Jump to content

Talk:Fight-or-flight response

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danachos (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 31 May 2021 (→Most scientists have now accepted its new name "fight-flight-or-freeze response"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fwilliamson3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mldavis318.

Most scientists have now accepted its new name "fight-flight-or-freeze response"

Can we retitle this for the sake of accuracy over tradition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.222.178 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many researchers, scientists, academics etc definitely now include "freeze" alongside "fight or flight" as a third possible response to stress, particularly in relation to stressors related to intimate partner/domestic violence and sexual assault. This entry should at least be linked to the Freezing bahaviour entry, or, even better, incorporate it. Would be very easy to find sources to cite for this.

 Done Addressed on the live page now — Danachos (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT KITTENS ARE THINKING???? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. SO, WE WONT KNOW UNTIL THE TEST RESULTS COME BACK. DO YOU KNOW WHAT KITTENS THINK? "This smacks of original research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Arno Matthias (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens think "MEOW" - when they purr they are content. Any awareness the kitten has is mirrored in their own "thoughts" of kitten-ness.

Kittens and most animals have no extensive verbal language, so any possible thought is limited. Davidmeo (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

The biological response part of the article is a copy-and-paste directly from the link at the bottom of the article, "http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter4/sec2_1.html", and does not attribute the text to that source.

Thank you for your remark, it has been attributed now. However, it is not plagiarism, since it's a work of the US government, which makes it ineligible for copyright since it is in the public domain.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first time ever I have heard an excuse for plagiarism being okay as it is "not being copyrighted". Legal mumbo jumbo! A work in text form that has any form of intelligent content shall never be cut-and-pasted, legal or not. One discuss, and one cite, and one provide the footnotes. It is a matter of self-respect. It just feels wrong to read it now, knowing that it probably is taken out of context. I will read the original text instead since it seems to have a content that makes it easier to fully grasp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.250 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is plagiarism, its not a copyright violation --69.209.75.199 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could this article use a somewhat less scientific description of the phenomenon? While the neurochemistry of fight or flight is very interesting, it doesn't actually say anything about the decision between standing ground against a predator/aggressor and turning tail and running in an effort to escape.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.40.162 (talk • contribs) June 7, 2005

Run if you can, fight if you must. --Arno Matthias (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Option?

How can the 'deer-in-headlights' reaction be reconciled with this statement that there are only two options available under high stress or threat? Many accounts of persons thrown into battle mention 'freezing up,' and suggest that this is not a phenomenon strictly to be associated with deer.

69.138.6.85 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Ed Dodd[reply]


There is more than just a third option. There is Fight, Fright, Freeze (Note: somebody needs to merge this with the Freeze section below), F%%k / sex (figure that one out yourself), and Feed. There may be more, but all are responses to stress / duress. User:retrograde62@yahoo.com 14:47 PST 15 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.161.147 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is shaking for?

Can someone smart add on this page why people start to shake when they are in fight-or-flight condition? Janne92

not entirely sure or smart...but i'm guessing it's the epinephrine effect that would cause shaking...epinephrine effects alpha and beta1 and beta2 adrenergic receptors each of which cause physiological effects to the heart (increase rate- tachycardia), lungs (bronchiole dilation), and vessels (vasoconstriction). Hence why it is super-important when people have allergic reaction and take epipen...they must still go to hospital. Nizami 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) More simply, epiphrene goes to the upper cerebellum, causing shaking,sweating,nervousness, and the tendency to scream. All other symptoms are controlled by the nervous symptom. Sorry about the NERVEous part, it was not meant to be a joke. ChocokakeIII (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted the page as an edit removed about a quarter of the article. I see no reason to remove it, so I put it back. If there is actually a reason to remove so much info, (such as inaccuracy, or whatever) please post that reason here as it is a large change to the article.

I reverted it back past a couple of edits, the following text was replaced by "@OK" and other inanities...
"once perceived, is relayed from the sensory cortex of the brain through the thalamus to the brain stem. That route of signaling increases the rate of noradrenergic activity in the locus ceruleus, and the person becomes alert and attentive to the environment. Similarly, an abundance of " Lou 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tend and Befriend

Taylor et al. have written an important paper on the difference in the stress response in males and females . Taylor SE, Cousino-Klein L, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RAR, and Updegraff JA: Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review 107 (3): 411-429, 2000.

