[Vlerchan]

I don't have PubMed access.

The same authors wrote this paper, it uses the same data and the same controls as the other paper (which I could access), and seems to have all of the same content from a quick skim. Here is the statement that comes close to support Rugoz's claim, "The most effective methods of SP include “run/hide,” “get help,” “struggling*,” and “attacking without weapon**.” These SP actions appear to decrease the risk of rape more than 80 percent compared to nonresistance". Far as I can see, all of their reporting (except screaming from fear, which induces a large increase) surrounding whether self-protection increases the chance of harm is only statistically significant outside the range of 0.01 < X < 0.05 (small N), though, regardless, indicates that it increases the chance of harm. It might be worth noting that when they refer to struggling this time around, it is considered 'non-forceful'.

Nonetheless, I'd agree with Kaiserschmarrn that the likelihood is that no study is going to be too useful. Other than rape statistics being notoriously incomplete, this sort of study seems to me to be open to all forms of reporting biases, such as [1] those victim to an incomplete rape possibly being less likely to report, [2] those who engaged in failed acts of self-protection possibly being less likely to report acting in their defence (out of fear of being seen as senseless or ridiculous), [3] people being more willing to engage in self-defence when it seems, and perhaps is, more likely to succeed (which the authors attempt to control for, but no accounting for weight, demeanour, etc. differences can be made).

---

* In the regression output this is referred to as, "struggled, ducked, blocked blows, held onto property". N = 279.

** N = 4, I'm not sure why they bothered.

[AFAIK]

If you were attacked wouldn't the flight-fight-freeze response kick in? How much training would it take to overcome your instincts and how much evidence is there that it would a) work and b) be worth the trouble of learning since other actions might be better strategies to reduce your risk of being raped and require less effort to implement?

[Frollein]

How much of the flight/freeze response in women is instinct, and not training? I can't count the scenes I've watched on tv where the female victim is trying to flee, then invariably stumbles and falls on her belly, then crawls (instead of getting on her feet again and perhaps lose the damn high heels) some inches, only to be grabbed by the serial killer/rapist/etc. It's meant to give the audience a thrill or something, but all I can think of in these moments is how many girls are being conditioned to such an ineffectual response by watching "how it is done". You know, monkey see, monkey do.

[Thompson_NCL]

Well there really only three options when someone is trying to violently attack you: Run, Fight or Freeze. I've seen men who were attacked choose the third option as well, perhaps as they were too stunned to react or maybe hoping to get things over and done quickly. Given that most people are not killers even in the heat of the moment, it's probably not that bad an idea statistically.

[Glen]

Well there really only three options when someone is trying to violently attack you: Run, Fight or Freeze.

When we are exposed to any problem, that problem passes through three layers of the processing in the brain: Visceral, Behavioural, and Reflective.

Visceral is immediate and culturally agnostic. Processing is immediate and simple, like the brain of reptile. It cannot learn, and it provides the Fight or Flight emotional responses that we are born with. Being male or female is irrelevant to Visceral processing.

Behavioural provides learned and calculated responses, making it the seat of cultural bias. Processing has tiny delays and it focusses on how to successfully see an action through, or how to manipulate objects, like the brain of a mouse (although a mouse also has a visceral layer). If you are fighting the attacker, this is the part that determines whether or not you are digging yours keys into their face.

Reflective provides strategic thinking, applies reasoning to the other's communications, adds the sense of self, and compares continually changing abstract thoughts such as reverse-psychology. Processing is delayed, and it provides the set of most creative options. It is sometimes compared to the brain of a monkey.

Frollein's observation questions whether universal Visceral and cultural Behavioural responses can be taught to our Behavioural and Reflective areas of thinking through movies, like a feedback loop. If true, this gives some scientific credibility to notions that video entertainment actively makes viewers more stupid.

The Freeze option is probably where a Behavioural decision has overridden the Visceral decision before it could manifest into physical action. The body would probably have gone tense as part of taking physical action, and then relaxed as a Behavioural response takes control, which in turn could be overridden by a Reflective decisions. Using the same feedback loop as above, the Behavioural processing could decide to do nothing because experience suggests the slower Reflective processing is going to present the preferred option very soon. If true, this gives some scientific credibility to the notion that people accustomed to success are less emotional.

