Here's a Stanford study on what I'm talking about.

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20243/misperceived_prices,_mistaken_mortality_risks.pdf

From Section 2.1 Consumer perception of mortality risks:

Quote :

"Extensive evidence from psychology literature shows that people make systematic mistakes in assessing their mortality risks. In particular, Lichtenstein et al. [1978] and several other studies have shown that people underestimate mortality risks from likely causes of death and overestimate mortality risks from unlikely causes of death. In related research, studies have found that people overestimate highly publicized risks."

From Section 2.2 Limits to consumer problem solving ability:

Quote :

"While much of the literature on consumer perceptions of mortality risks has focused on consumer self-reports rather than market behavior, there is also a growing body of evidence from markets which suggests that consumers have limited information processing ability, and hence use simple heuristics to economize on this scarce resource."

Statistics can be misrepresented, but they're not lying in this case. Insurance companies take mortality pretty seriously, and have a huge interest in being correct in their assessments of it. Their studies tell us that consumers tend to not only be bad at this, but to be really bad at it--more often overestimating the unlikely risks and underestimating the likely risks than getting it correct.

As resolved as the terrorists may be to kill us all--and they're quite resolved, the fact of the matter is that they're horrifically inefficient at doing so. It's a matter of objective reality. As such, there's not nearly the rational justification for fearing death at the hands of terrorists as there is to being afraid of dying in auto accidents, physical inactivity, incidents with firearms, smoking, other drugs, and even sexual behaviors.

Their intent doesn't make the threat any bigger, only more horrifying because it presents you with the idea your death isn't within your control. Emotional reactions simply aren't rational, though. Fear-driven risk assessments beat actual risks to death. And the numbers back this up rather soundly.

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ...]

9/11/2006 12:13:02 PM

Gamecat I hear what you're saying...I mean heart disease is the #1 cause of death in America if I recall correctly...more people die each year of some type of heart disease than any other cause I believe...I maybe mistaken but its definitely top 3...auto accidents cause plenty of deaths...lung cancer, etc

However heart disease in some cases can be medically treated, and when not, its accepted as "natural causes"...auto accidents can usually be avoided by not driving, and can often be avoided by driving safely and defensively...lung cancer can usually be significantly reduced/prevented by not smoking, etc

terrorism on the other hand cannot really be predicted...granted we've had tips from the intelligence community, however vague or specific, that can help us predict/anticipate attacks which is certainly a good thing...however there is a huge difference in fearing something and simply realizing something is a threat to take seriously

and none of this has to do with 12/7...i'm still not sure what nutsmackr's point was

9/11/2006 12:21:22 PM

Prior to 12/7 Americans assumed that America was protected by friendly borders with Canada and Mexico and vast amounts of oceans. 12/7 proved that belief wrong. After 12/7 Americans realized that America's natural borders no longer provided the protection. To that end, 12/7 is far more important to the American psyche than 9/11

9/11/2006 12:31:14 PM

didnt 9/11 kind of do the same thing for our generation? kind of a wake up call that we still arent protected from everything?

9/11/2006 12:36:31 PM

I'm just saying equate how seriously you take it with its likelihood of occurrence. Optimally, I'd like to see the government meter out the scale of its reactions according to the actual risks people face, not their perceptions of risk that have been muttled by fear.

I've never argued it isn't serious. I'll even state point blank, again, that it is serious. It is a threat. But I do not believe it is likely enough to justify the political obsession with it.

Auto accidents are a fair comparison because you can lack control over the situation as well. You are correct in that defensive driving mitigates the risk, but it doesn't remove it. A runaway freight truck isn't going to discriminate between the driver inching into the intersection at a stoplight and the minivan stopped five feet behind it in the other lane. Accidents of that nature kill thousands of innocent people--even defensive drivers--every year.

In fact, I'd argue (admittedly without statistical justification, none is available) that the mortality risk of such accidents is significantly lower than auto accidents in general, but still not to that of terrorism. This is just due to the fact that auto accidents are significantly (85 times) more likely to kill a person than a terrorist attack is. Even if the risk is reduced by 80 percent, it's still 12 times more likely to kill you.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: didnt 9/11 kind of do the same thing for our generation? kind of a wake up call that we still arent protected from everything?"

Yes. It definitely did. The point, at least I think nutsmackr's point, is that the lesson of 9/11 should've already been learned. Our generation should've learned it in history class when they learned about Pearl Harbor.

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ...]

9/11/2006 12:38:30 PM

its a lot easier to learn something...not to be taught something but to truly REALIZE something...when you see it happen yourself instead of when you read about "something from the 40s" in a book

also we know that Germany, Japan and Italy are pretty much our allies now...we are somewhat confident that those former axis countries are not preparing war on us...but violent islamofascists are

but my main gripe with the terror/auto accident comparison isnt the numbers...sure lots more people die every year from auto accidents...but i think the role of govt is to ensure the safety of their citizens to the best of their abilities...we have implemented things like seatbelts, airbags, stronger auto frames, etc...but we cant tell people to stop driving cars...however we CAN try and stop terrorist attacks

9/11/2006 12:46:05 PM

The fact that it's in a textbook doesn't keep it from being true. Why should we have to expect a catastrophic attack every generation when the facts teaching the lesson are already available?

The government has the ability to require vehicles be made safer than they already are. They can place more restrictions on who's allowed to have or keep a license. Stricter legislation and stricter enforcement of current legislation could do something about this risk, even today. They can also put more highway patrolmen on the road so that they could afford to spend more time pulling over dangerous drivers who do more than endanger their own lives.

Plenty more can be done on this front as well.

And again, nobody has argued that our government should ignore terrorist attacks. I don't see what makes it the central purpose of governance from which practically all other policy must be derived.

9/11/2006 12:58:15 PM

wouldnt all those license restrictions and vehicle requirements take away our freedoms? I'm just asking cause I know somebody else would say it if I didnt

9/11/2006 1:00:41 PM

extending priviliges to those who abuse them is not a "freedom"

9/11/2006 1:01:25 PM

That'd depend entirely on the implementation. There are already limits on freedom as it relates to auto safety. Likewise, there are limits on the freedom of those who wish to use air travel.

9/11/2006 1:02:50 PM

what about people who cant afford new cars? they wouldnt have the freedom to drive their older cars because their older cars wouldnt be deemed safe enough...defend that

9/11/2006 1:02:53 PM

^ Gov. doesn't usually implement policy like that. They would set a timeline for changes to be gradually phased in (like the third brake light).

9/11/2006 1:04:35 PM

^ Exactly. There's usually a grandfathering involved.

9/11/2006 1:06:58 PM

a timeline for people to be able to afford new cars?

9/11/2006 1:09:04 PM

No. A timeline for auto manufacturers to stop making vehicles without specific safety features. Seatbelts were implemented in this way. It's not like the government showed up and seized the cars of poor people who couldn't afford new models...

9/11/2006 1:11:46 PM

this Randy kid sounds like a fucking Facist

9/11/2006 1:32:57 PM

Quote :

"The fact that it's in a textbook doesn't keep it from being true. Why should we have to expect a catastrophic attack every generation when the facts teaching the lesson are already available?"

I hear ya, but there are people that still deny the holocaust.

9/11/2006 1:47:52 PM

salisburyboy

9/11/2006 1:49:50 PM

^^ You'll never get 100% agreement about anything. We live in an inherently social world with many social agendas tugging individuals (each of whom have a different memory of history and grasp of logic) in a thousand different directions. It's rather amazing how we can actually get so many people to agree that anything happened as described even fifty years afterwards.

The Holocaust is a good example. And it's a good thing the museum was established specifically to fulfill the mission of proving that as unbelievable as it may be to future generations, something that terrible can and did happen--even in the middle of the 20th century.

9/11/2006 2:19:43 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52325

9/11/2006 3:15:35 PM

looks better than it did in July 02 when I took this picture

9/11/2006 3:38:43 PM

Quote :

""I firmly believe, as does every person here, that this deep, empty hole has come to stand not only for the New York City of today, but also for the transformation of the entire United States since Sept. 11, 2001.""

9/11/2006 3:47:54 PM

Quote :

"this Randy kid sounds like a fucking Facist "

He use to be thaBigL .

9/11/2006 7:01:02 PM

Quote :

"Prior to 12/7 Americans assumed that America was protected by friendly borders with Canada and Mexico and vast amounts of oceans. 12/7 proved that belief wrong. After 12/7 Americans realized that America's natural borders no longer provided the protection. To that end, 12/7 is far more important to the American psyche than 9/11"

Military forces representing a country, attacking an American military base

/=

Terrorists hijacking commercial airliners, attacking civilians

=/

you lose

9/12/2006 9:46:09 AM

; or . take your choice

quit arguing symantics

9/12/2006 9:54:19 AM

thats not semantics

its a nationless base of maniacs attacking thousands of civilians vs. an organized armed forces representing a sovereign state attacking a military base

12/7 and 9/11 were quite different

9/12/2006 9:57:18 AM

. or ;

9/12/2006 10:03:37 AM

apples or oranges

9/12/2006 10:48:36 AM

. or ;

apples and oranges do not follow the line of reasoning.

Despite it all, I know your modus operandi

avoid the core debate and focus on trivialities in the argument until you frustrate your opposite into ignoring you.

9/12/2006 10:51:55 AM

planes flying into the WTC = trivialities?

9/12/2006 10:54:44 AM

9/12/2006 10:56:19 AM

MILITARY TARGET /= CIVILIAN TARGET

SOVEREIGN ARMY /= ROGUE TERRORIST GROUP

any of this making sense to you?

9/12/2006 10:58:56 AM

9/12/2006 10:59:53 AM

trolling your own threads since you cant dispute what i've said

nice

9/12/2006 11:01:54 AM

No

I'm not trolling

I'm just sick of your white noise.

you've dodged the core debate and focused on the periphery. this is how your funciton. Why should I spend anytime listening to you and debating you. I'd rather debate someone with a functioning brain cell.

9/12/2006 11:09:19 AM

Quote :

"this is how your funciton"

k

all you're doing is getting mad that:

- people HAVENT forgotten 12/7
- 9/11 and 12/7 are completely different
- people realize 9/11's attackers are the current threat, not Japan from the 1940's
- Nobody is backing you up and your supposed profound point

9/12/2006 11:22:30 AM

No

I'm not trolling

I'm just sick of your white noise.

you've dodged the core debate and focused on the periphery. this is how your funciton. Why should I spend anytime listening to you and debating you. I'd rather debate someone with a functioning brain cell.

9/12/2006 11:39:59 AM

Quote :

"this is how your funciton"

9/12/2006 11:49:46 AM

back to good ole twista. Pick on the typo

9/12/2006 11:52:30 AM

back to good old nutsmackr

make threads about people he doesnt like and issues he doesnt understand

9/12/2006 11:55:30 AM

your entire argument stems from republican talking points. You cannot argue with talking points because they are worded as logical fallacies and the parroted like they are truth.

9/12/2006 12:13:06 PM

trolling your own threads since you cant dispute what i've said

nice

Quote :

"I am so sick of the term, "Everything changed after 9/11" The only fucking thing that changed was that we started to let fear run our lives And the government of this land has encouraged that to happen We as a society must remember our four freedoms and most importantly remember the last Freedom from Fear. "

ah how convenient...your entire argument stems from democrat talking points which are worded as logical fallacies and parroted like the truth

9/12/2006 12:17:04 PM

ha ha ha

do you honestly think that is a democrat talking point?

the democrats are equally playing the fucking 9/11 card.

9/12/2006 1:31:46 PM

this whole thread is worthless, its no wonder you made it, another shitty thread by nutsmackr, OMG 9/11 WAS NOTHING, MORE PEOPLE DIE FROM CARS

9/12/2006 2:09:00 PM

i dont think that answered his question.

9/12/2006 2:11:42 PM