and I'm furious with myself for being desensitized. But that's what's happened.
Will it ever end?
Only when humans are extinct, unfortunately.
On a national scale, terrorism has tended to ebb and flow. Israel had relatively peaceful times. Ireland too. Remains to be seen with multinational outfits like AQ/ISIS.
There is no law that says that so-and-so people must naturally keep killing each other. Ireland and UK is one example. Egypt and Israel is another. For all the ideological and territorial conflicts into which Israel has been dragged, no frontier was bloodier than the Egyptian-Israeli border.
But in 1979 they put the past behind them, and the two governments have been partners ever since. Furthermore, it was two hawks in Jerusalem and Cairo (Begin and Nasser) who found the common ground on which to nest.
But of course, transnational terrorism is a tougher nut to crack. Including both the well organized units deployed in the Middle East, to the trouble makers in Europe and the lone wolves in Boston and Orlando.
Big Blue Kickoff Live, with Dottino and Schmelk, the show ended and Bam I received noticed from an FB friend at the airport that she logged in safe...
This was a Turkish friend, but a lot of Israelis and visitors coming into Israel save a little money and enjoy the good device by flying Turkish Air through Istanbul.
The West is remarkably insulated from terrorism, but “lone wolf” attacks are on the rise
Just 2.6 percent of deaths in 21st-century terror attacks took place in Western countries, which include the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe nations. Excluding those who died on 9/11, that figure is just 0.5 percent.
Large-scale attacks coordinated by international terrorist groups (such as 9/11 attacks and the recent deadly assault on Paris) garner a disproportionate amount of media attention. But so-called lone wolves — individuals or small groups working without the aid of a larger organization — are responsible for 70 percent of terrorism deaths in the West, and that number is rising. The Boston Marathon bombings are an example of a lone wolf attack, as were the 2011 Norway attacks that killed 77 people.
The Norway attacks also highlight the little-known fact that political extremism, not Islamic fundamentalism, drives most lone wolf attacks in the West. The Norway attacker, Anders Behring Breivik, cited right-wing, ultranationalist political views as the reason he carried out that attack. Breivik is not alone: between 2008 and 2014, politically-motivated attackers were responsible for 67 percent of deaths by lone wolf terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists accounted for roughly 20 percent.
agenda I have ever encountered. So please specify your source so we can verify what it really means... your data is for terrorist attacks in what you just defined as "the western countries" I gather, or is it world wide terrorism data you cite.
You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist
If you are worried that ISIS might strike the United States and want to prevent the loss of American lives, consider urging Congress to invest in diabetes and Alzheimer’s research.
Terrorism is effective in doing what its name says: inspiring profound fear. But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West.
You, your family members, your friends, and your community are all significantly more at risk from a host of threats that we usually ignore than from terrorism. For instance, while the Paris attacks left some 130 people dead, roughly three times that number of French citizens died on that same day from cancer.
In the United States, an individual’s likelihood of being hurt or killed by a terrorist (whether an Islamist radical or some other variety) is negligible.
Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture. Meanwhile, in the time it has taken you to read until this point, at least one American has died from a heart attack. Within the hour, a fellow citizen will have died from skin cancer. Roughly five minutes after that, a military veteran will commit suicide. And by the time you turn the lights off to sleep this evening, somewhere around 100 Americans will have died throughout the day in vehicular accidents – the equivalent of “a plane full of people crashing, killing everyone on board, every single day.” Daniel Kahneman, professor emeritus at Princeton University, has observed that “[e]ven in countries that have been targets of intensive terror campaigns, such as Israel, the weekly number of casualties almost never [comes] close to the number of traffic deaths.”
No one in the United States will die from ISIS’s —or anyone’s — terrorism today.
What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes.
Islamist terrorism has all three of these characteristics, inspiring excessive fear — surely by design. For instance, the Paris attacks harmed large numbers; its victims could have done very little to escape it, since the timing and location of such attacks are unpredictable; and the idea of being shot or blown up by a mysterious set of masked extremists is incredibly dreadful.
When we miscalculate risks, we sometimes behave in ways that are riskier than those we are trying to avoid. For instance, in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, millions of Americans elected not to fly. A significant proportion decided to drive to their destinations instead. Driving is more dangerous than flying. And so one scholar of risk, Gerd Gigerenzer, calculated that more people died from the resulting automobile accidents than the total number of individuals who were killed aboard the four hijacked planes Sept. 11.
