Debates

 

Mrs. Robinson

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose 

When there is a debate over risks, will we always lose? 

In previous blog posts, I have suggested that human behavior can be explained by three attributes:

·       Rights vs. Duty;

·       Nature vs. Nurture; and

·       Reality vs. Fantasy.  

I have also suggested that risk, or its inverse reward, can be explained as the cross product of likelihood and consequences.  How risk is viewed depends on the behaviors listed above. 

If you place an extreme value on Rights (a User Optimal solution) vs Duty (a System Optimal solution), then the consequences of any action only exist if you, the user, exist.  Thus if your remaining life is only 25 years and the consequences will not be bad until after 50 years, then there is by your definition no bad consequences for you, and your perception of risk is low. 

If you place an extreme value on Nature, which means that persons can be excluded from your system based on their nature, regardless of how they are nurtured, then if the consequences are bad only for those not in your system, then you place no value on those consequences, and your perception of risk is low.

If you place an extreme value on Fantasy, then you are not likely to accept any likelihood that is different from your fantasy.  If your likelihood is low, then regardless of the consequences, your perception of risk is low.

Arguing risks with a person who won’t accept reality, will not change their mind.  Arguing risks for a future that is longer than that person’s lifetime, will not change the mind of anyone with an extreme Rights (User Optimal) perspective.  Arguing risks with a person with a person who excludes people based on their nature, if the risks are only to those who they exclude anyway, will not change their mind. Debating things that will not change a mind, is how you lose.