From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 17:07:45 MST
Emlyn wrote
> > > I think both Steve and Amara are talking
> > > about a more general propensity in people
> > > toward letting fear dominate their thinking,
> > > and thus behaviour.
> >
> > Okay, thanks. This is perhaps something
> > that quite a few of us do agree on, after all,
> > even though we approach it differently and
> > attend to different symptoms. In my view,
> > obsession with safety surely must have always
> > characterized some subset of the bell curve,
> > and the very recent exhibitions of it---at
> > a time when truly we as individuals face
> > fewer risks than ever before---is simply
> > caused by people not having enough ordinary
> > things to worry about.
>
> We all know a lot of people like this -
> It's pretty normal, I think. And I agree
> with you that we have less to worry about
> than ever before.
Okay, so we have to focus on what has
changed in the last decade or so (as
you also specified).
> > To some extent I have been guilty of all
> > [those] examples you posit... for another
> > example, I began wearing my seat belt.
> > Who can really say with any authority
> > which risks are worth taking and which
> > are not?
>
> Hey, I wear my seat belt too. It's
> convenient and seems to make a big
> difference to something which,
> statistically speaking, is damned
> dangerous, which is being in a
> motor vehicle.
Yes, but observe carefully: We didn't
use to do this! Until twenty or thirty
years ago---exactly the time frame you
have specified---people were quite non-
chalant about seat belts. We worry about
*many* things that we didn't used to.
Children in most states in the U.S. are
now required to wear helmets even for
bicycle riding! And everyone must stand
in line and undergo the most ridiculous
searches in order to board an airline!
The common explanation to this is that
quite rare incidents evoke in us vastly
more fear than they used to.
> Statistically speaking, you and I are
> so extraordinarily unlikely to be
> harmed by a "terrorist" that it makes
> no sense to devote any personal resources
> to the task of thwarting them, [Yes!]
> and certainly it makes no sense to let
> personal freedoms be impinged on to that end.
While you are perfectly correct about an
individual, in the light of the odds against
harm coming to him or her, I think that you
are wrong about a threat to a nation. The
people of any nation---and NOT in just the
last ten years---react very powerfully to
threats against their country. Here are
the reasons:
(1) They have a nationalistic spirit (patriotism)
(2) A big component of a threat is the unknown.
I know that many, including you, have no use
for number (1), and we have discussed why
patriotism exists, and have speculated on
its future necessity, and so forth.
But let me illustrate (2) with what I hope will
be an amusing example. A new office mate has
just moved into your cubical which you and he
share, and he seems to be a diligent and
satisfactory coworker except for one minor
trait. Every twenty minutes or so, when your
back is turned, he zings you in the ear with
a rubber band. Now it so happens that the
actual pain of this does not compare to your
headache which goes on hour after hour, and
the little zing poses absolutely no threat to
your health.
So why do you obsess over it? One reason is
that anyone crazy enough to do that might be
capable of anything. This is why the U.S.,
for example, gets so worked up over a few
thousand people at Pearl Harbor or the World
Trade Center, when traffic accidents take
vastly more people away and constitute a
much greater statistical hazard.
> Rationally, if we were to go after
> safety, we'd probably look a lot
> more at heart disease, cancer and
> car accidents.
Exactly. But it would be "hyper-rational",
not rational, to react to the potential
for attacks against heavily populated cities
with less concern than something like traffic
or cancer that does not have this great
*unknown* element in it.
> I think people get fixated on scary things
> (like terrorists, or meningococcal, or meteor
> strikes), mostly to feed the need for worry.
Yes --- if they do so out of *personal* concern.
Or, as I suggested earlier, out of a sort of
innumeracy (they have no real understanding of
the probabilities involved, or can't emotionally
internalize that information).
> I find ... that many people I talk to are
> more fearful now than they were in the past
> (say early nineties, after the fall of the
> Berlin wall, for a baseline).
Ah, this is important. The recent posts from
many have convinced me that this must be
a real phenomenon. And you *are* talking
about *personal* fear, not nationalistic
anger at insult. You probably recall the
posts by estropico sent on Tue 2/18/2003
at 8:03 AM called "Marching for Risk Avoidance"
where it was suggested that a component of
the peace marches was a fear that something
might change. So far I don't see any common
denominator, except, as I said, that people
have it so good, and so have a lot of free
time and energy to worry about things of no
impact on their own lives.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 17:03:28 MST