Fight or Flight - Who does what?

[Kano]

The simplest example of the Fight-or-Flight reaction is what happens when you jump someone trying to "scare the crap out of him".

Most individuals will recoil (Flight, but only to a certain extent). A few will respond with an immediate counterattack, likely punching the offender in the face without any conscious decision (Fight - of course). Another few will take off in total panic, the quintessential "Flight".

The first bunch, which in my experience is the majority, will then analize the situation and adapt their response accordingly. For the other two extremes, the response is determined by an instinctive reaction, deeply ingrained in their behaviour - don't ask me if it's nature or nurture, but it's there...

In the case of DG hunting, the minority "Pure Flight" will probably be somewhere over the horizon or bery far up the tallest tree around when you really need them... The minority "Pure Fight" will probably deal with the threat efficiently, if they have trained their brains and built the muscle memory to handle their rifle as it should. The majority will handle things as best they've been trained to, if they can consciously override any "Get The Hell Out Of Here" gut feeling - but they'll have wasted some precious seconds.

After seeing the various ways individuals react when faced with sudden and unexpected danger, I've tried to find out if any study of these reactions had been done, with statistics, population groups, etc., but I've not found anything so far. Tons of papers mentioning "Fight or Flight", but without entering into details, just like if it was a given that that's the way it is, and we don't need to know more.

Does anybody here have some links to works and published articles in this field?

 

[matt85]

an interesting topic!

however, I don't agree with this statement:

The minority "Pure Fight" will probably deal with the threat efficiently, if they have trained their brains and built the muscle memory to handle their rifle as it should

ive known a few people who have a pure "fight" response to most frightening situations and there is actually a serious flaw to this response. they will often react without properly assessing the situation. an example would be:

Mr. Fight is on Safari for elephant and he and his PH encounter a young bull. the bull is clearly displeased by the presence of the two hunters and behaves aggressively with a mock charge. Mr. Fight being afraid raises his rifle and before the PH can say "don't shoot" has already killed the young bull.

those few moments a normal person takes to asses the situation are vital in order not to mistakenly hurt something that does not need to be hurt. a person who jumps out of a closet and yells "boo" does not need to be punched in the face. nor does a young bull trying to scare off some unwanted intruders need to be shot.

-matt

 

[enysse]

Actually in medical training, the term means activation of your sympathetic nervous system. What you do when your heart rate, blood pressure and respirations (lung) fully kick on is part genetics, childhood experiences and environment. The nature vs nurture argument you stated.

It is a fascinating subject!

 

[Red Leg]

I do not know if any of it is available, but the US Army has devoted enormous energy to understanding human reactions to sudden high stress combat situations, and in developing training which either overcomes or redirects initial instinctive reactions. For instance, an ambush induces reactions which are very similar to those caused by an unprovoked dangerous game attack (think black rhino or cow elephant). For an ambush, the best solution is to attack into it. The normal reaction is to attempt to take cover - an action which guarantees that one remains in the kill zone. It takes enormous amounts of training and simulation to get a unit to the point where it will overcome instinct and carry out that immediate assault. Probably explains why the most experienced PHs are best able to deal with inbound DG regardless of their actual age driven reaction times.

 

[Scott Slough]

The simplest definition of the flight or flight response is the nervous system sends signals to the hormonal system to prepare the animal to fight or flee. The hormonal surge prepares the muscles for either alternative. A separate nervous system process occurs where the decision to fight or flee is made. ALL animals will fight ... ALL animals will flee. In fact, in most cases neither situation occurs. Any hunter who has watched animals for any period of time knows how often they go on alert, which is the preparation for fight or flight.

Although the "adrenaline rush" that you feel approaching DG is the fight or flight response ... humans are uniquely able to manage the decision to fight or flee through advanced cognition and training ... Red Leg's example above is a perfect example.

 

[JTEX]

When hunting you have spotted the animal or tracks and are in pursuit knowing ( hoping ) that contact is going to happen so, for me at least, I have time to mentally prepare.

As for suprise attack............... I don't know and really don't want to find out!

