Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

Why should the near-zero prior probability, of 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre, overwhelm any subsequent response that may have lowered the objective risk?

+0
−2

Can you please expound the embold phrase below? Can this be calculated?

      It is notoriously difficult, however, to assess what one’s prior assessment of the risk would have been had one thought of the event before it actually occurred. Most Americans had never contemplated the possibility of a terrorist attack in this country at the level of 9/11. After it occurred, an attack of that magnitude—or much worse—was not beyond belief, and indeed was thought to have a positive probability of happening again. Thus, most Americans’ subjective assessment of terrorism risk should have been far higher after 9/11 than before, despite measures taken to lower such risks after 9/11, since the near-zero prior probability should overwhelm any subsequent response that may have lowered the objective risk [Emphasis mine]. A survey of law school students published in 2003 by economists Kip Viscusi and Richard Zeckhauser in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, however, found that around 40 percent of respondents believed their personal risk assessment was higher before the attacks than currently.$^2$ In another study of professional-school students and undergraduate business students in 2005, they showed that over two-thirds of respondents exhibited the same phenomenon.$^3$ These respondents experienced a recollection bias, whereby after the occurrence of a low-probability event, one thinks that one’s prior risk assessment was much higher than it actually was. This could be due to an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance, for self-justification, or simply to misremembering.

Paul Slovic, The Irrational Economist (2010), p 102.

$^2$ Kip Viscusi and Richard Zeckauser, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty_ (2003).

$^3$ Kip Viscusi and Richard Zeckauser, “Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism,” Journal of Legal Studies 34 (January 2006): 27-55.

Op. cit. p 286.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comments

0 answers

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!