Run, Hide, Fight

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,923
Location
Alma Illinois
Interesting OpEd in the [u[New York Times[/u] today:

‘Run, Hide, Fight’ Is Not How Our Brains Work
Gray Matter
By JOSEPH LEDOUX DEC. 18, 2015

IN this age of terror, we struggle to figure out how to protect ourselves — especially, of late, from active shooters.

One suggestion, promoted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security, and now widely disseminated, is “run, hide, fight.” The idea is: Run if you can; hide if you can’t run; and fight if all else fails. This three-step program appeals to common sense, but whether it makes scientific sense is another question.

Underlying the idea of “run, hide, fight” is the presumption that volitional choices are readily available in situations of danger. But the fact is, when you are in danger, whether it is a bicyclist speeding at you or a shooter locked and loaded, you may well find yourself frozen, unable to act and think clearly.

Freezing is not a choice. It is a built-in impulse controlled by ancient circuits in the brain involving the amygdala and its neural partners, and is automatically set into motion by external threats. By contrast, the kinds of intentional actions implied by “run, hide, fight” require newer circuits in the neocortex.

Contemporary science has refined the old “fight or flight” concept — the idea that those are the two hard-wired options when in mortal danger — to the updated “freeze, flee, fight.” While “freeze, flee, fight” is superficially similar to “run, hide, fight,” the two expressions make fundamentally different assumptions about how and why we do what we do, when in danger.

Why do we freeze? It’s part of a predatory defense system that is wired to keep the organism alive. Not only do we do it, but so do other mammals and other vertebrates. Even invertebrates — like flies — freeze. If you are freezing, you are less likely to be detected if the predator is far away, and if the predator is close by, you can postpone the attack (movement by the prey is a trigger for attack).

The freezing reaction is accompanied by a hormonal surge that helps mobilize your energy and focus your attention. While the hormonal and other physiological responses that accompany freezing are there for good reason, in highly stressful situations the secretions can be excessive and create impediments to making informed choices.

A vivid example of freezing was captured in a video of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. After the bomb went off, many people froze. Then, some began to try to escape (run), while others were slower on the uptake.

This variation in response is typical. Sometimes freezing is brief and sometimes it persists. This can reflect the particular situation you are in, but also your individual predisposition. Some people naturally have the ability to think through a stressful situation, or to even be motivated by it, and will more readily run, hide or fight as required. But for others, additional help is needed.

In my lab at New York University, we have created a version of this predicament using rats. The animals have been trained, through trial and error, to “know” how to escape in a certain dangerous situation. But when they are actually placed in the dangerous situation, some rats simply cannot execute the response — they stay frozen. If, however, we artificially shut down a key subregion of the amygdala in these rats, they are able to overcome the built-in impulse to freeze and use their “knowledge” about what to do.

We can learn a great deal about the basic mechanisms of how the brain detects and responds to threats through studies of rats. But people are not rats. We have additional cognitive resources, such as the ability to conceptualize our situation and re-evaluate it.

Studies by the psychologists James Gross at Stanford, Kevin Ochsner at Columbia and Elizabeth Phelps and me at New York University have shown that if people cognitively reappraise a situation, it can dampen their amygdala activity. This dampening may open the way for conceptually based actions, like “run, hide, fight,” to replace freezing and other hard-wired impulses.

How to encourage this kind of cognitive reappraisal? Perhaps we could harness the power of social media to conduct a kind of collective cultural training in which we learn to reappraise the freezing that occurs in dangerous situations. In most of us, freezing will occur no matter what. It’s just a matter of how long it will last.

If we could come to use the fact that we are freezing to trigger a reappraisal in a moment of danger, we might just be able to dampen the amygdala enough to accelerate our ability to shift into the action mode required for “run, hide, fight.” Even if this cut only a few seconds off our freezing, it might be the difference between life and death.

Joseph LeDoux, a professor of science at New York University, directs the Emotional Brain Institute. He is the author of “Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 20, 2015, on page SR9 of the New York edition with the headline: ‘Run, Hide, Fight’ Is Not How Our Brains Work.

Why study rats, when so much work has been done with humans?

It seems to me that there already is a large body of research on how people react when in danger. If we all freeze when faced with danger, how is it that we manage to have fights, wars, or even drive our automobiles in traffic? It seems to me that every driver with any experience has had a close call in traffic where if he/she had frozen for seconds he would have been involved in a serious accident.

It seems to me that most drivers are capable of reacting to danger in well under a second. I'm not buying the argument that we need a social media campaign to program ourselves to react to danger.

Thoughts?
 
To make a long story short I saw a man drop dead right in front of me when I was a teenager. I did nothing. It was if my body had turned into a solid lump of lead! After that incidence I was determined that in the future, if possible, I would do something in a similar case.

Fast forward several years to after I had graduated from college. I was attending a training course for the insurance company I was working for. A previous graduate of that class was giving a talk to my class when he collapsed in front of us. I immediately sprang up and was about to remove his tie when he came to. He had simply fainted. He was alright afterwards. Everybody else in the class just sat there at first. They were amazed that I responded so quickly.

The lesson here is if we are not mentally and physically prepared to deal with an emergency we will either not do anything or do the wrong thing. With a little bit of training and conditioning, especially mental conditioning, we can perform properly under even extreme stress. If not then how do EMTs, police, soldiers and others perform their duties?

Please do not think that I am happy that I had this experience but because of it I know that I am much better prepared to defend myself than many because I have "Seen the Elephant". ( If you don't know what that means look it up )
 
The Times has been running a different anti-gun editorial almost every day since the latest CA shooting.

To me this is just another version coming in from a different direction. Very quietly tries to debunk the "good man with a gun" angle. Yes, not every person is up to facing another with a gun, but there are many who are, i.e., ex-military, retired LEO, etc. This article will assure those vehemently opposed to guns that they're right in doing so. Why have a means to protect yourself if you're going to freeze?

What it doesn't take into consideration is the domestic terrorist when confronted by someone shooting back at him or her will probably also freeze. Not many in this country have been exposed to that unfortunate experience and so they probably will also be unprepared for it.
 
In the training to deal with heart attacks with both the Red Cross and Boy Scouts, I was taught that most people will freeze and that we need to specifically point to a person and say "You call 911" while we start to administer 1st aid. If people, and certainly not all people, didn't freeze like a deer in the headlights, I don't think the training would make such a strong effort to overcome it. Thankfully, I've not had to use that training.
 
I can't find the research, but we were told at ALERRT training in San Marcos that part of the research behind the "Run, Hide, Fight" campaign was that they did studies that showed that people don't know what to do in times of crisis.

A common reaction to not knowing what to do is to do nothing (i.e. freeze). The classic example is a student in a classroom who is asked a question they don't know the answer to. . . a large percentage of such students stare blankly back at the teacher. From a police standpoint, a common example is car crashes. We have people that stand on a 3 lane highway following a fender bender simply because they don't know what to do so they figure "I'll stay here, even though cars are passing by me at 50 mph."

The research found that if people were given a plan (run, hide, fight) then that would take over the "freeze and do nothing" mindset. It doesn't work for a lot of people (in testing apparently a lot of people still do nothing) but I think the idea is that in an office full of people at least a few of them will say "hey, let's get out of the building, or at least barricade that door."

All this to say, I think the people who are putting out the training videos understand that there is a nature reaction to freeze, and they are trying to get a percentage of the population trained above that level.
 
Well, the article does talk about "re-appraisal" buried in there. This is what training does, allows you to quickly re-appraise and take action greatly reducing or eliminating the freeze response.
 
Agree with Speedo, this is just a defeatist slant to justify personal disarmament.

You might freeze, you might get ambushed, you might not be good enough, but if you are not armed, you cannot TRY.
 
Freezing is not a choice. It is a built-in impulse controlled by ancient circuits in the brain involving the amygdala and its neural partners, and is automatically set into motion by external threats. By contrast, the kinds of intentional actions implied by “run, hide, fight” require newer circuits in the neocortex.

The author is forgetting a key concept: Training. That's how you overcome the hardwired response, by doing a little rewiring through repetition. Even if you do freeze anyway, that can be minimized. The people in San Bernardino had regular training. According to one article interviewing several of them, that training kicked in, and they sought concealment within the room, and at it saved lives. The FBI isn't stupid enough to suggest these tactics and not suggest training, and the author isn't as clever as he thinks he is.
 
