[News] Increased risk of being randomly horrifically attack while out and about

[trueblue]

I saw a documentary, which claimed, and this may or may not be true, that you're statistically less likely to suffer a violent death, wherever you are in the world than at any point in human history. Whether you take, 1 year, 10 years, 100 years 1000 years ago, your chances of avoiding an end like this are better than they have ever been.

What has changed is social media makes these things more visible (though I guess this is far from uniform) and we're more able to humanise the victim, which is positive, but people are bad at working out the chances of this happening to themselves or their family.

Dan Gardner's book "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" is getting a bit old now (2009) but provided a fascinating sense of perspective. If I remember rightly, also useful for revealing how our inability to assess risk properly is used very effectively by people in positions of influence, whether that's selling us things or running our countries. A much better read than the rather dry title suggests!

One example, on a slight tangent as not about physical 'risk', is that we're easily persuaded that a sequence of events is more likely than a single event, even though statistically that's untrue. Advertisers, bookmakers and politicians exploit this all the time.

 

[portlock seagull]

You can debate the rights and wrongs of one parent families, but the fact is youth services were a lifeline for some.

For the Tories it was an ideological decision to cut them, it was all part of austerity. We are now living with the fallout

Indeed, but too many absentee fathers in this world playing their part which cannot help

 

[herecomesaregular]

I do think it feels worse though because of social media. More images shared etc.

and I've found flying harder since watching a few overgraphic (cgi) movies!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

and I've found flying harder since watching a few overgraphic (cgi) movies!

Worried about SNAKES?

 

[Stat Brother]

and I've found flying harder since watching a few overgraphic (cgi) movies!

Well you'll not be flying anywhere for football, any time soon.

 

[Insel affe]

Well you'll not be flying anywhere for football, any time soon.

Bollox, pre season in Japan.

 

[Stat Brother]

Dan Gardner's book "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" is getting a bit old now (2009) but provided a fascinating sense of perspective. If I remember rightly, also useful for revealing how our inability to assess risk properly is used very effectively by people in positions of influence, whether that's selling us things or running our countries. A much better read than the rather dry title suggests!

I didn't want to go full 'tinfoil hat' while picking at the thread title but this was certainly one aspect I was dancing around re sensationalised reporting of events.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Of course none of it bears thinking about.

For me very, very low down on the list of 'what's wrong with the world' is perfectly summed up with how you start that reply.
'wasn't meant to be sensationalist' and 'I am just over worrying'.

You're entitled to be over worried by something that just won't happen, by virtue of the sensationalist reporting which follows such events.

That said if the events that are far more likely to do us horrific damage were actually sensationalised when reported, I doubt any of us would step out of our homes (soon to be called death traps) so maybe it's for the best, after all.

I'm horrified by the facts not any sensationalist reporting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive or empathetic or maybe you are not.

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm horrified by the facts not any sensationalist reporting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive or empathetic or maybe you are not.

Blimey that added extra is a little unnecessary - here's me thinking we'd both done a good job of explaining ourselves.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Blimey that added extra is a little unnecessary - here's me thinking we'd both done a good job of explaining ourselves.

I said maybe!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Dan Gardner's book "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" is getting a bit old now (2009) but provided a fascinating sense of perspective. If I remember rightly, also useful for revealing how our inability to assess risk properly is used very effectively by people in positions of influence, whether that's selling us things or running our countries. A much better read than the rather dry title suggests!

Given that humans exaggerate some forms of risk while downplaying others, I think there is enough evidence to suggest this doesn't simply mean that humans are poor risk assessors. More, they game their assessments to suit their needs or prejudices (or both) and this can lend them advantage (albeit perhaps only short term). Recently I came across someone who thinks it was OK for her daughter to smoke during pregnancy because it 'calms her nerves'. Yet she won't go out alone late at night in case she gets mugged. By a gypsy or an asylum seeker.

My view is that our default mode is to initially see danger in everything, and then to modify the risk assessment to the point of recklessness when we find we enjoy something (even if that something has a proven risk). I remember in the 80s before it became very common to fly that there were those who considered flying on holiday to be a terrible risk. But this included a large number of people who had never flown, and perhaps could not afford to do so. Therefore perhaps it made them feel better to say they won't do it because it's so dangerous. And yet the same people would drink and drive.

And of course you are right about people manipulating risk perception for political ends. Vote labour and lose your job. Vote tory and die from lack of NHS.

 

[schmunk]

I said maybe!