Kahneman believes that the news media’s disproportionate focus on cases of Western terrorism reinforces such mistaken perceptions. As he explains in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “extremely vivid image[s] of death and damage” resulting from terrorist attacks are “reinforced by media attention and frequent conversation,” leaving us with highly accessible memories of such events. When people who have been exposed to such coverage later assess how likely more terrorism is, such events come readily to mind — and so they are likely to assign probabilities biased upward.
America’s panicked obsession with Islamist terrorism is understandable but may skew public policies in costly ways. In particular, a serious public policy problem emerges when unsubstantiated fear fuels excessive public spending. More than a decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has committed trillions of dollars to fighting the war on terror. Certainly, some – perhaps even most – of this funding is warranted.
Consider, however, that federal spending on improving vehicular safety and research for Alzheimer’s and diabetes pales in comparison. Yet traffic deaths, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States.
agenda I have ever encountered. So please specify your source so we can verify what it really means... your data is for terrorist attacks in what you just defined as "the western countries" I gather, or is it world wide terrorism data you cite.
Because you didn't specify...
See above, I'll back out now so you guys can continue. One thing is clear, terror attacks are very rare but they have been successful from the terrorists perspective.
RE: Here is great piece on terror and our reaction Â
in the US over a recent time frame (since 9/11? A convenient time frame for downplaying the Islamic angle depending on what you are quantifying, but I'm happy to be very conservative in my data representation). My source is championing AP's POV.
So only 6% were committed by Islamists...
That looks "not so awful" until you weigh in that only 1% of American are in fact Muslims.
Because 1% of the population creating 6% of the attacks looks a lot worse. And speaks a more profound truth about the relationship of the religion and culture to the spread of terrorism.
You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist
If you are worried that ISIS might strike the United States and want to prevent the loss of American lives, consider urging Congress to invest in diabetes and Alzheimer’s research.
Terrorism is effective in doing what its name says: inspiring profound fear. But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West.
You, your family members, your friends, and your community are all significantly more at risk from a host of threats that we usually ignore than from terrorism. For instance, while the Paris attacks left some 130 people dead, roughly three times that number of French citizens died on that same day from cancer.
In the United States, an individual’s likelihood of being hurt or killed by a terrorist (whether an Islamist radical or some other variety) is negligible.
Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture. Meanwhile, in the time it has taken you to read until this point, at least one American has died from a heart attack. Within the hour, a fellow citizen will have died from skin cancer. Roughly five minutes after that, a military veteran will commit suicide. And by the time you turn the lights off to sleep this evening, somewhere around 100 Americans will have died throughout the day in vehicular accidents – the equivalent of “a plane full of people crashing, killing everyone on board, every single day.” Daniel Kahneman, professor emeritus at Princeton University, has observed that “[e]ven in countries that have been targets of intensive terror campaigns, such as Israel, the weekly number of casualties almost never [comes] close to the number of traffic deaths.”
No one in the United States will die from ISIS’s —or anyone’s — terrorism today.
What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes.
Islamist terrorism has all three of these characteristics, inspiring excessive fear — surely by design. For instance, the Paris attacks harmed large numbers; its victims could have done very little to escape it, since the timing and location of such attacks are unpredictable; and the idea of being shot or blown up by a mysterious set of masked extremists is incredibly dreadful.
When we miscalculate risks, we sometimes behave in ways that are riskier than those we are trying to avoid. For instance, in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, millions of Americans elected not to fly. A significant proportion decided to drive to their destinations instead. Driving is more dangerous than flying. And so one scholar of risk, Gerd Gigerenzer, calculated that more people died from the resulting automobile accidents than the total number of individuals who were killed aboard the four hijacked planes Sept. 11.
Kahneman believes that the news media’s disproportionate focus on cases of Western terrorism reinforces such mistaken perceptions. As he explains in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “extremely vivid image[s] of death and damage” resulting from terrorist attacks are “reinforced by media attention and frequent conversation,” leaving us with highly accessible memories of such events. When people who have been exposed to such coverage later assess how likely more terrorism is, such events come readily to mind — and so they are likely to assign probabilities biased upward.
America’s panicked obsession with Islamist terrorism is understandable but may skew public policies in costly ways. In particular, a serious public policy problem emerges when unsubstantiated fear fuels excessive public spending. More than a decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has committed trillions of dollars to fighting the war on terror. Certainly, some – perhaps even most – of this funding is warranted.
