12 of 12 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Your gut isn't always right, how to make safer choices, Jan 10 2011
By Jaylia3 - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts (Hardcover)
React fast, think later. According to the scientific research Ropeik cites in this useful book, human brains are designed to respond quickly to perceived danger, before there's time to rationally consider what the real risks of the situation are. What served us well in the age of the saber tooth tiger is not as useful for making informed decisions in the modern world, plus all those fight, flight or freeze chemicals streaming through our nervous system create their own health risk. The heart of this book for me is the second and third chapters which describe the natural biases, mental shortcuts and risk factors that can lead to making counterproductive--even deadly--choices in an effort to avoid danger, choices like driving after 9/11 because it felt safer than flying though it instead caused a spike in highway fatalities.
I read much of this same material in Daniel Gardner's book The Science of Fear. The difference between the two books is that How Risky is It, Really is designed to be a personal guide for evaluating decisions. For that it is very effective, but by its later chapters the material has gotten repetitive. The Science of Fear is not as easily used as a daily guide but its scope is broader and deeper and it concerns itself more with implications for the future and for society as a whole.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
An interesting book by a somewhat questionable source, Oct 31 2011
By Michelle Cheatham - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts (Hardcover)
I have read several books on the subject of how we perceive risks, and this one was fairly standard -- it discusses the general shortcuts we take in the absence of perfect information, such as fearing things more if we don't have control over them (so we're ok with deciding to smoke ourselves but not ok with being exposed to carcinogens at work, for example), if they are man-made rather than natural (we fear terrorists more than a tornado), if the risk affects children, etc. The thing that concerns me is that the beginning of the book discusses risk response at the biological level (related to the amygdala, a part of the brain). The author disagrees with the standard System 1/System 2 view that we have a biological-level risk response and a cognitive-level risk response, saying they are both part of a single continuous system. Which is fine, except that the author is not a scientist but rather a journalist -- an extremely well-respected journalist, but still I'm not sure he has the background to make such a claim.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lively analysis of the misperception of risks, Jun 4 2011
By David J. Aldous "gentleman scholar" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts (Hardcover)
This book focuses on the psychology of how we perceive risk, complementing an earlier book Risk: A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You giving hard data on what is actually risky. The author, who lectures on risk communication, knows how to hold an audience's attention, and succeeds admirably in conveying serious content in popular style and language. To me, the central feature is a list of 13 factors which can make a risk seem more threatening or less threatening than it really is (Trust; Risk vs benefit; Control; Choice; Natural vs human-made; Pain and suffering; Uncertainty; Catastrophic vs chronic; Can it happen to me? New vs familiar? Risks to children; Personification; Fairness). Also noteworthy is his discussion of the role of the media in making the world seem scarier than it really is -- a well-informed discussion, because the author worked as a TV reporter for 20+ years.
The book points out how the "perception gap" can be harmful: individuals continue risky behavior unaware, while over-worrying about the
wrong things; public policy is shaped by self-interested or ideological pressure groups, or by public opinion driven by scaremongering media.
There are suggestions for you as an individual on how to identify and counteract these psychological risk factors. The book concludes with a
discussion of the public policy aspect of risk communication. It is hopeless to try to impose some purely rational cost-benefit analysis on
the public, rather one should start by taking these predictable psychological factors into account.
All these points are discussed via entertaining real examples. So the book deserves 5 stars for significant interesting content not readily
found elsewhere. My only quibble is that the people who will read this book are probably those predisposed to rational analysis, not the ones who might benefit most.