A crash course in changing the world.
Covering risk in a crisis
For me the most interesting point was the one about keeping a balance between the real hazard and the outrage that the people experience.
This is a very important point as it outlines the difference between the mindset that the people have when reading/watching news in a crisis.
On the other hand, I cannot notice how depressing is to understand that we are just "cattle" being guided by the media on what to think and when to act.
As a person who does not watch TV or read newspapers, the realization that everything is just a directed theater designed to control the public mindset just adds to my refusal to consume news.
I guess that in the end, the people who want the "scientific truth" will do research (and get the facts) while the people who want to be told what to do will watch the news.
Its a personal choice, but it is good to know that these methods are being used in a purposeful way.
-
Comment by Sarah Shaw Tatoun on May 3, 2010 at 2:52pm -
What a superb article, Alexandru! Thank you for linking to it. I don't think I quite share your conclusions, however. To me the interesting thing was the insight that both the public and the scientific community underestimate risk in different ways. Is there any real reason why the scientific community shouldn't include questions of public response in their investigations of and analysis of risk? I don't think so. It is an old scientific bias that emotional reactions are 'unscientific'-- unquantifiable and therefore not subject to scientific investigation, but in fact much of the new research in psychology is finding that human reactions follow patterns that are by no means random. By adding a human dimension to their investigations scientists may get the hearing they deserve -- and people may finally be able to listen to the information they need.
-
Comment by Alexandru Ragalie on May 3, 2010 at 3:06pm -
Looking at it from your point of view it surely makes sense.
I also believe that there is a lot of research going on into areas such as "public response" and "mass behavior", but it is financed and done by the media market toward other purposes, mainly increasing consumption of their content.
Let's hope that some of that knowledge transfers to other "non-profit oriented" areas as well.
-
Comment by Sarah Shaw Tatoun on May 3, 2010 at 4:45pm
-
Well, I've been kind of dismayed by the degree to which marketing people are paying attention and making 'good' use of psychological research, but they aren't doing any of the kind of thing I'm thinking about themselves. What I'm talking about is things like Richard Wiseman's investigations into the striking differences in people who consider themselves lucky versus those that consider themselves unlucky, or the studies of inattentional blindness by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris, or Daniel Pink's research on motivation. Some economists are also beginning to pay attention to game theory and experimental economics which investigates how people actually behave rather than relying on 19th century assumptions about human nature.
So far all of this is being used extensively by marketers, public relations and political campaign managers-- but I hope people will begin to see, if they haven't already, that the grave problems we face make any focus on money pointless. I think we probably have the scientific means to save ourselves and begin to live sustainably-- so the really big problem is to be able to understand and organize ourselves well enough to make use of our knowledge.
Anyway, sorry for the long reply-- thanks again for a fascinating and thought-provoking post!
-
Comment by Alexandru Ragalie on May 3, 2010 at 5:08pm
-
No need to apologize Sarah for your educative and interesting points of view :)
I also invite you to read and participate on our blog about sustainability and the challenges that come with it (http://wintheplanet.com/blog/)
Comment
© 2012 Created by Alchemy.
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke