Replies

Ironically, most of the posters on this thread or showing precisely the irrational biases that the author was referring to (though perhaps could have explained better). There is tons of well-established research on human heuristics and biases and the failures modes of reasoning caused by it. This thread is full of examples of classic human reasoning failure when faced with uncertainty.

What people do not realize is that the hyperventilating and over-reaction can often ultimately kill more Americans than an appropriately measured response. As long as the deaths do not happen all at once in one place, humans do not notice the far higher death tolls. I see that the cynics have not overestimated the human capacity for irrationality.

Gut reactions are usually irrational, incorrect, and frequently cause far more damage than necessary. People here are very clearly conflating feeling safe with being safe and are willing to pay any price (no matter how irrational) for the former.

Ironically, most of the posters on this thread or showing precisely the irrational biases that the author was referring to

I disagree. Although you are correct, as is the author of the article, on the basis of a static calculation, i.e. comparing terror murders to accidental deaths, you both are very wrong to use a static calculation.

As other posters have tried to point out, the number of terror attacks is not a static quantity but highly coupled to our reactions. Bin Laden himself said he was emboldened by our pre 9/11 reactions. So WWII as a reaction to Pearl Harbor is the same logic we use when we "over" react to a few cases of plague by mobilizing the CDC, and an army of local authorities.

More importantly, our reaction to terrorism is not a simple calculation. It has a strong moral component. This is analogous to a crime victim using more resources than were lost in the crime to bring the perp to justice. We do this sort of thing all the time and its non-mathematical purpose is to create a moral climate around us that says, "don't tread on me."

Finally, humans do many things that do not seem logical until analyzed more deeply. Two cave men were walking along when one was killed and eaten by a saber-tooth cat. Even though they had not seen this sort of beast before, the survivor did not say, "Well, it would be illogical for me to conclude, based upon just one anecdotal incident that this cat is dangerous to me. The attack may be an anomaly. More statistics would be necessary before I could draw a conclusion regarding the nature of the beast." Instead, the survivor decided he better not get close to saber-toothed cats.