This board and 'risk homeostasis'

I don't know if anyone on the board has any personal concern of the virus killing them

I know I don't. But I basically try to act as if I'm already infected to not send it along to someone who is high risk. It's called not being an a-hole.

quote:

---

The majority on this board (re: virus) are 7-8. The minority they are arguing with are 3-4. 
Thoughts?

---

I'd say you've basically nailed it.


I'll admit though, as a self-professed 7-8 who is more worried about 1) the economy, and 2) President Trump's reelection, I am beyond tired of this crap. Ready to get past it.

quote:

---

The majority on this board (re: virus) are 7-8.

---

Probably closer to 5-6 (although some folks are clearly higher).

quote:

---

The minority they are arguing with are 3-4. Thoughts?

---

Definitely not 4. Closer to 2-3, particularly when faced with the actual data and they seem unwilling to even consider a modest cost/benefit analysis (or comparisons with other, easily comparable risks) without resort to saying that those trying to do such analysis/comparisons are putting "money above lives."

These risk averse folks are the epitome of the pearl-clutching, spoiled, emotionally driven folks who dominate the left side of the political spectrum.

quote:

---

while his semi-trained wolverine is giving him oral sex.

---

Is the wolverine toothless? If not, Billy is pretty stupid.

When does this "balanced state" establish itself? When does one become a 1 or a 10?

I think there are probably a lot that talk like 9 or 10s but are in reality 2 or 3s. Particularly those war hawks on here--none of them would go to the front line voluntarily I suspect.

It’s an interesting theory, but it doesn’t seem textured enough.

We are creatures that are evolved to concern ourselves with risk. And rewards.

Is that red berry good to eat, or poisonous. A potential risk or reward.

We are constantly assessing risk/reward and constantly gathering evidence to help us.

Within that context, there are many reasons why some people have higher tolerance for risk. It’s their personality and their past experience, but also it’s their current perceptions.

What molds people’s perception of risk? Internal factors, for sure, but also external, such as media exposure, etc.

quote:

---

What molds people’s perception of risk? Internal factors, for sure, but also external, such as media exposure, etc.

---

Good points. But I've known siblings who were raised in the same environment and had extremely similar experiences. But one was a fearless risk taker and the other was extremely cautious.

I would also assume that people who enlist for military duty have a very high risk tolerance.

Interesting thoughts.

I think I am moderately concerned about this virus. In a sense, I don't think it is extremely deadly, and may be close to an order of magnitude lower than what it is. I think we have underestimated its rate of infection just as we have overestimated its mortality.

My major concern is healthcare resources. If everyone gets sick, everything gets overwhelmed.

I think this places me high on this board, but in the united states, this places me at a moderate perhaps 6. I have a respect for this virus.

I don't know where that places me on the who risk homeostasis chart. I guess financially I am a bit more concerned about what are the long term effects.

In short I tend to try to figure what I think is going to happen before I get too concerned or not concerned about something.

Honestly, I am unsure of this thing because I think there is a lot of stupidity out there that could totally screw things up. I am kinda as afraid of the lets do nothings as I am lets shut down everything.

I don't know. Kinda in the middle, but I guess that is where I am on most things so perhaps that is my normal risk homeostasis.

That's not my point. The OP is about how different people react to exactly the same increase in risk at totally different levels. Why? Because we are wired for different levels of risk comfort.