 

[BRICKBURN]

I do not know if any of it is available, but the US Army has devoted enormous energy to understanding human reactions to sudden high stress combat situations, and in developing training which either overcomes or redirects initial instinctive reactions. For instance, an ambush induces reactions which are very similar to those caused by an unprovoked dangerous game attack (think black rhino or cow elephant). For an ambush, the best solution is to attack into it. The normal reaction is to attempt to take cover - an action which guarantees that one remains in the kill zone. It takes enormous amounts of training and simulation to get a unit to the point where it will overcome instinct and carry out that immediate assault. Probably explains why the most experienced PHs are best able to deal with inbound DG regardless of their actual age driven reaction times.

For related researchI would use Redlegs suggestion and search surrounding AMBUSH.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/EIB/EIB_Related_Battle_Drills/battle-drill-4-react-to-a.shtml

 

[Nyati]

If you are trained in martial arts, you just react, as Eric said, your sympathetic nervous system takes over. In other words, if you think you are dead !

On a hunting situation, well, it depends. In the case put by matt85, you have time to wait for your PH´s instruction, but in the case of a lion coming at you from a close distance, you had better shoot before you ask

 

[lcq]

Fight with your wife or Flight to Africa? Do you even need to ask the question

 

[Wheels]

I do not know if any of it is available, but the US Army has devoted enormous energy to understanding human reactions to sudden high stress combat situations, and in developing training which either overcomes or redirects initial instinctive reactions. For instance, an ambush induces reactions which are very similar to those caused by an unprovoked dangerous game attack (think black rhino or cow elephant). For an ambush, the best solution is to attack into it. The normal reaction is to attempt to take cover - an action which guarantees that one remains in the kill zone. It takes enormous amounts of training and simulation to get a unit to the point where it will overcome instinct and carry out that immediate assault. Probably explains why the most experienced PHs are best able to deal with inbound DG regardless of their actual age driven reaction times.

Interesting topic.


Red Leg,

You have more knowledge, training and experience regarding this issue than I will ever have and I would like to pick your brain.

In visiting with a few Viet Nam era friends and reading some books on the Viet Nam war, (primarily drafted not a volunteer army) it seems like that "flight/freeze" is by far the most common reaction. In a platoon size engagement the NCOs and 2-3 others would do most or all of the fighting. Or at least shoot to kill. The jr. officer and nco's would spend an inordinate amount of time getting soldiers to fight back and not hide. Or at least get them to gain fire superiority.

Today with a volunteer army and with the training I presume that has changed completely.

In your opinion:

What % of people not trained by the military choose flight?

What % of people not trained by the military choose fight?

When you have a battle like the Chosen Reservoir and you have two completely different reactions, marines vs. army (sorry, not meant to be demeaning in this comment) Or LZ X-Ray vs. Albany, what do the military schools say is the culprit, is it lack of training throughout the ranks that causes flight/freeze or is it lack of strong leadership? (I realize I am way over simplifying the two examples)

When you became commander of a new unit, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps did you ever have an "Oh crap" moment? This is going to take a while to change the culture of this organization. If so, how long does it take to change the culture?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot and if you don't feel comfortable answering that is understandable. I'm just curious and would like a professionals opinion.

All the best.

PS: I realize this doesn't deal with DG but certainly deals with flight/fight.

 

[enysse]

Well you get some ER or ICU training in medical school not to freeze when whatever situation comes into the hospital. A lot of crazy stuff happens and every second counts. They do a lot of desensitizing training.

I'm sure the military does the same thing. To think and react under pressure.

 

[ScottG]

I think training has a lot to do with it. The untrained and those in situations that haven't encountered before react. Those who train, or even have knowledge and expectations of a given situation or more likely to be able to evaluate the situation versus just an uncontrollable reaction. I don't know what standing in front of even a small bull elephant is like, but if I know what to expect and have had training from a PH, you would have a better understanding and try to mentally prepare your self for that situation.

 

[Red Leg]

Interesting topic.


Red Leg,

You have more knowledge, training and experience regarding this issue than I will ever have and I would like to pick your brain.

In visiting with a few Viet Nam era friends and reading some books on the Viet Nam war, (primarily drafted not a volunteer army) it seems like that "flight/freeze" is by far the most common reaction. In a platoon size engagement the NCOs and 2-3 others would do most or all of the fighting. Or at least shoot to kill. The jr. officer and nco's would spend an inordinate amount of time getting soldiers to fight back and not hide. Or at least get them to gain fire superiority.

Today with a volunteer army and with the training I presume that has changed completely.

In your opinion:

What % of people not trained by the military choose flight?

What % of people not trained by the military choose fight?