I am so friggin sick of the crap from the NY Times. If they truly believe the poop they print, criminals should gather a list of their writers and editors to target. I mean where would a BG find a more willing victim???
 
There is a huge body of research on how people react to danger. Some of it decades old.

I'm really not sure what the motivation is to publish this article. LeDoux suggests cutting a few seconds off of reaction time and that making a difference. Many use of force incidents are long over in a few seconds.

In my experience a few minutes spent thinking about the "unthinkable" and what you would do if it happens can make all of the difference in the world.

This isn't a complicated thing. It's as simple as noting where the fire exits are when you sit down in a theater. Simply knowing that something bad can happen and spending a couple seconds thinking about what you can do if it does is all it takes.

I think that by advising people to "run, hide, fight" they are accomplishing this.

The author is making this much more complicated then it needs to be. There will always be people who will "freeze up", but I think that has more to do with their worldview then it does with an ancient reflex to freeze so a predator doesn't home in on our movement. I think it has more to do with some people's inability (for whatever reason) to see the world as it is, and not how they want it to be.

I've been told numerous times by crime victims and accident survivors that they saw it happening but they didn't act because; "They didn't BELIEVE it was really happening".

People unconsciously evaluate threats and make contingency plans on a daily basis. We all do it when we drive.

All we need to do is recognize the threat. After the 9-11 attacks airline passengers immediately started taking action when they suspected a hijacking. How many disruptive passengers have finished their flights laying in the aisle with other passengers sitting on them? No government program necessary!
 
"Agree with Speedo, this is just a defeatist slant to justify personal disarmament."

I strongly disagree, and I think your conclusions are paranoid.

The article is simply a learned and informed counterpoint to supposedly good advice coming from a government agency -- the FBI.

Does your suspicious mind take no glee in having the FBI proven wrong?

There is good information out there from a wide variety of sources. Because it is printed in the NY Times, and concludes that some people may physically freeze when confronted by an imminent threat instead of fighting, fleeing or hiding, doesn't mean the author is advocating for a revocation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
"I am so friggin sick of the crap from the NY Times. If they truly believe the poop they print, criminals should gather a list of their writers and editors to target."

Do you advocate that ISIS do the same for right-wing commentators, reporters and editors?

You're posting on a web site in America in 2016. THINK.
 
I'd rather Fight, run, fight. But then again I live in Texas.

As Maverick said, "He that fights and runs away, lives to fight and run away another day."

Makes sense.

Deaf
 
Run, is not a bad tactic under the right situations, nor is hide or fight.

If any are a successful part of a strategy, then the end result is a "win".

In the end that's all most of us want.

Interesting to note that "wait" is not on the list. If you do nothing long enough, you will have no choice and will "get what you get".

I have even seen "play dead" or "give up" work before.

The only problem with any as a defensive tactic, is that you only get one chance to pick the right one. You pick wrong and you loose and have no more choices to pick from, ever.
 
Last edited:
ACP
Member
Join Date: December 29, 2002
Posts: 1,101
"I am so friggin sick of the crap from the NY Times. If they truly believe the poop they print, criminals should gather a list of their writers and editors to target."

Do you advocate that ISIS do the same for right-wing commentators, reporters and editors?

You're posting on a web site in America in 2016. THINK.

No, I am not advocating that gun owners publish names/addresses/emails for anti's. If these rabid anti's are so set in their beliefs regarding firearms, they should have enough gonads to let the criminals know that they are unarmed, because they think:

#1 - Dial 911 and thou shall be saved from harm
#2 - If gun laws are harsh enough - i.e. New Jersey or NYC, then they will be safe from criminals, because they will not have guns.

Listen, got news for ya RE: publishing names/addresses - It's already been done by the rabid anti's. You don't remember the hoopla on publishing names/addresses of concealed carriers??? How about names/addresses of Wall Street's finest by Occupy Wall Street folks?
 
This is the ST&T forum and I started this thread so we could discuss how this research stacks up against other research. That is what's on topic here. If you want to discuss if this is another example of the NYT's bias feel free to open a new thread in General. Let's stay on topic here.
 
