A poll! And a strange question

[brigdh]

Okay, I have a question for you all. There are certain scenes- or patterns, or something- that get played out over and over and over again, on TV and in movies and literature, always following the same basic setup and actions. And you don't really think much about them, or at least I didn't; if I was aware of the repetition at all, it was as sort of an unconscious concession: "yeah, that happens, and so this'll happen...".

And then you see it again just one more time, and suddenly you realize- what the hell? Real people would never act like that!

Would they?

Here's the pattern that's bugging me: you've got character A, who desperately wants to do something that is very dangerous, and character B, who is physically restraining A. Perhaps A wants to run into a burning building to save his child, and B is the policeman keeping him away from the flames. Perhaps A is trying to attack the deranged, armed villain of the story, and B is holding him back. The moment that made me go WTF was in King Kong, when Ann is trying to get to the gorilla, and Adrien Brody's character picks her up to carry her away from the danger.

Generally in this situation, A will fight with B for a few seconds, before realizing the futility and calming down. I'm sure you've seen some variation on what I'm describing. You've probably seen this played out a thousand times, in fact. It shows up everywhere, even moreso than the idea of "slap a hysterical person and they'll stop".

If you were character A, how would you react?
[Poll #662667]

Because, in case you couldn't guess, my reaction would be the last one. I can't imagine being in a frenzied state and having someone grab me not making it a thousand times worse. Restraining me would not lead to a better grasp of reality and calm; rather, the phrase "seizure of rage" comes to mind.

So, is this a case when I have weird reactions to things, and being held back actually would help most people, or is this simply a cheesy cliche that gets used again and again because no one thinks about it?

Comments

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

You forgot the one that I probably would do, which is pretend to calm down in order to make B let go of me, then instantly dash off to do whatever I was trying to do the second B let go of me.

It also occurs to me that I have been in or seen a number of dangerous situations, and not once have I ever seen anyone physically restrain someone else from doing something dangerous, or even try to do so, unless the person trying to do the dangerous thing is a child.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Great minds think alike! (See below.)

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Sekrit Twins strike again!

It is possibly not my best personality trait that ever since I was a little kid, if I feel like I can't win a face-to-face confrontation, I nod and feign agreement or surrender, then go ahead and do or believe whatever I want the instant that person isn't looking.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Oh, good point. I can't edit the poll, but that might be the reaction of lots of people.

And that's very interesting. I've never seen someone do it either, but then I haven't been in the position to see many people attempt dangerous things in real life.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

It would depend on how panicky I was and what other useful reactions were possible. I tend to think that I would pretend to calm down and then run off and do what I wanted to do in the first place as soon as person B let me go, but I may be expecting too much rationality of someone who's panicking.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Obviously a popular reaction! I wish I could add it to the poll, but I'll pretend that I was thinking of it with with the third option.

I don't think I could do it, though. Even if I wasn't particularly panicky to start with, having someone grab me would immediately push me past the point of thinking that far ahead.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

See, for me, "stop; evaluate; if opposition is overwhelming, feign agreement; regroup" is instinctive. In fact, it's so instinctive that I would have done so when faced with the initial crisis, so whatever dangerous thing I was planning to do would be, in my mind, reasonable. If I was really panicking, I wouldn't be attempting to do anything because I'd be incapable of any action other than hysterical screaming and perhaps grabbing at something, if, say, I was falling or drowning.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I think most people in the situation would consider their reactions to be reasonable- at least while they're in the moment, if not a week later, thinking back on it. But perhaps that's where part of the problem is coming from: it's the people who act without any consideration who are so easily calmed because they're more easily swayed to a new path, while you and I and everyone having a problem with this convention are already acting on what we consider to be the best option, and therefore don't appreciate anyone trying to stop us.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

I didn't answer the poll because I honestly don't know. There's a good chance I'd pick the popular pretend to give in, and then run when the hold relaxed -- but to even guess I'd have to know more about the situation. Is the holder right about the futility of the action? Or is there something I know or suspect that the holder doesn't? In the absence of hard information, is the holder someone whose judgement I'd normally feel all right about relying on, or is this someone who, when we disagree, I would normally expect to turn out to be wrong?

As you can no doubt tell from this, there are very few situations where I don't analyze before I react. It's just the way my brain seems to work. The only reliable exception is towering rage, and that's only happened a couple of times in my entire life, so I can't construct a model from it.

