

8th April 2010, 01:14 AM

skullerello

8th April 2010, 01:22 AM

You may have been bitten by a (and I'm channeling Depok or Sylvia, or some other helpless fraud now) very venomous arachnid in a past-life, and that's why you fear them so now. Ta-da! Where's my million?!

skullerello

8th April 2010, 01:24 AM

And, I suppose no one else was going to say it...

Cavemonster

8th April 2010, 01:26 AM

I have a friend who used to be afraid of spiders.
He decided that every time he saw one, he would pick it up and eat it.

Now, spiders are afraid of him.

UKBoy1977

8th April 2010, 06:54 AM

andyandy

8th April 2010, 08:20 AM

If you're prepared to go to London to do it, I can recommend this course highly

https://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/whats-on/friendly-spider-programme,320,EV.html

I would say it reduced my fear of spiders from a 9/10 to about a 5 or 6/10. I'll never like them, but I don't live in fear of them anymore and can deal with them in the home.

looks interesting! Did they get you to hold a big fat tarantula by the end of the day? :boxedin:

paximperium

8th April 2010, 08:23 AM

What are you talking about? You should be afraid of spiders. They'll eat your face.

HarryKeogh

8th April 2010, 08:32 AM

Fear of Snakes, Spiders Rooted in Evolution, Study Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears.html)

jasonpatterson

8th April 2010, 08:42 AM

Fear of Snakes, Spiders Rooted in Evolution, Study Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears.html)

Sorry, though I'll freely admit that I didn't read the journal article that the Nat. Geo. article refers to, from the description I just don't see how they could have inferred that fear of spiders and snakes is evolutionary. The NG articles says that it's because people identify spiders in pictures faster than they do mushrooms, and regardless of the spider's location.

In any case, I wonder how many people who are afraid of spiders have parents who are afraid of spiders. My wife doesn't like bugs of any sort, but they don't really bother me, so from the earliest times I was able to teach my kids anything about bugs, we've played with them. Neither of my daughters is the least bit afraid of spiders or creepy crawlies of any sort. (And yes, I have been teaching them to identify more hazardous critters.) I know that the case of my kids is proof of nothing, but I wonder, in a broader sense, how often this is true. (Little kid is found playing with a spider, mom/dad freak out, kid is now afraid of spiders, I mean.)

wendyinthewind

8th April 2010, 08:47 AM

Because their legs feel all sticky when they crawl on you! Isn't that reason enough???

PixyMisa

8th April 2010, 08:50 AM

If you're prepared to go to London to do it, I can recommend this course highly

https://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/whats-on/friendly-spider-programme,320,EV.html

I would say it reduced my fear of spiders from a 9/10 to about a 5 or 6/10. I'll never like them, but I don't live in fear of them anymore and can deal with them in the home.
Taronga Zoo ran a similar program a few years back. Generally managed to take people with a fear level of 9/10 and raise it to 12 or 13.

What are you talking about? You should be afraid of spiders. They'll eat your face.
First. They'll eat your face first.

paximperium

8th April 2010, 08:51 AM

First. They'll eat your face first.
Eeep...:boxedin:

patchbunny

8th April 2010, 10:23 AM

I have a friend who used to be afraid of spiders.
He decided that every time he saw one, he would pick it up and eat it.

Now, spiders are afraid of him.

I'm afraid of him! :eek:

Captain.Sassy

8th April 2010, 10:32 AM

Fear of Snakes, Spiders Rooted in Evolution, Study Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears.html)

See, I'm no scientist, but evolutionary psychology makes a lot of sense to me for these kinds of things. I actually kind of thought about this a while ago when I was trying to figure out why I was so grossed out by maggots. It makes sense that foraging people coming across a carcass who were grossed out by maggots wouldn't eat that carcass, and so would be less likely to catch all kinds of gross disgusting diseases from eating really rotten flesh. To me, it also makes sense for so many other gross or annoying things:
-mosquitoes' hum is extremely irritating to everyone; mosquitoes carry disease
-the smell of rotting meat is revolting
-so is the smell of poo, especially meat eater poo
-house flies are gross and sound really annoying too

What is also interesting is the bugs that girls 'like'. Seriously, you rarely see girls with dung beetles or flea or louse designs on their bags or clothes, but there are butterflies, dragonflies, and ladybugs aplenty.
-dragonflies are cute and fine and don't sound too irritating; they also eat pest insects
-everyone loves butterflies; butterflies tend to congregate around blooming plants in good season

Same thing with dead people, they're kind of gross and revolting and a bit scary. I guess it makes sense that people with a natural aversion to hanging out near corpses would tend to survive more than those who liked cavorting among the dead, what with the chances of catching disease or being killed by whatever violent cause killed the others.

Where it gets REALLY interesting is predictive evolutionary psychology. We're scared of zombies, for example. Aliens too.

Really makes you think... :P

wolfgirl

8th April 2010, 10:47 AM

Try to learn as much as you can about them.

My husband overcame his childhood fear of spiders by spending a lot of time reading/learning about them and watching them. He learned that they're fascinating instead of scary.

Then when we moved in together, he had a pet tarantula. I had never been phobic of them, but I certainly didn't like them in my vicinity. But watching that spider, and then watching other spiders around the house (especially jumping spiders), I developed a fascination, too. Now they don't bother either of us at all, and we just let house spiders wander about the house doing their thing, eating flies, etc. I still don't want one ON me, but other than that, I'm cool with them.

And my kids grew up learning to watch and be interested by them, and neither of them has any fear of them, either.

Captain.Sassy

8th April 2010, 11:33 AM

Aitch

8th April 2010, 11:40 AM

I am intellectually in favour of spiders; they look nifty and keep the flies down. :cool:

Emotionally, however, they make me twitch - eight legs and they never trip over their own feet; how weird is that? :jaw-dropp

Third Eye Open

8th April 2010, 11:54 AM

I have a pet tarantula, I think she is cute. It tickles when I feel her little feet gripping on me.

Ziggurat

8th April 2010, 12:24 PM

Why am i afraid of spiders?

Because you're a little girl?
:duck:

Checkmite

8th April 2010, 01:49 PM

I keep honey bees. They're cooler than spiders because they make honey, and also because they can live through winter. I like to let them crawl all over me; they're fuzzy and they tickle.

LandR

8th April 2010, 02:20 PM

I'm the same. It's not a phobia, but I just cannot cope with spiders at all.

Even small ones. I can't sit in a room where I know there is a spider on the ceiling or on a wall etc. I can't even get close enough to the little ones we have here in the United Kingdom to kill them.

No idea why.

I had one in the kitchen on the floor, it was massive - to me. I had to leave the room take a few breathes and take a few imaginary brave pills :boxedin: Then went in and attacked it with a big flat mop. Even once I knew it was dead I had trouble picking it up.

It's so irrational. Even at night sleeping, I would say 90% of my bad dreams are spider related. Usually involving me stuck in a corner of a room with spider(s) coming at me, while I'm completely frozen! Really freaks me out!

I'm never moving to a country where they have actually have big spiders that bite and stuff!!!

DogB

8th April 2010, 07:42 PM

Wowbagger

8th April 2010, 07:51 PM

Spiders were probably a threat to our ancestors for millions of years. Why wouldn't our evolutionary heritage carry over an innate fear of them?

richardm

9th April 2010, 04:20 AM

I live in Australia. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_funnel-web_spider) is why I’m afraid of spiders.

It is also known that because of their large fangs, the victim has to pull the spider from the area of insertion. They will not detach if you shake the area.

I think it's quite clear that any anti-venom would be too late for me, since trying to shake off a spider that is biting me and finding that it is clinging on by its fangs would give me a fatal heart attack on the spot.

Dancing David

9th April 2010, 04:30 AM

Um, you are afarid of spiders?

That 'evolutionary' thing is is uncontrolled and silly.

Just because it makes intuitive sense does not mean that it is valid.

A snake and water running on the ground look similar, am I afraid of the water?
A cracked window looks like a spider, am I afraid of the window.

People are afraid of things for a lot of reasons, 'conditioning' is a scary term to some people as well. :D

Amapola

9th April 2010, 07:47 AM

I grew up with parents who taught me to understand and enjoy all living things, including spiders and snakes. I think their attitude has a lot to do with mine - I do enjoy them.

Over the years I've observed many people teasing young kids (little babies up to about 5 years of age) with little bits of yarn or other things that superficially resemble spiders. They spring the thing on the kid suddenly and try and scare them. It usually works.

My thought would be, perhaps this is where a lot of people get a fear of snakes or spiders. They were taught to be scared of them when they were very young.

Wowbagger

9th April 2010, 08:01 AM

That 'evolutionary' thing is is uncontrolled and silly.
That 'evolutionary' thing helps us understand why some fears are stronger and more universal than others.

Conditioning might well be one of the ingredients in fear, but some conditioning is easier to train into populations than others. Sometimes, it takes a lot more conditioning to help people get over some fears than others.

Humans are more prone to fear living creatures that were a threat to our ancestors, than ones that were not. Simple "conditioning", alone, would not be able to tell us why.

Dancing David

9th April 2010, 10:21 AM

That 'evolutionary' thing helps us understand why some fears are stronger and more universal than others.

Conditioning might well be one of the ingredients in fear, but some conditioning is easier to train into populations than others. Sometimes, it takes a lot more conditioning to help people get over some fears than others.

Humans are more prone to fear living creatures that were a threat to our ancestors, than ones that were not. Simple "conditioning", alone, would not be able to tell us why.

Hi Wowbagger, I notice you have not shown this part to be demonstrated

"Humans are more prone to fear living creatures that were a threat to our ancestors, than ones that were not."

It could be true but I haven't seen the evidence, I do so evidence that people have an irrational fear of 'bugs', most of which are harmless.

Mirrorglass

9th April 2010, 10:45 AM

3) What's the best way to overcome such irrational fears?

There are plenty of courses that treat arachnophobia. The basic idea is just slowly getting used to them. It works very well. If possible, it's a good idea to get help from a psychologist, but if that's not an option, you can try self-treatment. Buy a book with lots of spider-pictures and look at them every now and then, until it no longer feels awful. Then get a plastic toy spider and play with it for a while every day until it no longer makes you panic. And so forth.

Egg

9th April 2010, 11:18 AM

Wowbagger

9th April 2010, 11:30 AM

Hi Wowbagger, I notice you have not shown this part to be demonstrated

"Humans are more prone to fear living creatures that were a threat to our ancestors, than ones that were not."

It could be true but I haven't seen the evidence, I do so evidence that people have an irrational fear of 'bugs', most of which are harmless.

I guess the problem with the studies cited in the Nat Geo article is that they compared snakes to mushrooms, instead of snakes to (for example) lady bugs. But, I am sure that if you did such a study, you would find more people are afraid of snakes than they are of lady bugs, even if you did such a study to a group that was not exposed to either one, before.

And, similarly, you would find more people afraid of spiders, specifically, than "bugs" in general. You will probably find emotions of "disgust" to be stronger against "bugs", than fear, for the most part.

I should reiterate that mental development could play a role in this. A baby might try to eat a spider, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would have to be "conditioned" to fear them. As the baby's brain develops into a child, the sense of fear could emerge on its own, without outside help or reinforcement.

El Greco

9th April 2010, 11:41 AM

I don't think it's evolutionary. People are also afraid of cockroaches, and those are mostly harmless. And look at the kids: If they haven't been terrorized by parents, they are very curious about all insects and spiders and not afraid at all.

andyandy

9th April 2010, 12:40 PM

My thought would be, perhaps this is where a lot of people get a fear of snakes or spiders. They were taught to be scared of them when they were very young.

Just wait till I next see my mum - so it's her fault then :D

sadhatter

9th April 2010, 12:50 PM

I dislike bugs in my house.

But I never kill spiders.

If there are spiders in your house, that means there are other arthropods in your house and the spiders are there to eat them.

When I see a spider, I'm like 'go get 'em, buddy!'

As someone who hates ( not all, check my other post) spiders, i tried this line of logic, when i moved my stuff from my parents main house to our modular building. I had two large spiders with large webs, and i said " okay guys, go nuts" because there was a huge fly problem.

These were the laziest two spiders in the history of time. I saw flies get stuck in the web, and after an hour or so of thrashing actually get away( not frequently, but at least 3 times). In a month i saw like 2 dead flies , then i passed judgment and evaporated them and their respective nests with a spray from a premium automatic airsoft gun ( i now feel my 300 dollars was well spent, lol). ( i couldn't get into a decent position to squish either of them.)

sadhatter

9th April 2010, 12:52 PM

Over the years i've managed to keep some rationality on it - it's not a phobia or anything - and small spiders i don't mind. But big spiders with their big hairy black legs....ughhh! Rationally I know it's stupid - there are no poisonous spiders in the UK, there's absolutely no reason to fear them etc etc....and yet the rational part of my brain is superceded by the irrational bit.

So a few discussion points....

1) Is fear of spiders entirely a learned response (based on say seeing your mother being afraid of them etc....)

2) Is fear of spiders or (say) "fear of small things moving fast in your peripheral vision" some sort of genetic inherited trait which was a useful survivial tool when walking on the African Savannah over the past few million years....

3) What's the best way to overcome such irrational fears?

See i am too, but differently. Large spiders with hair, are no problem with me, or spiders with hair in general. ( which in my limited experience tends to be the bigger ones). But if a spider has a shine to it, that makes my skin crawl, and me kill the thing if possible.

But tarantulas, or anything like that, perfectly okay with me. Could let the thing nest in my hair if need be.

UKBoy1977

9th April 2010, 12:57 PM

looks interesting! Did they get you to hold a big fat tarantula by the end of the day? :boxedin:
Yes, they did! A Mexican Red-kneed Bird-eating Spider in fact, and I have the polaroid to prove it. To be honest, I thought that would be OK and it was because they hardly move and they are pretty funky looking. The harder part was (and this you had to do to get your certificate!) catching a house spider with a glass that was running across a table and then walking around the room once while holding it in the glass. I also let another house spider, which was in a glass tank, run over my fingers which was fine at the time though odd to think back on now!

UKBoy1977

9th April 2010, 01:08 PM

Try to learn as much as you can about them.

My husband overcame his childhood fear of spiders by spending a lot of time reading/learning about them and watching them. He learned that they're fascinating instead of scary.

I agree with this. The part of the course which really did the trick was around an hour spent with the spider expert who gave a talk about them and then fielded questions. It was a basically an hour spent reinforcing the idea that they're fascinating creatures who are more afraid of you than you are of them and that being afraid of them is really a bit silly!

By the end of that talk I couldn't wait to get down to the spider house to see some and catch up on lost time. Unfortunately before that we had to lay on the floor with our eyes shut and listen to someone prattle on, otherwise known as hypnotherapy!

And I'll never forget the big, hairy man who was reduced to tears at the prospect of having to catch the spider in a glass.

Tiktaalik

9th April 2010, 01:39 PM

My folks were sure it was a learned response. So, to make sure I wasn't going to learn to be afraid of animals, when I was three my Dad caught a tarantula (we lived in the Mojave Desert at the time), brought it home, and let it loose in the house.

Commence screaming and three-year-old crawling up the furniture, despite daddy holding the tarantula in his hand and mommy reassuring tot that it was harmless...

Make of that hat you will...and BTW, I am not now particularly afraid of spiders, and often leave them in my house if they're catching flies in spring, etc.

Complexity

9th April 2010, 05:00 PM

I'm still afraid of spiders.

Wowbagger

9th April 2010, 05:24 PM

I don't think it's evolutionary. People are also afraid of cockroaches, and those are mostly harmless. Historically, roaches have been a stronger disease vector, than most other bugs.

Obviously, our innate fear system is not going to be perfect. It can be fooled by appearence. So, anything that looks like it might be roach or a spider or a snake, etc.; we would fear, as well.
Silverfish are much less harmful than roaches or spiders, but we might fear them, anyway, because of their strong roach-like or spider-like appearance, when we see them scampering.

And look at the kids: If they haven't been terrorized by parents, they are very curious about all insects and spiders and not afraid at all.I'll bet that if we did a properly controlled study, you would find that "terrorizing by parents" would not be a strong predictive factor in how fearful children end up becoming of spiders. It is fairly easy for someone to pick up that fear, without their parent's (or anyone else's) help.

Mental development would be a bigger predictive factor. If children develop innate fears as their mental systems develop to recognize them, the study would find that, if it controls for age and other development factors.

(There probably were such studies, I seem to vaguely recall, though I can't find them on the Internet, yet.)

(Also, keep in mind: "Fear", "Disgust", and "Curisoity" are not mutually exclusive emotions.)

Hindmost

9th April 2010, 05:41 PM

And now that you posted such, the spiders are going to know...

glenn

Soapy Sam

9th April 2010, 08:29 PM

Um, you are afarid of spiders?

That 'evolutionary' thing is is uncontrolled and silly.

Just because it makes intuitive sense does not mean that it is valid.
True.

A snake and water running on the ground look similar, am I afraid of the water? You either have wierd eyesight or strange snakes.

A cracked window looks like a spider, am I afraid of the window.
Yes. Or rather "startled" by it. Last week I opened a garbage can and mistook the top of a tomato for a huge, squatting, malevolent Shelob look-alike. Sure, I stopped screaming after a few minutes, but I damn near had a heart attack just the same.

People are afraid of things for a lot of reasons, 'conditioning' is a scary term to some people as well. :D
Yes. I tend to agree it's a conditioned, rather than innate fear. I tolerate the critters these days, but they still give me the grues, especially if I'm surprised by one indoors. Outdoors, they seem less...alien.
Oddly, I once encountered a rat in a friend's living room and was highly entertained, so it's not just the fact of something that "doesn't belong"- I finally caught brer rat and deposited him safely outside- whence he was probably back inside before I was- I sling spiders out too, but carefully untouched, in a glass with a paper underneath; the rat I caught bare handed, despite the vastly higher risk of an actual bite. I rather liked his style.

Helen

10th April 2010, 02:39 AM

Try to learn as much as you can about them.

My husband overcame his childhood fear of spiders by spending a lot of time reading/learning about them and watching them. He learned that they're fascinating instead of scary.

I've done this as well. Had a period in my early teens when I was suddenly afraid of spiders. Since I was really interested in nature, including all other kinds of long leggety beasties, this was really inconvenient. I started to study them, and also became fascinated by them. A bit of amateur CBT, i suppose, and if you are not really arachnophobic, it might be worth a try.

Dancing David

10th April 2010, 04:12 AM

I guess the problem with the studies cited in the Nat Geo article is that they compared snakes to mushrooms, instead of snakes to (for example) lady bugs. But, I am sure that if you did such a study, you would find more people are afraid of snakes than they are of lady bugs, even if you did such a study to a group that was not exposed to either one, before.

And, similarly, you would find more people afraid of spiders, specifically, than "bugs" in general. You will probably find emotions of "disgust" to be stronger against "bugs", than fear, for the most part.

I should reiterate that mental development could play a role in this. A baby might try to eat a spider, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would have to be "conditioned" to fear them. As the baby's brain develops into a child, the sense of fear could emerge on its own, without outside help or reinforcement.

Yes it could, and I will always agree with that. But given the amount of exposure it would be very hard to sort out the reinforcement and training from the genetic component of programming.

Um, reinforcement and learning , which includes conditioning allows us (humans) to learn many things, like walking.

And it seems to me, that since desensitization is effective, there is not likely a hard biological fear response. If you could not train away that fear response, it would seem more likely to me. :)
That it was a hard biological trait.

Dancing David

10th April 2010, 04:15 AM

Just wait till I next see my mum - so it's her fault then :D

It is partly that in some cases. but my fear of bees and wasps was learned through exposure and pain, then amplified by my anxiety and OCD.

But the component of parental anxiety and children is a present situation for many children.

Dancing David

10th April 2010, 04:19 AM

I agree with this. The part of the course which really did the trick was around an hour spent with the spider expert who gave a talk about them and then fielded questions. It was a basically an hour spent reinforcing the idea that they're fascinating creatures who are more afraid of you than you are of them and that being afraid of them is really a bit silly!

By the end of that talk I couldn't wait to get down to the spider house to see some and catch up on lost time. Unfortunately before that we had to lay on the floor with our eyes shut and listen to someone prattle on, otherwise known as hypnotherapy!

And I'll never forget the big, hairy man who was reduced to tears at the prospect of having to catch the spider in a glass.

Sorry it was hypnotherapy, you can do the same thing, more easily with 'guided relaxation', I used to do guided 'progressive muscle relaxation' and desensitization sometimes.

