That's what we call Amygdala reaction. We saw the same issue with the BART transit cop.

Jericho fights, or "fake" fights for a living. Hes conditioned response was to fight back when assaulted from the back.

Take the hypothetical experiment for example.

We have a controlled environment with 50 "fans". 10 separate volunteer "victims" of assault. One or two assailants, mixed in with the crowd of "fans". Only 5 of the volunteer "Victims" are told that they will be pushed from behind or from the side while getting into their "vehicle".

We can guarantee that the other five, who do not know that they will be pushed or accosted from the side or behind, will react violently. Violently, I mean posture or fight in order to deter any threats.

What I gathered from this video, is that the victim was assaulted from behind by the female perpetrator. He reacted how he trains or plays. Turning around and letting her have it. When the camera went haywire, he must have lashed out at every one near him. Seeing a threat in every person there, and wishing to dispatch that threat, while displaying his prowess to ward off any other attacks.

Humans have still not evolved enough to avoid the Amygdala's process.

According to the book Mind Hacks: Human brains are still, at the base level, designed for survival. The ability to reason was the result of society and cultural evolution. However a conscious thought is fallacy. We can prove that a thought happened before our conscious mind ever knew it happened. Hence a person who kills an attacker, only to try to rationalize what just happened.

The Amygdala is powerful, and that is why Human Species has evolved and thrived. No matter how much you reason, this part of your brain will dominate the flight or fight response.

the bizarreness is making me paranoid. immigrant song opening makes my heart race and amygdala dance.

Cloverfield was the best Home-Movie ever made! It was even better than the infamous Blankfist Holiday special.

>> ^jwray:
From the maker of such hollow Hollywood tripe as Armageddon and Cloverfield comes the Phantom-Menace-ization of Star Trek!
Henceforth Star Trek will exercise your amygdala more than your cerebrum!

From the maker of such hollow Hollywood tripe as Armageddon and Cloverfield comes the Phantom-Menace-ization of Star Trek!

Henceforth Star Trek will exercise your amygdala more than your cerebrum!

Thanks. I didn't want to rain on anyone's amygdala. The human mind is wondrous. It can influence the masses, stirring them to great good, or great evil. However, there is not a shred of sound scientific evidence that the mind can influence inorganic matter, of any kind, that it's not directly wired to. I guess it would be POSSIBLE that a human brain could be made to operate systems without direct connection, but it would only be through remote sensing of regional brain blood flow or neural activity. (I'm eliminating detection of eye movement here.) Regardless, it would require powered sensors to complete the circuit.

the amygdala as a switch? like literal switch? c'mon...

mmmmm, toooouch my amygdala!!!

Haha I was expecting him to turn into a hulk like some of the viral videos of today.. A kind of home science experiment gone wrong advert for a new Ratchet and Clank game.

When they told you to watch the cloud I was afraid it was a scare video.

Only thing you are gonna do by stimulating your amygdala is get angry or scared of the clouds!

I've got immense respect for Gazzaniga, but he's got one thing wrong here. He's implicitly equating consciouness with linguistic awareness. It's odd, too, because he's clearly demonstrating conscious awareness of the items in subject's left visual field. I'm guessing he's basically just simplifying things for the audience. Is this from Nova? What year?

Even though everyone in the neuroscience community calls it split-brain, it's really a misnomer, because there remains a lot of communication between the hemispheres via the amygdala and other midbrain structures. There's a lot of neat studies demonstrating this, in particular using highly emotional content.

If you want to go to the beginning though, look up Sperry's groundbreaking split-brain studies from the 60s - for which he won the Nobel Prize.

Persephone, I don't have a lot of time to write, so apologies for being brief.

You're right about the video, I went back and listened to that part. I do believe he says that the amygdala shuts down at some point, but he didn't there.

However, even that quote is not quite right. Labor cannot be shut down so simply, especially because of the volume of adrenaline required to provide to create a reaction to the effects of oxytocin is sky-high, as in, must be artificially manufactured and injected, even for the stress of childbirth. On top of that, the evolutionary mechanism for such an interaction between fear and contractions, if it were actually true, is shoddy at best and more likely plain wrong. The oxytocin/adrenaline interaction mechanism is a complex one, and one that is not chemically antagonistic, especially since high levels of adrenaline are expected and in fact natural during and after birth, as well as during sex, and orgasms. If adrenaline and oxytocin couldn't work together, sex wouldn't be as fun as it is. In short, adrenaline does not neutralize oxytocin, nor do contractions just stop when adrenaline is released.

Since that particular argument is factual in nature, it's only fair if I quote you some sources. If you'll take a look at the three papers I have below, you'll notice that in no way do high-stress levels of adrenaline serve to interfere with contractions in a negative, non-regulatory manner, and that in fact, it has a beneficial effect at a natural (read: non-Epipen injection) level.