The author is forgetting a key concept: Training. That's how you overcome the hardwired response, by doing a little rewiring through repetition.

This. Very simple, very well understood. It doesn't even have to be formal training...simply thinking about things ahead of time and deciding how you will act can make a huge difference.
 
I can't count the number of times I've heard or read about someone who has just lived through some sort of crisis stating that "I couldn't believe it was actually happening." or words to that effect.

I think that "freezing" in many cases, is a person trying to convince themselves that reality is really real. A big part of that is that people go through life believing (at some level or another) that really bad things will never happen to them. Then when something does, they have to waste time realigning their mindset to match reality. And that's the best case scenario. Some people simply can't make the jump and so they just try to wait things out.

Anyway, I've always tried to take the approach of not EXPECTING bad things to happen at every turn, but rather ACCEPTING that I'm not immune to trouble and trying to keep an eye out for it so that it doesn't take me by surprise.
 
I can't count the number of times I've heard or read about someone who has just lived through some sort of crisis stating that "I couldn't believe it was actually happening." or words to that effect.

I think that "freezing" in many cases, is a person trying to convince themselves that reality is really real. A big part of that is that people go through life believing (at some level or another) that really bad things will never happen to them. Then when something does, they have to waste time realigning their mindset to match reality. And that's the best case scenario. Some people simply can't make the jump and so they just try to wait things out.

I agree.

As a predatory species, I don't think we have the kind of hard wired freeze reflex that prey animals do when faced with danger. I'd venture that most people are more inclined to flight, while some are predisposed to enter fight mode more readily.

I think that, as John said, the freeze happens when our senses and cognitive ability are overwhelmed, if only momentarily. Not so much a reflex, but our minds needing a moment to process what we've just experienced and make conscious decisions. Training most certainly will mitigate that, but the issue is training for what, exactly? Jeff cites the example of obstacle/accident avoidance in driving, to which I would say it is due to constant, daily training of avoiding those things at a leisurely pace causes it to be an instinctive reaction when the window to act is much smaller. But training to not freeze if a bomb goes off near you? Not many people will have an opportunity to do that outside of military service (and even then?).

Beyond conditioning, it really just comes down to each person's ability to process information and act on that information.
 
I can't count the number of times I've heard or read about someone who has just lived through some sort of crisis stating that "I couldn't believe it was actually happening." or words to that effect.

This is exactly what was stated in the article I mentioned earlier. The survivors interviewed said they told themselves it was a drill over and over -- but at least they reacted as they were trained to. I found the article. It's worth reading for the rest of the details given, too.

"My thoughts were ... is this really an exercise and how can I get control of the situation," Porter said.

Apparently, they were able to apply some analysis to the situation, even though it seemed surreal at the time:

There were three exits in the conference room, but nobody tried to escape, they said.

"To stand up and go for the doors, you're in the line of sight of the gunman," Porter said. "We were under the tables ourselves, doing what we were trained to do."
 
Thank you for starting the thread. The main point is how to react to a shooting incident, because you only get a few seconds to react - or you become a target by just standing there.

People DO freeze - we see it all the time. It's a fact. Most of us are NOT trained, or familiar with every "trigger" situation happening in front of us, we take a moment to assess whether it's life and death, or just normal life. That is because 99% of the time, it IS normal life. For all our fears and ability to synthesize some extreme incident, we've also been conditioned by years of it not happening. Our collective experience is that it doesn't - we are processing key indicators to make a decision. Some who have been in that situation can reach a conclusion, others who've never seen it take time.

We call it being "slow on the uptake," as if it were a negative characteristic indicating the observer is a brain dead slack jawed idiot, the reality is that every one of us falls under that condition at some time or another. Nobody is perfectly observant, nor so gifted they see the underlying danger the first time.

Saying otherwise is tantamount to saying they don't need Basic Training and can walk into combat cold, yet still prevail. Not happening, and why we spend billions teaching and rehearsing soldiers to see certain conditions and learn to react to them. And rehearse it again. And again.