Consider, however, that federal spending on improving vehicular safety and research for Alzheimer’s and diabetes pales in comparison. Yet traffic deaths, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States.
i guess I am too stupid to really accept this line of thought that there is some sort of competition between how people may die. People dying from cancer or furniture have nothing to do with people dying from terrorist attacks. I just know that they are unnecessary deaths instigated by other humans, not by a disease or an inanimate object. In terms of costs, you have to look at more than deaths. You have to include prevented deaths. Now I can't cite a number on that but imagine the possible number if no costly preventative measures were taken since 9/11.
RE: RE: Here is great piece on terror and our reaction Â
i guess I am too stupid to really accept this line of thought that there is some sort of competition between how people may die. People dying from cancer or furniture have nothing to do with people dying from terrorist attacks. I just know that they are unnecessary deaths instigated by other humans, not by a disease or an inanimate object. In terms of costs, you have to look at more than deaths. You have to include prevented deaths. Now I can't cite a number on that but imagine the possible number if no costly preventative measures were taken since 9/11.
I dont know why Im getting involved, but a counterpoint to your fair post is domestic violence. You are way more likely to die at the hands of a loved one than ISIS. Yet domestic violence gets way less attention.
Im sure the psych community has an explanation for why we are particularly (and I'd say disproportionately) scared of terrorism.
Interestingly, as I was reading your link, I had Kahneman's book in mind, and then sure enough the piece referenced it.
There's no arguing the statistical lack of prevalence when it comes to terror attacks. But the statistics ignore certain factors that I find relevant.
1) The ideology behind terrorist attacks can take hold in many forms, big and small. What if a nuclear bomb got in the hands of a terrorist. Also very unlikely, but it just takes once
2) The measure of a terrorist attack is bigger than a death toll. For every one person killed is a network of perhaps hundreds touched by it.
3) It's senseless. Automobile accidents are horrible, but vehicles are a necessary part of our lives. People (rightfully) hate avoidable death and/or death that is the result of pure evil. That's what this is.
4) The fear that for every terrorist taking action is another 10,000 people (perhaps millions of people) who would carry out an attack if they had the balls. It's not just about death. It's that our way of life is hated and many desire for it to be destroyed.
I love Kahneman, but when you measure "lives lost" as lone cost of terrorism, your missing other costs that those numbers will never convey.
RE: Here is great piece on terror and our reaction Â
Fair point, we do spend a lot to prevent attacks. That's another way the bad guys win.
A prominent American died from Alzheimers today. She's one of about 200 per day who will die of this horrendous disease. What's the lead on the news tonight?
Well you have to leave the House once in awhile.
by House I mean Country.
Follow
Mete SohtaoÄźlu
‏@metesohtaoglu
#BREAKING
đź”´attackers thrown hand grenades to X-ray at the entrance in #Istanbul Airport
link?
Will it ever end?
Quote:
at the entrance
link?
http://turkey.liveuamap.com/en/2016/28-june-justice-minister-bozda-says-news-received-of-another
Good job kicking that straw man.
Will it ever end?
Only when humans are extinct, unfortunately.
Quote:
and I'm furious with myself for being desensitized. But that's what's happened.
Will it ever end?
Only when humans are extinct, unfortunately.
On a national scale, terrorism has tended to ebb and flow. Israel had relatively peaceful times. Ireland too. Remains to be seen with multinational outfits like AQ/ISIS.
Also a day after they apologized and paid reparations to Russia for the downing of the SU-24.
I'd guess the chances are 70% ISIS and 30% the Kurds.
But in 1979 they put the past behind them, and the two governments have been partners ever since. Furthermore, it was two hawks in Jerusalem and Cairo (Begin and Nasser) who found the common ground on which to nest.
But of course, transnational terrorism is a tougher nut to crack. Including both the well organized units deployed in the Middle East, to the trouble makers in Europe and the lone wolves in Boston and Orlando.
Terrorism is extremely rare. Unfortunately, it's good business for the media and politicians.
This was a Turkish friend, but a lot of Israelis and visitors coming into Israel save a little money and enjoy the good device by flying Turkish Air through Istanbul.
People suck. Well, some people.
Just 2.6 percent of deaths in 21st-century terror attacks took place in Western countries, which include the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe nations. Excluding those who died on 9/11, that figure is just 0.5 percent.
Large-scale attacks coordinated by international terrorist groups (such as 9/11 attacks and the recent deadly assault on Paris) garner a disproportionate amount of media attention. But so-called lone wolves — individuals or small groups working without the aid of a larger organization — are responsible for 70 percent of terrorism deaths in the West, and that number is rising. The Boston Marathon bombings are an example of a lone wolf attack, as were the 2011 Norway attacks that killed 77 people.
