People are really bad at risk - especially once you get to the point of home inspection and reviewing condo disclosures. By then you're already substantially invested emotionally at that point and figure that in a modern functioning society a building collapse just cannot happen.
I don't think this is the right way to characterize the issue.
There are a huge number of unlikely disasters, and we round the small probabilities to zero.
This should not be called an error or a fallacy unless you can point to an alternative way of evaluating things which would be a practical improvement.
The idea that people should obviously take small risks seriously reminds me of Pascal's wager.
What's "obvious" at first is not so obvious once you consider the unlimited number of possibilities.
If you do assign a non-zero probability to any of them, then the total will be way too much, and you can't use it for making coherent decisions.
There are a huge number of unlikely disasters, and we round the small probabilities to zero
With serious maintenance issues it's different, a catastrophic outcome is guaranteed. When you see photos like from the report you can't tell if the building will fall in today or next month, but you do know with certainty that it won't be standing ten years from now. Mors certa, hora incerta.
And how did the parking garage ever come to be in such a state? The condominium board is so shambolic that no one who values his life should buy into the condo association.
That's all you need to know to make a good decision.
I think one can distinguish between the tenants and whoever is responsible for the building and had the reports on the deterioration.
Probabilities depend on what an individual knows and doesn't know.
For a tenant, all they know is everyone acts like things are fine, and therefore a small probability of disaster applies. That doesn't mean it applies to someone else with different information.
Comments
People are really bad at risk - especially once you get to the point of home inspection and reviewing condo disclosures. By then you're already substantially invested emotionally at that point and figure that in a modern functioning society a building collapse just cannot happen.
I don't think this is the right way to characterize the issue.
There are a huge number of unlikely disasters, and we round the small probabilities to zero.
This should not be called an error or a fallacy unless you can point to an alternative way of evaluating things which would be a practical improvement.
The idea that people should obviously take small risks seriously reminds me of Pascal's wager.
What's "obvious" at first is not so obvious once you consider the unlimited number of possibilities.
If you do assign a non-zero probability to any of them, then the total will be way too much, and you can't use it for making coherent decisions.
There are a huge number of unlikely disasters, and we round the small probabilities to zero
With serious maintenance issues it's different, a catastrophic outcome is guaranteed. When you see photos like from the report you can't tell if the building will fall in today or next month, but you do know with certainty that it won't be standing ten years from now. Mors certa, hora incerta.
And how did the parking garage ever come to be in such a state? The condominium board is so shambolic that no one who values his life should buy into the condo association.
That's all you need to know to make a good decision.
Guaranteed means the probability is not small.
I think one can distinguish between the tenants and whoever is responsible for the building and had the reports on the deterioration.
Probabilities depend on what an individual knows and doesn't know.
For a tenant, all they know is everyone acts like things are fine, and therefore a small probability of disaster applies. That doesn't mean it applies to someone else with different information.