In the first part of these two posts, I gave you the bad news that the human risk perception system, which has done such a fabulous job of determining the relatively simple and obvious risks we've faced thus far, may not be the light bulb. brighter to illuminate the darkness of the complex risks we face in the future. The problem is that the human risk perception system is based more on emotions and instincts than on reason and rationality, and that does not bode well for dealing with the immensely complex threat we all face by living in a different way. unsustainable on planet Earth. 6 billion of us, expected to reach 9 billion in 40 years, take in too much stuff and throw out too much waste in a finite biological system. We are already starting to feel the consequences, from climate change and deforestation to the loss of clean water and ocean fish, we even lack basic non-renewable resources, but we rely on a collection system. Risks to save us that is better designed to protect us from snakes and darkness than global abstractions mixed with technological complexity and unknowns.
These are the bad news. The good news is that we know. We know that the human risk perception system, which emphasizes instinct over intellect and feelings over facts, can skew things. We know that our risk perception system, with all its powers, is a risk in itself. And we have understood many details about how the human risk perception system works. Hopefully we're smart enough to realize that if the system can get us into trouble, we'd better use what we know about how this system works to avoid its pitfalls.
The first four chapters of my book, How Risky Are You Really? Why our fears do not always correspond to the facts, describes the response system to emotional risks; how it works…what makes some risks scarier than others…why we are too scared of some smaller risks and not scared enough of some of the bigger ones, like the ones that arise from our unsustainable ways. For those details, I'm afraid you'll have to read the book, and I hope you will. But here are some initial, free suggestions summarized from Chapter 5 “Closing the Perception Gap” on how we can use what we have learned about the psychology of risk perception to think a little more about risk and hopefully make healthier decisions.
1. Take your time! Our risk perception system is decided unconsciously and quickly, before we have all the facts. This "blink" instinct can be good for avoiding simple, immediate dangers, but it's not the most thoughtful way of knowing what to do about complex future threats like climate change. So, in the name of making healthier choices, don't automatically go for what you think is right in the first place. Keep an open mind and give yourself time, even a few minutes, to learn more and think. Give the “thinking” part of the process some space to do its part.
2. Don't be a ditto tribal chief! Research has shown that we shape our opinions to agree with the tribes/groups we most strongly identify with. It strengthens the tribe and the tribe's acceptance of us as members in good standing, both of which are important because as social animals we literally depend on our tribes for our survival. But when it comes to your health, do you want your own opinion or just someone else's? Don't just get your information from people or organizations you already agree with. And apply a bit of healthy skepticism to any news source. You may like Greenpeace or Conservative Senator James Inhofe, but neither is a reliable, neutral source of information on climate change.
3. Beware of optimism biases. We are too optimistic about what to expect when the details are not clear. Try to imagine things as imminent. This will give you a more realistic idea of the risk you are assessing. (I bet the exciting shark diving trip 6 months from now seems a little scarier if you imagine yourself standing on the edge of the boat about to jump, looking at the fins in the water!)
4. Think about the tradeoffs. Most options carry both risk and reward, but we generally place more emphasis on risk. What can be risky! If you're so concerned about the risk of mercury that you decide to forgo shellfish, you're missing out on the heart-healthy benefits of fish. And don't forget the risk-risk tradeoffs, when you get rid of them, you end up with another one. Our fears of nuclear power have made it more profitable for utility companies to generate electricity from coal and oil. Neither is risk-free, but we've swapped the risk for a higher one.
5. Don't be fooled by the feeling of risk. A natural hazard is less frightening than a man-made hazard, but solar radiation is more risky than radiation from nuclear power, cell phones, or power lines. Risks are safer if you have a sense of control, but driving is riskier than flying. A risk you choose to take seems less risky than a risk that is imposed on you, but you are more likely to drive and use a cell phone than nearby drivers who do the same.
When you get into a car, you wear your seatbelt, right? You know there is a risk on the road, so you use the tool provided to help reduce that risk. Our knowledge of the psychology of risk perception is like that seat belt. We can use it as a tool to reduce the risk that can arise when, due to our knee-jerk reactions to risk, we get the wrong risk. There are many more tips for making healthier choices about the risks you face—or fear—in Chapter 5, “Closing the Perception Gap,” of How Risky Is It Really? Why our fears don't always match the facts. I have published a free lengthy excerpt from the book that goes into much more detail. I hope you find the excerpt useful.
Recent comments