The Norway attacks also highlight the little-known fact that political extremism, not Islamic fundamentalism, drives most lone wolf attacks in the West. The Norway attacker, Anders Behring Breivik, cited right-wing, ultranationalist political views as the reason he carried out that attack. Breivik is not alone: between 2008 and 2014, politically-motivated attackers were responsible for 67 percent of deaths by lone wolf terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists accounted for roughly 20 percent.
Yes, rare. The odds of being killed by a terrorist are extremely tiny.
Because you didn't specify...
If you are worried that ISIS might strike the United States and want to prevent the loss of American lives, consider urging Congress to invest in diabetes and Alzheimer’s research.
Terrorism is effective in doing what its name says: inspiring profound fear. But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West.
You, your family members, your friends, and your community are all significantly more at risk from a host of threats that we usually ignore than from terrorism. For instance, while the Paris attacks left some 130 people dead, roughly three times that number of French citizens died on that same day from cancer.
In the United States, an individual’s likelihood of being hurt or killed by a terrorist (whether an Islamist radical or some other variety) is negligible.
Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture. Meanwhile, in the time it has taken you to read until this point, at least one American has died from a heart attack. Within the hour, a fellow citizen will have died from skin cancer. Roughly five minutes after that, a military veteran will commit suicide. And by the time you turn the lights off to sleep this evening, somewhere around 100 Americans will have died throughout the day in vehicular accidents – the equivalent of “a plane full of people crashing, killing everyone on board, every single day.” Daniel Kahneman, professor emeritus at Princeton University, has observed that “[e]ven in countries that have been targets of intensive terror campaigns, such as Israel, the weekly number of casualties almost never [comes] close to the number of traffic deaths.”
No one in the United States will die from ISIS’s —or anyone’s — terrorism today.
What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes.
Islamist terrorism has all three of these characteristics, inspiring excessive fear — surely by design. For instance, the Paris attacks harmed large numbers; its victims could have done very little to escape it, since the timing and location of such attacks are unpredictable; and the idea of being shot or blown up by a mysterious set of masked extremists is incredibly dreadful.
When we miscalculate risks, we sometimes behave in ways that are riskier than those we are trying to avoid. For instance, in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, millions of Americans elected not to fly. A significant proportion decided to drive to their destinations instead. Driving is more dangerous than flying. And so one scholar of risk, Gerd Gigerenzer, calculated that more people died from the resulting automobile accidents than the total number of individuals who were killed aboard the four hijacked planes Sept. 11.
Kahneman believes that the news media’s disproportionate focus on cases of Western terrorism reinforces such mistaken perceptions. As he explains in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “extremely vivid image[s] of death and damage” resulting from terrorist attacks are “reinforced by media attention and frequent conversation,” leaving us with highly accessible memories of such events. When people who have been exposed to such coverage later assess how likely more terrorism is, such events come readily to mind — and so they are likely to assign probabilities biased upward.
America’s panicked obsession with Islamist terrorism is understandable but may skew public policies in costly ways. In particular, a serious public policy problem emerges when unsubstantiated fear fuels excessive public spending. More than a decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has committed trillions of dollars to fighting the war on terror. Certainly, some – perhaps even most – of this funding is warranted.
Consider, however, that federal spending on improving vehicular safety and research for Alzheimer’s and diabetes pales in comparison. Yet traffic deaths, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
Because you didn't specify...
See above, I'll back out now so you guys can continue. One thing is clear, terror attacks are very rare but they have been successful from the terrorists perspective.
But furniture doesn't come looking for you.
Quote:
You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist
But furniture doesn't come looking for you.
Quote:
In comment 13012966 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist
But furniture doesn't come looking for you.
So what if it did? I mean, besides it being creepy yet sort of cool?
Kindling
Quote:
You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist
But furniture doesn't come looking for you.
I would argue that makes it more dangerous. You can't be sure that you're safe or if you're being targeted.
So only 6% were committed by Islamists...
That looks "not so awful" until you weigh in that only 1% of American are in fact Muslims.
Because 1% of the population creating 6% of the attacks looks a lot worse. And speaks a more profound truth about the relationship of the religion and culture to the spread of terrorism.
But continue to stick your head(s) in the sand as you wish.
Some arguments on APs side of things from a questionable source - ( New Window )
Quote:
love and understanding and they will stop.
Good job kicking that straw man.
Yep strawman..