Now featuring in the "See also" section. Wikipedia has an article for that. --Filippof (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I've done a major re-write using a psych textbook as a reference. I've tried to fuse the original with my additions. I also added a references section for mine and the previous writer's refs. This rewrite also addresses the idea of a third option. Hope everyone who cares likes this. Please add a reference to the list if you're changing it, as I went to some trouble to properly document these. Enjoy... Irayna 08:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)irayna[reply]

I believe the narrowly constrained focus based on a purely psychological approach to describe the fight-or-flight response should be altered to a multi-disciplinary approach like Game theory's section on Biology. Examples of how a Game theoretical lens may help to explain the fight-or flight response include:
  1. The signaling component of the communication aspect of game theory is present in the form of initial stimulus or in the form of one individual of a colony raising the alarm for other members of the colony.
  2. Strength-in-numbers concept may affect the decision to fight as seen in mobbing behavior.
  3. The emergence of symbiotic relationships may be explained by "tend and befriend."
  4. Payoff as defined in game theory is not only limited to "fitness" but also may include the advantageous outcomes of "feed" or "get your freak on" or "tend and befriend."

--Benjamin Richards (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about genetic marker for this response

It has been pointed out that there are a variety of options under both the flight response and the fight response [deer in headlight and camouflage]. This led me to the question of whether the response could be more simply stated as "go" or "stay" when confronted by stress. Since the response, whatever we call it, is common among many/most species, it would appear to be very primal on a genetic scale. Consider that it might be the direct result of the "punctuated equilibrium" [Gould - Alvarez] event that re-ordered life on Earth 65,000,000 years BP. And impact of such magnitude would have only allowed two "responses" among survivors. Stay put because you had no choice OR get thrown wildly about in a tumult of epic proportion until you finally latched onto something or landed in a safe place. The experience would certainly have effected all species and might offer a genetic pointer as to when the "flight or fight" [go or stay] response initiated. Bobkiger 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Bob Kiger[reply]

Freeze

Somebody may wish to add a paragraph about “Freeze”. Many modern theorists believe that Fight/Flight/Freeze is the more accurate dichotomy of this instinctive response. It’s seen in animals and people all the time. The best example is the dear in headlights or the possum “playing possum” (feigning death). Many people and animals when confronted by a threat like an intimidating dog will instinctively stop moving hoping not to the attract the attention of the threat, then eventually SLOWLY moving away. Jeff Vollmer LCPC, 5/2/98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.199.148 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

You are talking of the FFF epiphrene-related theory, by MacChendall. ChocokakeIII (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I recently experienced this I want to add my two cents. Freezing can be a good response, in that it prevents a situation from escalating. The problem with the ubiquitous 'fight or flight' is that people get the impression that it is wrong to freeze. --Wouter Drucker (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another F?

What happened to the other F of this system? Has it been too long since I took psychology? Used to be this was referred to as the 4 F's: Feed, Fight, Flee, or get your Freak on. Yet this article passes the burden of sexual response onto the parasympathetic system article, which offers little other than canned descriptions of physical responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.221.121 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fright"? Shouldn't it be: "Freeze"?

Does anybody, really, call this the "fright, fight or flight response" ?

It seems likely,to me, that that expression actually is an erroneous recollection of:

"fight-or-flight-or-freeze response", which is in actual use.

Maybe we should remove the variant: "fright, fight or flight response" altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.108.21 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation needed" for Serene?

Disambiguity needed for "Serene"? How is that? How many meanings can "Serene" have? In my dictionary (www.ord.se) it pretty much means "peaceful" (no dual meanings) and such meaning fits the context perfectly.

Disambiguation (after my google search) means the act of pinpointing a word's exact meaning within a certain context. Example: "book" can mean a bounded pile of written papers, but "book" can also mean something one do in order to get a seat in an airplane before it takes off. So, disambiguation defines which meaning a word has for those who don't get it out of the context. Now, those who don't get it are often computers, and therefore "Disambiguation" is mostly used in computer Science, since we humans often get the meanings out of the context.

But the word "serene" has no real dual meaning according to my dictionary - and English is not even my first language.

