Reply #126: It's our amygdalas telling our bodies we're in danger

[carolinayellowdog]

Hey,

I started a DU thread on this subject 3 years ago and the response was very similar to what we see today. My then-80-year-old mother told me that she could not stand the sight of his face or the sound of his voice, and always changed the channel when he appeared. Her best friend Kathleen reported the same reaction. That was the first time anyone raised the subject with me, and I felt validated. I was so horrified by the coup of 2000 that I stopped watching all TV for 6 months in order to avoid any exposure to his image or voice. Later I eased back in but always turn it off when he appears. Same with radio; the sound of the voice is somehow more horrifying than the sight of the smirk.

If you examine his approval ratings around the world, it is evident that this visceral horror reaction is extremely common, even normative. If Faux, CNN et al had not been constantly "spraying perfume over dog t--ds" (to use Samantha Bee's marvelous expression) the American public would smell the stink as well as the rest of the world does.

What is being set off by the face and voice is our amydalas (amydalae?) Here's a quote from a fine new book, Undoing Perpetual Stress by Richard O'Connor: "Especially pay attention to first impressions of people and situations. Negative impressions are, I think, often corret amygdala reactions that there is something to be afraid of here. When you have such a reaction, look into it-- mindfully, objectively, carefully." Earlier in the book he describes the role of the amygdala: "a center for emotional responses, especially the fear response...connects through the hypothalamus directly to the rest of the body to generate the fight or flight response without a detour through the thinking part of the brain..."

Trying to follow O'Connor's advice, and look into this phenomenon mindfully, objectively, and carefully, I note one common thread in the perceptions shared by DUers and others. That is, NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER GENERATED SUCH A RESPONSE. Absolutely true for me and for many who have posted in this thread. I didn't like Reagan or Bush I, but never felt the horror/terror that Dub evokes. Now, I wonder is whether there is something uniquely evil or dangerous about this *individual*? Somehow I think not. The uniqueness of our reaction (for those who have never felt this way about anyone else) is more about the uniqueness of the threat he poses to humanity.

While not quite ready to agree that the threat is from non-human sources, it's certainly *anti*-human. Devoid of empathy, avid for destruction, endlessly greedy for his superrich "base", appealing to the darkest and basest motives of Americans.

Maybe JPII's alleged fears about Dubya being the Antichrist had some basis. If so, the fact that his successor tipped the election in Dubya's favor suggests something terrifying about the role of the Church in the world today.