|
|
Fallacy about possible consequences of riskMy wife has a pattern of communication about risk that I find annoying and I am not sure exactly which fallacy it is. A recent example: we are parked in front of a well-lit supermarket in the evening. We need to run in for one item. But she read this supermarket had one or more parking lot breakins (overnight? In dark corners? Such details would not have been captured) I am okay with not concealing a sports bag in the back seat, she wants me to move it to the trunk. I resist, she pushes, saying "I'm not dealing with a broken window." This is annoying because it sounds smug about declaring the potential consequence of leaving the bag visible, when of course I understand the consequence and my point is that it is exceedingly unlikely to occur in context. This pattern repeats with any decision that falls on a risk continuum. What is the flaw in her statement, or am I the problem?
|
| asked on Wednesday, Dec 11, 2019 01:06:05 AM by Matt | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Nobody is at fault here; it is a demonstration of different levels of the concept known as risk-aversion . Risk-aversion can be seen as a personality trait where one might be anywhere on the continuum. Your wife's risk-reward calculations are different from yours where she calculates the potential for risk to justify the actions (e.g., moving items to the trunk), whereas your calculations do not. Even if we had reliable statistics on probabilities, this would only help with irrational conclusions (e.g. like people driving rather than flying because they falsely believe they are safer on the ground). The example you gave does not fall in this category.
My advice, as a social psychologist and a husband: just be more empathetic to your wife's higher-level of risk-aversion and communicate with her to the fact that your level is much lower, which causes you to see these preventative measures as unnecessary. Perhaps you both may find a happy medium. |
| answered on Wednesday, Dec 11, 2019 06:59:48 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Your wife is always right when the issue has a negligible impact on your lives. Eg. Her...Honey, take out the trash in the morning so no dogs will get into it and make a mess. You...I've killed every dog in the world so they're extinct...Her...maybe the cats have taken on the dog's usual nuisance behavior......This should have never gone beyond you saying OK. Happy Wife Happy Life
|
| answered on Friday, Dec 13, 2019 02:46:52 AM by skips777 |
Comments |
|
| |