Disclaimer: I have adapted this post from my knowledge of product design

[Frollein]

I don't think there's any doubt that we learn most of our behaviour through observation and imitation. That's how children learn, and there's no reason to believe that we suddenly stop just because hormones kick in during puberty. Just watch the differences between European men's responses and those MENA men and you'll see that the latter are more emotional, more aggressive and have a lower threshold for stress or perceived attacks on their "honor" - they have a much shorter fuse and much more violent responses. European men have been taught not to be aggressive; and I think women in general have been taught to freeze when attacked.

Of course, that social conditioning is now biting us in the ass. Thanks to our criminal gang that poses as our government forcing millions of violent retards on us and then telling us that we need to "get used to" terror. It's a bit like telling a rape victim to relax and enjoy it.

[AFAIK]

I think the response is more likely to be instinctual than cultural because a conscious decision would slow your response and there is plenty of evidence that the same mechanism exists in other species. I imagine that people are predisposed to certain responses and that culture and personal experience can nudge the weighting of each response.

Please note; I'm just speculating here.

[Frollein]

I think you are using the term "instinctual" wrong. Instinc is a biologically wired response that can't be altered. What you mean is "unconscious" response which is automated, but can be learned.

[AFAIK]

Are unconscious decisions made solely in the brain? Like if I touch something hot I immediately pull my hand away and it is my nervous system that delivers that mechanism.

Could you talk me through an example?

[Frollein]

No. I guess I could, but I just can't be bothered to spend pages on the question of whether it's just woman's nature to let herself be raped without even attempting to fight back.

[AFAIK]

Do you always interpret people's comments in the worst possible light, lol?

I'd have thought running away from predators would be a pretty useful evolutionary advantage since those who have to learn to do so are unlikely to survive long enough to put the lesson to use.

[Frollein]

Most of the time running away is the worst possible solution. On average, a woman cannot outrun a man, and she's pointing her back to him, so she can neither see where he is or what he's about to do, nor defend herself. I'd always opt for attacking at once, using the element of surprise. Of course, you only have that one chance to hit him so that he can't retaliate; if you don't prime yourself for a deadly attack, you can as well lie back and relax.
That's why watching hundreds of scenes where the woman's response is to crawl away while sobbing hysterically is exactly the wrong program to install in the subconscious. At which point you'll start conflating subconscious and instinctual responses again, and frankly, I'm not bored enough to spend the afternoon dissecting that conflation.

[AFAIK]

So what's the default setting before people learn to mimic hollywood movies? You realise that men have fight-flight-freeze response too, right? And that it is activated in non rape scenarios.

[Glen]

So what's the default setting before people learn to mimic hollywood movies? You realise that men have fight-flight-freeze response too, right? And that it is activated in non rape scenarios.

My previous post argues, with the help of some pseudo-science, that Freeze decisions are not Visceral unless your senses are temporarily incapacitated. For example, if your eyes are adjusting to a bright flash and your ears are adjusting to a loud bang, then your Visceral response might be to wait for useful sensory data before determining the fight/flight response. Species that adopt a Freeze response in self-defence are highly specialised. Do any mammals Freeze in self-defence?

In my understanding, the default needs to be the product of a calculation without thinking. This means the default decision must be determined as the sum of winning/losing positions that your basic physical senses are providing at that precise moment. In other words, is your sense of sound/touch/taste/vision telling your Visceral processor that you are stronger or weaker than the attacker? The fact that animals have filial imprinting suggests non-physical senses, such as learned historic patterns, must be included to refine this theory but the senses cannot be the product of thinking. This gives 5 senses in total, and an odd numbers makes it unlikely that Visceral processing will deliver a "don't know" response. Visceral processing cannot be non-deterministic because it also controls changes to heart-rate and breathing.

As no thinking is involved, we should be able to draw on simplified case studies. One very simple case study could be the "fear of the dark", which clearly presents a disadvantage on sight only. Subjects will either move away from the dark (flight) or overcome the dark using their other senses (fight). I think most people will initially fight by deploying their sense of touch. Note that calling for help or finding a light switch would be delayed Behavioural responses. In this scheme of things, baby cries are the result of a Behavioural decision. The default fight response is consistent with history depicting humans as an aggressive species, and this might be necessary to achieve long-term evolutionary trends in any species.

