

Tell HN: Risk, Dan Gardner - ErrantX

Hey Guys,<p>I just finished reading Risk (The Science of Politics and Fear) by Dan Gardner and figured I should recommend it as a great read. I wouldn't normally recommend a book here but I <i>suspect</i> it is the kind of book a lot of people would dismiss as not-relevant to the hacker sort of mentality (I thought the same).<p>Basically it sums up the Human reaction to perceived risk. One way to describe the whole thing is how many people, after seeing a coin land heads up 5 times in a row will bet it has a higher chance of landing heads up again next time - regardless of the random aspect.<p>The most interesting thing I found in the book though was when he presented common "risk puzzles" where our gut causes a knee-jerk answer to a posed question. Several times I thought "that's silly, I'd never fall for that" only to read on an find that I had done :) one big point he makes there is that bad responses to risk and fear are just as much a problem in "intelligent" people.<p>If I had to sum it up Risk is a good link between some of Dawkins/Hitchens anti-mythology books and popular science concepts (like A Brief History of Time etc.).<p>His initial example is how after Sept. 11th people stopped using Aeroplanes whilst car travel went up: except more people <i>extra</i> died in that year than died in the Sept 11th tragedy. Car travel was perceived as "safer" even though it wasn't in the slightest.<p>I think it is really relevant to some of the stuff people here are working on: because it assess how people respond even after considering a problem. It's also proved useful (to me) in making several tough(ish) choices in the recent past. If nothing else it has sat there in my mind so that when "gut" kicks in I have a little bookmark to stop it and rethink what I just did/said/thought.<p>Anyway, I found it incredibly fascinating &#38; enlightening to read so.... recommended :)
======
thunk
I'm all for book reviews by HN for HN.

~~~
hsuresh
I would like to suggest a convention to the title for reviews too - Book
Review:

~~~
yan
I am 100% on board with this. Also, the ensuing discussion and alternate
suggestions have the potential to be more valuable than the original reviews,
much like the articles submitted.

------
yan
A book that I loved in HS on a similar topic, just more focused on the social
aspect of it is "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. Recommended also.

[http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid-
Things/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid-
Things/dp/0465014909)

~~~
ErrantX
Dan mentions this book several times in Risk actually - because of that it was
tentatively on my reading list but now I'll definitely give it a shot :D
thanks

------
fiaz
As a compliment to this book, I submit "Fooled By Randomness" by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb. An excellent book that describes very well how human beings
make deliberate attempts to rationalize random events.

------
ErrantX
Amazon Link (in case ppl struggle to find it)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan-
Gardner/dp...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan-
Gardner/dp/0753515539)

~~~
Brushfire
I cant seem to find it on the US Amazon (Amazon.com).

I see some likely, but potentially renamed alternatives by the same author.

Any of these:

    
    
      http://amzn.com/1905264151 - Same name, not sold by Amazon
      http://amzn.com/0525950621 - Different title, same author/approx publishing dates
    

Thoughts?

~~~
ErrantX
This is the one: <http://amzn.com/0525950621>

UK sub-title izs "The Science and Politics of Fear". Also the Independant
review on that page is the same in the back cover of my copy :)

Alternatively does this link work for you?

<http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Things-Shouldnt-Ourselves-Greater>

That is the correct book 100% :)

Edit: From his site they are all the same just different titles for different
countries.

<http://www.dangardner.ca/>

------
maximumwage
"His initial example is how after Sept. 11th people stopped using Aeroplanes
whilst car travel went up: except more people extra died in that year than
died in the Sept 11th tragedy. Car travel was perceived as safer even though
it wasn't in the slightest." I heard that statistic after September 11th. It
didn't help. It just made me more afraid of driving.

~~~
ErrantX
That's gut at work again (he makes this point later on) you have the risks
explained and still gut refuses to apply it right. Given the choice between
fly and drive now both are worrisome.

------
pasbesoin
One thing I've heard mentioned occasionally but still have not seen covered
extensively/comprehensively in the mainstream media, is the shifting of risk
in the U.S. in the last, say, 30 years, from institutions to individuals. For
example, the movement from professionally managed pensions to individually
managed (and often choice-limited) 401k plans as a main vehicle for retirement
savings.

I don't know whether the book addresses those aspects of risk, or whether it
shares my viewpoint on them, but I welcome the review and the attention the
post may place on risk as a topic. The conversation here could become quite
interesting.

~~~
anamax
> For example, the movement from professionally managed pensions to
> individually managed (and often choice-limited) 401k plans as a main vehicle
> for retirement savings.

We've found that the risk of professionally managed pensions is actually borne
by taxpayers, not "institutions".

~~~
pasbesoin
Yes, I thought of that as I wrote my comment. However, I see it as a somewhat
separate problem. The pension funds were, essentially, raided. If that were
prevented (that dreaded word, regulation), we might still be in a situation
where pensions provide a very stable retirement income. Further, preventing
such behavior would force the pension providers to own up to and correct their
problems sooner, instead of milking retirement earnings as a short term
compensation for those problems. Those that couldn't correct their problems
would fail. But the pensions would remain intact.

I think what is currently happening with many pensions in the U.S. -- e.g.
underfunding followed by default of one manner or another that transfers the
pension obligations to the increasingly underfunded Federal government
insurance/guarantor program that pays a small portion of their original value
-- is criminal, ethically where not (explicitly enough, apparently) legally.
But it does not of itself discredit the concept of pensions.

At the same time, I'm no expert in this. I'm open to considering opposing
arguments. Let me put part of my point another way: Expecting every future
retiree to become an investment expert is inefficient. All that time and
effort duplicated across so many people, to manage in each individual case
relatively small amounts (excluding that small percentage of the very
wealthy).

But maybe it's like democracy; all that work by individuals is necessary to
keep the system honest. And when the work isn't done, the system degrades.
Perhaps the best we can do is to all hire investment advisors (whom we choose)
and to treat no investment, no benefit as "guaranteed".

But, with regard to the topic of risk, this is a lot of individual risk.

~~~
anamax
> The pension funds were, essentially, raided.

Not at all. They were unsatisfiable promises.

> If that were prevented (that dreaded word, regulation)

I'll believe in regulation when public employee pensions are less of a
disaster than private ones.

> But it does not of itself discredit the concept of pensions.

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice....

> But, with regard to the topic of risk, this is a lot of individual risk.

You can't eliminate risk. You can merely move it around.

