In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
> >> still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats.
> >> The
> >> learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in
> >> one's
> >> environment.
> >
> > Fear is acquired.
>
> By experiencing threats. Threats, when they are recognized as such, cause
> instinctive fear (flight/fight), which teaches the animal to react with
> avoidance in that situation in the future.

This is old science. There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
pretty well documented. The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
same outcome.

> > We learn to fear what we fear.
>
> Right, we learn what to fear, we don't learn fear itself, it already exists
> as one our basic emotions.

From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.

> > Children are, by
> > comparison fearless.
>
> Children can't differentiate enough of their environment to recognize
> threats. One time with the hand on the stove burner and they will recoil
> from it instinctively forever.

Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm". In fact,
most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
completely safe to touch it at other times.