The stereotypical risk-taker in society is a 6'2" rugged self-made millionaire, dynamic and all male. The reality is that you can dress an animal up any way you like, but beneath the societal norms lies the truth. The truth is the real person. Like the 'flight or fight' impulse is a similar one that is as crucial to the essence of what is true about the individual. It can be called Acceptable Risk.
If you watch a wildlife film, there are often clips of predators and prey in close proximity. A lion may be striding through a plain and close by are seen zebras and antelopes. Why aren't they running away? The answer is simple: They balance the need to run with the need to eat or drink. Evolution dictates that the ones that survive are the ones that can best balance these two necessities. Too jittery (taking flight at the mere sight of any predator), and they starve to death. Wait too late to run away and you'll be caught and eaten. Somewhere in between has to be determined an acceptable level of risk. The zebra will eat, but always be cognizant of how far away the lion is. A measure of risk exists because the zebra will allow the lion closer, but must figure out the risks involved. 'I'm here with many other zebra. What are the chances he comes for me and not one of the others? How far away is he? Is there enough room for me to get away safely enough?'. These are judgments based on best guesses, but they tend to weigh more-heavily in the direction of letting the lion closer than on the side of running at the sight of any predator. Why? Because maximizing 'time at the table' means optimizing the whole eating enough equation.
Now, let's turn to Man. I have to say big-'M' and not small 'M' because living within acceptable risk is not necessarily sex-dependent. Risk analysis is a natural part of living and Man is not so far removed from the wild, and risk is strong proof of that. Living relatively comfortable and safe lives, there is no inherent need to pursue risk. It exists already in many parts of the world, whether in wars or in desperately poor areas. And yet, even the most-affluent tend towards seeking out risk. Why? Because the grape doesn't fall far from the vine, is why. After hundreds of thousands of years we've suddenly become dominant on the planet in the last couple of thousand. There's still this natural need to test both sides of danger, between running at fear and embracing it to the limit of reasonableness.
When we don't find risk in our lives, we seek it out. We create it. If you're one of the poor, you'll only accept risk as a matter of necessity. You'll risk stealing a loaf of bread or money because the alternative is starvation. If you live in an area where there are gangs, you'll balance the real need of going to the store with the fear of stumbling across a rival gang on the way to or from it. In war, sometimes risk is so constant that a person becomes used to it (or numb), as a matter of psychological necessity. And sometimes, soldiers create risk, but this is generally as a means of controlling the very thing they're afraid of. It's the need to master fear that drives people, especially in war. The zebra masters fear when it measures how far away the lion is.
So, how about the rest of us? It is my contention that you can dress a wolf up in fancy clothes, give him a fancy car, make him CEO of a company, or foreman at a construction company, and he'll still be a wolf. It is my contention that the risk takers, no matter their social status are the descendants of the Alpha's that had the choicest cuts of meat. People seek out risk not because it's the essence of what it means to be human, but what it means to be an animal. This is not 'animal' in the primitive sense, but in the true sense. Risks often gain in both levels and danger. This can be thought of as a 'feeling out' process, measuring ourselves between feasting on the grass long enough and feasting too long. What starts out as a climb up a small tree will invariably progress to a bigger tree or a mountain. What starts out as riding a motorcycle easily down the road will tend to progress to exceeding the speed limit and dodging traffic and racing. What starts as kicking your dog may progress to kicking or if you're mind is of the type that will, murdering a person. When dating someone, the natural inclination is to move towards sex and once achieved, finding the means of realizing the same level of enjoyment.
In all these things, a person finds satisfaction in measuring oneself, and risk is the ruler that does this. When a person ceases risk evaluation, it's generally because the risk/reward equation results in either the risk meeting in failure or the reward for the risk diminishing in felicity.
If you watch a wildlife film, there are often clips of predators and prey in close proximity. A lion may be striding through a plain and close by are seen zebras and antelopes. Why aren't they running away? The answer is simple: They balance the need to run with the need to eat or drink. Evolution dictates that the ones that survive are the ones that can best balance these two necessities. Too jittery (taking flight at the mere sight of any predator), and they starve to death. Wait too late to run away and you'll be caught and eaten. Somewhere in between has to be determined an acceptable level of risk. The zebra will eat, but always be cognizant of how far away the lion is. A measure of risk exists because the zebra will allow the lion closer, but must figure out the risks involved. 'I'm here with many other zebra. What are the chances he comes for me and not one of the others? How far away is he? Is there enough room for me to get away safely enough?'. These are judgments based on best guesses, but they tend to weigh more-heavily in the direction of letting the lion closer than on the side of running at the sight of any predator. Why? Because maximizing 'time at the table' means optimizing the whole eating enough equation.
Now, let's turn to Man. I have to say big-'M' and not small 'M' because living within acceptable risk is not necessarily sex-dependent. Risk analysis is a natural part of living and Man is not so far removed from the wild, and risk is strong proof of that. Living relatively comfortable and safe lives, there is no inherent need to pursue risk. It exists already in many parts of the world, whether in wars or in desperately poor areas. And yet, even the most-affluent tend towards seeking out risk. Why? Because the grape doesn't fall far from the vine, is why. After hundreds of thousands of years we've suddenly become dominant on the planet in the last couple of thousand. There's still this natural need to test both sides of danger, between running at fear and embracing it to the limit of reasonableness.
When we don't find risk in our lives, we seek it out. We create it. If you're one of the poor, you'll only accept risk as a matter of necessity. You'll risk stealing a loaf of bread or money because the alternative is starvation. If you live in an area where there are gangs, you'll balance the real need of going to the store with the fear of stumbling across a rival gang on the way to or from it. In war, sometimes risk is so constant that a person becomes used to it (or numb), as a matter of psychological necessity. And sometimes, soldiers create risk, but this is generally as a means of controlling the very thing they're afraid of. It's the need to master fear that drives people, especially in war. The zebra masters fear when it measures how far away the lion is.
So, how about the rest of us? It is my contention that you can dress a wolf up in fancy clothes, give him a fancy car, make him CEO of a company, or foreman at a construction company, and he'll still be a wolf. It is my contention that the risk takers, no matter their social status are the descendants of the Alpha's that had the choicest cuts of meat. People seek out risk not because it's the essence of what it means to be human, but what it means to be an animal. This is not 'animal' in the primitive sense, but in the true sense. Risks often gain in both levels and danger. This can be thought of as a 'feeling out' process, measuring ourselves between feasting on the grass long enough and feasting too long. What starts out as a climb up a small tree will invariably progress to a bigger tree or a mountain. What starts out as riding a motorcycle easily down the road will tend to progress to exceeding the speed limit and dodging traffic and racing. What starts as kicking your dog may progress to kicking or if you're mind is of the type that will, murdering a person. When dating someone, the natural inclination is to move towards sex and once achieved, finding the means of realizing the same level of enjoyment.
In all these things, a person finds satisfaction in measuring oneself, and risk is the ruler that does this. When a person ceases risk evaluation, it's generally because the risk/reward equation results in either the risk meeting in failure or the reward for the risk diminishing in felicity.
Comments