This point, and the one you make below, are fair points. I think the argument “we are overreacting to terrorism” seems like common sense or a self-evident argument.
The reason I think it’s hard to measure is that suffering or reactions to perceived fear is still real suffering and real reactions. On the other hand, while lots of kids drown in pools or lose limbs from lawnmowers, no one suffers or reacts. (although one thing to consider is potential damage of terrorism is unbounded, whereas future changes in lawnmower deaths probably won’t spike).
For the LW demographic, we probably don’t actually feel fear from terrorism. On the other hand, it makes me more angry than pool deaths or needless deaths due to no organ transplant free market. I often wonder: Can I override my base biological instinct that hates outsiders who attack? I can try to reason my way out, but that visceral anger response is hard-coded into my brain. I can, sort of. I still feel the hot-blooded anger, but I recognize it’s an evolutionary miscalibration with the modern age.
At least I, we, have a level of reflection that comes from (typically) higher levels of education, intelligence, and often relative affluence.
That’s why I consider it hard to measure. If I could prevent 800 deaths from terrorism, or 800 deaths from pool drownings, I would definitely prevent the first, because I know the negative effects would be much worse.
I have a friend who has been too scared to leave her house for weeks since Trump got elected. She is suffering, even though it seems irrational to me, it’s rational within her own brain.
So that’s what bugs me: We still have to measure her suffering, even if it is (probably) nonsensical. But if we try to optimize society with respect to our (argued) irrational suffering, we might end up with bad policy outcomes!
suffering or reactions to perceived fear is still real suffering and real reactions
True, but the interesting question is which link in the causal chain do you snip to make it stop (and you need to correctly identify the causal chain before that).
Can I override my base biological instinct that hates outsiders who attack? … an evolutionary miscalibration with the modern age
What’s wrong with hating outsiders who attack? Those who lose the self-defense instinct soon lose everything else.
I have a friend who has been too scared to leave her house for weeks since Trump got elected.
That seems to be a clinical case in need of medical help.
But if we try to optimize society with respect to our (argued) irrational suffering, we might end up with bad policy outcomes!
Not necessarily. To get back to the start of this comment, you need to correctly identify the causal chain and then figure out the easiest (or least expensive) link at which to break it. In this case I might argue that the real cause is overprotective upbringing and high preference for staying in an echo chamber / comfortable bubble. As one blog phrased it, if are growing up as a gazelle in a petting zoo, finding yourself on the Serengeti plains will not lead to good outcomes :-/
This point, and the one you make below, are fair points. I think the argument “we are overreacting to terrorism” seems like common sense or a self-evident argument.
The reason I think it’s hard to measure is that suffering or reactions to perceived fear is still real suffering and real reactions. On the other hand, while lots of kids drown in pools or lose limbs from lawnmowers, no one suffers or reacts. (although one thing to consider is potential damage of terrorism is unbounded, whereas future changes in lawnmower deaths probably won’t spike).
For the LW demographic, we probably don’t actually feel fear from terrorism. On the other hand, it makes me more angry than pool deaths or needless deaths due to no organ transplant free market. I often wonder: Can I override my base biological instinct that hates outsiders who attack? I can try to reason my way out, but that visceral anger response is hard-coded into my brain. I can, sort of. I still feel the hot-blooded anger, but I recognize it’s an evolutionary miscalibration with the modern age.
At least I, we, have a level of reflection that comes from (typically) higher levels of education, intelligence, and often relative affluence.
That’s why I consider it hard to measure. If I could prevent 800 deaths from terrorism, or 800 deaths from pool drownings, I would definitely prevent the first, because I know the negative effects would be much worse.
I have a friend who has been too scared to leave her house for weeks since Trump got elected. She is suffering, even though it seems irrational to me, it’s rational within her own brain.
So that’s what bugs me: We still have to measure her suffering, even if it is (probably) nonsensical. But if we try to optimize society with respect to our (argued) irrational suffering, we might end up with bad policy outcomes!
True, but the interesting question is which link in the causal chain do you snip to make it stop (and you need to correctly identify the causal chain before that).
What’s wrong with hating outsiders who attack? Those who lose the self-defense instinct soon lose everything else.
That seems to be a clinical case in need of medical help.
Not necessarily. To get back to the start of this comment, you need to correctly identify the causal chain and then figure out the easiest (or least expensive) link at which to break it. In this case I might argue that the real cause is overprotective upbringing and high preference for staying in an echo chamber / comfortable bubble. As one blog phrased it, if are growing up as a gazelle in a petting zoo, finding yourself on the Serengeti plains will not lead to good outcomes :-/