7 ms·

What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat

by DougN7 10y ago

What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?

jrs235 10y ago
The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.
- ionwake 10y ago
  I once read that for every 2 kids kidnapped by a stranger, someone is killed by a lightning strike. This was backed up by stats.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    And I avoid being outside when there's a thunderstorm nearby.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Unless the person killed is the stranger, this senseless retribution must be stopped.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    Is that because the danger is so low, or because we're so paranoid? It's the car alarm problem -- if it's deterring theft, theft stats would go down, making us wonder if we need the alarm in the first place!
    - Bjartr 10y ago
      The article explains that child related crimes have declined at a rate similar to all crime over several decades. I would expect to see a greater rate if the paranoia was effective.
- slavik81 10y ago
  Is that actually true for couples not currently in a legal dispute? Sometimes the average hides a lot of differences.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    Very recent and sad anecdata: http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/ertl-abduction-suspects-relationship-to-family/305295717 http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/ertl-abduction-suspects-rel...
- johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
  Both are real risks. The aftermath of a stranger kidnapping the child is usually much worse. The likelihood of each is quite low, though - at least in western societies.
duaneb 10y ago
The difference is probability.
drauh 10y ago
Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home to his house. Other examples: * Perception of the likelihood of terrorist attack, vs likelihood of dying in a fatal traffic crash. * Perception that vaccinations cause autism, vs reality that vaccinations prevent fatal disease.
- sssilver 10y ago
  The question is, would the factual probability go up if the perceived probability goes down? ;)
  - drauh 10y ago
    Like all questions, the answer is "depends". :) E.g. number of kids falling and breaking their arm will be larger, but the population is larger and medical care is better, now. So, overall, I think the risks are actually lower than when I was a kid running around unsupervised. I don't know about the number of pedophile predators per capita, but I imagine that may be a roughly fixed proportion of the population. Kids now also have cellphones, so that's a lifeline kids never had in the past. So, I'd imagine that percentage would not really rise, either.
  - milesvp 10y ago
    I would argue it'd be negligible. We live in a world fueled by fear, primarily because it's now so easy to hear about the edge cases. I used to blame newspapers for this, but it's gotten so much worse with social media. Now even the most obscure topic that would have not warranted the cost of ink is being broadcast to people, made all the more persuasive because of the anecdotal nature of the medium.
  - yaur 10y ago
    what makes you think they would go up? I was a latch-key kid growing up and by the time real risks of adolescence like sex, drugs, and driving came up I already had years of experience managing risk. OTOH, when I look at how my ex has raised our kids I'm terrified that when they become independent they are going to get themselves into trouble and not have the experience to stay calm and get themselves out of it.
b_t_s 10y ago
statistics. statistics is the difference. Somebody's gut feeling(WAG) vs. actually observed frequency.
Thriptic 10y ago
The difference is one is true and backed by logic and statistics while the other is false and rooted in emotion? It's an important distinction because it's impossible to have a discussion about how to manage risk without first having a true understanding about what the real risks are.
goodcanadian 10y ago
I guess . . . read the article. The study showed the perceived risk varied depending on moral judgments about why the child was left alone even though the facts of the case were otherwise identical. Moreover, it showed significant tendency towards negative moral judgments even in cases where events were completely outside the parent's control.
astrodust 10y ago
Here's an interesting survey you can do to see how the statistics work. Ask people you know if they know anyone who's been involved in a plane crash, however minor. Most people are at least two degrees away from such an event even if they know a lot of people. It's rare to know someone who knows someone who's been involved in a plane crash because as traumatic as these events are, they impact a very small number of people, under 1000 per year world-wide. There are significantly more people that win over $1M in the lottery in the same time period, and most would agree that's a huge long-shot. Now ask the same people if they've personally been involved in a collision. Most people over 30 have been involved in at least one, and it's not uncommon to know someone who's been involved in two or three. You probably know at least one person who's lost a friend or relative to a car crash. The need for seat belts and air bags is absolutely real. You'd know this if you did even a cursory amount of research.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Also airbags and seat belts don't do much to restrict your personal liberty. Kids walking around and exploring their local environment is a safe and I believe necessary activity if you want to raise a well rounded independent child. Notice the recent trend of the nearly thirty somethings still living at home? I postulate they might of grown up too "safe".
johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
First of all, you are mixing dimensions. If I perceive a kidnapping as an actual occurrence, I will call the police and/or intervene. The situation may be real, or it could e.g. be a stag party. Risk is different - it's about what isn't even perceived to have happened in a given situation. If I walk in the street, there is a risk a piano may have fallen out of an airplane and be falling towards me. If I perceive that as a risk, I may take countermeasures, in this example entering an underground garage would stop the (for me as a part of the example) hypothetical piano. If I often take exaggerated countermeasures as a parent, I may cause harm to the child. The safest child would be the one locked in a bomb shelter on a healthy diet. It would protect against falling pianos, falling bombs, freezing to death, drowning, transportation accidents, school bullies, sexually abusive authority figures, house fires, sun burns - everything except an attack on the bomb shelter ventilation system. The prohibitive costs excluded, no reasonable parent would do such a thing. (If air raid sirens go off, of course it still becomes reasonable to take the child to such a shelter - until the 'all clear'). If the child is never given a chance to be unsupervised, when will it learn to tell situations and behaviours that carry risk from those that don't? When will they develop their independent sense of judgement? Anyways, to answer your -hopefully rhetorical - question: Transportation by car is risky on a population level. Playing in the forest or park is not even close. It may also be argued that allowing children a steadily developing autonomy from an early age leads to a lower risk over the course of a lifetime - since the child then steadily increases its ability to handle a risky world. Therefore, I claim that unreasonable protection is the true neglect of the child. [EDIT: Spelling]
- mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
  Your view is in line with developmental psychologists. Children who are never given a chance to think and act independently will grow up stunted and incomplete. By overprotecting, you weaken the child.
  - johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
    The CPS should have a focus on parents that are unreasonable in their protection. Unfortunately, they have to be policy based. One child out of 500,000 that is snatched when alone creates much more attention than 50,000 children (out of 500,000) that never get the joy of developing into reasonable, competent and calm grown-ups...
DougN7 10y ago
Heh, I am a terrible communicator. What I meant is that to the individual, perception and reality are the same. The facts and stats don't back up perception, but a person will think their perception is correct, otherwise they would perceive differently. Which is why we judge parents - our perception is "it's dangerous out there", even though the data doesn't bare it out.

