Psychologists determine our βparanoiaβ or βrisk aversionβ by subjecting a person to a single experiment βthen declare that humans are rationally challenged as there is an innate tendency to βoverestimateβ small probabilities. It is as if the person will never again take any personal tail risk! Recall that academics in social science are β¦ dynamically challenged. Nobody could see the grandmother-obvious inconsistency of such behavior with our ingrained daily life logic. Smoking a single cigarette is extremely benign, so a cost-benefit analysis would deem one irrational to give up so much pleasure for so little risk! But it is the act of smoking that kills, with a certain number of pack per year, tens of thousand of cigarettes βin other words, repeated serial exposure.
Beyond, in real life, every single bit of risk you take adds up to reduce your life expectancy. If you climb mountains and ride a motorcycle and hang around the mob and fly your own small plane and drink absinthe, your life expectancy is considerably reduced although not a single action will have a meaningful effect. This idea of repetition makes paranoia about some low probability events perfectly rational. But we do not need to be overly paranoid about ourselves; we need to shift some of our worries about bigger things.
Schumer said these pods are tempting for children to eat because of how they look. He then admitted that he has wanted to eat tide pods in the past.BONUS: Adam Kokesh as the Tide Pods of Liberty
But the hard thing must be said that, collectively, we just haven't been good enough. We haven't convinced the majority. Is this because the majority just won't listen to reason? I am enough of an optimist, and I have enough faith in human nature, to believe that people will listen to reason if they are convinced that it is reason. Somewhere, there must be some missing argument, something that we haven't seen clearly enough, or said clearly enough, or, perhaps, just not said often enough.As someone who is definitely not an optimist, I think I can say pretty clearly "what is missing".