Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "the backfire effect"--us conservatism and the problem of dissonant information

Willravel · 07-24-2009, 02:09 PM

Let's break down the ability to assess risks. There are two factors:
Risk: the chances of something going wrong
Hazard: the consequence of something going wrong
If you are barbecuing, you have a relatively high risk of being burned by a small ember on your skin, but a relatively low hazard as the injury is temporary and doesn't reach a high level on the pain scale. On the other hand, if you go swimming in the ocean there is a very low risk of being attacked by a shark, but the hazard is quite high.

For each of these, I can gather and process information to determine likelihood:

I know that on average there are only 69 shark attacks per year resulting in an average of 4 deaths. Compare this to the annual number of people that are in oceans that might have sharks in them, and I can attain a rough estimate of the statistical odds of being attacked. They're quite low. Is this number subjective? Not at all. It is based completely in reality, the reality we both share. If 4 people died last year in shark attacks in my reality, 4 people died last year in shark attacks in your reality. While small factors can altar the statistics, such as diving in shark invested waters with an open cut and several raw steaks, for the sake of argument let's just say I'm your average Pacific swimmer.

The hazard, on the other hand, is severe. Even minor shark attacks can bring with them severe lacerations, damaging an individual severely.

It should be noted that hazard cannot determine risk and risk cannot determine hazard. They are independent. Risk can be high along with hazard being high, Risk can be high with hazard being low, risk can be low with hazard being high, risk and hazard can both be low, and everything in between.

In order to determine the best response, you must asses the risk using both hazard and risk. If risk is quite high and hazard is quite low or nonexistent, you would be more likely to continue on. If risk is quite low or nonexistent and hazard is quite high, you would be more likely to continue on.

My point:
The hazard of nuclear war is extremely high, but you need an objective methodology in order to determine risk. Without that objective determination of risk, one cannot make a determination.

The best methodology of determining the risk of Iraq seeking, finding, attaining, enriching, creating a delivery system for, and firing a nuclear weapon at the US can be determined using available evidence. Were they seeking nuclear materials? So far there is at best circumstantial evidence; US officials say he was looking for them, but they didn't provide evidence and they've been caught being dishonest before. Did Iraq find and attain nuclear material? Again, there's really no direct evidence for this at all. While it's been suggested that Iraq may have moved some weapons into Syria before the invasion, this was never verified. Did they enrich uranium? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had the ability to enrich uranium. Not even the administration claimed this was happening. Did they have a delivery system that could reach the US? There is no evidence that Iraq could even reach Jerusalem, let alone develop advanced intercontinental delivery systems. Obviously such a nuclear missile was never fired.

These are the facts. They include nothing subjective and nothing based in emotion.

07-24-2009, 02:09 PM	#89 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Let's break down the ability to assess risks. There are two factors: Risk: the chances of something going wrong Hazard: the consequence of something going wrong If you are barbecuing, you have a relatively high risk of being burned by a small ember on your skin, but a relatively low hazard as the injury is temporary and doesn't reach a high level on the pain scale. On the other hand, if you go swimming in the ocean there is a very low risk of being attacked by a shark, but the hazard is quite high. For each of these, I can gather and process information to determine likelihood: I know that on average there are only 69 shark attacks per year resulting in an average of 4 deaths. Compare this to the annual number of people that are in oceans that might have sharks in them, and I can attain a rough estimate of the statistical odds of being attacked. They're quite low. Is this number subjective? Not at all. It is based completely in reality, the reality we both share. If 4 people died last year in shark attacks in my reality, 4 people died last year in shark attacks in your reality. While small factors can altar the statistics, such as diving in shark invested waters with an open cut and several raw steaks, for the sake of argument let's just say I'm your average Pacific swimmer. The hazard, on the other hand, is severe. Even minor shark attacks can bring with them severe lacerations, damaging an individual severely. It should be noted that hazard cannot determine risk and risk cannot determine hazard. They are independent. Risk can be high along with hazard being high, Risk can be high with hazard being low, risk can be low with hazard being high, risk and hazard can both be low, and everything in between. In order to determine the best response, you must asses the risk using both hazard and risk. If risk is quite high and hazard is quite low or nonexistent, you would be more likely to continue on. If risk is quite low or nonexistent and hazard is quite high, you would be more likely to continue on. My point: The hazard of nuclear war is extremely high, but you need an objective methodology in order to determine risk. Without that objective determination of risk, one cannot make a determination. The best methodology of determining the risk of Iraq seeking, finding, attaining, enriching, creating a delivery system for, and firing a nuclear weapon at the US can be determined using available evidence. Were they seeking nuclear materials? So far there is at best circumstantial evidence; US officials say he was looking for them, but they didn't provide evidence and they've been caught being dishonest before. Did Iraq find and attain nuclear material? Again, there's really no direct evidence for this at all. While it's been suggested that Iraq may have moved some weapons into Syria before the invasion, this was never verified. Did they enrich uranium? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had the ability to enrich uranium. Not even the administration claimed this was happening. Did they have a delivery system that could reach the US? There is no evidence that Iraq could even reach Jerusalem, let alone develop advanced intercontinental delivery systems. Obviously such a nuclear missile was never fired. These are the facts. They include nothing subjective and nothing based in emotion.