When you have a battle like the Chosen Reservoir and you have two completely different reactions, marines vs. army (sorry, not meant to be demeaning in this comment) Or LZ X-Ray vs. Albany, what do the military schools say is the culprit, is it lack of training throughout the ranks that causes flight/freeze or is it lack of strong leadership? (I realize I am way over simplifying the two examples)

When you became commander of a new unit, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps did you ever have an "Oh crap" moment? This is going to take a while to change the culture of this organization. If so, how long does it take to change the culture?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot and if you don't feel comfortable answering that is understandable. I'm just curious and would like a professionals opinion.

All the best.

PS: I realize this doesn't deal with DG but certainly deals with flight/fight.

Those are all really good questions and the subject of a lot of study and data gathering since WWII. And no offense, w/r to the Korean example. It was not always the Army's proudest moment.

The Vietnam studies indicated roughly 10% of an engaged infantry unit actually placed aimed fire against the enemy. Perhaps 50% more at least fired (spray and pray). Part of the revolution in military affairs which occurred with the creation of the all volunteer force, was the realization that realistic training and lots of it made a difference. The elimination of the draft enabled units to retain that critical training and build upon it. The results were exponential rather than additive. It should be noted that the Air Force and Navy made similar discoveries and the creation of Red Flag and the Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) fostered a similarly dramatic increase in our fighter pilot capabilities. The National Training Center accomplished the same thing for our mounted force. Both in Desert Storm and the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, enemy units virtually gave up on direct fire engagements. All armored vehicles and virtually all infantry delivered decisive aimed fire against enemy forces. Exchange rates were literally hundreds to one - particularly when supported by Apaches. It is why our enemies eventually resorted to IEDs as their primary means of combat.

Keeping that edge is the challenge. Already, the sequester, the Obama administration, and what can only be called an unholy alliance between the extreme Right and Left (cut defense spending at all costs and cut any spending - even defense - at all costs) has cut training time in half. Believe it or not the US Army is only maintaining ONE brigade ready for immediate deployment world-wide. The cuts to end strength are also ruinous. It takes 15 years to grow a battalion commander or sergeant major who are worth a damn. Where will that leadership come from when they are needed? This country uniquely concludes after every large ground war that we will never ever do that again. Just yesterday, the president avowed that very thing. And it is not just a Dem thing. Remember Rumsfeld and crew believed "shock and awe" would win future wars. Just needed ever smarter bullets. All too many soldiers and marines have died proving that wrong. And now we are at it again. It is a mistake that eventually will be paid in blood by young American men and women.

 

[Wheels]

Those are all really good questions and the subject of a lot of study and data gathering since WWII. And no offense, w/r to the Korean example. It was not always the Army's proudest moment.

The Vietnam studies indicated roughly 10% of an engaged infantry unit actually placed aimed fire against the enemy. Perhaps 50% more at least fired (spray and pray). Part of the revolution in military affairs which occurred with the creation of the all volunteer force, was the realization that realistic training and lots of it made a difference. The elimination of the draft enabled units to retain that critical training and build upon it. The results were exponential rather than additive. It should be noted that the Air Force and Navy made similar discoveries and the creation of Red Flag and the Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) fostered a similarly dramatic increase in our fighter pilot capabilities. The National Training Center accomplished the same thing for our mounted force. Both in Desert Storm and the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, enemy units virtually gave up on direct fire engagements. All armored vehicles and virtually all infantry delivered decisive aimed fire against enemy forces. Exchange rates were literally hundreds to one - particularly when supported by Apaches. It is why our enemies eventually resorted to IEDs as their primary means of combat.

Keeping that edge is the challenge. Already, the sequester, the Obama administration, and what can only be called an unholy alliance between the extreme Right and Left (cut defense spending at all costs and cut any spending - even defense - at all costs) has cut training time in half. Believe it or not the US Army is only maintaining ONE brigade ready for immediate deployment world-wide. The cuts to end strength are also ruinous. It takes 15 years to grow a battalion commander or sergeant major who are worth a damn. Where will that leadership come from when they are needed? This country uniquely concludes after every large ground war that we will never ever do that again. Just yesterday, the president avowed that very thing. And it is not just a Dem thing. Remember Rumsfeld and crew believed "shock and awe" would win future wars. Just needed ever smarter bullets. All too many soldiers and marines have died proving that wrong. And now we are at it again. It is a mistake that eventually will be paid in blood by young American men and women.