On the other hand, since English is not my first language, I can't tell whether or not the meaning of "serene" is commonly known by ordinary English speakers. I know the meaning since I checked it in the dictionary, just as I once checked the word "banana" when that word was to be learnt. How many of you native English speakers know the word "banana" in foreign languages, by the way?

But IF the case is that most English speaking people don't know the meaning of the word "serene", then that does not mean it needs "Disambiguation". Instead, in such case, the English speaking world needs to read more books and get a proper grip of their own language. Disambiguation does not mean "clarifying". Instead, disambiguity can only be used when there are several meanings of a word. Now, neither "banana" nor "serene" has dual meanings, regardless of how commonly known their meanings are.

It would be so fun if we, the Europeans in the union, were to speak better English than the Americans due to our superior schools... *smiling* Afterall, the Americans need the freshman year in College to catch up with what we learnt in High School whilst we Europeans get into the Sophomore year right away... *smiling* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.250 (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or flight or ?

All of the sections on this discussion page related to:

Are centered on the statement "engage in one or more compensatory actions within the organism's perceived or actual locus of control" to be true in order for the fight-or-flight response to occur, and all neglect the fact that a threatening stimulus is mediated not only by sensory (external) stimuli, but also by physiological or psychological (internal) arousal state, past experiences (memories and their associacion to benign or malignant instances), and willingness to engage (is the organism exhausted or energized). Some threatening stimuli can be ignored all together. Example, if a grey cloud cover, with the potential for rain or lightning, approaches on the horizon, I can neither initiate a fight with the storm nor initiate a flight from the storm's path, with the exception of moving towards a "safe sanctuary" until the threat has dissipated, assuming of course that the organism knows of such a location within the vicinity of its current location.
Benjamin Richards (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology of the stress response

Normally, when a person is in a serene[disambiguation needed], unstimulated state, the "firing" of neurons in the locus coeruleus is minimal. A novel stimulus (which could include a perception of danger or an environmental[disambiguation needed] stressor such as elevated sound levels or over-illumination), once perceived, is relayed from the sensory cortex of the brain through the hypothalamus to the brainstem.

That route of signaling increases the rate of noradrenergic activity in the locus coeruleus, and the person becomes alert and attentive to the environment. Similarly, an abundance of catecholamines at neuroreceptor sites facilitates reliance on spontaneous or intuitive behaviors often related to combat or escape[disambiguation needed].

If a stimulus is perceived as a threat, a more intense and prolonged discharge of the locus ceruleus activates the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.[1] This activation is associated with specific physiological actions in the system, both directly and indirectly through the release of epinephrine (adrenaline) and to a lesser extent norepinephrine from the medulla of the adrenal glands. The release is triggered by acetylcholine released from preganglionic sympathetic nerves. The other major factor in the acute stress response is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.[2]

References

  1. ^ Thase, M.E.; R.H. Howland (1995). "Biological processes in depression: An updated review and integration". in Beckham & Leber. Handbook of Depression. NY: Guilford Press.
  2. ^ Sternberg, Esther, 2001. The Balance Within: The Science Connecting Health and Emotions. W.H. Freeman and Company, 76,77,96-98.

Missing Word

In the third sentence of the section titled, "Psychology of the stress response," it looks like somebody accidentally the word or phrase after "intense". What is the missing word? "Concentration"? "Physical exertion"? "Action music"? Modus Ponens (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight-or-Flight-or-Play

I propose a third response which is psychologically more interesting and more complex. If you observe lion cubs or just about any animal with the Fight or Flight response, the instantaneous response of the parent to its own young offspring attacking it is to play.

Any other animal with identical action will evoke the fight or flight response to the attack or threat. The parent normally does not attack its offspring if it knows the "threat" is from its own very young offspring. Instead the instantaneous response is to play, this "play" is important to teaching the cubs to survive when the play later becomes fight or attack to survive.

Just observe the lion cubs going after the parents at the zoo -

Davidmeo (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles need to be based on published literature, so however reasonable that idea is, we would not be able to use it unless it has appeared in print somewhere reputable. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

I will be working on this page as part of a college course. Please give me suggestions. I have 2000ish words to add to this article for my class. I don't know if I will actually edit any of the page; I'm just working in my sandbox for now.Langtor (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modification

I have made a significant amount of modifications to the article. The majority of the contributions are related to adding content, which are all backed up by references. I made minor modifications to the introduction paragraph. I have added content related to the physiological mechanisms of the fight or flight response, which include: autonomic nervous system, sympathetic nervous system, parasympathetic nervous system, and the actual sequence of reaction. Additionally, I added content related to the function of some of the physiological changes that occur during the response. I created new sections called, "evolutionary perspective", "emotional components", and "cognitive components". I created subsections and added content within those new sections, which are: emotional components (emotion regulation, emotion reactivity), cognitive components (content specificity, perception of control, social information processing). I also added content related some of the negative symptoms and effects of the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensmyers (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've actually been working on a copy of the article, User:Bensmyers/modifiedarticle2. That's a good way to learn, but it's also dangerous, because if several of you are doing that then you may find it very difficult to merge your changes. If you know who the other people working on this are, I strongly advise you to discuss the problem with them and make a plan that will let you avoid treading on each other's toes. I'll be happy to advise if it is useful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it can be dangerous. In this case, the student that had previously been working on this article is not anymore, and there shouldn't be other conflicting modifications.Bensmyers (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In any case I advise you to apply your changes to this article as soon as it is convenient, lest somebody else edit it in the meantime and create conflicts with your changes. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the changes. I have one problem with my modification that I can't seem to fix and maybe you could help with. I created a different reference list on the page in order to keep track of the references that I added and now I can't seem to integrate that reference list with the list for the rest of the page. Does it even matter if there are two different reference lists?Bensmyers (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another editor has come along and merged the two sets of references. That's probably the right thing to do. Having separate notes and references might make sense, but I can't recall seeing a Wikipedia article with distinct sets of references. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

current state of science and "further reading"

if I understand everything more or less well then Cannon's theory remains basically unchallenged and unenlarged, except may be the addition of the "tend and befriend" behaviour (while I doubt that this changes Cannon's theory because he probably did not say that "flight or fight (including "freeze" which is a way of disappearing, i.e. fleeing; but "freeze" might also be a third alternative reaction when neither fight nor flight is possible [e.g. animal, blinded by car lights])" is the only possible reaction to stressors (or did he?); he just described this reaction (psychosomatically). would it not be nice to name a scientific text which best sums up the current 'state of the art' (possibly "Goldstein, David; Kopin, I (2007). "Evolution of concepts of stress"...")? thank you? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sympathicotonia

is it not strange that the term "sympathicotonia" - subtopic in the article "Sympathetic nervous system" - is not mentioned here? including its possible becoming a chronic state, a character type (see discussion there)?? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humans