Dancing David

10th April 2010, 04:29 AM

Mental development would be a bigger predictive factor. If children develop innate fears as their mental systems develop to recognize them, the study would find that, if it controls for age and other development factors.

And again, politely and respectfully. I agree that could be possible.

However if there was a strong biological component that was not learned, trained and reinforced, then desensitization would not be effective.

And more phobias would be rational, they often are not. :)

As the child develops, it is also exposed to more learning and training. Much of the training and conditioning, especially in phobias is self reinforcing.

I have anxiety regards an object or situation.
I learn to have anxiety when I think about the object or situation.

When perhaps confronted with the idea of the object or situation I have more anxiety, I avoid the situation and I have less anxiety.

In avoiding the object or situation I have less anxiety.

And so a self reinforcing system begins to develop.

Seriously Wowbagger, there are very good reasons that I tend to use a behavioral model, mostly that it is a very effective intervention tool.

Millions and millions of people are benefited through the reverse process of, desensitization. It is effective and usually can be induced over a time period of less than eight weeks. In many cases with practice it is effective in shorter time frames.

Dancing David

10th April 2010, 04:30 AM

I've done this as well. Had a period in my early teens when I was suddenly afraid of spiders. Since I was really interested in nature, including all other kinds of long leggety beasties, this was really inconvenient. I started to study them, and also became fascinated by them. A bit of amateur CBT, i suppose, and if you are not really arachnophobic, it might be worth a try.

Partly CBT, most likely exposure and distraction. In that you were distracting yourself from the anxiety.

Helen

10th April 2010, 07:06 AM

Partly CBT, most likely exposure and distraction. In that you were distracting yourself from the anxiety.

Yes, that sounds very plausible. Whatever it was, it worked for me.

Wowbagger

10th April 2010, 07:26 AM

However if there was a strong biological component that was not learned, trained and reinforced, then desensitization would not be effective.Some fears are generally easier to desensitize in a person, than others. How would conditioning, alone, predict which ones would be more or less difficult?

And more phobias would be rational, they often are not. :) Perhaps I am not communicating this very effectively. The evolutionary approach predicts why phobias would be less rational, especially by today's standards. The "fear systems" are not perfect, and are prone to a couple of different types of errors, that could magnify over time. Though, most of them probably were slightly more rational to have, in the past, when conditioning wasn't even much of an option.

An imperfect innate system is better than no system at all. Just ask the gazelles who flee hungry-looking lions.

As the child develops, it is also exposed to more learning and training. Much of the training and conditioning, especially in phobias is self reinforcing.I agree, so our study would have to control for that.

Millions and millions of people are benefited through the reverse process of, desensitization. It is effective and usually can be induced over a time period of less than eight weeks. In many cases with practice it is effective in shorter time frames.I agree that our fears can be overriden and desensitized, etc. That fact does not contradict anything I have said. "Innate" does NOT mean "completely irreversible".

Earthborn

10th April 2010, 08:12 AM

Some fears are generally easier to desensitize in a person, than others.You'll have to show that this is true.

Though, most of them probably were slightly more rational to have, in the past, when conditioning wasn't even much of an option.When exactly was this time when "conditioning wasn't much of an option" ?

Just ask the gazelles who flee hungry-looking lions.There is no reason to assume gazelles have an innate fear of hungry-looking lions. A simpler explanation is that other gazelles have taught them to fear lions.

jasonpatterson

10th April 2010, 09:03 AM

I'm the same. It's not a phobia, but I just cannot cope with spiders at all.

...

It's so irrational. Even at night sleeping, I would say 90% of my bad dreams are spider related. Usually involving me stuck in a corner of a room with spider(s) coming at me, while I'm completely frozen! Really freaks me out!

I'm never moving to a country where they have actually have big spiders that bite and stuff!!!

What you're describing is basically the definition of a phobia: an unreasonable, persistent fear of something. You have nightmares about them for crying out loud! :) Not trying to pick on you, but I wonder why both you and the OP were immediately clear to point out that you don't have phobias when you both clearly do.

Dancing David

11th April 2010, 06:52 AM

Some fears are generally easier to desensitize in a person, than others. How would conditioning, alone, predict which ones would be more or less difficult?

Um, the general ability to desensitize it related to the individual with the phobia and the level of symptoms, not the target of the phobia.

Perhaps I am not communicating this very effectively. The evolutionary approach predicts why phobias would be less rational, especially by today's standards.

You mis-read me, and I did not spell it out. Most phobias are irrational in their nature. They can attach to a lot of silly triggers that have no bearing upon your idea of the genetic map for objects of phobias.

A fear of paperclips or some mundane object would be what I am talking about.

The "fear systems" are not perfect, and are prone to a couple of different types of errors, that could magnify over time. Though, most of them probably were slightly more rational to have, in the past, when conditioning wasn't even much of an option.

Again your true lack of understanding of behaviorism is showing, I know you have some sort of strange philosophical aversion to it. You really need to educate yourself and stop with the mischaracterization.

Conditioning, training and learning exist at all times. You keep making these really bizarre statements that show a real lack of understanding of even the basic principles of behaviorism.

To say that the practice of the technique of desensitization is recent would be most accurate.

Now here is the issue as I see it and I may mis-characterize your position (so please correct me):

I am stating that a general system of emotions exists, and that is the root of things like phobias, in the cases that are not in the extreme like OCD, it involves a general mechanism that has gone astray in some fashion. the objects of phobias will be related to contingent history and a general high level of anxiety.

What you seem to say is basically the same, except you add the predisposition to certain 'objects' that may become triggers because of some genetic algorithm?

An imperfect innate system is better than no system at all. Just ask the gazelles who flee hungry-looking lions.

And again you are arguing for a hypothesis (I mean that in term of neutrality not spin), you have not demonstrated that there are patterns with an innate biological tendency to create fear or phobias.

And that is my many issue with that idea, it could be but it has not been demonstrated. It is therefore a hypothesis and does not have the data to make it a theory.

Meanwhile the mechanisms of behaviorism can be demonstrated, they have effects and are valid theories. Big smile. :)

I agree, so our study would have to control for that.

And until someone does so, it remains a speculative hypothesis.

I agree that our fears can be overriden and desensitized, etc. That fact does not contradict anything I have said. "Innate" does NOT mean "completely irreversible".

That would make it even harder to test for and control, would it not?

A partial trait?

And then there is the whole issue of actually encoding for such a specific trait as 'visual image X' causes emotional reactivity.
So it is a great idea as are many ideas Wowbagger, but until there is something more to show that the effect exist, it is a hypothesis.

So when the data comes along that says it is more a specific product of a specific biological trait, then I can consider it. Otherwise I will go for the more general trait.

Damien Evans

11th April 2010, 07:31 AM

I have two of these living above my bed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pholcus_phalangioides

Since I'm allergic to Mosquito bites I find letting them stay there mutually beneficial.

GlennB

11th April 2010, 07:57 AM

Soapy Sam

11th April 2010, 08:04 AM

Could be worse. She might be terrified of baths.

Ottis

11th April 2010, 08:04 AM

........... I once encountered a rat in a friend's living room and was highly entertained, ............

I was just reading through this thread and poking fun at my wife for her irrational fear of spiders.

And you had to bring up RATs! dirty, stinking, slimy, disease carrying RATs!
AAArrrrrggghhhhh!
I might have to start drinking early today....

But at least I don't have a silly fear of spiders!

Wowbagger

11th April 2010, 08:37 AM

I have not actually had time to read this paper, yet. But, I am providing a link to it, anyway, because it was cited by others making similar claims as mine, in other places, and we'll see how it goes:

Fear and fitness: An evolutionary analysis of anxiety disorders
By Marks, Isaac M. and Nesse, Randolph M. (1994)
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31354/1/0000265.pdf

Abstract: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31354/1/0000265.pdf

I hope to read it within a day or so, and I will also respond to other comments, in here, as soon as I can.

Dancing David

11th April 2010, 04:31 PM

Sorry Wowbagger, it does not look good and there conclusion area (actually the area right before it 'The Heuristic Value of an Evolutionary Perspective') has some bad data. Families and family members are more likely to abuse infants than strangers.

Infanticide by strangers
turned out to be so common that it is a strong selective force in primates as
well as other species (Hardy 1977).
Abundant documentation also emerged that
even today human infants are far more likely to be killed or abused by
strangers than by familiars (Daly and Wilson 1989).

That paper is really um... not good. I will read it more in depth but it looks good at describing anxiety but poor at the evolutionary traits. That paper is dated as is most of the research that it quotes, that is not good, it is fine in a literature review but not in later parts of the paper. Most common practice outside the literature review is five years preferably three.

And to quote a study from 1977 in a paper published in 1994 is not something that many people would tolerate, especially when it is so blatantly wrong when it comes to humans. Most infanticide and abuse happens with first and second degree relatives.

An evolutionary trait of arousal is useful ,yes.

This part is correct

Second is the difficulty in neatly dividing anxiety disorders into mutually
exclusive subtypes when each may in fact correspond to a particular danger but
none is completely differentiated from any other. If this is correct, then
attempts to delineate mutually exclusive anxiety disorders are likely to fail.

This part that follows is silly because the only criteruia for abnormal is interference with functioning, they are really searching stuff that they cant find

Third is the problem in deciding which physiological aspects of anxiety
reflect abnormalities and which merely reflect normal operation of the anxiety
system. The sites, pathways, and neurotransmitters that regulate anxiety, like
those that regulate normal vomiting, are its cause only in the superficial sense
of being part of a long mediating chain.

And I am sorry that paper is just silly. There are so many error and misconceptions. It is a good try at possibly indicative work but really, um ... not good.

the things about recent evolutionary fears ia soooo silly, and training children to fear knifes. I have to stop.

Sorry Wowbagger. I respect you but that paper is um ...not good.

bluess

11th April 2010, 05:24 PM

I managed to get over some of my fear because (long, completely annoying cow-orker story deleted)... so I ended up with a hand puppet that looked like a wolf spider and a little fuzzy spider with very large googly eyes and rubbery legs. Apparently, having them sit on my desk was enough to ease some of the disgust. Then I had a kid and (like another poster above) had to pretend I was not scared to the point of hysteria when spiders appeared in her room.

Of course, when she isn't around, I immediately call for Mr.Blue to remove them. In the last week, we've ended up with two very large ones in the house. As in, one with a four inch spread from leg tip to leg tip (and you could hear it scrabbling in the cardboard box Mr.Blue captured him with) and the other had an EIGHT inch spread, and you could see him walking across the sidewalk when Mr.Blue chucked him out the door.

Um... yes I am totally scared of large insects that jump, and bite, and have a bit of venom (ours do). I think it is totally rational.

Jeff Corey

11th April 2010, 05:50 PM

Play with this, it might help. http://www.onemotion.com/flash/spider/
By the way, the Marks and Nesse paper was typical psychiatrist babble.

ThunderChunky

11th April 2010, 07:31 PM

Historically, roaches have been a stronger disease vector, than most other bugs.

Source? When humans evolved roaches were probably just one of many creepy crawlers. I don't think they would spread disease more than other bugs. The fact that they can take up residence in our homes is a modern development..and I have never heard of roaches spreading disease.

Dancing David

12th April 2010, 04:51 AM

Roaches can but that is a recent trend.

I can't say that this article establishes that they actually do vector pathogens
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2529868

LandR

12th April 2010, 06:12 AM

Play with this, it might help. http://www.onemotion.com/flash/spider/

That's horrible!

I don't like spiders in computer games, especially games Tomb Raider when you have the giant spiders attacking you! Creeps me out.

Polaris

12th April 2010, 06:56 AM

I'm about a 6/10 on spider fear.

When our children were very small and about to take their bath, I made a huge effort not to show any fear about spiders in the bathtub. I would lift out spiders that I previously wouldn't have touched, and I sang them The Who's 'Boris The Spider' to make it all amusing.

Now my daughter is terrified of the song :)

And that's an example of a rational fear. :duck:

I wanted to be an entomologist when I was in the 1st grade, so strong was my interest in insects and spiders - being in the countryside, I suppose living in fear of them would have been a waste of time, but that's neither here nor there. So either it's not instinctive, or I'm different and strange (and being the latter is ok with me, normal = boring).

Seeing a jumping spider or an occasional rabid wolf spider in our house growing up was nothing - a jumper was the only one that's ever bitten me that I know of, and there were no hard feelings. There was a pond not far from the house where I could bank on finding big ones under rocks along the shore, and once in a while I would pick them up and let them crawl on me.

Had a similar affinity for snakes, which I know I certainly didn't get from my mother, though she never discouraged it - dad on the other hand I think enjoyed himself vicariously through me there at best and revelled in the heebie-jeebies it gave my mom at worst.

Soapy Sam

13th April 2010, 02:13 AM

I was just reading through this thread and poking fun at my wife for her irrational fear of spiders.

And you had to bring up RATs! dirty, stinking, slimy, disease carrying RATs!
AAArrrrrggghhhhh!
I might have to start drinking early today....

But at least I don't have a silly fear of spiders!

You being quite new and all, I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression. This was a 1970s rented student flat in Glasgow. The same chap now has a ridiculously large house in England, with, I'm sure, nary a rat. The several terriers would make sure of that.

Ottis

13th April 2010, 08:08 PM

UNLoVedRebel

13th April 2010, 08:40 PM

there are no poisonous spiders in the UKPoisonous or venomous?

Dancing David

14th April 2010, 04:47 AM

:) I was just proposing (in a rather obscure way perhaps) that through the finely honed human art of rationalization, that one persons perfectly rational fear survival instinct, is to another, an irrational phobia.

