This seems to me to be akin to the known issue of people failing to understand, or choosing not to understand, statistical likelyhood especially as associated to the level of control.
When a person is in control of the situation (e.g. driving a car) the perceived risk of an accident is low and the tolerance of risk is high.
When a person is not in control (e.g. flying) the perceived risk is high and tolerance of risk is low.
As for actual numbers, reminding myself that more people are killed in car accidents yearly than plane accidents does kinda work (your 'returning to numbers' idea) but still only partially works.
Regarding Reddragdiva's original issue, it is a bit difficult to identify the scenario's other than the above without an example?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-27 01:07 pm (UTC)When a person is in control of the situation (e.g. driving a car) the perceived risk of an accident is low and the tolerance of risk is high.
When a person is not in control (e.g. flying) the perceived risk is high and tolerance of risk is low.
As for actual numbers, reminding myself that more people are killed in car accidents yearly than plane accidents does kinda work (your 'returning to numbers' idea) but still only partially works.
Regarding Reddragdiva's original issue, it is a bit difficult to identify the scenario's other than the above without an example?