Death by Risk Aversion.
Jan. 31st, 2006 04:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Thanks to
peaceful_dragon for pointing out this article on the harm done by avoiding risk. Its a flaw I have in my personal life that I've been working on. (Sure, I can think outside the box and invent a new idea with what I think is huge profit potential, but am I willing to, for example, sell my house and mortgage the cats to raise the money to try and make it real -- no way.)
It also bears a relation to my previous post, but I'm not sure how obvious that is to anyone but me.
I've been meaning to post about the uniqueness of obviousness for over a week now, but haven't had the time. Its also possible that when I've more fully digested the above article I'll have more to say on that topic as well.
Oh, and I loved the illustrations.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
It also bears a relation to my previous post, but I'm not sure how obvious that is to anyone but me.
I've been meaning to post about the uniqueness of obviousness for over a week now, but haven't had the time. Its also possible that when I've more fully digested the above article I'll have more to say on that topic as well.
Oh, and I loved the illustrations.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 10:10 pm (UTC)After all, I did start out in nuclear physics.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 08:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 06:30 pm (UTC)No doubt one of the items that you thought talked down to you was the graphic depicition of the risks of coal, showing a large paragraph or two of crosses to represent the deaths from that, while showing a tiny dot to depict the deaths from nuclear power "For those who can't do simple arithmetic, there are visual aids" (-Spider). I think this just shows a good deal of frustration on the part of the pro-nuke side, since the anti-nukes are notoriously lacking in a sense of perspective. They hear that there is a risk, and they start screaming about it without stopping to think about magnitudes, compare risks, or consider the risk of "no risk". If you didn't read all the way through the book (THHoNgN), you might have missed the explanation that "a sense of perspective is what this book is about." I gave a class presentation about deep space communications, and one of my fellow engineering students actually put up his hand and asked if the few watts of energy in which the Earth is bathed by transmissions back from space probes might harm the environment. In retrospect, I wanted to tell the class that as engineers, one of our roles to the public should be to educate them about the meaning of orders of magnitude.
Another depiction of this frustration was depicted in "Star Trek the Next Generation", when Dr. Crusher protests to the Captain that the tiny risk represented by the sickness carried by a patient in sickbay did not merit killing the sick person in order to protect the guardian's charge -- this was the episode in which Wesley meets a shape-changing girl.
There's a good deal of cutting humor in THHoNgN, as you may have noticed; you shouldn't take it personally, but rather see it as directed against the irrational.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 10:33 pm (UTC)It did no one any good, and I refused to be dragged down to that level in the debate.
For example, IIRC, that page of crosses were total industry deaths, not deaths per watt, which hugely exaggerated the safety difference because of the much larger reliance on coal. It was tricks like that which convinced me I could take nothing he said at face value, and convinced me the book was more of a hindrance to a balanced view than an aid.
(Lies and distortions are never valid tactics, no matter what the other side is engaged in.)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 08:09 pm (UTC)There were more than one illustration of comparative risks using rows of crosses. I'm not sure he committed the fallacy of not "comparing apples with apples"; perhaps we should take another look.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 10:38 pm (UTC)