How would this compare to, say, the fear of heights? Which to most people seems perfectly rational (even to those who don't have it) and may well have a instinctual basis. (ie: The Human body doesn't have very good glide characteristics, not a lesson to learn the hard way.)

Which makes sense, however the issue in any mental illness, is :

Does it impact functioning?

There is a difference between a rational fear of heigths and a phobia.

In a phobia a person is unable to things that a 'reasonable' person would do, they have a panic attack because they are above the second floor in a very stable building, or something like that.

Yes it is reasonable to be afraid of standing on an iron girder 200 ft. in the air, it is not reasonable to have a panic attack crossing the Brooklyn Bridge.

And please the whole instinctual think is an appealing idea with no basis in evidence. Fear of heigths seems to be learned.

RhodyDave

14th April 2010, 08:09 AM

I don't know why the OP is afraid of spiders, but I say, Good!! I'm afraid of the darn things too. I turn into a true scaredy-cat when there's a big hairy spider in the room. I have no idea why.

Now I'm not a squeamish person, I don't have a fear of other insects, including stinging ones like wasps and such. I will pick up a garden snake no problem. I will dispose of mice without a second thought. But a spider? No way! And the bigger they are, the worse I am.

I think it's something to do with the absolutely nightmarish look of them. The 8 legs, the fangs, the fact that many of them excrete (ugh) webs to snare prey, then inject them with a dissolving fluid that liquefies the insides of the prey, the fact that some of them are venomous and can KILL me, yeah, I'm practically petrified by them.

Oh, and one thing I learned from this thread thanks to the person who posted the links about spiders in Australia; I am NEVER going to go there ;)

Mirrorglass

14th April 2010, 11:21 AM

Miss_Kitt

14th April 2010, 11:39 AM

Mirrorglass

14th April 2010, 11:44 AM

Mirrorglass -- because it's disgusting! It's certainly distinctive, and I find that even mechanical objects that move 'wrong' can make me uneasy. By contrast, I am not bothered by 'jumping spiders' in part because they don't move that way. Besides, it's hard to get freaked by something that has silly stripes all over it and sometimes falls off of whatever it's walking across....

Yes, I do agree it's gross. :) My point is that there must be a reason why so many people agree on that. I can't see that being culturally transferred, so I believe it has a genetic origin.

Blackadder

14th April 2010, 12:21 PM

Lazy Lob and crazy Cob
are weaving webs to wind me.
I am far more sweet than other meat,
but still they cannot find me!
Here am I, naughty little fly;
you are fat and lazy.
You cannot trap me, though you try,
in your cobwebs crazy.

Dancing David

14th April 2010, 01:09 PM

I realize there isn't much evidence for the evolutionary arachnophobia theory, but still.. it just seems to make so much sense to me. I mean, how else do you explain the fact it's so much more prevalent than, say, fear of flies? And why do arachnophobics consistently describe "the disgusting leg movement" as one of the main reasons they fear spiders?

Well, um, things that make sense don't always work out as being supported by the data?

Babies seem to eat them. :D

It would take demonstrating that the fear induction was not learned which would mean some sort of emotional preference in the wiring of the brain and limbic system, so say why not paper snowflakes, they 'look like spiders'?

Dancing David

14th April 2010, 01:11 PM

Yes, I do agree it's gross. :) My point is that there must be a reason why so many people agree on that. I can't see that being culturally transferred, so I believe it has a genetic origin.

So many people also seem to belief in god and racism as well.

:)

andyandy

14th April 2010, 02:39 PM

Poisonous or venomous?

Aren't they interchangable?

Mirrorglass

14th April 2010, 02:59 PM

So many people also seem to belief in god and racism as well.

:)

Both seem pretty cultural to me, and I can see racism giving an evolutionary advantage. My point is that while fear of spiders could be augmented by cultural factors, I don't think the leg thingy could. My claim is humans have an innate tendency to recognize spidery leg patterns and associate them with strong emotions.

shadron

14th April 2010, 03:53 PM

Fear of Snakes, Spiders Rooted in Evolution, Study Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears.html)

Another way of saying that:

UcrJ2HFKogs

Dancing David

15th April 2010, 05:31 AM

Both seem pretty cultural to me, and I can see racism giving an evolutionary advantage. My point is that while fear of spiders could be augmented by cultural factors, I don't think the leg thingy could. My claim is humans have an innate tendency to recognize spidery leg patterns and associate them with strong emotions.

Um, you do know that intuitive sense is often wrong.

You are talking about a very specific radial pattern and now you want to add legginess to it?

Maybe we should discuss protein/enzyme gradients and brain formation. You are talking about a very specific response in the one creature on earth that has no specific behavioral responses after the age of six weeks.

Stereotyic of modal action patterns involve very specific response to certain stimuli and they are the one thing humans lack after the age of six weeks. You can have neural pathways to regulate motor behavior and some cognitive traits.

But how the heck are you going to encode for 'radial pattern that is leggy', but does not apply to paper snowflakes, cracked galls, dandelion poofs or robotic arms.

It is culural and learned, there is no evolutionary benefit to racism or a belief in god. Evoutionary traits need to be based in physical biology, and so far that has not been demonstrated.

Meanwhile we have well demonstrated and well documented things like learning.

Mirrorglass

15th April 2010, 05:46 AM

Um, you do know that intuitive sense is often wrong.

You are talking about a very specific radial pattern and now you want to add legginess to it?

Maybe we should discuss protein/enzyme gradients and brain formation. You are talking about a very specific response in the one creature on earth that has no specific behavioral responses after the age of six weeks.

Stereotyic of modal action patterns involve very specific response to certain stimuli and they are the one thing humans lack after the age of six weeks. You can have neural pathways to regulate motor behavior and some cognitive traits.

But how the heck are you going to encode for 'radial pattern that is leggy', but does not apply to paper snowflakes, cracked galls, dandelion poofs or robotic arms.

I realize I may be wrong, yes. But I still see no reason to think that.

Certainly, humans don't have many of their higher cognitive functions when they're born. For example, most humans don't learn to speak or walk until around the age of one. Does that mean humans don't have an innate tendency to learn those behaviors?

Of course, humans do need to see others walking and talking to learn that stuff. Certainly they also have to see spiders, perhaps even see others being afraid of spiders, to develop arachnophobia themselves. My point is that similar to walking, I believe fear of spiders to be a response we learn easily because of an innate tendency.

It is culural and learned, there is no evolutionary benefit to racism or a belief in god. Evoutionary traits need to be based in physical biology, and so far that has not been demonstrated.

Meanwhile we have well demonstrated and well documented things like learning.

The evolutionary benefit of racism would be clear in a situation where diverse human populations interacted with each other. A non-racist population would allow members of other populations to enter it, while racist populations would not. Thus, the non-racist population would be invaded by the racist ones.

I'm not saying I believe that particular model, mind you, just that it's feasible. As for belief in God, I agree that probably isn't genetic in itself.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "evolutionary traits need to be based in physical biology". We certainly have a genetic disposition for recognizing lines of different orientation, movement and direction of sound. What's so different about a spidery leg pattern?

