New Book on the Psych of Catastrophic Risk Tuesday, Sep 19 2006
risks 1:54 pm
From the existential risk list:
Cerulo, Karen A. Never Saw It Coming: Cultural Challenges to Envisioning
the Worst. 336 p. University of Chicago Press.Cloth $73.00sc 0-226-10032-4 Fall 2006
Paper $29.00sp 0-226-10033-2 Fall 2006People-especially Americans-are by and large optimists. They’re much
better at imagining best-case scenarios (I could win the lottery!) than
worst-case scenarios (A hurricane could destroy my neighborhood!). This
is true not just of their approach to imagining the future, but of their
memories as well: people are better able to describe the best moments of
their lives than they are the worst.Though there are psychological reasons for this phenomenon, Karen
A.Cerulo, in Never Saw It Coming, considers instead the role of society
in fostering this attitude. What kinds of communities develop this
pattern of thought, which do not, and what does that say about human
ability to evaluate possible outcomes of decisions and events?Cerulo takes readers to diverse realms of experience, including intimate
family relationships, key transitions in our lives, the places we work
and play, and the boardrooms of organizations and bureaucracies. Using
interviews, surveys, artistic and fictional accounts, media reports,
historical data, and official records, she illuminates one of the most
common, yet least studied, of human traits – a blatant disregard for
worst-case scenarios. Never Saw It Coming, therefore, will be crucial to
anyone who wants to understand human attempts to picture or plan the
future.
Funny how one of the most common of human traits is to ignore the risks with the greatest negative impact.
“Though there are psychological reasons for this phenomenon, Karen A. Cerulo, in Never Saw It Coming, considers instead the role of society
in fostering this attitude.”
I haven’t read her book (I will as soon as I get time) but I find it hard to swallow that society depresses people’s expectations of unlikely catstrophes. If anything, the historically unprecedented amount of communication available to society allows people to be informed of major catastrophes in ways that they never were for most of human history. Had Katrina happened ten thousand years ago, most of the world would never have even heard of it. And if hurricanes lulled for a generation or two in prehistoric New Orleans, people would forget about them and stop preparing for them. Now we have pictures and videos to remind people everywhere that these things happen.
If anything, this effect is too great. People’s fears don’t correspond to the actual likelihood of a threat, but instead to the extent to which the media covers it. Thus, we have people who refuse to ride in airplanes and yet think nothing of taking a road trip.
People don’t ignore things with the greatest negative impact, they dwell on them for absurd amounts of time no matter how unlikely they are to happen. The same holds for events with great (perceived) positive impact. People fantasize about winning the lottery, but they also dread being trapped on the top floors of a skyscraper during another 9/11, being eaten by sharks, and receiving anthrax in the mail. They don’t get the least bit nervous when riding down the highway, lighting a cigarette, or eating fried chicken.
For risks, the media is the great equalizer. This can be a good thing. It means that making people appreciate existential risks doesn’t require a revamp of people’s evolved psychology, just some vivid stories and air time on CNN.
Funny how one of the most common of human traits is to ignore the risks with the greatest negative impact.
Yeah! Like Global Warming versus Grey Goo or malevolent AI…
Yeah! Like Global Warming versus Grey Goo or malevolent AI…
Jean-Luc… the fundamental premise of this blog is that the ignored risks (nano/AI) are indeed greater than those with tens of millions of dollars already being put towards them (asteroid impact, global warming). If you disagree, why are you even here? There are dozens of other great blogs which you can post comments of approval on, instead of hanging around here disagreeing with everything I say.
the fundamental premise of this blog is that the ignored risks (nano/AI) are indeed greater than those with tens of millions of dollars already being put towards them (asteroid impact, global warming)
You mean you are intent to deal with global warming + asteroid impact + nuclear war + grey goo + evil AI + etc…
Have you made a REALISTIC cost estimate of only ONE of those risks?
Pick a “trivial” one to start with like global warming, the cost in not likely in the millions of dollars but in the trillions and may be hundreds of trillions.
Or may be a pinch of”magic dust” can do it?
If you disagree, why are you even here?
I explained that long ago, since I think some subset of the singularitarians goals are valuable I find it damaging that accompanying lunacies deter serious research about the whole agenda.
Some serious AI goals get tainted by the “singularitarians whackos” overtone.
P.S. Also remember to Google “CITOKATE”
Jean-Luc, I promise to never, ever, ever, ever change my mind about my beliefs as a result of your comments. Not only am I a Singularitarian wacko, I’m probably among the most vocal Singularitarian wackos there is.
Jean-Luc, I promise to never, ever, ever, ever change my mind about my beliefs as a result of your comments.
This is not my goal!
I only want to shift the opinions of the READERS of your blog; :D
What I find valuable in singularitarians ideas is AI and some life extensions ideas (NOT immortality thru “uploading” or otherwise), thus I am deeply chagrined that THESE goals gets lumped together with singularitarians whacky ideas.
This is why I keep posting here.
Sorry…
Forgive me, Jean-Luc: What specifically ARE these singularitarian “wacko” ideas that taint the longevity & AI (AGI??? Or no??) you find worthwhile…?
Tramadol buy….
Buy tramadol online best prices limited time off….
After seeing this book on here I went out and read it. Little chance anyone is looking this far back in the archives, but if you are, take my suggestion and spend your time on other things. The book is a cartoonish example of confirmation bias. I say just a little bit more about it here: http://www.normalhumanheroes.com/2010/01/22/dont-just-sit-there-caring/