Appreciate your explanation.

Your comment, ".....enabled units to retain that critical training and build upon it. The results were exponential rather than additive." is something it would be nice if our politicians understood. Ditto for your comment, "It takes 15 years to grow a battalion commander or sergeant major who are worth a damn."

Thanks for your comment and thanks again for your service!

All the best.

 

[Upton O. Good]

Actually, to be accurrate, there are THREE options:

Fight
Flight or
Freeze.

A good book written someone with excellent credentials who has studied these issues is On Killing by Grossman.

 

[JimP]

Very interesting discussion.

I know that in one instance my choice was to fight and then flight.

A buddy and I were elk hunting in bear territory and had see a lot of bear sign all day long. Coming out it began to rain so I got up under a bush to stay dry and my partner passed me on the trail. When the rain let up I headed down the trail and after about a quarter of a mile I heard a growl just above me in a area that we had saw a grizzly early that morning. All I had my a .54 caliber muzzle loader with me and at the growl I turned and cocked the hammer only to see my buddy waving his arms at me. He asked me what I planned to do and I told him that I only had one shot and I was going to put a 430 grain maxi ball right between the eyes of that bear that growled, throw my muzzle loader at the bear and run like hell to get out of there.

There are times that we still laugh at that time but he knew that I meant it.

 

[Pheroze]

This is a fascinating topic. I have looked at a lot of research in considering cases involving police shootings. So, I am no expert but I did learn a lot that surprised me. As I understand it, all training goes out the window once the unconscious mind feels fear. Training works only to the extent that one does not feel what can only be described as fear. A number of studies of police shootings and combat comes down to that, fear takes over and people act out of a sense of self preservation. In combat one soldier will shoot while the fellow beside him hides. Why has one felt fear of imminent death yet the other in exactly the same situation has not registered that feeling to the extent that he cannot do his job? I do not believe anyone has been able to control that yet. Training is as good as it gets to controlling the perceived environment in which we act (you are part of a group that is superior or invincible or god is on your side etc.) In that situation an ingrained devotion to your platoon, unit, partner or god is essential. Once that breaks down it is reaction for survival only, in whatever form that takes. The fallacy is that history is rewritten to allow us to believe in bravery above ones own self but that is largely a fantasy. For example, analysis of the battles such as the battle of Little Big Horn shows that the actions of the Calvary were desperate not controlled as we would like to believe. I suspect in the field of DG that you will react appropriately until you feel in your heart that there is no hope then all bets are off. It should be noted that that is different than reacting to a startling situation such as an unexpected surprise. In the latter we are only dealing with muscle memory. Miyamoto Mushashi described in the book of five rings that the enemy must not be just defeated but they must know in their heart they are defeated, before victory can be gained. That insight is spot on.

Train hard, have faith in your PH and you will probably do the right thing until you know in your heart all is lost. When that moment occurs is not predictable, and sadly, is not rational either.

 

[ActionBob]

Red Leg, I thought about "liking" your post because I agree with it, but there aint nothing I like about it!

Pherose, deep stuff.

 

[Upton O. Good]

Actually, to be accurrate, there are THREE options:

Fight
Flight or
Freeze.

A good book written someone with excellent credentials who has studied these issues is On Killing by Grossman.

My personal experience in a rocket attack: three of us in a room when a volley of three rockets impacted. One guy tries to run outside in a panic yelling "We've got to get out of here!", another guy freezes where he's sitting and the third guy is face down on the deck. By the way, the guy that froze went on in his military career and became an officer. I still raze him about that. I was the guy face down on the floor.

 

[adgunner]

Train as you fight. It is the buzzword full of truth. Before deployment we trained hard and realistically with full "vignettes" or scenarios included. We were all professional soldiers and well trained as such. When we arrived in Afghanistan the enemy was always met with aimed fire. I wholeheartedly agree with Red Leg that this led to the IED led warfare that we experienced. I will say that i did not feel fear in these situations as the training always kicked in.

However the first time a large black bear cruised by my stand at five feet, i was sure he could hear my highly accelerated heartbeat. It took some convincing of myself to slow my heart rate and subdue my breathing the first time this happened.

Training in any "fight or flight" circumstance is the key. Envisioning the scenario that may unfold ... to full up practice will lead to successfully overcoming the "flight" aspect of most situations.