Polaris

15th April 2010, 06:51 AM

Aren't they interchangable?

Only in the vernacular, same as theoretical/hypothetical are interchangeable.

Venomous = "I can get a toxic substance into you without having to be in you myself. Preferrably via something sharp."

Poisonous = "If you eat me, ohhhh you're not gonna like it!"

Venomous snake, poisonous mushroom (deadly :D).

Damien Evans

15th April 2010, 07:05 AM

Dancing David

15th April 2010, 10:56 AM

I realize I may be wrong, yes. But I still see no reason to think that.

In short becuase there is no evidence for that happening.

More later.

there are animals that have hard wired mechanisms that allow them to walk within minutes of birth, humans aren't them.

It could be that thi sfancy mechanism exists, so how does it tell a spider from a paper snow flake?

Certainly, humans don't have many of their higher cognitive functions when they're born. For example, most humans don't learn to speak or walk until around the age of one. Does that mean humans don't have an innate tendency to learn those behaviors?

Tendency is different from ability and ability is different from hardwired programming.

Of course, humans do need to see others walking and talking to learn that stuff. Certainly they also have to see spiders, perhaps even see others being afraid of spiders, to develop arachnophobia themselves. My point is that similar to walking, I believe fear of spiders to be a response we learn easily because of an innate tendency.

I argue that we have an ability to learn 'fear' but the stimulus is not specific.

The evolutionary benefit of racism would be clear in a situation where diverse human populations interacted with each other. A non-racist population would allow members of other populations to enter it, while racist populations would not. Thus, the non-racist population would be invaded by the racist ones.

I'm not saying I believe that particular model, mind you, just that it's feasible. As for belief in God, I agree that probably isn't genetic in itself.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "evolutionary traits need to be based in physical biology". We certainly have a genetic disposition for recognizing lines of different orientation, movement and direction of sound. What's so different about a spidery leg pattern?

Mirrorglass

15th April 2010, 11:10 AM

It could be that thi sfancy mechanism exists, so how does it tell a spider from a paper snow flake?

How do you tell them apart? I don't see why this is such a problem.

Tendency is different from ability and ability is different from hardwired programming.

Of course. I'm not claiming all humans are born arachnophobic, but that there's an inherent tendency to learn arachnophobia. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

St.Michael

18th April 2010, 06:02 AM

I live in Australia. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_funnel-web_spider) is why I’m afraid of spiders. Oh and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redback_spider). And mustn’t forget this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_spider).

Any questions?

I hate Spiders, I do find them fascinating creatures but aesthetically they're just horrid. They way they move, the way they look. Yuck!

The photographs in those links are good examples of their sheer unappealing physical form.

Folly

18th April 2010, 08:22 PM

I hate Spiders, I do find them fascinating creatures but aesthetically they're just horrid. They way they move, the way they look. Yuck!

The photographs in those links are good examples of their sheer unappealing physical form.

Those are unappealing spiders, it's true. I'm in the "shiny is worse" camp. The venom thing really doesn't help either.

The spider in the flash app Jeff Corey linked to, however... That was a cute spider. I spent more than 5 minutes poking it and feeding it fake bugs.

We have spiders in the house (mostly the basement) that we're happy to have. Not very exciting spiders here: I've been bitten a few times by very upset spiders after having disturbed them by thrashing about in the mostly unused downstairs bedroom in the heat of summer. We like to blow on our spiders if we see them, to just to make sure they're still functional. V. sad if they're not :(

Robo Sapien

18th April 2010, 08:26 PM

I submit myself to spider bites every chance I get, hoping I'll happen upon the one that turns me into a web-slingin superhero.

Wowbagger

18th April 2010, 09:51 PM

I wish I was able to respond to this, sooner. But, it took a while before I had time to read and absorb the document, and comment on it.

Families and family members are more likely to abuse infants than strangers.For the purposes of the argument they were making, this makes little differences. It makes evolutionary sense for children to grow more fear of other people, as they move farther from their parents.

Abuse by family members can be explained through the conflicts of interest they may have in sharing resources and spreading genes. We have evolved a different set of mechanisms for handling those. A general fear of strangers would be insufficient for that, anyway.

That paper is dated as is most of the research that it quotes, that is not good, it is fine in a literature review but not in later parts of the paper. Most common practice outside the literature review is five years preferably three.I understand the age of a document could be an issue. But, why don't you try to address its main arguments, rather than complain about the dates of its references. You did not even try to do that, yet.

This part that follows is silly because the only criteruia for abnormal is interference with functioning, they are really searching stuff that they cant findThey are developing a hypothesis, which can be examined in further research, for explaining certain quirks in fear behavior that cannot be explained through conditioning alone.

In many cases, further research has been done, which does not contradict the hypothesis. I will try to find references to those, later.

the things about recent evolutionary fears ia soooo silly, and training children to fear knifes.Expressing how "silly" you think it is, is not what I would call an argument against the paper. I was expecting higher quality criticism from you. Perhaps when you have more time, you can do so.

Do you have any actual evidence or good arguments against this general idea?:

Unlike the prepared fears and phobias just noted, we rarely fear cues that
have been harmless in our past, for example, wood, leaves, flowers, stones, or
shallow water. Aversion therapists found it hard to induce fear of alcohol in
alcoholics, or of women’s clothes in transvestites (Gelder and Marks 1970).
Nor do we easily develop fear of evolutionarily recent dangers (Cook et al.
1986). Few fear motor cars, guns, cigarettes, or alcohol, despite knowing that
these now kill far more people than do snakes, spiders, or sharks. Not having
been present long enough to materially alter our genetic endowment, such
modem perils are feared too little. It is difficult for even the great intelligence
of humans to override genetic predispositions. Head and heart unite more
easily when new threats relate to earlier ones. When they do, then fears of
those threats may develop easily, but often in unmodulated fashion. Excessive
fears of dentists and of AIDS grow out of ancient fears of injury and of
infection.

And, can operant conditioning, alone, counter this?:

An evolutionary perspective might also explain why general anxiety is not
always aversive and can even be pleasurable. Millions flock to be thrilled by
horror movies, the big wheel, tightrope walkers, and the like. Perhaps this is a
form of play behavior, like so many other enjoyable games that help us deal
better with real problems when the time comes. Young mammals spend much
time in play that teaches them the game of life (Smith 1982). Hypotheses to
test this view should be formulable.

Here is my summary of the issues, thus far:

It is clear that both evolutionary theory and conditioning play a role in our fears. How much of a role for each type and sub-type of fear might vary. This is especially true since, (as the paper points out), there is a general anxiety mechanism for dealing with unknown threats, that could well be trainable. And, we are often wary of stuff that injured us in the past.

But, at the same time, it is clear that certain fears are more universal and prevalent than others. We can find evidence that many of these fears are archaic, and not enough of them deal with modern dangers; which is not something you would expect if it was all a matter of conditioning.

