Fear is often seen as pathological, to be eliminated by expensive emotion-damping pharmaceuticals that have drastic side effects. Such therapies have indiscernible long-term success since they ignore why we have brains. This paper offers a new fundamental theory based on recognising that mental illness is bad decisionmaking—bad risk processing of external stimuli. Whiffs of danger—small risks —generate little fears and hopes of whether an act will have a nice or nasty surprise. From enough whiffs of danger with rapid reliable feedback (...) on whether the surprise is nice or nasty, and in adequate variety children learn the difference between luck and sensible choice, and adults maintain adequate decisionmaking—the author’s ‘whiffs of danger’ theory. Lack of whiffs constitutes risk starvation and can arise from under-challenge or over-challenge. Boys’ ADHD springs from under-challenge in physical risks—the digital seduction—and over-challenge in mental, psychological, social risks—by faster maturing schoolgirls as teachers quit traditional boy favouritism. Boys’ IQ/maturity over-challenge could be cut by: appropriate pre-school care; single sex schools or in co-ed schools boys’ school entry postponed so one year older than their female classmates; and boys praised for expressions of fears, hopes, not for emotion-damped macho utterances. Under-challenge underlies some panic attacks and epileptic fits, and a high proportion of depressions and dementias. Like schoolboys’ physical under-challenge, these under-challenges are reducible by compensating societal changes. (shrink)

Expected utility theory does not directly deal with the utility of chance. It has been suggested in the literature (Samuelson, 1952, Markowitz, 1959) that this can be remedied by an approach which explicitly models the emotional consequences which give rise to the utility of chance. We refer to this as the elaborated outcomes approach. It is argued that the elaborated outcomes approach destroys the possibility of deriving a representation theorem based on the usual axioms of expected utility theory. This is (...) shown with the help of an example due to Markowitz. It turns out that the space of conceivable lotteries over elaborated outcomes is too narrow to permit the application of the axioms. Moreover it is shown that a representation theorem does not hold for the example. (shrink)

Economic discourse—or the lack of it—about fear is gendered on at least three fronts. First, while masculine-associated notions of reason and mind have historically been prioritized in mainstream economics, fear—along with other emotions and embodiment—has tended to be culturally associated with femininity. Research on cognitive “gender schema,” then, may at least partly explain the near absence of discussions of fear within economic research. Second, in the extremely rare cases where fear and emotion are alluded to within the contemporary economics literature (...) on risk aversion, there is a tendency to strongly associate them with women. Finally, historians and philosophers of science have suggested that the failure to consider the full range of human emotions and experience may be itself rooted in fear: a fear of the feminine. This aversion to discussing fear—especially fear as experienced by men—contributes to serious problems, especially in regard to financial market instability and ecological threats. (shrink)