Do non-math geeks really assess risk so differently?

[isomorphisms]

4 homicides in Vancouver area 'not linked':

With the lack of any link among the slayings or any connection to gangs, Malo said he wanted to reassure the public there was no reason for fear or panic on the streets.
That is: people are afraid that

Comments

[daproofpimp]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of relative risk.

I would assume that four gang-related murders mean that more murders are going to happen. If the gang is actually powerful enough to collect protection money, many local businesses may be forced to choose a side in the violence and suffer repercussions if they chose incorrectly. Also, in gang wars, passers-by sometimes get killed. In other words, I would equate (a) with continued levels of violence that I cannot entirely predict. What if members of rival gangs happen to be on the same city bus with me, and start shooting? What if one of the gangs breaks my store front in an effort to convince me to pay protection money?

However, if the murders are unlinked, the story I have in my head is that they are four one time events. Someone slept with the wrong person's wife. Someone's schizophrenic nephew forgot to take his medicine. Someone refused to hand over his wallet in a mugging. A bar fight went wrong. These things happen, but I can't imagine them happening to me, and they don't act as predictors of future murders.

[isomorphisms]

Ok, your analysis fits into the category of "thoughtful people can disagree" as opposed to "WTF". Perhaps I am more pessimistic than you, as I figure that some one-time event has a decent chance of happening to me.

But a few years ago there were innocent bystanders getting killed by gangs in broad daylight, which definitely is cause for random people to be afraid.