[Glen]

Are unconscious decisions made solely in the brain? Like if I touch something hot I immediately pull my hand away and it is my nervous system that delivers that mechanism.

Could you talk me through an example?

Yes. The electrical impulse from the skin nerves will be transmitted to the brain. Decisions are made from the moment data is received at the brain, which delivers multi-threaded parallel processing. If there has been no higher processing on the topic, such as planning to touch the hot object, then a Visceral responses from the base of the brain will return first. This will cause a motor response that draws the hand away from hot object before any detailed processing has occurred at higher levels in the brain.

Brain damaged stroke victims with paralysis provide medical evidence, but if the nerves were able to instruct muscles without brain involvement then we would all have involuntary movements on a regular basis.

[Glen]

I'd always opt for attacking at once...

Thankfully the visceral part of your brain won't hold you to that product of reflective thought

If its an evidently overweight group of very slow attackers, you should run...

[Truth To Power]

I can't count the scenes I've watched on tv where the female victim is trying to flee, then invariably stumbles and falls on her belly, then crawls (instead of getting on her feet again and perhaps lose the damn high heels) some inches, only to be grabbed by the serial killer/rapist/etc.

It's a trope. The one that bothers me even more is the one where someone intervenes to stop the attack, and then promptly turns away from the attacker to help the victim. The attacker then of course takes advantage of the intervenor's inattention to renew the attack, possibly successfully, possibly with two victims instead of one.

Do not turn away from an attacker until you have made certain the attack is over. This will generally involve inflicting a disabling injury on the attacker.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Just read about a recent case of 10 unsuccessful rape attempts by one man in Vienna. In all 10 cases the women fought him or screamed for help, and he ran away eventually. In one case he had a knife and in another the women bit him twice

I don't think people freeze so quickly, or perhaps Viennese women are just fierce.

[AFAIK]

The Freeze option is probably where a Behavioural decision has overridden the Visceral decision before it could manifest into physical action.

Why isn't freeze considered to be visceral? Human beings used to be in the middle of the food chain and playing dead would be a more useful tactic than running or fighting when faced with many predators. We're still advised to play dead if we encounter a bear during a hike or to go limp when in a predators clutches.

Do any mammals Freeze in self-defence?

Like a deer in headlights?

PS- You shouldn't double post. If you want to reply to multiple people you should do so in one post.

[Glen]

Why isn't freeze considered to be visceral?

It is only my educated hypothesis and I am not a neuroscientist. I will quickly change my opinion if contrary evidence is put forward.

Human beings used to be in the middle of the food chain and playing dead would be a more useful tactic than running or fighting when faced with many predators. We're still advised to play dead if we encounter a bear during a hike or to go limp when in a predators clutches.

Being advised to play dead does not provide insight into what a feral human is programed to do. We cannot assume that our species' feral instinct is a match for science, education, and reflective thought.

Your nearest human case study is probably a new baby after familial imprinting has occurred: Will the baby act dead when a stranger picks it up, does it cry for help, or do something else? I suspect it looks around and learns from the experience but to be honest I don't know. Your nearest natural world case study is an animal that has evolved to live near to bears: Is there an example of a deer playing dead to avoid being eaten?

Weak or injured fish will display healthy movement when threatened as a form of self-defence, because the healthiest fish are the most difficult for predators to catch. Their gambit is that the perceived predator will go after something else. I'm not suggesting fish and humans generate comparable actions. For a start, their basic senses are significantly different, but the behaviour of free-swimming fish suggests that freezing is not a common form of self defence in the animal kingdom. Highly specialised camouflaged species may behave differently.

Like a deer in headlights?

This is not a naturally occurring situation that deer visceral processing could have evolved to deal with. Deer caught in headlights are overpowered by force because their eyes are overloaded. Their eyes temporarily stop transmitting useful visual information to their brains, and the deer will make a decision when its eyes have adjusted to the bright light. If you beep your horn before your headlights overpower the deer then it runs away.

I mentioned very bright light and very loud sound in a previous post.