Myth 26: “Better Safe Than Sorry” Is Rational Thinking
Posted Jul 01 2009 6:39pm
Wired.com has spoofed the syndrome that many of us concern parents are vulnerable to — access to and believing too much scary information and believing our children are extremely vulnerable to harm. Their June 1, 2009 piece called “ Alt Text: Beware Nebulous Internet Disease” starts with this jab, “The infection typically begins when the victim reads about an unusual affliction on a news site or current-events blog. Upon reading, the victim begins to experience one or more symptoms of that disease, typically minor symptoms such as a scratchy throat or slightly reddened area of skin.” – Wired
We all consider ourselves savvy people who know where to find the answers we are looking for, but that may actually be our undoing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Instantly believing something is going to happen to us or ours without fully comprehending the odds of contracting the problem is a misguided thing. Taking action on fear with no further information or guidance than our sense that we’d “rather be safe than sorry” is an irrational thing.
We see a tv expose’ about child prostitution in Cambodia and it is so heart-wrenching and horrifying that in subtle ways we start protecting our daughters from our own awkward, lonely, male neighbor. We read the headline “ Polio Outbreak Occurs Among Amish Families In Minnesota ” and rush our babies to the pediatrician, ignoring that in paragraph four the article begins to ambiguously explain that there were actually anti-bodies against polio in Minnesota (in other words “immunity to polio”).
But aren’t we just being practical? Or are we being totally bloody irrational to the point that a whole book was written about the phenomenon, we are all equally subject to it, and it affects our lives in every area from how we purchase eggs, to how we make decisions about our children’s safety? In the book “ Sway: The Irresistable Pull Of Irrational Behavior ” Ori and Rom Brofman pick apart our tendency to err on the side of caution. It turns out that, in short, it is human nature to totally overreact to the threat of losing something. For example: “If you reduce the price of eggs, consumers buy a little more. But when the price of eggs rises, they cut back their consumption by two and a half times…[the] research illuminates a mystery that economists have been grappling with for years. For no apparent logical reason, we overreact to perceived losses.”
The same compulsion about loss aversion is why gamblers will bet (and ultimately lose) thousands of dollars in effort to recoup an original$10 loss. Its why stubborn people stick in their heels and resist admitting error even if their erroneous claim to “right” results in harm to others. It is why many don’t let their children walk to school, play outside, drink from plastic, get vaccinations, play with old toys… Many of us can’t off-the-cuff quote credible studies about any of these dangers (yes, some can, but be truthful, without Googling, can you?), but we do know that at some point in time we have heard somebody we trust tell us that these activities were dangerous and “we’d rather be safe than sorry”.
I must encourage all parents, who tend to feel the world is a dangerous place, to pick up a copy of the book, Sway. (It is even available in audio book form at Audible.com for those of us whose reading has to take place while driving or washing the dishes.) I promise that it will be (as it almost always is) a humbling experience to have what you think of as a sensible reaction (aka “better safe than sorry”) picked apart and shown back to you as hard-wired psychological knee-jerk silliness, but it is a punch worth taking.
Reading the book will help you understand why, even though driving is one of the most dangerous activities you can engage in, you feel that it is safer for your child than letting him walk to school. The reason? You don’t perceive driving to be a dangerous activity. Whereas, you do perceive walking to school to be a dangerous activity (child abduction).
Take this quiz to gauge your reaction to each of these statistics. Be sensitive and truly notice which of these raises your heart-rate more?
Auto Fatalities: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the 41,059 traffic fatalities annually in the U.S. 1,670 (4%) of them are children age 14 and younger. (1)
Child Abductions By Strangers Fatalities: According to the National Non-Family Abduction Report October 2002 (recent study performed by the U.S. Department of Justice) there are 115 non-family-member fatal kidnappings per year. (2)
You’ve just read the facts, but be truthful, which of these activities, driving to school or walking to school, still feels more threatening?
Allow me to rephrase. A child is 15 TIMES more likely to be in a fatal traffic accident while you are driving than be abducted and killed by a stranger.
I ask you again, which of these activities are you more likely to allow your child do today, ride in a car or walk to school?
Are you still certain that your perspective regarding your child’s safety is rational?
Semi-related Postscript: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a campaign called “ Safe Routes To School ” in which they acknowledge the relative safety of walking to school versus driving to school. The program includes educational components for families and schools advocating for changes that get children out of cars and onto their feet and bicycles. Read and download it here.