Support Wikipedia

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Why We Panic


I had wondered in a previous post why humans have largely descended from people who panic rather than those who don't. Here's are two theories of mine. The first is less likely, but establishes panic as an actual survival trait. The second is more likely, but says that it was the reduction in the number of cool headed people that led to the current state of affairs.

Scenario 1:

Consider the following scenario: Six hunters go into the woods. They are attacked by a tiger. Three of the hunters faint. The other three now have a choice. They could turn and run - leaving their comrades at the mercy of the tiger, or fight the beast. The thing is, if they fight, they will quell the tiger with, say, a 30% chance that one of them will die in the attempt. If they turn and run, however, the tiger, perhaps more attracted by their motion, will chase them rather than stay and eat any of the fainted three. If that does happen, each fleeing hunter has a 33% chance of being the tiger's chosen prey. If chosen, that hunter's death is guaranteed.

Therefore:

Fleeing - 33% chance of death

Fighting - 10% chance of death

Fainting - 0% chance of death

I admit the tiger going after fleeing prey as opposed to just devouring the fainted hunters is a big assumption. I am, however, basing it on the advice we've all been given as children about pretending to be dead when approached by bears (and I presume predators in general) since, apparently they only eat fresh. However, if the assumption is valid, then, in such circumstances, fainting seems to actually work well as a survival trait. Obviously, it would be disastrous for everyone to faint (predators might prefer fresh, but are unlikely to look a gift corpse in the mouth), so I suppose that over time the fainter - fighter ratio will stabilise so that there are just enough fighters to see out the danger. If that number is a small fraction of the overall population, we end up with a society comprised largely of panicky people. 

Scenario 2:

Alternately, over time, only the level headed hunters are trusted to go out and do the dangerous (but necessary) stuff. Since they are exposed to all sorts of dangers, it is obvious that their numbers - relative to the panicky ones - will do down. Again, at stabilisation, the cool thinkers will be a minority.

To be fair, scenario 1 seems pretty far fetched. But it was fun to think up, so what the heck.

1 comment:

Dr Haily Dalvi said...

The panicky lot who stays at home is unlikely to find mates. the brave heroes are likely to get the women. Hence their progeny who is also presumed to be brave will increase and maintain the balance.

whos.amung.us