Marching to the beat of a different mandolin

honestly i think this is a terrible article, and while i agree with the principles discussed, i think the author completely and entirely missed the reasons why we do the things we do. i still dont think i see a real thesis in this, nor do i see him say anything worthwhile, but heres how i see this. it's not a matter of dread whatsoever, its very simply a matter of short-term vs long-term risk/reward. Yes, we can die falling downstairs, etc, but what are the alternatives? we could ALL build one-story houses to avoid falling downstairs. no, actually we can't because building houses certainly results in death or serious injury to some. certainly we can get hurt commuting to work by car, but what are the alternatives? not work? live in a bubble? of course not. all these things, including eating fattening foods, satisfy a short-term need/want/desire/urge in such a way that the reward outweighs the risk.

i also think a lot of the things he says are simply wrong. I've NEVER seen anyone "agonize over Avian flu" like he suggests. I have seen people exhibit concern, because bird flu offers no reward whatsoever. For many people, fatty hamburgers and french fries satisfy a short-term craving, while the long-term results are too obscure to constantly worry about. It is something to worry about only in bits and chunks, otherwise we would be completely obsessed with our bodies and what we put in them at all times. Again, i think this is entirely unreasonable.

I suppose habituation could be a factor in this, though i think its more human nature and instinct than anything else. this has been demonstrated by various child development tests in which babies have exhibited keen depth perception skills to such an extent that they avoid ledges, despite the ledges being cleverly camouflaged with the rest of the area. People know how to avoid the things that present no reward, while they can choose to pursue the endeavors that provide a reward with varying degrees of risk.

i could go on and on about why this paper is a piece of shit, but i don't think that's necessary.

From:

So what's the reward in driving 16 hours instead of flying for 4? Modern security lines and shit aside--my parents have been driving to Florida ever since the 1980's, rather than flying.

Perhaps it's the financial aspect of the thing? They do get a financial benefit from driving rather than flying. I suppose everyone has to weigh the different risks and benefits and decide for themselves.

I'm not entirely sure the author meant to present a thesis. I think the idea was just to get us thinking about what risks we take every day, and why we worry more about some than others. For example, the following quote exemplifies one of my personal pet peeves:

Most people would be far likelier to participate in a protest at a nuclear power plant than at a tobacco company, but it's smoking, not nukes, that kills an average of 1,200 Americans every single day.

The smoking part of it isn't relevant, but the nuclear power part certainly is. Why in the world do people protest at nuclear power plants when they produce far less pollution and waste than coal and oil plants? I know that nuclear waste is much longer-lasting and can have adverse environmental effects if its protective casing is compromised, but the greenhouse effect is happening now. (Or at least I think it is. Lots of people don't believe this.) Why don't we switch to clean fuel now and invest the years it buys us in researching non-polluting, non-waste-producing energy sources like wind and hydroelectricity? Or even fusion? I think in this case people are grossly overestimating the risks associated with nuclear while simultaneously underestimating those of fossil fuels.

/soapbox

Oh, and one more thing wrt the article.

The tendency to take chances on the highway that has twice landed you in traffic court could just as easily land you in the morgue.

Have you ever noticed how you're driving along and somebody speeds past you, weaving dangerously through the lanes, only to end up maybe a half a carlength ahead of you at the next stoplight? Driving recklessly gains you pretty much nothing on a stoplight-laden road. So why do people do that? The illusion of control and time efficiency?

From:

i think you make a lot of great points with more grounding than the author of that article, though i think my points can still go to explain them, if not suggest why we do some seemingly ridiculous things.

i think the most important thing is that these things create an illusion in our minds that we're doing the right thing and trying to prevent risks that are perhaps incalculable but inevitably devestating.

the author does mention smoking, and i neglected to talk about it because i have nothing good to say about smokers. I would be willing to bet money that if you asked all smokers in america, they would almost invariably admit they know smoking is dangerous. If they don't know, theyre simply ignorant, but they still accept the fact that the benefits, either emotional, psychological, or physical, outweigh the potential longterm risk (perhaps these people cannot comprehend the severity of the longterm risks).

