There's more than one definition of safe at work here. There's safe, as a measure of risk to J. Random Person, and then there's safe as a measure of risk and emotion to _you_. You are not J. Random Person. It's ok if n% of people die flying on planes - they aren't you. No matter how small the percentage, the fear is that you might be in that small percentage. There's no 'n% dead', you're either dead or alive. So you might accept that flying is safe, overall, but believe it to be unsafe for you.
Likewise, look at unemployment. It's one thing to know that more than 1 in 20 people is unemployed. It's another to be one of those people. Even in a secure job, you can fear the consequences.
Besides, if the mere act of flying causes you stress, that increases the chance that you could die on a plane, even if it never crashes. *grin*
Sure, but the distinction between safe and safe for you should collapse for a rational person. Almost any activity you can think of carries with it a non-zero chance of death. You could have gotten into a fatal car crash on the drive to work; you could have been hit by a bus crossing the street; you could have been killed by an intruder had you stayed at home today instead. All of these kinds of risks are (at least in theory) quantifiable. When we're rational, we weigh these risks against the benefits of doing stuff -- so, sure, you could crash on your way to work, but you (rightly) judge that the chances of that happening are quite small, and the more likely outcome -- that you go to work, keep your job, make money, etc. -- outweigh that
( ... )
Logic says it should collapse. Emotion doesn't. A rational person can believe the logic that says it is safe, and also believe the emotions they are experiencing, which says that it isn't. Please note that you started this question with an _irrational_ fear. So by that statement, there is no problem with having the distinction.
The real fears here have more to do with the unknown and the uncontrollable, combined with enough awareness of the world to understand the risks. Driving to work is not unknown, we do it all the time, nor is it uncontrollable - we're in the drivers seat. My wife often expresses irrational fears when riding as a passenger in my car, for similar reasons. (I don't have empirical proof, but my driving seems to be insignificantly worse than hers.)
Right, we're definitely in the realm of irrational behavior in these kinds of cases; the problem is locating where the irrationality is. All that I was saying -- poorly and circuitously -- is that I wouldn't locate it in a claim like 'x is safe in general, but not for me.' This is because, arguably, I *do* think x is safe for me; that's why I say that flying is safe, for instance. This is also why I don't think that I'm special; I don't think I have bad luck with respect to planes or something like that. (Yeah, my original example was inspired by myself, though somewhat exaggerated). One place to locate the irrationality is in having contradictory beliefs about the safety of flying; another is a rupture between by beliefs and my behavior. I guess that's kinda what this poll was testing intuitions on
( ... )
I don't think that Hirsch or common sense has anything to do with this; the question really is how we are to understand belief. Most people think that actions are importantly tied to beliefs -- I eat X because I believe that X is tasty, or whatever. So why not I believe that X is dangerous because I'm scared by X?
I'm pretty sure inconsistency is the hallmark of humanity. Actions and /conscience/ belief can clearly differ. Hence the psyc idea of an unconscience. This also reminds me of the split brain problem. I can see the arguement that belief can only be judged by action and that a person may not actually know what they believe but actions betray that. However, it strikes me as a definational problem. How you define belief changes the answer.
Comments 7
Likewise, look at unemployment. It's one thing to know that more than 1 in 20 people is unemployed. It's another to be one of those people. Even in a secure job, you can fear the consequences.
Besides, if the mere act of flying causes you stress, that increases the chance that you could die on a plane, even if it never crashes. *grin*
Reply
Reply
The real fears here have more to do with the unknown and the uncontrollable, combined with enough awareness of the world to understand the risks. Driving to work is not unknown, we do it all the time, nor is it uncontrollable - we're in the drivers seat. My wife often expresses irrational fears when riding as a passenger in my car, for similar reasons. (I don't have empirical proof, but my driving seems to be insignificantly worse than hers.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment