When Assessing Novel Risks, Facts Are Not Enough

Baruch Fischoff
Scientific American
September 2019

Here is an excerpt:

To start off, we wanted to figure out how well the general public understands the risks they face in everyday life. We asked groups of laypeople to estimate the annual death toll from causes such as drowning, emphysema and homicide and then compared their estimates with scientific ones. Based on previous research, we expected that people would make generally accurate predictions but that they would overestimate deaths from causes that get splashy or frequent headlines—murders, tornadoes—and underestimate deaths from “quiet killers,” such as stroke and asthma, that do not make big news as often.

Overall, our predictions fared well. People overestimated highly reported causes of death and underestimated ones that received less attention. Images of terror attacks, for example, might explain why people who watch more television news worry more about terrorism than individuals who rarely watch. But one puzzling result emerged when we probed these beliefs. People who were strongly opposed to nuclear power believed that it had a very low annual death toll. Why, then, would they be against it? The apparent paradox made us wonder if by asking them to predict average annual death tolls, we had defined risk too narrowly. So, in a new set of questions we asked what risk really meant to people. When we did, we found that those opposed to nuclear power thought the technology had a greater potential to cause widespread catastrophes. That pattern held true for other technologies as well.

To find out whether knowing more about a technology changed this pattern, we asked technical experts the same questions. The experts generally agreed with laypeople about nuclear power's death toll for a typical year: low. But when they defined risk themselves, on a broader time frame, they saw less potential for problems. The general public, unlike the experts, emphasized what could happen in a very bad year. The public and the experts were talking past each other and focusing on different parts of reality.

The info is here.

Psychologists Are Standing Up Against Torture at Gitmo

Rebecca Gordon
theNation.com
Originally posted September 11, 2018

Sometimes the good guys do win. That’s what happened on August 8 in San Francisco when the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) decided to extend a policy keeping its members out of the US detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The APA’s decision is important—and not just symbolically. Today we have a president who has promised to bring back torture and “load up” Guantánamo “with some bad dudes.” When healing professionals refuse to work there, they are standing up for human rights and against torture.

It wasn’t always so. In the early days of Guantánamo, military psychologists contributed to detainee interrogations there. It was for Guantánamo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved multiple torture methods, including among others excruciating stress positions, prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and enforced nudity. Military psychologists advised on which techniques would take advantage of the weaknesses of individual detainees. And it was two psychologists, one an APA member, who designed the CIA’s whole “enhanced interrogation program.”

The info is here.

Trump fails morality test on Charlottesville

John Kass
Chicago Tribune
Originally posted on August 16, 2017

After the deadly violence of Charlottesville, Va., the amoral man in the White House failed his morality test. And in doing so, he gave the left a powerful weapon.

(cut)

So President Trump was faced with a question of morality.

All he had to do was be unequivocal in his condemnation of the alt-right mob.

His brand as an alpha in a sea of political beta males promised he wouldn't be equivocal about anything.

But he failed, miserably, his mouth and tongue transformed into a dollop of lukewarm tapioca, talking in equivocal terms, about the violence on "many sides."

He then he offered another statement, ostensibly to clarify and condemn the mob. But that was followed, predictably, by even more comments, as he desperately tried to publicly litigate his earlier failures.

In doing so, he gave the alt-right all they could dream of.

He said some attending the rally were "fine people."

Fine people don't go to white supremacist rallies to spew hate. Fine people don't remotely associate with the KKK. Fine people at a protest see men in white hoods and leave.

Fine people don't get in a car and in a murderous rage, run others down, including Heather Heyer, who in her death has become a saint of the left.

The article is here.

Immune from Cyber-fire? The Psychological and Physiological Effects of Cyberwar

By Michael L. Gross, Dapna Canetti, & Israel Waismel-Manor
In: Binary Bullets: The Ethics of Cyberwarfare.
Edited by Fritz Allhoff, Adam Henschke, and Bradley Jay Strawser.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming

Here is an excerpt:

Following an overview that describes the challenge that cyber-operations pose for the principle of noncombatant immunity, the following sections map out and analyze the harms of cyberwarfare. Consider, first, physiological harm.  Although no person has lost his life or suffered any kind of physical injury from a cyber-attack to date, the literature is replete with scenarios of death and devastation.  These come in the course of cyber-attacks on vital infrastructures that disrupt air and
rail transportation or poison water supplies. In many ways, these are similar to the consequences of conventional war. For the most part, however, modern cyberwarfare causes no physical injury. As a result, one may reasonably ask whether noncombatants enjoy protection from cyber-attacks that disrupt telecommunications, disable social media, or destroy, disclose or steal financial data and personal information. The answer hinges upon the psychological harm that victims suffer, particularly if belligerents target civilians and civilian infrastructures directly.  Extrapolating from studies of cyber-bullying, identity theft and ordinary burglary, and building upon the effects of simulated cyber-terrorism in the laboratory, we explore the psychological harms of cyberwarfare. Cyberwarfare is not benign but causes stress, anxiety and fear. Such mental suffering threatens to disrupt routine life, impair educational and workplace performance, impact significantly on the poor
and elderly, and increase public pressure on the government to act. Although most forms of psychological suffering are not as intense, prolonged or irreversible as bodily injury or loss of life, our analysis suggests that the psychological harm of cyberwar can affect well-being nonetheless.

The entire article is here.