Dancing David

19th April 2010, 04:32 AM

How do you tell them apart? I don't see why this is such a problem.

Because of the shapes, if it was shape based there would be a certain rate of fera associated with false positives.

Of course. I'm not claiming all humans are born arachnophobic, but that there's an inherent tendency to learn arachnophobia. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

And again I have stated that learning fear is a general trait, it does not seem to be related to the shape of the object upon which the fear is associated.

That is the alleegd 'evolutionary claim'.

I am saying that there is a more general non-sprcific trait.

Dancing David

19th April 2010, 04:42 AM

I wish I was able to respond to this, sooner. But, it took a while before I had time to read and absorb the document, and comment on it.

It is not a very good source Wowbagger, most of the papers cited in it are way out of date, even in 1994. That is a valid criticism.

For the purposes of the argument they were making, this makes little differences. It makes evolutionary sense for children to grow more fear of other people, as they move farther from their parents.

Wowbagger, I directly refuted the paper they claimed supported their hypothesis. That was their claim and so it does matter very much.

Where the specific claim they make that "this evolutionary trait is supported by the piece of evidence" and I say "that piece of evidence is false because children are more likely to suffer abuse and death at the hands of their own family" and therefore their basis for the claim is unsupported for the specific trait that they are saying exists.

I can refute the evidentiary claim they make for the evolutionary trait of 'fear of strangers', now you say the evidence doesn't matter.

This paper makes an unsupported claim, that somehow you say exists despite the fact that they don't support their own hypothesis very well.

Or do I totally misunderstand what you are trying to say there?

ETA: edited to remove spelling errors and snark.

Dancing David

19th April 2010, 04:59 AM

They are developing a hypothesis, which can be examined in further research, for explaining certain quirks in fear behavior that cannot be explained through conditioning alone.

And where was that demonstrated (these quirks), no where that you have ever cited nor that they cite. Where is the demonstration of those quirks, no where, no data just an assertion.

In many cases, further research has been done, which does not contradict the hypothesis. I will try to find references to those, later.

Okay when you show it we can discuss it.

Expressing how "silly" you think it is, is not what I would call an argument against the paper. I was expecting higher quality criticism from you. Perhaps when you have more time, you can do so.

Um it is silly because they never demonstrate that there is any general ratio or fears that are more atavistic or any traits that show some fears have a higher ratio than others.

They assert it, you assert it, many people assert it , but it is undemonstrated.

It is not demonstrated, yet they say that it exists with no data to support it.

Therefore it is silly.

Do you have any actual evidence or good arguments against this general idea?:

Um really they cite one or two old papers and you think that makes a valid argument.

There is a claim from one study in 1970 that aversion therapists are unable to do something.

Why not a more recent paper? Seriously, do you read any social science papers?

They cite one paper from 1970 and another from 1986, there should be a lot more and more recent than that. What does bad aversion therapy have to do with the formation of phobias. Really?

The field of PTSD and ATSD show the strong nature of conditioning.

Is trying to train an alcoholic with chemical dependency relevant, does trying to make a transvestite fear women’s clothing through electrical shocks really support your case?

No it does not.

Does trying to force someone to change a long established behavior through application of electric shocks have that much relevancy to learning phobias?

Okay.

But, at the same time, it is clear that certain fears are more universal and prevalent than others. We can find evidence that many of these fears are archaic, and not enough of them deal with modern dangers; which is not something you would expect if it was all a matter of conditioning.

That is just your assertion, you have not shown it, you just assert it. No one has shown that yet, you believe it but it is not verified, that is your belief, that is not demonstrated.

You have not shown, nor have they or anyone so far, that these fears are more prevalent than any other fears.

Show me the number, large sample size, random demographic distributions, comparative analysis.
You don't have the data to support your case, this paper does not have the data at all.

No more to say.

ETA: edited to remove more spelling errors and more snark.

Mirrorglass

19th April 2010, 08:00 AM

Because of the shapes, if it was shape based there would be a certain rate of fera associated with false positives.

I have mentioned the movement could play a role. And there certainly are false positives with things that actually look like spiders, like tomato stems, flies and dust bunnies.

And again I have stated that learning fear is a general trait, it does not seem to be related to the shape of the object upon which the fear is associated.

That is the alleegd 'evolutionary claim'.

I am saying that there is a more general non-sprcific trait.

You're oversimplifying the "evolutionary claim" here. No one has said shape is the only we observe about spiders. And I maintain paper snowflakes aren't very similar at all in shape to spiders.

Dysphemist

19th April 2010, 08:54 AM

Dancing David

19th April 2010, 09:01 AM

I have mentioned the movement could play a role. And there certainly are false positives with things that actually look like spiders, like tomato stems, flies and dust bunnies.

How so do people have phobias because they look like spiders?

You're oversimplifying the "evolutionary claim" here. No one has said shape is the only we observe about spiders. And I maintain paper snowflakes aren't very similar at all in shape to spiders.

Um, you are the one apparently saying that there is some sort of shape or motion that has an evolutionary preference for selection in helping to create fears.

So if it is not a shape, then what is it?

:)

I am saying there is no evidence presented as well that spiders have a higher rate of phobia than any other object.

Dancing David

19th April 2010, 09:04 AM

Couldn't you just as easily say that appreciation or acceptance of spiders is a conditioned response like the fear of the nasty things is?

Fear of spiders in many areas is completely rational because there is no rational reason not to be scared of them. How could the love of a non-dangerous spider help me or my ancestors even remotely? Our, and our ancestors, fear of all spiders would stop us from accidentally handling a dangerous spider, and could save our lives.

I would say that there is no basis for a preference or aversion either way.

It is non-specific in response.

Of course like of things is mostly conditioned, both attraction and aversion.

I am saying there is no evidence for the bias towards a fear of spiders over other phobias.

(I do know a little about them as well, when I am off my medicine they are an interesting part of my life.As are the intrusive thoughts of OCD.)

Mirrorglass

19th April 2010, 09:42 AM

How so do people have phobias because they look like spiders?

People who do fear spiders are also often scared by something that looks like a spider, though the fear usually passes when they realize it isn't. If you're saying people should also develop fear of paper snowflakes.. well, it does happen; there are many, less frequent irrational fears for things like buttons, dust bunnies and such.

Um, you are the one apparently saying that there is some sort of shape or motion that has an evolutionary preference for selection in helping to create fears.

So if it is not a shape, then what is it?

:)

I'm saying it's a combination of shape, size, motion and the tendency to only be noticed when you're very close to it, and possibly some other traits.

I am saying there is no evidence presented as well that spiders have a higher rate of phobia than any other object.

I couldn't find reliable studies about the matter, which is somewhat strange, but it seems obvious that arachnophobia is more common than most other phobias. Are you actually saying you don't believe fear of spiders is more common than, say, fear of buttons? The fact that there are hundreds of programs to treat arachnophobia does seem to suggest it is very common.