by DougN7 10y ago

What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?

jrs235 10y ago

The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.

ionwake 10y ago
I once read that for every 2 kids kidnapped by a stranger, someone is killed by a lightning strike. This was backed up by stats.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  And I avoid being outside when there's a thunderstorm nearby.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Unless the person killed is the stranger, this senseless retribution must be stopped.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  Is that because the danger is so low, or because we're so paranoid? It's the car alarm problem -- if it's deterring theft, theft stats would go down, making us wonder if we need the alarm in the first place!
  - Bjartr 10y ago
    The article explains that child related crimes have declined at a rate similar to all crime over several decades. I would expect to see a greater rate if the paranoia was effective.
slavik81 10y ago
Is that actually true for couples not currently in a legal dispute? Sometimes the average hides a lot of differences.
- jrs235 10y ago
  Very recent and sad anecdata: http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/ertl-abduction-suspects-relationship-to-family/305295717 http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/ertl-abduction-suspects-rel...
johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
Both are real risks. The aftermath of a stranger kidnapping the child is usually much worse. The likelihood of each is quite low, though - at least in western societies.

duaneb 10y ago

The difference is probability.

drauh 10y ago

Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home to his house. Other examples: * Perception of the likelihood of terrorist attack, vs likelihood of dying in a fatal traffic crash. * Perception that vaccinations cause autism, vs reality that vaccinations prevent fatal disease.

sssilver 10y ago
The question is, would the factual probability go up if the perceived probability goes down? ;)
- drauh 10y ago
  Like all questions, the answer is "depends". :) E.g. number of kids falling and breaking their arm will be larger, but the population is larger and medical care is better, now. So, overall, I think the risks are actually lower than when I was a kid running around unsupervised. I don't know about the number of pedophile predators per capita, but I imagine that may be a roughly fixed proportion of the population. Kids now also have cellphones, so that's a lifeline kids never had in the past. So, I'd imagine that percentage would not really rise, either.
- milesvp 10y ago
  I would argue it'd be negligible. We live in a world fueled by fear, primarily because it's now so easy to hear about the edge cases. I used to blame newspapers for this, but it's gotten so much worse with social media. Now even the most obscure topic that would have not warranted the cost of ink is being broadcast to people, made all the more persuasive because of the anecdotal nature of the medium.
- yaur 10y ago
  what makes you think they would go up? I was a latch-key kid growing up and by the time real risks of adolescence like sex, drugs, and driving came up I already had years of experience managing risk. OTOH, when I look at how my ex has raised our kids I'm terrified that when they become independent they are going to get themselves into trouble and not have the experience to stay calm and get themselves out of it.

b_t_s 10y ago

statistics. statistics is the difference. Somebody's gut feeling(WAG) vs. actually observed frequency.

