4 ms·
The OP suggested that risk shouldn't be communicated in absolute terms because people can't be trusted to make sound decisions. Presumably it's therefore better
by kevinskii 6y ago
The OP suggested that risk shouldn't be communicated in absolute terms because people can't be trusted to make sound decisions. Presumably it's therefore better to only share relative risk numbers, which are almost always more frightening.
That's what I was responding to. I probably agree with most of your views on personal liberty versus the common good, but I think it's tangential to the original point about risk communication.
- eganist 6y ago> The OP suggested that risk shouldn't be communicated in absolute terms because people can't be trusted to make sound decisions. Presumably it's therefore better to only share relative risk numbers, which are almost always more frightening. That's not actually what I said, but I love your reasoning, so I'll adopt it. Why: > The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it. How much information do you figure that'll require? Because our perception of how much is probably the difference between your perspective and mine.