Contraction of the depolarized uterine muscle. Department of Normal Physiology, Sverdlovsk Medical Institute (Presented by Academician L. S. Persianinov, Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR). Translated from Byulleten'' Éksperimental''noi Biologii i Meditsiny, Vol. 68, No. 7, pp. 8–11, July, 1969.

Obstetric Outcome Following Epidural Analgesia with Bupivacaine-Adrenaline 0.25% or Bupivacaine 0.125% with Sufentanil-A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study in 1000 Parturients.
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 53(9):533-534, September 1998.
Olofsson, Ch.; Ekblom, A.; Ekman-Ordeberg, G.; Irestedt, L.

or, perhaps most ironically: Why Natural Childbirth? Judith A. Lothian. J Perinat Educ. 2000 Fall; 9(4): 44–46.

Anyways, I agree hospitals do bad things, and there should be more oversight and regulation to prevent this. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with bad science.

You can email me or go to the Coffeehouse if you want, but it's probably not the best idea to continue this discussion on profile comments, perhaps a better setting would be in order. Cheers.

Persephone, I don't have a lot of time to write, so apologies for being brief.

You're right about the video, I went back and listened to that part. I do believe he says that the amygdala shuts down at some point, but he didn't there.

However, even that quote is not quite right. Labor cannot be shut down so simply, especially because of the volume of adrenaline required to provide to create a reaction to the effects of oxytocin is sky-high, as in, must be artificially manufactured and injected, even for the stress of childbirth. On top of that, the evolutionary mechanism for such an interaction between fear and contractions, if it were actually true, is shoddy at best and more likely plain wrong. The oxytocin/adrenaline interaction mechanism is a complex one, and one that is not chemically antagonistic, especially since high levels of adrenaline are expected and in fact natural during and after birth, as well as during sex, and orgasms. If adrenaline and oxytocin couldn't work together, sex wouldn't be as fun as it is. In short, adrenaline does not neutralize oxytocin, nor do contractions just stop when adrenaline is released.

Since that particular argument is factual in nature, it's only fair if I quote you some sources. If you'll take a look at the three papers I have below, you'll notice that in no way do high-stress levels of adrenaline serve to interfere with contractions in a negative, non-regulatory manner, and that in fact, it has a beneficial effect at a natural (read: non-Epipen injection) level.

Contraction of the depolarized uterine muscle. Department of Normal Physiology, Sverdlovsk Medical Institute (Presented by Academician L. S. Persianinov, Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR). Translated from Byulleten'' Éksperimental''noi Biologii i Meditsiny, Vol. 68, No. 7, pp. 8–11, July, 1969.

Obstetric Outcome Following Epidural Analgesia with Bupivacaine-Adrenaline 0.25% or Bupivacaine 0.125% with Sufentanil-A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study in 1000 Parturients.
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 53(9):533-534, September 1998.
Olofsson, Ch.; Ekblom, A.; Ekman-Ordeberg, G.; Irestedt, L.

or, perhaps most ironically: Why Natural Childbirth? Judith A. Lothian. J Perinat Educ. 2000 Fall; 9(4): 44–46.

Anyways, I agree hospitals do bad things, and there should be more oversight and regulation to prevent this. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with bad science.

You can email me or go to the Coffeehouse if you want, but it's probably not the best idea to continue this discussion on profile comments, perhaps a better setting would be in order. Cheers.

Rembar, go back to the video and listen at about 3:22. He says "the amygdala says this is not a safe place for birth... and the process of labour shuts down voluntarily until a safe haven can be found to birth"

He doesn't say the amygdala shuts down, but the process of labour does. He is absolutely correct in saying this, because when a woman experiences fear in labour, adrenalin neutralises oxytocin, which causes contractions to come to a screeching halt.

Later he says "the amygdala shuts down the system", meaning the system of birth and the interplay of hormones that I just described.

I have also been involved in many births, as a doula, and a brief stint as a trainee midwife and as a mother. I can tell you from my experience in all of these situations, that when a woman is afraid, her labour is sabotaged.

I can also tell you from my experience of birthing in a hospital, that hospitals can make a woman terrified. Routine procedures like putting an IV insert into her wrist upon arrival "just in case you need to have a caesarian" do nothing to send a positive message that she is going to be able to deliver with ease.

Telling a woman that her baby is in fetal distress because "It's not moving enough (prior to the onset of established labour), and telling her that "If you don't get it out today, chances are it will have an apgar score of 4 or less and its survival will be compromised" is using absolutely disgraceful fear tactics and is the kind of lies women are told, to get them to agree to hospital procedures like inducing labour at 10 days past the due date.

My amygdala serves me well in remembering these words, because the birth of my little girl was one of the most devastating days of my life. Not because she was in distress (she had apgars of 9 and 10), not because she was born with compromised well-being, she was perfectly healthy, but because birthing her was like going into battle.

We had to fight for the right to birth her naturally throughout the entire labour. Eight hours into established and difficult labour (because let me tell you, synthetic pitocin is no party. My cervix tore from the force of its unnaturally rapid dilation) the good doctor wanted to speed things up with an IV!

