4 ms·
For an objective/scientific reasoning behind this, I once read somewhere (no citations handy, sorry) that humans can't really "associate" at a personal level wi
by Dalewyn 2y ago
For an objective/scientific reasoning behind this, I once read somewhere (no citations handy, sorry) that humans can't really "associate" at a personal level with more than a few hundred people or so at once.
This means that beyond the family, friends, co-workers and other professional relations, and "the village/church" so to speak it actually doesn't matter at the individual level what happens to those outside of that circle.
- ethbr1 2y agoDunbar's number = max ~150 stable simultaneous relationships https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number Which honestly probably plays into the perception a lot, as anything with lower mortality becomes probability rather than self experience. And if there's one thing that the lottery has taught us -- most people are terrible at intuiting correctly about probability. It could be 1:1,000 or 1:10,000 or 1:1,000,000, and it'd essentially be the same to someone who relies on their gut perception.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoPeople are bad at probability, but I think that cuts both ways on the covid issue. You have healthy 20 year olds who still wont leave their house and living depressed lonely lives because of that 1:1,000,000 chance. My elderly parents wanted to keep seeing people, even if they were exposed. They said their remaining life expectancy was probably 10 years. They weren't going sacrifice a few of those precious years for even a 5% mortality rate.