Monday, April 23, 2007

April 24 - People Make Emotional Decisions for Rational Reasons

Uh, well, that was a nice break.

“People make emotional decisions for rational reasons.” I don’t know who first said it, but I first heard it from a guy named Jim Zackrone. Jim is a sales guy in the high stakes world of semiconductor capital equipment, stuff that sells for the bargain price of 500,000 and goes up from there. He was fond of that quote. What it meant was that, basically, people make up their minds about what they want and then they find the facts to fit their decision. This is a process called rationalization and it applies to a great many things people do, not just purchasing decisions.

Fifteen years or so ago, I decided to start riding a motorcycle. This was for two reasons. The first was financial. An old bike was all I could afford to get around on. The second was because I truly enjoyed riding motorcycles. Not long after I made this decision, I started hearing from various people about the perils of riding. From anecdotes of emergency room doctors calling them “donor-cycles” to loved ones assuring me that they knew I would ride responsibly, “but what about the other crazy drivers out there?” To all these people, a motorcycle was an assured death trap.

I rode anyway.

I rationalized, myself, about this. My thoughts were mostly about my being in control and I thought that was a fairly good argument, to me. I was responsible. I did wear a helmet. But, I did think about it. What did I really know. I knew one thing. Motorcycles were not actually so dangerous that they had been banned. On the basis of this, I could pretty much conclude that they were not actually assured death traps.

So who was rationalizing, I wondered. Me or the folks concerned for me? I began looking into it. It turns out the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles very good statistics on all sorts of accidents of all sorts of vehicles. They track the contributing factors to the accidents such as alcohol consumption, seatbelt use, etc. From this it is possible to determine two things. How dangerous are cars and how dangerous are motorcycles. I’ll sum it up, though you can read something called the Hurt report if you’d like more detail. Motorcycles are 4 times more dangerous than cars. 4 times more likely to result in serious injury or death. That might seem like a lot until you understand how surpassingly unlikely it is that you will suffer serious injury or death in a car. It might seem like a lot until you compare it to all the things you do every day that are far more dangerous than 4 times the likelihood of dying in a fiery wreck.

Things like, oh, say, going for a swim, taking a shower, riding a bike. That’s right, bicycles are incredibly more dangerous than motorcycles. Start looking at the various things that cause death. Next time you tsk. about a motorcycle rider, think about putting down that burger and eat some celery. You are going to die a miserable death of heart disease before he dies riding.

What I learned from this process is that us people are terrible at assessing risk. We make decisions based on a few anecdotes. The horror of the anecdotes set our minds, and any more information that comes our way, we slot it in to fit our view. Alternatively, we rationalize on the basis of desire or necessity and diminish the horror of whatever anecdote or information comes our way. Whatever. To make a good decision, you need raw information. I don’t ride much anymore, but it isn’t because of fear, but simply a lack of time. It turns out a motorcycle is an extremely selfish mode of transportation. Since I became a dad, I can not really justify taking off for an afternoon ride much, anymore.

I did learn a few other things about motorcycles that really make one wonder. For all the talk that motorcyclists talk about the other ignorant drivers, motorcyclists cause more than 60% of the accidents they are in. The reasons are many, but most experts are convinced that it has to do with the connection between the eyes and the motion of the body. When we move around we tend to go where our eyes are looking. Try turning your head while walking or running and see if you don’t tend to go in the direction you look. Because cycles (bi and motor) are so sensitive to body motions, they actually amplify this tendency. Combine this with the human tendency to fixate on something that is a threat, like an on-coming car, and you can quickly see how this could lead to disaster.

Every motorcyclist should be taught this. Without knowing this you may never recognize it when it happens in time to correct.

Aside from that, motorcycle danger is enhanced far more by external influences, especially intoxication. when you read the NHTSA data and you start adding alcohol into the mix and the danger shoots up to, if I recall correctly, something over 20 times more dangerous. Don’t drink and ride.

From here I’ll next explore “anything for the children”, but in reference to last week. What, exactly, do you suppose the risk from firearms is in this country? Anecdotes and individual experience, I'm afraid, are just not the sorts of things you can base decisions on. They are not enough for you to know the comparative risk to see if they are even worth addressing compared to the things that cause the most danger.

YetAnotherJohn finally weighed in on the last post considering the hazards of gun ownership...

4 comments:

joeyblades said...

I'm glad you wrote this post because it actually highlights the two points I've been trying to make all along.

You wrote:

I’ll sum it up, though you can read something called the Hurt report if you’d like more detail. Motorcycles are 4 times more dangerous than cars. 4 times more likely to result in serious injury or death.

I read through several versions of the Hurt Report and several motorcycle-related documents from the NHTSA (just in case you may have gotten your facts from there instead of the Hurt report, as you stated). I could not find the raw data to back up your summary. I'm sure I just missed it, but maybe you can share where you found this? So, not having any data to the contrary, I'm not going to dispute that number, but instead I will turn to the point I was trying to make previously regarding statistics: Just what does that number mean? Is it normalized or does it mean people in the general population are at 4 times greater risk on a motorcycle? Is it based on miles traveled or vehicle registration. How are passengers folded into the data? What factors were considered and which factors thrown out? Given the number of motorcycles on the road versus the number of cars, if 4X isn't appropriately normalized, then that would be a staggering statistic. In fact, in 2004, the NHTSA published a report that stated this:

Per vehicle mile traveled in 2003, motorcyclists were about 32 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809908.pdf

Why the discrepancy? Well, it could be due to the fact that the Hurt report was completed in 1981 based on data collected in 1979 and 1980. Data collected by motorcyclists, BTW (therefore no bias was likely in the data collection). Maybe it's because the automobile safety factor has been increasing due to things like airbags, anti-lock brakes, active traction control, etc.. Maybe seatbelt laws and car seat laws are having a positive impact.
I'm not going to dwell on this, because I know you were just using it as an example and my only point is to show why I think it's futile to engage in a battle of statistics.


From here I’ll next explore “anything for the children”, but in reference to last week. What, exactly, do you suppose the risk from firearms is in this country?

What, exactly, do you suppose the risk of being in a situation where a firearm will save your life is in this country?

A wise man once wrote:

What I learned from this process is that us people are terrible at assessing risk. We make decisions based on a few anecdotes. The horror of the anecdotes set our minds, and any more information that comes our way, we slot it in to fit our view. Alternatively, we rationalize on the basis of desire or necessity and diminish the horror of whatever anecdote or information comes our way.

Is it not just possible that your desire to hold a gun and to protect yourself is based on a poor assessment of the risks?


Anecdotes and individual experience, I'm afraid, are just not the sorts of things you can base decisions on.

You are making a false assumption, I think. I believe that you assume that my position is based only on personal anecdotes. This is simply not true. I read a lot of the same statistics and am exposed to a lot of the same raw data as you... maybe more. I'm just not naive enough to believe everything I read without assessing the source or considering the alternative interpretations. I choose to augment the consensus scientific data with personal observation. If my personal observation does not match consensus, then I question the validity and potential bias of my experience. Unfortunately, when it comes to firearms, the only consensus data that seems to conflict with my experience is coming from clearly biased sources and a lot of the raw data doesn't add up. If I see sound data to contradict my worldview, I assure you I will be the first to admit I'm wrong (or, at least, shut up).


YetAnotherJohn finally weighed in on the last post considering the hazards of gun ownership...

Since I'm short on time, I'll respond to some of those comments in that (dead) thread later... keep a lookout...

YourHumbleHost said...

That's why you have to look at the data and not simply trust me or anyone else who does the analysis. The danger is per passenger mile, if I recall and the 32x factor included all factors, if I recall. Once you factor out alcohol and other contributors not relevant to me and the way I rode, the risk fell to about 4x. Of course that has to be factored out of the auto stats, as well. It turns out that those sorts of factors have a dramatically different effect on motorcycle safety versus car safety.

That said, if you look at the risk associated with 32x, it still is minuscule compared with things people regularly do. Like, oh, smoke cigarettes. Or mountain bike.

Is it not just possible that your desire to hold a gun and to protect yourself is based on a poor assessment of the risks?

Sure. But I don't believe that to be so and, when taking a strong position, I at least try to look at the data rather than dismiss it out of hand. To the extant that I have read the data and various analyses, I have come to the conclusion that those sufficiently afraid of gun violence to promote their ban have assigned a risk out of proportion to reality.

What, exactly, do you suppose the risk of being in a situation where a firearm will save your life is in this country?

I find the possibility that a firearm may be used to protect me or mine from injury, loss of property or loss of life to be greater than the risk that I or mine will be victims of gun violence due to firearm possession by law-abiding persons.

joeyblades said...

Emotional responses... Where's your data?

YourHumbleHost said...

I'd say unsubstantiated rather than emotional. At any rate, my suggestion is that you go through the same process I did, not trust my analysis.

Enjoy!