But it bugs me to see this pattern on television too, because it's such a convention that seeing it at all is almost always enough to kick me out of the narrative, and into the headspace where I'm watching from an exasperated distance and thinking, Not that again. And anyway, would anybody really do that? If they would, would they do it if television hadn't taught them to?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's hard to reliably imagine yourself in these circumstances. I've never been hysterical, or panicked to the point of losing rationality, so while I say what feels "right" to me now, I have no idea if it's actually how I'd react. I tend to actually be extremely calm and composed in dire straits (though if anything would push me over the edge, it's likely to be someone grabbing me. But maybe I just have unresolved touching issues), so none of this might apply to me at all.

I'm comforted though, that so many other people seem to be thrown off by this convention too. I was wondering if this just happened to be one of those cases where I see the world differently from the rest of humanity.

[chiasmus.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I'm weird, but usually I have about a minute or two of panic and then it all goes out in a rush, leading into a detached state. It's not really calm, it's just resignation that it's beyond my control now, even though I know on one level I'm still hysterical (I giggle a lot, and it makes it harder for people to believe something bad just happened).

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Ah, I know what you mean. I think that sort of delayed reaction affects a lot of people. I sometimes- usually not until every thing is entirely resolved, so sometimes hours or days later- will get shaky.

[kohakutenshi.livejournal.com]

One of the things that truly pisses me off is when I'm lightly upset and someone has the gall to say, "Calm down."

This only further pisses me off and subsequent 'calm down's make me want to chew their head.

If I was going to run into a burning building for say, my puppy, and someone tried to stop me, they'd be gravely injured. Don't they know I'd rather die than live with knowing I didn't do anything to try and stop my baby's death?

Actually, when you make that comparison, it makes me think of Hisoka and Tsuzuki in the Kyoto Arc. Hisoka didn't go, "Oh, right." and calm down. He pretty much said fuck that and jumped right in. :3

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Mmm, yes. I think that's part of why this situation bothers me. It's really arrogant and patronizing of B to take away A's ability to act on his/her own, regardless of whether it's something that's a "good idea" to do or not. And that would make me angry in addition to panicked, instead of calm.

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

I suppose four, since my usual reaction to stress is "Touch me and DIE," but that kind of utter terror and determination on behalf of something/someone else tends to make me very fast, so I've always managed to evade anyone trying to hold me back when the situation has arisen.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's always that. The best option would probably be for character A to never get caught by character B.

[questionable537.livejournal.com]

Me in hysterics includes me giggling inanely. Most people are smart enough to back away, which allows me to do whatever my hysterical self wants to do. This includes running into a brush fire to pick up a bag of really old books, or wander off while people I know are being beat up so I can call the cops and give them the muggers' descriptions, names, and liscense plate numbers.

I've creeped people out because I seem downright cheerful in a crisis. No one has ever tried to stop me, however, so I think it's an effective way of handling things. I'm not entirely sure where to put this answer, though....and I don't know if anyone else follows the "cheerfully wander off and do what I want from an alternate angle of attack" method.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

You're the second person to say that! Giggling must be a popular reaction; I should try it some time to see if it works as well as it did for you.

[shes-unreal.livejournal.com]

I think it kind of depends on the situation and what else is happening -- say plebe is trying to run into a burning building to save stranger's child, is restrained by a cop, and sees three firemen run in, they might calm down, but if it's plebe's baby in the building and the firemen can't get in, plebe is probably going to continue to freak out.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. Seeing the problem solved by someone else is a pretty logical way to explain why the scenario works out the way it always does. I just thought it was interesting in situations where no one is solving the problem (usually in these types of stories, because it's seen as hopeless), that a little restraint actually also works to calm people down.

[redshoeson.livejournal.com]

I wonder about the accuracy of this poll, even. I mean, people might /say/ one thing, but would they actually react that way? And there are miles between a burning building and like, a fight for example.

Hmm...

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, of course that's one of the problems. I have no idea if I would actually react the way I predict, but maybe it kinda doesn't matter. I mean, I was just trying to see if this cliche felt right to other people, if you know what I mean, than really caring about how many of us would panic and how many of us would be calm in an emergency.

Reagrdless of what I might do in such a situation, this cliche still always strikes me as wrong, and I just wanted to see if any one else felt the same way.