as far as nuclear power goes, i think people have been irreversibly conditioned and primed to believe that nuclear technology is entirely bad, while they fail to recognize the benefits. the argument about what to do with nuclear waste is another story, but im fairly certain these same protestors you see outside a nuclear power plant have NO CLUE how nuclear power works or why it can be helpful for society. (On a side note, the odds of serious nuclear disasters at a powerplant are shockingly high, though you'll never see me protesting, because i simply don't know entirely whats going on.) i think anytime you have protesting, whether it be for gay marriage, nuclear power, etc, there is always an element of ignorance and a great deal of belief perseverence, the idea that "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what."

i suspect there is a lot of thigns going on concerning driving vs flying. yes, financially i think driving may be better, though its not clear. Fear may be an issue, both of flying itself and perhaps of change or something unfamiliar.

This actually opened my eyes to something that I think further enforces my point that these risk/reward things are mostly psychological. Fear seems to override all the mechanisms of risk/reward, i think. I'm not afraid of AIDs, like the article seems to suggest, because i have no reason to be. I am, however, deathly afraid of spiders, due to an experience involving a black widow. For that reason, I am completely adverse to pulling up weeds without protection in the form of thick gloves. The risk is certainly miniscule that ill die of a spider bite, but fear clearly distorts how i perceive the reality of the situation.

I think this can also scratch the surface of the maniac driver scenario. I think such people gain a psychological satisfaction by getting ahead of that innocent driver who may be driving "too slow" for another's taste. It may seem like a silly victory for us, and I agree its completely ridiculous in the long run, as the gain is almost completely negligible, however at the time, overtaking another driver can be viewed as a victory and an accomplishment. A mind is a terrible thing...

As far as global warming, i think this is a different matter and it's hard to go into. I think we can easily make changes as far as pollution is concerned, but it would require more effort than i think people are willing to put in. Imagine if all the car companies offered hybrid cars and ONLY hybrid cars. Or ig government stepped in an prohibited non-hybrid cars. Would that help? i believe so. Though it is difficult to get elected as a politician if your goal is to screw people out of their right to choose to drive a gas-guzzling monster SUV. I'm almost certainly in a minority when i say im willing to sacrifice a lot to keep this world clean and safe. But maybe im biased, as east tennessee has some of the worst air in America.

Ok, i think thats enough. It's hard to have this discussion online, and i could certainly keep going about this; there are a lot of factors that contribute to it and i think theyre all valuable.

From:

It is definitely difficult to discuss these things online.

I'll just reply to one point--I am ALL ABOUT the government putting restrictions and/or taxes on gas-guzzling cars, with exemptions for people with legitimate needs (agriculture, etc).

However, forbidding the sale of non-hybrid vehicles is dumb, because (e.g.) the Toyota Corolla gets nearly as good gas mileage as the Prius (35 vs 45, if I've got my numbers right). Same thing goes for a number of small, efficient non-hybrid cars. I would rather just provide tax penalties for cars with worse mileage. (Note that I do not say tax benefits for cars with better mileage. Because I'm just that fascist.)

From:

jianantonic.livejournal.com

Full Disclosure...

flamingophoenix already owns a hybrid:) But I'm totally in favor of strict gov't smackdowns for gas guzzlers.
http://www.fuh2.com/

From:

yes, i agree entirely restricting non-hybrids is silly, but i do think it would be relatively easy to get some leverage on pollution problems if we actually actively tried. and i think we should. this must be on the consumer side as well, however, because consumers generally dictate mechanisms in a free market. car manufacturers would have an incentive to agree to make cleaner cars, and then continue business as usual. this is just too much drama. if consumers DEMAND clean cars, companies have an incentive to shift to clean cars, while those who dont comply will be left in the dust.

From:

jianantonic.livejournal.com

Where the article struck a chord with me (even though it didn't say this exactly) is in the overall effect of the mentality of risk. Something sensational like a plane crash or a terrorist attack causes a disproportionate fear in people - and it's that fear that makes it possible for things like the Patriot Act to pass, or make people believe that they have to sacrifice their personal liberties to remain safe. Thanks, I'll take my chances on being suicide bombed. I'm not going to stress myself to death over terrorism and I'm not going to support a government that wants to trample my liberties to "fight" it, when I think it's impossible to fight.