Thriptic 10y ago

The difference is one is true and backed by logic and statistics while the other is false and rooted in emotion? It's an important distinction because it's impossible to have a discussion about how to manage risk without first having a true understanding about what the real risks are.

goodcanadian 10y ago

I guess . . . read the article. The study showed the perceived risk varied depending on moral judgments about why the child was left alone even though the facts of the case were otherwise identical. Moreover, it showed significant tendency towards negative moral judgments even in cases where events were completely outside the parent's control.

astrodust 10y ago

Here's an interesting survey you can do to see how the statistics work. Ask people you know if they know anyone who's been involved in a plane crash, however minor. Most people are at least two degrees away from such an event even if they know a lot of people. It's rare to know someone who knows someone who's been involved in a plane crash because as traumatic as these events are, they impact a very small number of people, under 1000 per year world-wide. There are significantly more people that win over $1M in the lottery in the same time period, and most would agree that's a huge long-shot. Now ask the same people if they've personally been involved in a collision. Most people over 30 have been involved in at least one, and it's not uncommon to know someone who's been involved in two or three. You probably know at least one person who's lost a friend or relative to a car crash. The need for seat belts and air bags is absolutely real. You'd know this if you did even a cursory amount of research.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Also airbags and seat belts don't do much to restrict your personal liberty. Kids walking around and exploring their local environment is a safe and I believe necessary activity if you want to raise a well rounded independent child. Notice the recent trend of the nearly thirty somethings still living at home? I postulate they might of grown up too "safe".

johnnyhillbilly 10y ago

First of all, you are mixing dimensions. If I perceive a kidnapping as an actual occurrence, I will call the police and/or intervene. The situation may be real, or it could e.g. be a stag party. Risk is different - it's about what isn't even perceived to have happened in a given situation. If I walk in the street, there is a risk a piano may have fallen out of an airplane and be falling towards me. If I perceive that as a risk, I may take countermeasures, in this example entering an underground garage would stop the (for me as a part of the example) hypothetical piano. If I often take exaggerated countermeasures as a parent, I may cause harm to the child. The safest child would be the one locked in a bomb shelter on a healthy diet. It would protect against falling pianos, falling bombs, freezing to death, drowning, transportation accidents, school bullies, sexually abusive authority figures, house fires, sun burns - everything except an attack on the bomb shelter ventilation system. The prohibitive costs excluded, no reasonable parent would do such a thing. (If air raid sirens go off, of course it still becomes reasonable to take the child to such a shelter - until the 'all clear'). If the child is never given a chance to be unsupervised, when will it learn to tell situations and behaviours that carry risk from those that don't? When will they develop their independent sense of judgement? Anyways, to answer your -hopefully rhetorical - question: Transportation by car is risky on a population level. Playing in the forest or park is not even close. It may also be argued that allowing children a steadily developing autonomy from an early age leads to a lower risk over the course of a lifetime - since the child then steadily increases its ability to handle a risky world. Therefore, I claim that unreasonable protection is the true neglect of the child. [EDIT: Spelling]

mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
Your view is in line with developmental psychologists. Children who are never given a chance to think and act independently will grow up stunted and incomplete. By overprotecting, you weaken the child.
- johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
  The CPS should have a focus on parents that are unreasonable in their protection. Unfortunately, they have to be policy based. One child out of 500,000 that is snatched when alone creates much more attention than 50,000 children (out of 500,000) that never get the joy of developing into reasonable, competent and calm grown-ups...

DougN7 10y ago

Heh, I am a terrible communicator. What I meant is that to the individual, perception and reality are the same. The facts and stats don't back up perception, but a person will think their perception is correct, otherwise they would perceive differently. Which is why we judge parents - our perception is "it's dangerous out there", even though the data doesn't bare it out.