I want to amend my earlier statement with the following observation:

[xiphias]

The amount of fear humans in large groups experience is inversely proportional to the actual danger they're in.

Comments

[gingicat]

Until it's over. At least, that's how I react -- deal with the situation when it happens, get the shakes about 24 hours later.

Have you been to the library yet?

[cheshyre]

(Remember, it's summer, so closed on the weekends)

One of the books on my To Read list is The culture of fear : why Americans are afraid of the wrong things.

Unfortunately, it looks like Melrose's copy is missing, but if you leave early Danvers and Peabody have copies on the shelf. [both close at 5pm; Danvers appears closer to your commute.]

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Stolen as a tagline, and I'd like to metaquote, if I may.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

And, when a disaster strikes, I think your prediliction for fear is inversely proportional to your capacity to respond to the tragedy in more concrete ways. I know people on 9/11 who pulled up their sleeves and went to Ground Zero to give aid, but I know many people who could only sit at home, watch TV, write a check, and fret.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I think that might be overstating things just a bit. I mean, that would logically imply that the crowd at a baseball game (who are in very little danger, except possibly of being hit by a foul ball) should be deathly afraid.

It would also logically imply that, if there were a nuclear missile launched at, say, the D.C. area, and the public learned of it, the amazingly intense fear that I'm reasonably sure would result (I know I'd be pretty damn scared) would not be justified.