Fear of the Unfamiliar

[ldhulk]

It's interesting how people have exaggerated fear of the unfamiliar but usually exibit a contempt for the dangers in familiar surroundings. The city man who comes out to the woods is certain he is about to be eaten by a wolf or a bear, while the locals never give it a thought. When the woodsman goes to the city, he expects to get mugged any minute, and walks around with his hand on the gun in his coat pocket, while 10-year-old girls run around the neighborhood fearlessly.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Part of this difference is reasonable. I suspect the 10 year-old city girl knows what parts of the city to avoid, what persons in her neighborhood to avoid, and to whom to run if something goes wrong.

Which of these things does the visiting "country mouse" know?

And even with her advantages, not every 10 year-old in "the city" survives, nor is every survivor unscarred.

 

[Kleanbore]

Is there any basis for the original premise?

 

[Al Thompson]

Sounds like a dime novel approach circa 1920 to me.

 

[orionengnr]

Straw man much?

 

[kgpcr]

It makes sense to me. I know people who wont step foot in the woods with out being armed to the teeth for wolves and bear. There has not been a wolf attack and only one bear attack in the last 50 yrs.

 

[Cearbhall]

"When the woodsman goes to the city, he expects to get mugged any minute....
As a city boy, I'd say he's just being prudent.

 

[cambeul41]

Is there any basis for the original premise?

When I taught in a small NC university, the student body consisted of both city kids and country kids. Sometimes, just for fun, I would ask them if they would rather, assuming that the weather was no problem, spend the night alone on the city streets or in the woods. The city kids all chose the city streets; the country kids all chose the woods. Both groups gave the same reason: wild animals -- be they two legged or four legged.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Seems pretty much a given to me.

Back in the mid-1990s while I was still working at USAJFKSWCS, the young captain (hey, they ALL seemed young to me) who was running part of the SFAS (Special Forces Assessment and Selection) program which took place prior to the SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course, more commonly called the Q Course) told me they were having problems with candidates being willing to spend the night alone in the woods at Camp Mackall. This was not long after SF began recruiting from all arms rather than just combat arms.

What did these guys expect to DO in Special Forces, anyway?

 

[Ledgehammer]

Part of this difference is reasonable. I suspect the 10 year-old city girl knows what parts of the city to avoid, what persons in her neighborhood to avoid, and to whom to run if something goes wrong.

You could also suggest the 10 year old girl most likely has nothing on her of monetary value. Compared to a grown man who pulls a pay check every week. Muggers aren't going to bother with the kid. Out in the woods -we're all bear food.

I would feel more comfortable in the woods, but I'm aware of the dangers in both.

 

[Strykervet]

Is there any basis for the original premise?

Absolutely. It was the subject of a Science Channel or NatGeo documentary. I think it was about fear in general.

This is related to the "gut instinct". The mind, the subconscious mind, is always analyzing info based on things you've learned and experienced. In an absence of this subconscious analysis, or in presence of learned programming (city is bad, dark streets danger, etc.) a feeling of fear will prevade. This is why fear mongering works in politics and government --in absence (of the whole truth in the case with politics) the subconscious is left only with the knowledge of the possibility of danger and that, theoretically, will affect the outcome of the decision without the decision maker ever knowing the difference. Some psychology is hokey, some is obvious, some is so discreet you would never know it was being used on you. In all cases, you aren't aware of it until the decision needs to be made, and then you stand there all confident in your decision, but where did that confidence come from? Ever ask yourself that?

I've mentioned this on here before. Learning about this helped me understand the gut feeling I've felt just before real danger happened, how I knew danger was getting ready to happen, and that I should never ignore the gut feeling.

What I find funny, is that this so deeply programmed in human nature, so automatic, that most of you on here even doubt that this is how it works. But when you really think about it, it all makes sense. It made a lot of sense to me, having survived a few situations where I ignored the gut feeling. I thought I knew more about survival, the conscious me, than did the hardwired me with thousands of years of evolution and subconscious data being analyzed faster than a computer.

Having a "dual citizenship" in both country and city, I don't experience fear like that. I understand it though, I have experienced it before. Like I said, in absence of hard data, the mind wanders and uses what it has been told to fill in the blanks. If you said you joined the military and experienced no apprehension when that bus stopped, no feeling of "did I do the right thing?" or possibly even the gut feeling, then you are either not human or lying. It was the feeling of the unknown. No danger, just an absence of data, and an expectation of screaming.

I was actually the most surprised when nobody got on the bus to scream. I expected it. The guy, very bored, said "welcome to Ft. Benning, please exit the bus and take a seat inside."

 

[MachIVshooter]

Fact: Two-legged predators kill many thousands of times as many people as four-legged ones. Conclusion: Any place with more two legged creatures is more dangerous.

So yes, I am more concerned for my safety and that of my family in the city than the country.

The only homicide in my rural county since it was incorporated didn't even occur in the county; They just dumped the body here.

 

[Zoogster]

It is a natural healthy response. People that know what they are dealing with can better manage their risks in a given environment.
People that don't know enough to manage their risks justifiably are looking for those risks in places people that know better realize they are less likely to be. They require heightened alertness and have to process more information to judge more things as potential risks than someone that knows better would. This will be more tiring and less comfortable.

Caution doing what one does not understand is superior to recklessly proceeding in a clueless manner.
The person familiar shooting or carrying guns may be more comfortable with guns, while the person that doesn't even know how to operate one should be at a heightened level of risk management to manage risks they don't even understand.
People that proceed in tasks or environments without caution even though they are ignorant of how to best do so or manage risks are far more likely to have bad results.
Likewise the city girl that goes jogging with their ipod on in the woods, does not know how or where to expect bears, what time of year they are more dangerous, or how to avoid confrontation or deescalate during an encounter is more likely to get attacked by one.
Just as the country girl that strolls through the city, not know where to avoid or how to reduce their risk from opportunistic city predators is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime.


This caution doing what one is not familiar with is not a negative, this is a natural survival instinct. Fear of the unknown. Viewing that which one does not understand as a potential risk. Doing so reduces bad outcomes from both imagined and real dangers, so it still reduces risk from real dangers overall.
When you see this fear as having negative results on a specific issue the solution is to make the unknown known, educate them.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Good thread.
There are a lot of neophytes that come through here. They should all read this.

 

[gtd]

Two contrasting examples from my life are amusing to me:

1. We live in a suburban neighborhood with lots of green space around. There are at least three packs of coyote, many venemous snakes, hawks, fox, bobcats, and even occasional reports (discounted) of mountain lions. Yet a sighting of a single coyote causes a neighborhood e-mail blast warning to take the pets in because "there's a coyote!"

2. My wife and I vistited her cousin who believes her home town is paradise on Earth. On the way into town, less than two blocks from her apartment, we drove by an open-air drug market with about 20 gang bangers operating. She was shocked to hear of it!

95% of safety and security consists of paying attention.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Rural areas are not safer because the people there are somehow better. Rural areas are safer because there are simply fewer people. Suppose only one person out of a thousand is capable of unprovoked violent assault. In a city of 100,000 there would be 100 such people within a few miles. In a rural farming community of a few hundred residence there might be none.

 

[Stophel]

"Rural areas are not safer because the people there are somehow better"

I will have to respectfully, and strongly disagree!

 

[MachIVshooter]

"Rural areas are not safer because the people there are somehow better"

I will have to respectfully, and strongly disagree!

I'll second that. We don't have the parasite problems. Just use per capita numbers; Rural communities have not only lower total crime, but lower per capita crime. People in such communities just seem to respect each other (and boundaries) more.

That, and your chances of being shot at for stealing or vandalizing are much greater...........

The three most notable crimes that have occured in my county since I moved here in 2004 were also perpetrated by people from the city. Two automobile thefts (one including vandalism), and a body dump. Aside from those, it's almost exclusively DUI, DV, teenage pranks and the occasional simple assault.

 

[Stophel]

Crime is not caused by statistics (as in saying that a certain percentage of people are just going to be criminals), nor is it caused by poverty or any other thing that the social engineers say it is. Crime is caused by immorality, simply put. It's a cultural problem. The social engineers do NOT like hearing that.

 

[MachIVshooter]

nor is it caused by poverty or any other thing that the social engineers say it is. Crime is caused by immorality, simply put. It's a cultural problem.

Immorality would seem to correlate with some of the other factors, though. The kid who grows up in an affluent suburb with a brother, a sister and two parents is simply less likely to commit a crime than one who grows up with 7 siblings and one parent in the ghetto. Doesn't mean the former won't commit a crime; It's just far less likely. He has likely had a more wholesome (for lack of a better word) upbringing, with better morals instilled.

I agree with your point. It's just that morality cannot be quantified, only speculated about.

 

[Gato Montés]

I'll second that. We don't have the parasite problems. Just use per capita numbers; Rural communities have not only lower total crime, but lower per capita crime. People in such communities just seem to respect each other (and boundaries) more.

Well there's a reason for that. If you were a thief, which town would you prefer to live in; one of 2,000 people or another of 20,000? Probably the later, right? Because the greater number of people equates to a greater degree of anonymity. If I live in Crandon Wisconsin (a town of about 2,000 people), there's a good chance most of the folk will know who I am, know what car I drive, where I live, who I associate with, etc. The opportunity just isn't there. Now transplant yourself to where I live, a suburb in the greater Milwaukee area, Milwaukee alone having over 600,000 people living in it, yeah, now you got yourself a chance.

There was a study done that detailed a funny statistic. In a given area over time, if more churches are built the crime rate will increase along with it! Is that because the teaching of Christianity produces some strange offset deviant class? No, it simply shows that the population of that area has dramatically increased and with it, crime.

Cities themselves DO have unique problems other than just mass population. Small rural towns tend to be very VERY homogenous, whereas cities are more of a smorgasbord of cultures and cultural values. Since there isn't one value set agreed upon in a city structure, some take advantage of that and respect NO values. Not only that, but when you are smushed together with people you have no meaningful connection to, that also opens the door for violence against those "other" people.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The kid who grows up in an affluent suburb with a brother, a sister and two parents is simply less likely to commit a crime than one who grows up with 7 siblings and one parent in the ghetto.

I resist this idea, though to some extent it "must" be right: a boy who grows up with few male role models except gang-bangers has the deck stacked against him.

But there are many exceptions. We should perhaps remember, too, how many foks grow up in affluent suburbs to head major corporations, and later end up in a Federal penitnetiary (or should be there); and of course, murders cross all boundaries. I heard a Harvard business school grad who mentioned that 4 of his classmates were then in prison; he, in contrast, teaches ethics there these days!



It is also likely that a rural-born person, bent on evil, would be attracted to the anonymity and the abundance of potential vitims in a city. So, I'd be careful about any evil-in-a-ZIP-code idea.

Well: unless those ZIP codes are in North Korea or Iran, of course!

 

[MachIVshooter]

It is also likely that a rural-born person, bent on evil, would be attracted to the anonymity and the abundance of potential vitims in a city.

Certainly a possibility. Of course, you did notice what I had mentioned earlier about the urban miscreants deciding to do their deeds here? When I lived in a more suburban area, we had begun to notice that as the city to the North grew larger, the deviants found our area more convenient and began burglurizing homes in the more affluent community.

Well there's a reason for that. If you were a thief, which town would you prefer to live in; one of 2,000 people or another of 20,000? Probably the later, right? Because the greater number of people equates to a greater degree of anonymity. If I live in Crandon Wisconsin (a town of about 2,000 people), there's a good chance most of the folk will know who I am, know what car I drive, where I live, who I associate with, etc. The opportunity just isn't there. Now transplant yourself to where I live, a suburb in the greater Milwaukee area, Milwaukee alone having over 600,000 people living in it, yeah, now you got yourself a chance.

There was a study done that detailed a funny statistic. In a given area over time, if more churches are built the crime rate will increase along with it! Is that because the teaching of Christianity produces some strange offset deviant class? No, it simply shows that the population of that area has dramatically increased and with it, crime.

Cities themselves DO have unique problems other than just mass population. Small rural towns tend to be very VERY homogenous, whereas cities are more of a smorgasbord of cultures and cultural values. Since there isn't one value set agreed upon in a city structure, some take advantage of that and respect NO values. Not only that, but when you are smushed together with people you have no meaningful connection to, that also opens the door for violence against those "other" people.

I have no argument with any of your points. I'm sure there are myriad reasons, most that we can only speculate about. Point remains, though, that per capita crime rates are simply lower in rural areas than urban ones. Whatever the specific reasons are is not really relevant for the purpose of this thread, IMO.

 

[rdsmith3]

Crime is not caused by statistics (as in saying that a certain percentage of people are just going to be criminals), nor is it caused by poverty or any other thing that the social engineers say it is. Crime is caused by immorality, simply put. It's a cultural problem. The social engineers do NOT like hearing that.

In the Judeo-Christian belief system, we are all inherently sinful. That is the reason for crime.

I agree with what you said, except I think it tends to be a family problem first, not a cultural problem.

 

[JohnBT]

There are drug addicts robbing and stealing and dealing drugs everywhere. And cooking meth and making crack and booby trapping their vast pot crops. I don't usually count moonshiners as criminals.

I grew up with a foot in each world, and my father was a state trooper, and I'm suspicious of everybody.

John