Most Helpful Customer Reviews
56 of 60 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
And the odds are . . .?, July 21, 2008
Dan Gardner's concerned about how we handle fear. In North America, of course, a single event, the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon generated a new level of fear in the population. So unexpected and abrupt was use of commercial aircraft in a terrorist assault that an avoidance of flying was the immediate and widespread reaction. Gardner, however, wants to consider the event and the reaction in a more rational perspective. He notes at the outset of the book that the chance of dying in auto incidents is far higher than that of flying. As the statistics proved - since nearly 1600 additional auto deaths - about half of those lost at the World Trade Centre - were added to the annual total in the following year. Gardner taps into psychology and the field of risk assessment in this fascinating study of how we deal with fear. We aren't doing a very good job of it.
For millions of years animals relied on quick responses for survival. Reaction to potential danger or a possible meal left no time, nor need, for reflecting. Act fast or expire. That kind of brain is now called the limbic system, or "lizard brain". Evolution granted humans a chance to build on that foundation to produce a "thinking" part of the brain. The limbic system is still in place, however, and issuing commands we are rarely aware of. Psychologists, says Gardner, call these System One and System Two. The author, in the best journalist's style, calls these The Gut and The Head. The Gut reacts to crisis situations quickly and effectively. The Head follows along later at a more deliberate pace - if it gets any voice at all.
Gardner is eager to have us understand how these Systems work. He contends that we are carrying a reaction system founded on our ancestors' time on the African savannah. Our brains haven't adapted to the fast-paced, high technology world around us. We are reacting almost entirely with The Gut, and we are making serious mistakes as a result. Are we truly under threat from the things we claim to fear? He cites numerous cases, from the fear of "man-made" chemicals through the spectre of cancer to the possibility of our children being assaulted by strangers. Each of the topics is introduced with our given views - usually captured by polls, then carefully assessed by examining the real odds. In every case, the important things to consider almost certainly haven't been. The breast cancer campaigns have uniformly overlooked the role of age in determining the likelihood of its occurrence.
The calculations leave little doubt that we are far too often looking at threats with little consideration of their true nature. Why are we reacting so readily with The Gut instead of with The Head? In no small part, Gardner argues, media, politicians and industry play a significant part. Media, anxious to sell its products, emphasizes the violent, the extreme and the bizarre. The result, of course, is that's what captures our attention. The bombardment of such stories, often unthinkingly repeated by politicians, is a reinforcement of The Gut's reaction to this kind of information. Never seeing a rational analysis of such news, we lose any sense of proportion about what is truly important. We rarely find the opportunity to consider an issue rationally before the next one is upon us.
Gardner is not simply playing a new form of "scare" journalism. Various scholars have researched each of the topics. Their tests are well described and the analyses are carefully explained. These examples provide the book with a sound foundation, making this book something to consider carefully. As a conclusion, the author reminds us that we haven't taken into account the benefits our time enjoys when compared to even the recent past. Childhood diseases, such as diphtheria, have been removed as a threat to our families and society. We should remember that and remind ourselves to use The Head when events are trying to drive The Gut to dominate our thinking. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Makes risk assessment easier to understand, September 15, 2008
Gardner's book is both enjoyable and informative, providing a wealth of information about how humans evaluate risk. In particular, the author shows how our instincts (or "Gut") reactions to risk are often incorrect, yet we are reluctant to overrule these reactions with the more calm and reasoning "Head" side of our thinking.
Gardner uses a vast review of research in the field of risk assessment to bolster his points, yet manages to make these scientific studies accessible to laypeople, summarizing many of the principles with names such as the Example Rule, the Anchoring Rule, and the Rule of Typical Things. He then gives a number of examples of how people are often led astray by different entities (e.g., the news media, advertising agencies, political campaigns) who use these principles to evoke unreasoning fear as a means of manipulation, the implicit message being, "Here's something that you should be afraid of, but if you'll just buy this product or elect this candidate, you'll be safe."
I especially enjoyed the abundant statistics and discussions about the relative risk or safety of different activities (e.g., car travel vs. airline travel, heart disease vs. cancer, etc.), and how, from a historical and statistical perspective, "there's never been a better time to be alive." I would have liked for Gardner to have covered certain topics in more detail (e.g., vaccinations, climate change), but the ones he did cover in detail (e.g., terrorism, environmental chemicals, the role of the news media) were all well done.
All in all, a fascinating and valuable book for anyone who wants to know how to better use the reasoning side of their brain to evaluate the risks we all face.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
After a slow start, I could not put the book down, November 6, 2008
This book really grew on me. It started slow -- the writing early on seemed disorganized and less than captivating. Then I got into the book, to the point where I could not put it down. Too interested in what was coming next, in looking at different examples of how fear in the Gut overwhelms thinking in the Head. Toward the end of the book, things got a bit slow again, as Gardner got repetitive. All in all, though, a very interesting read.
The premise of The Science of Fear is simple -- fear comes from the Gut, not the Head. Sometimes the Head can overrule the Gut, sometimes not. Snakes, for example. Most people fear snakes. It has nothing to do with reason or experience. It's ingrained. Even if we try to get used to being around snakes -- which would normally work to eliminate a fear like this -- nothing we do or think can overcome the fear of snakes.
Gardner gives lots of examples of how fear works. But he is a newspaper journalist, and the writing shows that. Despite the title, this is not a science book. And the organization is not tight. The book seems less a book and more a collection of articles. That's what kept me from giving it five stars.
Another weakness, for me -- I had hoped that Gardner would cover a couple of topics that ended up with just a brief mention. Global warming, which seems a fear driven by Gut more than Head. And the Y2K computer bug. Talk about not being able to properly evaluate risk. Billions wasted to combat a false fear. Both topics interest me.
Like most books, The Science of Fear could have been better. But it's still a very good book, well worth reading. I enjoyed it and learned from it. In both cases, a lot.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