Quote:
In comment 13012868 section125 said:
Quote:
love and understanding and they will stop.
Good job kicking that straw man.
Yep strawman..
Not to mention stupid
Where was the good guy with a hand grenade?
Quote:
.
Where was the good guy with a hand grenade?
He blew himself up..
If you are worried that ISIS might strike the United States and want to prevent the loss of American lives, consider urging Congress to invest in diabetes and Alzheimer’s research.
Terrorism is effective in doing what its name says: inspiring profound fear. But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West.
You, your family members, your friends, and your community are all significantly more at risk from a host of threats that we usually ignore than from terrorism. For instance, while the Paris attacks left some 130 people dead, roughly three times that number of French citizens died on that same day from cancer.
In the United States, an individual’s likelihood of being hurt or killed by a terrorist (whether an Islamist radical or some other variety) is negligible.
Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture. Meanwhile, in the time it has taken you to read until this point, at least one American has died from a heart attack. Within the hour, a fellow citizen will have died from skin cancer. Roughly five minutes after that, a military veteran will commit suicide. And by the time you turn the lights off to sleep this evening, somewhere around 100 Americans will have died throughout the day in vehicular accidents – the equivalent of “a plane full of people crashing, killing everyone on board, every single day.” Daniel Kahneman, professor emeritus at Princeton University, has observed that “[e]ven in countries that have been targets of intensive terror campaigns, such as Israel, the weekly number of casualties almost never [comes] close to the number of traffic deaths.”
No one in the United States will die from ISIS’s —or anyone’s — terrorism today.
What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes.
Islamist terrorism has all three of these characteristics, inspiring excessive fear — surely by design. For instance, the Paris attacks harmed large numbers; its victims could have done very little to escape it, since the timing and location of such attacks are unpredictable; and the idea of being shot or blown up by a mysterious set of masked extremists is incredibly dreadful.
When we miscalculate risks, we sometimes behave in ways that are riskier than those we are trying to avoid. For instance, in the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, millions of Americans elected not to fly. A significant proportion decided to drive to their destinations instead. Driving is more dangerous than flying. And so one scholar of risk, Gerd Gigerenzer, calculated that more people died from the resulting automobile accidents than the total number of individuals who were killed aboard the four hijacked planes Sept. 11.
Kahneman believes that the news media’s disproportionate focus on cases of Western terrorism reinforces such mistaken perceptions. As he explains in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “extremely vivid image[s] of death and damage” resulting from terrorist attacks are “reinforced by media attention and frequent conversation,” leaving us with highly accessible memories of such events. When people who have been exposed to such coverage later assess how likely more terrorism is, such events come readily to mind — and so they are likely to assign probabilities biased upward.
America’s panicked obsession with Islamist terrorism is understandable but may skew public policies in costly ways. In particular, a serious public policy problem emerges when unsubstantiated fear fuels excessive public spending. More than a decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has committed trillions of dollars to fighting the war on terror. Certainly, some – perhaps even most – of this funding is warranted.
Consider, however, that federal spending on improving vehicular safety and research for Alzheimer’s and diabetes pales in comparison. Yet traffic deaths, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
I dont know why Im getting involved, but a counterpoint to your fair post is domestic violence. You are way more likely to die at the hands of a loved one than ISIS. Yet domestic violence gets way less attention.
Im sure the psych community has an explanation for why we are particularly (and I'd say disproportionately) scared of terrorism.
There's no arguing the statistical lack of prevalence when it comes to terror attacks. But the statistics ignore certain factors that I find relevant.
1) The ideology behind terrorist attacks can take hold in many forms, big and small. What if a nuclear bomb got in the hands of a terrorist. Also very unlikely, but it just takes once
2) The measure of a terrorist attack is bigger than a death toll. For every one person killed is a network of perhaps hundreds touched by it.
3) It's senseless. Automobile accidents are horrible, but vehicles are a necessary part of our lives. People (rightfully) hate avoidable death and/or death that is the result of pure evil. That's what this is.
4) The fear that for every terrorist taking action is another 10,000 people (perhaps millions of people) who would carry out an attack if they had the balls. It's not just about death. It's that our way of life is hated and many desire for it to be destroyed.
I love Kahneman, but when you measure "lives lost" as lone cost of terrorism, your missing other costs that those numbers will never convey.
This is why I keep a loaded gun in my nightstand. In case cancer breaks in without tripping the alarm.
A prominent American died from Alzheimers today. She's one of about 200 per day who will die of this horrendous disease. What's the lead on the news tonight?