This article is appallingly bad for covering fight or flight in humans. It is confusing having stuff on humans mixed up with stuff on animals so I will separate animal stuff to a separate article. --Penbat (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think separating the articles was a misguided approach: humans are mammals, and much of this article (now titled "in humans") can equally apply to animals. I don't think a WP:SPLIT is warranted, at least not yet. You appear to have copied the lead of this article and tacked on an arbitrary example with zebras. Reasons for discussing humans alongside animals in a single article are:
  • Humans are animals (biologically undeniable)
  • non-human animals are often used to study or model the effects of stress in humans.
  • In vertebrates at least, the mechanism is largely the same. It's not like zebras have a notably different response. Better context and comprehensive coverage are upheld by discussing all aspects in one article. Many of the references in Fight-or-flight response (in animals) discuss humans and animals together.
  • If this article is bad, we should improve it rather than make more articles of similar or lesser quality.
  • Conceivably, almost any physiological article could be split into humans and non-humans. In some cases this may be warranted, but I don't see that being the case yet. Would we also need tailored articles for the same effect in mice, deer, fish, etc?
I think the article should focus on the physiological factors shared among all mammals, or even vertebrates, including humans, as appears to be already the case, although there is certainly work to be done. The existing sections on emotional and cognitive aspects can simply be improved and clarified, as those are more pertinent to human health. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Animalparty that a split was not warranted. Penbat, see WP:SIZE and its WP:Spinout subsection; that guideline is clear why a split was not warranted in this case. Furthermore, Wikipedia commonly includes human material with non-human animal material; see WP:MEDMOS#Sections, for an example. WP:MEDMOS#Sections includes an "Other animals" section. Like the Sexual differentiation article, the Fight-or-flight response article could use a heading style to indicate what section is about humans and what section is about non-human animals. With this edit, you moved the title from Fight-or-flight response to Fight-or-flight response (in humans). And with this edit, you split the content into two separate articles. These actions resulted in titles that would be better presented without the parentheses, WP:Leads that are wholly redundant, needless WP:Content forking, and the term fight-or-flight response redirecting to Fight-or-flight response (in humans). And we certainly should not have a WP:Disambiguation page to handle the redirect matter. Both aspects (humans and non-humans) should share one article only. Since this article is currently tagged within WP:Med's scope, deals with medical/health aspects, and WP:Med is a very active WikiProject, I will contact them to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the content transferred by Penbat to Fight-or-flight response (in animals) was pre-existing in the main article, so I may have erred in assuming the arbitrary example was Penbat's original contribution. But I find it still telling that the material transferred to the animal article ends with a reference on human behavior, which is all the more reason to re-merge the articles. - --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original situation was seriously bad. It was totally unclear whether animals were being discussed or humans - it was mixed up. Examining the sources will tell you whether it is to do with animals or humans. Even the sections that refer to animals wrongly have links to articles on humans only eg sympathetic nervous system. Where is the information on sympathetic nervous system on Wikipedia for animals ? There is also a big area of human fight or flight not covered - that is human social psychology. For example, I was about to insert fight or flight in the context of workplace bullying but saw how ludicrous the article currently was.--Penbat (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the original was "seriously bad" was that nearly everything in it but the illustrations applied to all mammals with no reason to split humans out. Much of the physiology had been discovered in animals in the first place, also, as has been pointed out. Then there wasn't anything to illustrate with but Grey's Anatomy, and so we got a human-looking article. The sympathetic nervous system should have been structured like the paradigm article on nervous system. It was waiting for information on non-mammals and simpler animals, but that hadn't been added yet.

The way to fix this is go back to a general article on the sympathetic nervous system. If there is enough specific stuff on humans to do a special subarticle for them, it can be done per WP:SS. Somewhat the same goes for "fight-or-flight (-or-freeze?) response". We have enough for a general article, and then perhaps some extra psychological stuff for humans, where you can talk about workplace bullying if you want. If there is enough, it goes in a subsection, and as it expands, a subarticle.

Interestingly, there exists an article on parasympathetic nervous system but no corresponding one for the corresponding set of behaviors known as "feed and breed." I suppose if we do that one, and need a human subsection or subarticle, that's where we can put all the sociology information on courtship and dating, right? I'm only half joking on that last. There's a scientific reason for Don Juan's observation that it's a waste of time to try to seduce a hungry woman... SBHarris 00:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat, this article split needs to be fixed per what has been stated above about fixing it. These two articles should be merged. Fight-or-flight response redirects to Fight-or-flight response (in humans), and, per WP:Disambiguation page, it should not be a WP:Disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animalparty, if you or someone else doesn't take the initiative and merge these two articles, I'll start a WP:RfC on this matter in a few days. You and I have made our cases above about why the split is wrong, and I'm not letting the split stay as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the WP:RfC; per what has been stated above, I moved the title back to Fight-or-flight response. It should not have been moved without WP:Consensus; Wikipedia:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially contested moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; it states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." Also per what has been stated above, I merged the non-human animal content into this article, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Workplace bullying"

This section has an obvious flight-leaning bias, in my opinion.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fight-or-flight response/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The first paragraph of "behavioral manifestations..." begins ambiguously. Its unclear that human and not animal fight or flight response is being discussed until the end of the paragraph. It should also be noted that the fight or flight response did not evolve in humans, but rather was modified from pre-human ancestry Miska1 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fight-or-flight response. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the Crumbles"

My experience with this is mostly in safety/security training, but I've never heard Fight-Flight or Fight-Flight-Freeze referred to as "the Crumbles." A quick googling turns up nothing.

EDIT: and so I'm deleting it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fight-or-flight_response&oldid=1026132552"