Isn't the other way around? Take a fireman, he's running into a burning building, whereas I'd think the first impulse would be to run away, hence he's reflecting on his first impulse to be brave.
I heard the old "Thinking fast and slow" dichotomy all over: You have snap impulses, and you have the ability to override them if you recognize them. Also "elephant and rider" from Haidt's books.
A fireman spends time training his "elephant" (impulses) to be helpful in fire situations, first by overcoming his impulse for fear in the face of fire.
This takes time.
A person who is predisposed to contemplation might appear smarter on tests or be smarter in actuality (see TFA), but that doesn't have much to do with someone who has faced and conquered their fearful impulses enough that they are dampened.
It's kind of both ways. Your impulse is controlled by your amygdala. Fight or flight, where "fight" in this instance represents running into a building to save others.
However, being able to reflect on your first impulse means you will sit back and assess the situation: "Can I get in?", "What are my chances?", "Am I protected enough?", "Will the structure collapse soon?", etc.
So your first instinct may be to run in, but you hesitate because you want to do that critical thinking first.
I heard the old "Thinking fast and slow" dichotomy all over: You have snap impulses, and you have the ability to override them if you recognize them. Also "elephant and rider" from Haidt's books.
A fireman spends time training his "elephant" (impulses) to be helpful in fire situations, first by overcoming his impulse for fear in the face of fire.
This takes time.
A person who is predisposed to contemplation might appear smarter on tests or be smarter in actuality (see TFA), but that doesn't have much to do with someone who has faced and conquered their fearful impulses enough that they are dampened.