I was prompted to write this post following the great panic spreading worldwide after the explosions in the nuclear facility in Fukushima – panic that was absolutely unfounded if you happen to live outside Japan, let alone in Europe. That is what scientist say and what data indicates, but the opposite to what people generally believe in and how they behave.
A few years back I read a book called “Risk – The Science and Politics of Fear” (by Dan Gardner), which explains why people tend to worry about events with low likelihood of harming them directly (terrorism, nuclear leak, plane crash) and ignore far more likely reasons to worry such as strokes, obesity or lung cancer. It also explains why sound data alleviating our concerns does not work as expected, as opposed to even scarce evidence confirming our fears. All explanations in the book are based on quality behavioural research. I am not going to explain any of this in detail, but will give you a few highlights:
· In the age of information overflow our reactions, as those of our ancestors hunting in the African savannah, are driven more by our gut (hunch, instincts, emotions) than our brain. It means that our modern-day ability of cool analysis is too often overshadowed by the primal survival instinct. In addition, on the gut level, we do not differentiate very well between the real and perceived danger. This is a very simplified explanation, but basically means that e.g. the level of how safe one feels may decrease after hearing about an assault on a shop keeper in a completely different area of the town. Similarly, our fear of flying will increase after hearing about a plane crash in another country. Same happens now in relation to Fukushima – explosion caused by an earthquake in Japan prompts people in Germany to close their own reactors. There is no direct relation between both, but the gut will always win the battle with the brain.
· The second problem is the amount of information we receive from different sources these days. In order to find its way to us it has to stand out, surprise, even better - shock. Mundane everyday life stories just do not get through. This is hardly news to you - everyone knows that media exaggerates. Not many realise however how it impacts our daily lives – we simply worry and fear too much because of things that do not really concern us. This is why e.g. people think that the world is full of conflicts, whereas it has never been safer to live on planet earth.
· The third factor is how the information (data) is presented to us. This is a direct consequence of the point above – news has to be interesting. It is also because journalists are people – their gut usually beats the brain. This is my example of what we can often see in the news. Headline states that “Eating eggs increases the risk of cancer three times”. What it may really mean is:
- Risk increases from 0.034% to 0.1% or a similar absurdly small number;
- This happens only if you eat more than 10 eggs per day; and
- The experiment was conducted on a group of 50-year-old obese men.
- What we remember from the above is usually the headline – we do not have time to read the detail. Besides, our gut is already scared of the information in the headline, so it will be likely to ignore the evidence that does not support it. After all, if you live in a savannah and you detect even a slightest threat of a lion coming to kill you, you will not think twice, but run.
Coming back to modern live: read the data, not the headlines; analyse calmly and… relax.
No comments:
Post a Comment