A Mechanism That Necessarily Exists in Humans: The Self-Protection Instinct — In the Face of a Crisis, What Pulls the Hand Back

This paper argues one thing: a person backs off in a crisis, is afraid, and lies because he is afraid; these three accounts can only be paid to an innate inner mechanism, called the self-protection instinct. The proof runs backwards: backing off is not inability, abilities contain no "back off", and no one teaches the act; remove it and whatever can be reached is reached for, whatever cannot be blocked is met head on, and such an individual does not survive. Operation delivers four items. Two readings are taken, the gain in an attempt and its hazard; they lie on different scales, and no arithmetic is done where life itself is at stake. The output is mostly postponement rather than cancellation, so the broken shape is not "he dares not" but no longer wanting the thing at all. Fear does no arithmetic; it delivers to the body a result already computed. A lie travels the same road as a pulled-back hand, and the liar computed correctly on his own ledger. Every response carrying harm is booked through it and stored as a standing conclusion, so the adult need not be present; the standard is set by the price of being wrong once, not by an average, so the mechanism is conservative by nature. This is neither timidity nor self-defence; its judgement is relative to the environment and passes no verdict on a person, and "coward" has mistaken its object. No timetable, no normative value.