In the 1957, Curt Richter, a professor at Johns Hopkins, did a famous experiment on rats endurance. Lab rats were put into water to measure how long they can survive without drowning, depending on water temperature. But experiment did not go as expected:
"At all temperatures, a small number of rats died within 5-10 minutes after immersion, while in some instances others apparently no more healthy, swam as long as 81 hours."
When the experiment was repeated with faster, stronger, smarter and more aggressive wild rats,
"all 34 [of them] died in 1-15 minutes after immersion in the jars."
That did not make sense. Wild rats are survivalists and they were expected to perform better. Wild rats were described as
"...constantly on the alert for any avenue of escape and react very strongly to any form of restraint in captivity."
To cut the long story short, street-wise rats are smart enough to not expect rescue. They knew that the help is not coming and they quickly (and correctly) assessed circumstances as hopeless. So they gave up...
Researchers confirmed that theory by rescuing rats, then returning them back into the jar. It took no more than a few minutes to introduce a possibility of rescue.
"In this way the rats quickly learn that the situation is not actually hopeless; thereafter they again become aggressive, try to escape, and show no signs of giving up. Wild rats so conditioned swim just as long as domestic rats or longer."
That's a step from 15 minutes to 80 hours of endurance.
Richter, C. P. (1957). On the phenomenon of sudden death in animals and man. Psychosomatic Medicine, 19, 191–198, May 1957.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-195705000-00004 :: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-195705000-00004
https://www.aipro.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/phenomena_sudden_death.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13432092/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1959-00553-001
https://journals.lww.com/bsam/abstract/1957/05000/on_the_phenomenon_of_sudden_death_in_animals_and.4.aspx
All the articles I've read about this experiment talk about importance or power of hope.
IMHO they've got it wrong.
Hope can be defined as "to desire and consider possible", "to feel that something desired may happen", "to cherish a desire with anticipation". It is a wishful thinking that constitutes hope, not the probability of desirable to eventuate.
Hope can be very disempowering. One can hope for improbable and just wait for it without doing anything. Disappointment can be very bitter and detrimental to morale.
But you do not need hope to continue living any more than you need hope to continue breathing.
Knowing about psychosomatic phenomenon, it is certain that a person can be convinced (by circumstances) to die when he don't have to. But continue living do not require hope. Most animals don't even have a concept of hope.
Some might have a strong will to survive. But I think having a mission or purpose in life is the best motivation to stay alive.
As you are reading this, you might think how important it is to sustain continuous effort, have a right survival strategy, to control stress or even rely on hope no matter what the circumstances are.
While normal people think about all these, propagandists and authoritarians draw a different conclusion from this research - e.g. never ever give people anything to hope for.
Remember that next time you consider whether to sign yet another petition... Now you know why politicians ignore all feedback from the public and only pretend to consider it. They do not want to encourage you to think that you can change anything. Do not encourage them either: never vote, never comply and never accept their "authority".
#Science #CurtRichter #Experiment #Rats #Survival #Hope #Petitioning #Psychosomatic