5 ms·
Not really, these statistics arguments are inane. A bathtub you have control over may not be especially risky. The stat itself probably includes unsupervised k
by desmosxxx 5y ago
Not really, these statistics arguments are inane.
A bathtub you have control over may not be especially risky. The stat itself probably includes unsupervised kids, elderly, etc. Take those out because they don't apply to me.
You don't have as much control over strangers. And any given homeless person may or may not be judged as especially risky - that's up for the person there to decide. There's also little downside to just avoiding them entirely.
To me, it seems like it can be completely rational.
Individual events don't happen with dice like you seem to be implying.
- seadan83 5y agoI'm not quite implying that events happen with dice. More that if we knew the true frequency, we would gauge there to be far less risk (because there is actually far less risk). Meanwhile, you don't fully control if you slip in a bathtub, a person ascribes much less risk to the bathtub than they should (due to lack of confirmation bias and lack of knowledge of the risk stats, bathtubs are surprisingly riskier than you think; but if you put it in the context of what is the chance of a fall, you would start to think the odds are not that bad - and any serious fall with that many hard surfaces around can easily have a very bad outcome. So it's more consider the risk of any fall, now compare that to the statistics of 'stranger danger'. The point is that everyday common events, your car, your bathtub, your daily commute, can pose magnitudes more risk than even the shadiest of homeless person).