Now that we're on the subject....
Evolutionary explanation for OCD:
http://www.cogprints.org/1147/00/ocd-final.htm
Mostly interesting speculation with few conclusions.
Quotes:
"...the relatively high lifetime prevalence of OCD of around 2.5% and one-year prevalence of 1.6% (Karno & Golding, 1991) would argue against the condition being caused by a harmful genetic mutation but is consistent with it representing the severe end of a potentially adaptive trait ( Wilson, 1998), instead."
"Neurobiological systems have evolved to generate adaptive psychological or behavioural strategies and not to produce psychopathological states (Gilbert, 1993). It should therefore follow that dysfunction (or apparently disordered functioning) cannot be clearly conceptualised until the proper function of a biological system is correctly identified (see Bolton & Hill, 1996; Buss,1999). "
Most people can only learn by making mistakes, or being taught something by authority, or instinctively reacting to a present situation. Related quote:
"...the ability of some organisms to learn to avoid common dangers without the need to experience them in real life would have conferred a clear advantage on the individuals who possessed this trait over those who did not."
"If obsessive-compulsive phenomena relate to risk scenarios to self and close kin, it should be possible to predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of risk scenarios and harm avoidance rituals at biologically critical times, e.g. following childbirth or around puberty . Current evidence supports the claim that pregnancy and childbirth are associated with significantly increased risk of OCD for women (Buttolph, Peets & Holland, 1998)."
As with many psychological "disorders" the main problem lies in interaction with "normal" people, so one could also argue that society has a "disease" of unacceptance. Sometimes OCD leads to irrational behavior (fear of things that aren't dangerous), in which case I would agree it can be a disease that needs to be treated. But when it comes to germs (washing hands), bicycle helmets, and seatbelts, most "normal" people prefer to take the physical risk and avoid by all means the social risk of displaying caution, which is perceived as a sign of weakness. Now I think THAT is silly! (You'll also notice that those people won't use parentheses when they type.)
A form of ADD is related. Some people only perceive the negative aspects and treat it with medicine:
http://www.add-adhd-help-center.com/add ... ocused.htm $$$
But I prefer a balanced view that takes into account the potential positive effects on society:
http://www.borntoexplore.org/evolve.htm
This article is well-written. Very convincing I think, and a similar argument can be made about altruism that is non-reciprocal.
Back to the subject of trails:
I hate surprising snakes on Skyline. That's why I rarely do it in the spring time anymore. I know the risk is low, but I have no control over what's around the corner and as a runner I always wonder if I can react in time. I've never been bitten by a snake, and I've had this fear before ever encountering a rattlesnake. But, as with all things in life, adventures involve risk, some more than others. The alternative is that I would die of boredom just living in a bubble. Living at the same place, working the same job, going home and watching TV every night...yuck! Is that even living? I prefer the adventure and small amount of risk.