There is already a consensus among theorists in self defense that Run, Hide, Fight is a good tactic to employ if you find you are in the scope of a shooting incident. Our primary responsibility is to survive, not police up the incident. We have obligations to family, work, and society first - get out alive is the most important thing. You clear the area of the number of potential victims, forcing a de-escalation in the number of potential targets and reducing the ability of the shooter to add to his numbers. You clear the lanes of fire for others who are ready to react by not being in the way. You reduce the amount of time you are available in the shooters eyesight as they pick and choose targets. It's all good. Run.

Hide? Another way to say seek Cover and Concealment. Do soldiers hide on the battlefield? YES, and they get training to do it so proficiently that only when they are within the last 125m are they exposed long enough to be a target. Entirely the reason why we have had to shift the focus of weapons from long distance shooting to close range, which changed the ballistic application, the nature of sights/optics, and even the kinds of uniforms we wear. They aren't spending millions on Multicam for nothing - the rule is if you can see it, you can hit it. We are now in the age of wearing uniforms that conceal the soldier better than ever. Yes, you need to hide, it's the correct tactical application. Hide to be concealed, hide behind bullet resistant cover, hide to be one less target. It does fit the primary thing you did - run. You ran to find cover to not be shot

Fight? You bet. People who arrive at that point can and should take action. As we have consistently seen over hundreds of years, not fighting back isn't really an option. If you don't plant to - don't bother to respond here. This is a forum predicated on fighting back, and we do it with firearms as our primary tool. If armed, acquire a good sight picture and squeeze the trigger. Shoot the shooter. If you have responded quickly due to superior training and experience, you will get hits. Hits count, hits debilitate and hits will reduce the number of victims the shooter has planned to acquire. Get hits. Accept the fact that there will be some who are reacting in panic, who can and will do the wrong thing - run into your lane of fire at the wrong time. There is NOTHING you can do to prevent it in the big picture, that risk is there and it cannot be mitigated except by one thing only - help spread the word so they know to Run, Hide, Fight. The more who do that, the sooner the lanes of fire are reduced, the less victims in the way, the sooner you get a clear shot. You want clear lanes of fire - spread the word instead of assuming everything is an anti gun conspiracy. Snark doesn't add to the reality of the tactical situation, targeting sight line to the active shooter does.

Look forward to more discussion as we continue to examine how to Run, Hide, Fight. We don't need to be the guy at Walmart gunned down from behind, we need to be able to go home and be with family, go to work the next day, just keep punching the clock. A boring uneventful life is a life well spent, folks, those that crave adventure can take up jumping off cliffs with a parachute and be recorded in history as that guy. You and I decided to marry, raise kids, and die comfortably in bed. Stick to your commitments.
 
I believe if someone had a weapon stuck in their face.................their order of response might change in a heart beat.

Not all who talk the talk can walk the walk!
 
Many years ago I attended a fantastic law enforcement seminar called mental preparation for armed confrontation. The well researched premise is that you do what you are trained to do in deadly force situations. So relative to a threat like San Bernardino, if you had never had the DHS or other run, hide fight training, you may freeze. Since the training you get is often nothing more than a computer training module or perhaps a walk through it's not likely to build memory reflex. I am far from frightened or paranoid, but I walk myself through "what if" scenarios wherever I go. I am confident that I won't freeze if that moment ever presents itself. Even as an LEO, movement away from an immediate threat was coded into my response DNA. Oddly, many officers do in deadly force situations what they do at the range. They stand still in front of the target. The research shows that officers who move, move quickly, move away and use cover are more likely to survive a deadly force encounter, yet that's not the way most people train at the range. I don't doubt the freeze response exists, I am confident it can be overcome with a little mental preparation.
 
I recently read another article that talks about crisis psychology that said

The vast majority of people will be too confused to do anything during an attack. Leach has looked at life-threatening situations around the world and has found that only 15% of people will respond in a way that helps them survive. Up to 75% will just be too bewildered by what is happening around them to react at all. The other 10% will react in ways that reduce their chances of survival and get in the way of other people, he says.

Acting decisively might make survival more likely. But it's also human nature to wait for other people to act first. In a classic experiment, psychologists put people in a room and filled it with smoke to see how they would react. People who were on their own were more likely to take action than those who were with other people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34844518
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top