Anyway, that's what I get out of it. May not be the best article but it resonates with me.

From:

speaking of which, we had to fork over 2 bottles of unopened gin to the US government after those threats in london with explosive liquids, or something. Constitutional for Dubs to steal our gin? What do you think? Would it have been unreasonable for security to simply unscrew the top to verify it was in fact gin and not an explosive?

From:

Not constitutional for them to steal your gin.

Which, incidentally, they didn't do.

You voluntarily surrendered it. You made that choice because it is prohibited to bring liquids (save in certain quantities and storage mechanisms) onto planes in carry-ons. Had you, instead, packed it in your checked luggage, no problems.

Imagine the security delay if they had to test every single bottle of every single liquid that people tried to carry on--my brother lost shampoo and toothpaste over the Thanksgiving break.

From:

not quite. we were flying home from thailand, where we had been for 16 days. we bought alcohol in japan at a duty free BEFORE the attacks happened in london, and when we arrived in chicago, we found out the bad news. our luggage was over-stuffed already, normally they would charge extra for how much the bags weighed, though i guess they dont have that policy in japan. so not only could we not stuff the bottles in the bags, but it would have been terribly unsafe to do so, as they would have broken. to say we "voluntarily" surrendered it is absolutely ridiculous, because i assure you we made quite a huff talking to as many security managers as we could find. this did take a long time, but wouldnt logic dictate that if we're DEMANDING someone to make sure we're safe that we are in fact not trying to bomb a plane? the truth is Dubs passed some sort of red alert thing that required security to confiscate liquids, no questions asked. This is unconstitutional... so by whatever technicality you want to call it... stealing, security, patriotism, war against terror, whatever... its still unconstitutional and completely unnecessary, as meg's article suggests. we're not hurting anyone, we just like gin and were fucked that they couldnt tell us this stuff when we could do something about it. our fault? if you think so, i think youre a little retarded.

From:

It's not entirely nice, pleasant, or desirable.

I don't think that I ever said that it's your fault. I was trying to explain the distinction between the voluntary (if constrained) surrender, and theft. Certainly, one cost-inefficient solution would have been to skip your flight and mail/fed-ex the gin to yourselves.

You did have other options, of questionable value.

What did you find unconstitutional?

From:

Or, mail/fedex the gin home and not skip your flight at all. They sell boxes and things in airports now for people who have accidentally forgotten "dangerous" items in their carryons, I do believe.

Are you saying "unconstitutional" because of search-and-seizure? The seizure part of it?

Incidentally, I carried a skabillion pounds of pottery home in my checked luggage from Morocco. It was stuffed to bursting, but I got it all home and nothing broke. But I don't think I could have pulled it off if I'd had to repack it in the airport.

From:

that seizure aspect is what my commentary on the voluntary (in the legal sense) transfer of the gin was regarding.

But, y'know, I'm a little retarded.

From:

i'm merely concerned about how much power our president has in these situations. how would you feel if dubs implemented a new tax that he claimed was ear-marked for the war on terror following a scare halfway across the world? from your perspective, this is a "voluntary" donation of americans' income to the US government for some obscure purpose. I agree, you don't have to fork over any money at all, but if they caught you, you'd rot in prison for quite a while. And it's much easier to find two bottles of liquids when they have security checking every bag than it is to catch tax evaders. so i'm still not certain where you get the word "voluntary" from, as we suggested a plethora of ways for them to check and make sure we were safe. That way the plane doesn't explode and we dont lose any of our property. What if dubs said that he feels the war is drawing near a conclusion and he should stay in office for another term to finish the job, which has been done before? correct me if im wrong, but our government was and is still set up so that one man cannot make these sorts of decisions without first checking the legislative and judicial branches. Figuring that we left japan before the attack and landed after the attack, and all the airport security policies were already in full-swing, do you honestly think the proper/appropriate measures were carefully planned and weighed by the right people? of course not. anybody with a quarter of a brain knows that no one is stupid enough to attack america merely hours after another plan had been ruined. That's like trying to rob a bank while the SWAT team is still bunkered outside to catch the last crook.

but yes, essentially the search and seizure aspect of it is most likely unconstitutional, in addition to the invasion of privacy and the whole principle of the thing. We did check into fedexing the stuff to our house, but we were PROMISED that if we sent it ground, they would be more than happy to break our bottles for us so that we have a mess. and sending them first class would cost more than both the bottles we bought and replacement bottles when we got home, so mailing them was out of the question.

regardless, if we can't agree that it was a terrible policy and most chimps could more effectively handle this type of situation, I really don't have any more to say.