 

[herecomesaregular]

Brilliant

 

[trueblue]

Given that humans exaggerate some forms of risk while downplaying others, I think there is enough evidence to suggest this doesn't simply mean that humans are poor risk assessors. More, they game their assessments to suit their needs or prejudices (or both) and this can lend them advantage (albeit perhaps only short term). Recently I came across someone who thinks it was OK for her daughter to smoke during pregnancy because it 'calms her nerves'. Yet she won't go out alone late at night in case she gets mugged. By a gypsy or an asylum seeker.

My view is that our default mode is to initially see danger in everything, and then to modify the risk assessment to the point of recklessness when we find we enjoy something (even if that something has a proven risk). I remember in the 80s before it became very common to fly that there were those who considered flying on holiday to be a terrible risk. But this included a large number of people who had never flown, and perhaps could not afford to do so. Therefore perhaps it made them feel better to say they won't do it because it's so dangerous. And yet the same people would drink and drive.

And of course you are right about people manipulating risk perception for political ends. Vote labour and lose your job. Vote tory and die from lack of NHS.

That method of manipulation (if memory serves) is rooted in humans overestimating the likelihood of things that have happened recently reoccurring. A politician, say, will focus on that, then link other speculative events to suit their purposes. If A has happened, then B is the next thing and, you know what, C is inevitable!

Perversely, we think 'hmmm, "A" did happen just last week', which makes it easy to believe B is the logical next step. Now we've convinced ourselves A and B are going to happen, we're even MORE certain C will take place. Of course, 3 things happening is less likely than 1... but we now perceive the opposite to be true.

On the subject of air travel, Gardner also talks about the after-effects of 9/11. Because people in the States suddenly perceived flying to be too much of a risk they switched to driving instead (inherently far more dangerous), costing thousands of extra lives in car crashes.

 

[jamie-oh]

The biggest and most overwhelming risk when talking about paranoid schizophrenics is towards themselves. Its extremely rare for schizophrenic service users to attack other people, and even less likely for them to attack strangers. Every few years there'll be a little blip of a couple of incidents and the gutter press will use it as a reason to print headliners about 'schizo madman' etc, which just tends to make people more isolated and unwilling to discuss their diagnosis and feelings.

Source: i've worked on a psychiatric ward for over fifteen years.
Total amount of assaults i've received in that time from paranoid schizophrenics: one punch. As it goes, manic bipolar service users are far more likely to assault others, far more so than schizophrenics, who by and large tend to avoid other people (because, yknow, paranoia)

 

[Bry Nylon]

With regard to yesterday's incident in Hainault, unbelievable courage shown by the police officers that responded. It must be one of those calls that when it comes in over the radio you hope to God that when you arrive on scene there's been some sort of well-intentioned mistake or misinterpretation of events and it isn't as described.

The fact that one officer has serious arm injuries and another has serious hand injuries very much suggests that they were right on the front foot, trying to detain an extremely violent man wielding a sword. Remarkable and selfless bravery and I wish them both the very best for what will be a long and painful recovery.

 

[Zeberdi]

There are numerous autist posters on NSC. If you ever fancy an emote, pop over to the mental health thread.

MH services (in Brighton at least) are stretched beyond belief.
I got a diagnosis for Autism last year after waiting 5 years for an assessment, still waiting for an assessment for ADHD (don't know why they couldn't just diagnose me at the same time tbh) and I personally have found support services to be very lacking.

Just to clarify, as you and Harry WT know (but others might not) ‘Autism’ has nothing to do with mental health illnesses, it is the way your brain is wired at birth (I am pretty sure someone started an autism thread last year). Having Autism certainly doesn’t make me more likely than a non-neurodivergent person to go out and commit murder most foul.

With regard to yesterday's incident in Hainault, unbelievable courage shown by the police officers that responded.

He’s lucky he’s alive, he would have been shot in the US for putting the officer‘s and public lives at risk having already fatally attacked a young boy.

 

[Giraffe]

Indeed, but too many absentee fathers in this world playing their part which cannot help

And in some cases mothers.

 

[Giraffe]

I go to London a fair bit for work, and I do think about the risk if I am honest. Don't even consider it outside London though which is slightly irrational, given there were 12,000 knife crimes in London, and 38,000 in the rest of England.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The biggest and most overwhelming risk when talking about paranoid schizophrenics is towards themselves. Its extremely rare for schizophrenic service users to attack other people, and even less likely for them to attack strangers. Every few years there'll be a little blip of a couple of incidents and the gutter press will use it as a reason to print headliners about 'schizo madman' etc, which just tends to make people more isolated and unwilling to discuss their diagnosis and feelings.

Source: i've worked on a psychiatric ward for over fifteen years.
Total amount of assaults i've received in that time from paranoid schizophrenics: one punch. As it goes, manic bipolar service users are far more likely to assault others, far more so than schizophrenics, who by and large tend to avoid other people (because, yknow, paranoia)

Thanks for this insight