I'm happy to say that Dag was an amazing advocate for me, and we staved off the lions and did the rest of the labour naturally.

So, if you have any more questions about why hospitals are not a safe place to birth for the happy and healthy, just forward them to me, I'd be happy to tell you details of not-so-lucky women.

In reply to your comment:
“Deathcow, I'm not sure how closely you read into my previous comment, but I'm not talking about his conclusions. I agree to a large extent with his larger social and economic reasoning for why hospitals push women towards surgical procedures and chemically-induced contractions to speed up births. But that's no excuse for scientifically inaccurate claims. He's wrong. There's no two ways about it. Unless of course, in the middle of all those births, you witnessed some poor woman's amygdala shutting down and stopping her contractions in the middle of labor because a hospital setting scared her.”

Rembar, go back to the video and listen at about 3:22. He says "the amygdala says this is not a safe place for birth... and the process of labour shuts down voluntarily until a safe haven can be found to birth"

He doesn't say the amygdala shuts down, but the process of labour does. He is absolutely correct in saying this, because when a woman experiences fear in labour, adrenalin neutralises oxytocin, which causes contractions to come to a screeching halt.

Later he says "the amygdala shuts down the system", meaning the system of birth and the interplay of hormones that I just described.

I have also been involved in many births, as a doula, and a brief stint as a trainee midwife and as a mother. I can tell you from my experience in all of these situations, that when a woman is afraid, her labour is sabotaged.

I can also tell you from my experience of birthing in a hospital, that hospitals can make a woman terrified. Routine procedures like putting an IV insert into her wrist upon arrival "just in case you need to have a caesarian" do nothing to send a positive message that she is going to be able to deliver with ease.

Telling a woman that her baby is in fetal distress because "It's not moving enough (prior to the onset of established labour), and telling her that "If you don't get it out today, chances are it will have an apgar score of 4 or less and its survival will be compromised" is using absolutely disgraceful fear tactics and is the kind of lies women are told, to get them to agree to hospital procedures like inducing labour at 10 days past the due date.

My amygdala serves me well in remembering these words, because the birth of my little girl was one of the most devastating days of my life. Not because she was in distress (she had apgars of 9 and 10), not because she was born with compromised well-being, she was perfectly healthy, but because birthing her was like going into battle.

We had to fight for the right to birth her naturally throughout the entire labour. Eight hours into established and difficult labour (because let me tell you, synthetic prostaglandin is no party. My cervix tore from the force of its unnaturally rapid dilation) the good doctor wanted to speed things up with an IV of more oxytocin!

I'm happy to say that Dag was an amazing advocate for me, and we staved off the lions and did the rest of the labour naturally.

So, if you have any more questions about why hospitals are not a safe place to birth for the happy and healthy, just forward them to me, I'd be happy to tell you details of not-so-lucky women whose stories make mine look like a picnic.

Deathcow, I'm not sure how closely you read into my previous comment, but I'm not talking about his conclusions. I agree to a large extent with his larger social and economic reasoning for why hospitals push women towards surgical procedures and chemically-induced contractions to speed up births. But that's no excuse for scientifically inaccurate claims. He's wrong. There's no two ways about it. Unless of course, in the middle of all those births, you witnessed some poor woman's amygdala shutting down and stopping her contractions in the middle of labor because a hospital setting scared her.

Persephone, you said, "Natural birth is not possible for a small percentage of women whose health status put them at risk, however, it is possible for a very large percentage of women, but is not made available to them in current hospital practices."

This statement, I feel, is untrue. If you are going to argue for systemic pressure in the environment of a hospital for unhealthy medical interference that benefits the hospital but not the mother or child, then I will agree and make a case, as I think Farhad would, for an overhaul of the medical system. However, saying that natural birth is not made available to women in current hospital practices isn't true - all women, save for those unconscious and without a proxy, have the ability and the right to demand a natural birth in a hospital, and by that I mean a birth without anesthetics or surgery. It seems like the issues of natural birth and homebirth/midwife-assisted birth are being mixed up, and they are two distinct issues.

I do believe the cause of many birthing procedure problems is economic pressure on hospitals to rush births along as quickly as possible, rather than to ensure the health of the mother and child - greater, not lesser, oversight by the FDA would be a start, homebirth or not.

Anyways, all of this discussion is nice, but I'm vehemently downvoting this sift due to the fact that the video is just crap. The amygdala shutting down, causing contractions to voluntarily cease? Umm.....right, except for the part that the amygdala increases activity, and that it has no ability to stop contractions, due to the positive, not negative, feedback cycle that is created. And hospitals scaring women? The increase in contraction strength is linked to an increase in amygdala activity, which often results in women becoming afraid or nervous - this is an ingrained physiological response, not caused by a particular setting. And stopping the drug companies, which he already claims is a juggernaut beyond control, from lobbying the government? Right.

All respects, Persephone and Dag, for your particular choices and your beliefs on the matter. The discussion has been nice, but honestly, this video doesn't deserve to be published.