From:

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't bad policy.

No, actually, the tax isn't nearly as voluntary as the surrender of your gin. After all, that would be compelled by statute.

The other problem, jj, is that if they do that for you, they have to do it for everyone--it's a question of expediency, as well. And, yes, most long-term decisions are governed by the checks-and-balances principle, but, as with FISA (1970's, as memory serves), sometimes those have to be applied retrospectively.

From:

i completely disagree that they would have to do it for everyone. That's something you hear in kindergarten. If im not mistaken, they made exceptions for people with medication. Are you telling me that airport security is trained enough to identify prescription medication? You obviously haven't been to an airport lately. Also, there's quite a difference between 2 unopened bottles of alcohol and mouthwash, for example. I reiterate, we were begging them to check the contents of the bottles to verify the safety of them. It took more time getting the managers over to talk about the policies than it would take to simply unscrew the top and check inside. Expediency clearly was not the issue, because very few people actually lost anything of worth. That's because most people were prepared. Is it not unreasonable to make exceptions for people in exceptional circumstances? Again, we were in thailand for a long time, we were maxed out on luggage, and we didnt find out about it till we reached security at the terminal. We made it through 2 other layers of security without any problems.

I learned in kindergarten that just because someone does something in the past, that does not make it right now. do you not agree that a terrorist strike in america immediately after a failed attack in london is a futile endeavor? Just because dubs has the ability to make this decision (though that's debatable), perhaps he shouldnt. I suppose youre trying to say its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, but thats a sick way of looking at a presidential decision.

From:

Mouthwash isn't medication. Usually.

However, I think you're right that airport security is not trained to identify prescriptions. Unfortunately, I think that allowing prescriptions (with original containers and labels) to go through was a lesser-of-two-evils scenario. Some people will literally die without their meds (although I can't think of examples right off the top of my head).

From:

or, even just someone without their anti-psychotics.

And, really, the gin isn't nearly as necessary as the prescriptions.

Also, I disagree that it's necessarily futile to attack in America just after a failed strike elsewhere, though it might be more clever to use different mechanisms. Moreover, Alcohols are flammable--dangerous in flight. And, just as the security folks are unable to ID booze, either.

From:

It's clearly futile. If you're good enough to pull off an attack at the highest degree of alert, you would be in a better position to attack when alert isnt so high. that's common sense.

i suppose it depends on your definition of dangerous. They serve alcoholic drinks to passengers on planes, and give you knives with your dinner. Why would i bring a bottle of alcohol when i could bring a cup full of gasoline from home? metal detectors dont catch matches, as far as i know.

From:

actually i dont remember, do they have policies prohibiting outside food and drink through the first layer of security after baggage check? regardless, it should still be possible to smuggle some on a plane.

From:

I don't even think that they prohibit outside food and drink on planes--well, drinks, now, I imagine. But outside food, to my knowledge, is acceptable.

From:

There's a quantitative difference between $5 minibottles of liquor and full-blown bottles of gin. Also, gasoline has been prohibited in carry-ons for a long time.

Sure, you'd be in a better position if you could wait. Sometimes, though, there are operative conditions working--whether they be tactical or strategic. Maybe your friend in the security company just put in his two weeks, or maybe it's election season.

From:

What if dubs said that he feels the war is drawing near a conclusion and he should stay in office for another term to finish the job, which has been done before?

I thought they made an amendment about that after FDR died.

From:

eh, i dont know the laws. I was under the impression it was written down before FDR, ie in the late 1700s when they asked washington to stay longer, but he thought it was too much like monarchy. im probably wrong though, i was never good at US history. and no, fedex headquarters is a waste of time. i don't have their promise in writing or anything, they could say i misunderstood and that's not what they meant, so whateva.

From:

nope. Washington chose to set the precedent. During FDR's term, I think, they passed the amendment to affect anyone elected after him.

From: