Understand That Your Brain Is Making Up The Story
So I'm not too big into psychology, philosophy, and especially not religion. However, I love this one branch of psychology. The branch that allows me to explain my mom.
Unfortunately, we have a sex offender in the vicinity of Oakhurst Circle, which is unfortunate, but not big enough for me to care about. And really, sex offenders aren't bad people. I don't think murderers are terrible people. I try not to judge people on their record. I think it's unfair, and we all make mistakes. I got a speeding ticket, and I thought my mom was going to kill me at first. I'll spit it out now. I'm ashamed of it, and I try to hide it, but A: nobody reads this blog, and B: it's in the past. Even though this will look bad on me, it will prove my point that just because a person has done something bad in the past, it doesn't make him a bad person. So I got a speeding ticket going 62 on a 25 zone. It wasn't my finest hour. It was pretty stupid. I try to brush over it with some facts that justify it, but that speed probably isn't that smart. While I'm ranting on this, I'm going to make another paragraph about something that will make me look totally ignorant and stupid, but I'll share it anyways because nobody reads this anyways. But I hope I and other people read it in the future, and maybe my friends will read it once in a while.
So when I got my ticket, I was nervous and filled with regret. Not because I was endangering lives or anything, because I don't believe in that at all. In fact, I think increasing speed limits or making speed limits suggestions are the better courses of action. I think speed limits were put in place because of something called the zero-risk bias, one of the tons of cognitive biases I find super interesting. I like to say that it's a branch of psychology, and I think it is. It might be just as much of behavioral economics, my favorite branch of economics. Behavorial economics would be second if freakonomics counts. So anyways, back to speeding... if speed limits were un-enforced, there would be some more deaths, but probably not a lot more. The relative risk is low, and we would have much more marginal benefits. Now this doesn't have to be all over. It's probably a bad idea in residental areas, but it would make sense in the far left lane on the turnpike or highways, where people are going fast and increasing the speed doesn't make things significantly more dangerous. I doubt speed limits will ever be reduced because of all the fear and panic it would cause.
So that sounds crazy to most people besides me, but take this. Back some hundred years ago, women were not allowed to leave the estate alone. At least in the mid & upper class. There was a fear that they would be raped or get hurt or trip in their dress or something. Therefore, they had to be escorted by men to go to neighbors houses or go the market or do whatever people back then did. Now sure, the risk of being raped when a man was standing right next to them and making sure they were safe. So following that logic, I believe that all women should be locked up in their own houses and go to work only under the supervision of a body guard. Then there will be no more raping in the world, and the risk would become negligable and pretty much zero.
I hope you caught my satire there. The idea of locking up women in homes away from other men to decrease the risk of rape to a near zero would be inefficient. Society would be hindered, and a lot less progress would be made. Now apply that same logic to speeding. If we increased speed limits, sure there would be more automible accidents. However, that number would be slim, and like letting women work in the workforce, everyone would have more time in their day, and they can get their Amazon packages in one day instead of two, and these benefits seem a bit trivial, but they would make America more efficient. It's a small thing to fix that would bring about more productivness. Once the scare of all the A&!hole drivers now speeding are gone, and people realize that it's not that bad, people would enjoy the new speed limits, getting to places faster, and even be entertained while driving. That last part sounds strange, but what if driving were fun? Increasing speed limits are a safe way to make driving more "fun" for those who want to speed. "Sociologists have found that we love certainty - even if it's counterproductive. Eliminating risk entirely means there is no chance of harm being caused" (Business Insider).
I'm drifting off into devil's advocate land. I'm not really thinking through all of these, but I'd love to sit and discuss this with someone on a road tirp one day.
One more example of the zero-risk bias. This might not be entirely accurate, nor the last example. There might be a better name for it that I just haven't figured out yet. My mom does not let my 13 year old sister walk 7 doors down the street to my cousin's house. Yes. Literally 6-10 doors down, in the same neighborhood. She has to be escorted by either me, my mom, or my dad. All because we have a reported sex-offender in the neighborhood. (Sorry for jumping between ideas so much). The risk is so small that she would be raped or whatever, but now she is declined the opportunities to visit her because of this. When mom's feeling lazy, she'll subtly give my sister the disapproval in a kind of condescending manner. "You have a bunch of homework to do anyways..." or "There's a lot of work to be done around here..." or some version of "I don't want you to be a burden to Aunt Cheryl," who I can garuantee doesn't care. They just hang out upstairs. They're quiet, well behaved. Furthermore, my sister has learned not to ask anymore. Only monthly do they get to see each other, and that's usually because my dad decides that it's a good idea to visit his dad (mom's deceased) and sister (divorced, living with his dad in a large enough household). My mom would never admit that she hinders Natalie's social relations, but in my (possibly somewhat biased) opinion, she does.
I try to stand up for my sister many times. And she pulls more cognitive biases out of her hat. John Doe doesn't let her daughter out of the house alone (bandwagoning). She might get raped, so I don't have to let my daughter either. And that 95% of people that let their daughter to walk to their neighbor's house... I'm just going to ignore that and pretend that doesn't exist (confirmation bias / selective perception). I've already made the choice anyways (choice-supportive bias / anchoring effect) and am not going to change that because I believe that I'm right. And I heard some expert say that rape can happen, it's very real. So I know all about rape (dunning-kruger effect). And I know a friend who got raped when she was younger, and it's terrible (form of salience). And I don't have any bias decisions. I'm making a totally logical decision (blind-spot bias). The blind spot bias is the one that really gets me angry with my mom.
I got to go now. I'm leaving this unfinished... But it's good enough to publish I suppose. Here you go world (AKA me and maybe Cameryn Zupon because she's nice enough to maybe look at my blog)
See Also
-------------------
Brené Brown's Ted Talk
Slack Variety Pack Episode 22 Flip Pack
Unfortunately, we have a sex offender in the vicinity of Oakhurst Circle, which is unfortunate, but not big enough for me to care about. And really, sex offenders aren't bad people. I don't think murderers are terrible people. I try not to judge people on their record. I think it's unfair, and we all make mistakes. I got a speeding ticket, and I thought my mom was going to kill me at first. I'll spit it out now. I'm ashamed of it, and I try to hide it, but A: nobody reads this blog, and B: it's in the past. Even though this will look bad on me, it will prove my point that just because a person has done something bad in the past, it doesn't make him a bad person. So I got a speeding ticket going 62 on a 25 zone. It wasn't my finest hour. It was pretty stupid. I try to brush over it with some facts that justify it, but that speed probably isn't that smart. While I'm ranting on this, I'm going to make another paragraph about something that will make me look totally ignorant and stupid, but I'll share it anyways because nobody reads this anyways. But I hope I and other people read it in the future, and maybe my friends will read it once in a while.
So when I got my ticket, I was nervous and filled with regret. Not because I was endangering lives or anything, because I don't believe in that at all. In fact, I think increasing speed limits or making speed limits suggestions are the better courses of action. I think speed limits were put in place because of something called the zero-risk bias, one of the tons of cognitive biases I find super interesting. I like to say that it's a branch of psychology, and I think it is. It might be just as much of behavioral economics, my favorite branch of economics. Behavorial economics would be second if freakonomics counts. So anyways, back to speeding... if speed limits were un-enforced, there would be some more deaths, but probably not a lot more. The relative risk is low, and we would have much more marginal benefits. Now this doesn't have to be all over. It's probably a bad idea in residental areas, but it would make sense in the far left lane on the turnpike or highways, where people are going fast and increasing the speed doesn't make things significantly more dangerous. I doubt speed limits will ever be reduced because of all the fear and panic it would cause.
So that sounds crazy to most people besides me, but take this. Back some hundred years ago, women were not allowed to leave the estate alone. At least in the mid & upper class. There was a fear that they would be raped or get hurt or trip in their dress or something. Therefore, they had to be escorted by men to go to neighbors houses or go the market or do whatever people back then did. Now sure, the risk of being raped when a man was standing right next to them and making sure they were safe. So following that logic, I believe that all women should be locked up in their own houses and go to work only under the supervision of a body guard. Then there will be no more raping in the world, and the risk would become negligable and pretty much zero.
I hope you caught my satire there. The idea of locking up women in homes away from other men to decrease the risk of rape to a near zero would be inefficient. Society would be hindered, and a lot less progress would be made. Now apply that same logic to speeding. If we increased speed limits, sure there would be more automible accidents. However, that number would be slim, and like letting women work in the workforce, everyone would have more time in their day, and they can get their Amazon packages in one day instead of two, and these benefits seem a bit trivial, but they would make America more efficient. It's a small thing to fix that would bring about more productivness. Once the scare of all the A&!hole drivers now speeding are gone, and people realize that it's not that bad, people would enjoy the new speed limits, getting to places faster, and even be entertained while driving. That last part sounds strange, but what if driving were fun? Increasing speed limits are a safe way to make driving more "fun" for those who want to speed. "Sociologists have found that we love certainty - even if it's counterproductive. Eliminating risk entirely means there is no chance of harm being caused" (Business Insider).
I'm drifting off into devil's advocate land. I'm not really thinking through all of these, but I'd love to sit and discuss this with someone on a road tirp one day.
One more example of the zero-risk bias. This might not be entirely accurate, nor the last example. There might be a better name for it that I just haven't figured out yet. My mom does not let my 13 year old sister walk 7 doors down the street to my cousin's house. Yes. Literally 6-10 doors down, in the same neighborhood. She has to be escorted by either me, my mom, or my dad. All because we have a reported sex-offender in the neighborhood. (Sorry for jumping between ideas so much). The risk is so small that she would be raped or whatever, but now she is declined the opportunities to visit her because of this. When mom's feeling lazy, she'll subtly give my sister the disapproval in a kind of condescending manner. "You have a bunch of homework to do anyways..." or "There's a lot of work to be done around here..." or some version of "I don't want you to be a burden to Aunt Cheryl," who I can garuantee doesn't care. They just hang out upstairs. They're quiet, well behaved. Furthermore, my sister has learned not to ask anymore. Only monthly do they get to see each other, and that's usually because my dad decides that it's a good idea to visit his dad (mom's deceased) and sister (divorced, living with his dad in a large enough household). My mom would never admit that she hinders Natalie's social relations, but in my (possibly somewhat biased) opinion, she does.
I try to stand up for my sister many times. And she pulls more cognitive biases out of her hat. John Doe doesn't let her daughter out of the house alone (bandwagoning). She might get raped, so I don't have to let my daughter either. And that 95% of people that let their daughter to walk to their neighbor's house... I'm just going to ignore that and pretend that doesn't exist (confirmation bias / selective perception). I've already made the choice anyways (choice-supportive bias / anchoring effect) and am not going to change that because I believe that I'm right. And I heard some expert say that rape can happen, it's very real. So I know all about rape (dunning-kruger effect). And I know a friend who got raped when she was younger, and it's terrible (form of salience). And I don't have any bias decisions. I'm making a totally logical decision (blind-spot bias). The blind spot bias is the one that really gets me angry with my mom.
I got to go now. I'm leaving this unfinished... But it's good enough to publish I suppose. Here you go world (AKA me and maybe Cameryn Zupon because she's nice enough to maybe look at my blog)
See Also
-------------------
Brené Brown's Ted Talk
Slack Variety Pack Episode 22 Flip Pack
