How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts

by David Ropeik

Do you worry more about radiation from nuclear power or from the sun?

Are you more afraid of getting cancer than heart disease?

Are you safer talking on your cell phone or using a hands-free device when you drive?

Do you think global warming is a serious threat to your health?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND YOUR FEARS — AND DISCOVER... HOW RISKY IS IT, REALLY?

International risk expert David Ropeik takes an in-depth look at our perceptions of risk and explains the hidden factors that make us unnecessarily afraid of relatively small threats and not afraid enough of some really big ones. This read is a comprehensive, accessible, and entertaining mixture of what's been discovered about how and why we fear — too much or too little. It brings into focus the danger of The Perception Gap: when our fears don't match the facts, and we make choices that create additional risks.

This book will not decide for you what is really risky and what isn't. That's up to you. HOW RISKY IS IT, REALLY? will tell you how you make those decisions. Understanding how we perceive risk is the first step toward making wiser and healthier choices for ourselves as individuals and for society as a whole.

TEST YOUR OWN "RISK RESPONSE" IN DOZENS OF SELF-QUIZZES!

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Philosophy, Self Help, Essays, Business

288 pages, Hardcover

First published March 5, 2010

Reviews

[Erik Dewey · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating read on how we measure risk both from a physiological and psychological view point. I really enjoyed reading about the actual biochemical reactions that were going on inside my brain when I suddenly need to determine the risk of things around me. Along the way there are little quizzes you take before a new concept is introduced so you have a data personal to you to see how you fare.

One thing I found was that the chapters were abnormally long. I think there were only five or six chapters in the whole book. It meant that the concept of the chapter dragged on for quite a while so that when I reached the end of the chapter I needed to go back to the beginning to remind myself the other concepts I had read a few days before. The writing is lively and interesting, it just has a lot of information to digest on a topic.

A good book that I enjoyed. I do now wonder if I will be able to override some of my physiological impulses so that I can apply the knowledge that I've learned from this book. Only experience will tell.

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very interesting book! I found myself talking to my husband and family about it, and questioning my own beliefs about risk.

[Alan K · Rating 3 out of 5]

Half a Book

A very good discussion of the subtitle (why our fears don't always match the facts). A little weak in the "how risky is it really" .And for good reason. Because a person's reaction to risk is rarely based on "good reason" but rather on the welter of emotions that prove that whoever stuck the word "sapiens" on our species was either sorely mistaken or had an incredible sense of humor.

The book was a mostly enjoyable,informative read on risk PERCEPTION. And it makes the strong point that risk perception is more important than actual risk ,which is definitely the case as far as managing risk in the public arena goes. My 'spidey sense' starts tingling,however,when time after time what I feel are real risks are downplayed by the author. No,I do NOT know the specific risk of certain chemicals that get into the water system. But,as a recently retired physician in New Jersey ,the home of the Toxic Avenger , I do know that I cared for years for a patient who died of a cancer directly attributable to toxins around Pompton Lakes and plumes of chemicals that affected her water supply.And as I was reading this book i had the distinct feeling that the author was underemphasising risks.And underemphasising the power and political will of groups that have an economic stake in the field of risk perception. When an organization founded by the foundations of Scaife and Olin goes unidentified as a representative of the political Right, I have a problem with that.

I have read enough in this topic to understand that people are very poor Innate Statisticians. This was a pretty good presentation of how and why this is. And it was even pretty good at explaining why that fact is relatively unimportant.I think what put me off is that I felt that at a lot of points the author was explaining why people should be less suspicious of the chemical industry and the radiation industry and various other industries which, in my opinion ,if they were immune to financial penalties,would not bat an eye at poisoning our water supply or our air.Or kill my patient (whoa, he Personalized it so the event was more impactful!!And if I fabricated that she was only 4 years old,it would have been even MORE impactful! Cuz the victim would have been a CHILD ( which is Impact Gold) No,she was a grown-up.It was quite tragic enough,thank you. And all the people in that area should not be expected to have to work out a specific mathematical risk with a specific biochemical mechanism of injury before they are protected from potentially predatory financial interests that might poison them.

[Chad Schultz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fundamental lesson here is a good one: realizing that because we feel more fearful about one thing than another doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD be more afraid of that. The book is filled with many examples. It also strives to look into why we fear one thing more than another: novelty, sensationlism and recency are examples. I also appreciate the author's admission of what he wished he had done differently in his journalism career, including one very sad story involving a child.

On the other hand, I wished he had cited more sources to support some of his allegations. In particular, his suggestions about what could be done differently to work with this aspect of people's flawed perceptions of fear. It seems to be more based on conjecture than on anything empirical. His dismissive, even insulting attitude towards people who are overweight is also troubling - in particular, the idea that if obese people had to pay more for health insurance, that they would change their sinful ways and be skinny.

[Alan Kolok · Rating 4 out of 5]

How Risky is it really, is a pragmatist's approach toward risk perception. I found myself bending the corners of page after page, underlying sentences and writing notes in the columns. We are not social animals that survive on intellect alone, but rather are influenced by both intellect and our reptilian brain, our old friend the amygdala.

For me personally, I thought that the approach, with all of the self-evaluation inserts (think, Idiot's guide to risk perception) was a bit much, particularly in the first 100 pages, but that is a very minor criticism. Don't be fooled by the informal writing style, there is a lot of really good, useful information in this book. Nicely done. Thought provoking.

[Arthur Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perfect reading for the days of Covid-19

This was published in 2010 yet it is timely. We aren't grappling with HIV/AIDS, SARS, MERS, or Ebola but something similar. An infectious disease that is hard to detect, kills, and is new to our experiences.

He examines the many factors that influence our decisions. Some are beneficial while others are not depending on the circumstances. Ropeik goes beyond presenting sources of interference in our thinking but offers ways to deal with them effectively.

The writing is clearly intended to be understood and put to use. I am pleased I found it in time to use it as a guide through the current pandemic.

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts (Hardcover)
by David Ropeik
from the library

Well if all the facts were completely agreed upon, this would be a good book.
There is no discussion about how to think about things that are disputed by scientists or medical professionals.

As it is I agree that preventing gay and bi men from donating blood is foolish and not in the best interest of the sick people in the USA. Supposedly this is to protect the blood supply from AIDS.
AIDS however is a disease that tracks much closer to poverty and zipcodes than sexual pattern.

[Volodymyr Melnyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a book and what perfect timing to read it! Briefly, based on the physiology of our brain (primarily the affective response of the amygdala), the author writes that our risk perception is rather questionable. In other words, we tend to diminish risks around us should we feel be in control of a situation (e.g. driving and speaking on the phone), should our choice be voluntary (e.g. smoking), should we find benefits for us (sunbathing), should something be more comprehensive to us (burning fossil fuels vs nuclear power), etc. However, statistics say just the opposite.

[Angela Ablaberdieva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fast-moving book on human risk-perception. Very reader-friendly, definitely not a scientific tome. The most interesting/useful part was the section on Risk Perception Factors. After that, though, I felt the narrative stagnated a bit. This book was a good read overall, and it put a lot of the recent talk about COVID-19 in perspective. Recommended for anyone who wants to think more critically about the way they perceive and act on risk.

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got this book before I had even heard about COVID-19. It's a little over 10 yrs old, but it holds up well because it explores how and why we perceive some things as safe and some as scary, and that these perceptions are so often flawed. It explains the science behind this while acknowledging that feelings are important too.

[Nataliia · Rating 3 out of 5]

We underestimate risk, when expecting success, and overestimate it, when have fear.
Practical book.

[Son Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could have been much more succint, especially towards the end.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book for a contract involving risk management, and wound up rather enjoying its conversational explanation of what risk is and how we experience it.

I particularly like knowing that we freakout before we think. Ropeik ran through the physiology and chemistry of fear and it was riveting. We humans are programmed to freak out unless we do some big work to overcome it.

So yes, most things may not be as risky as we think. Fun read if you're into this sort of thing.

[Nick Lo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I persevered as much as I could but ultimately couldn't finish this book. For that reason I'd probably have given it 1 star if the subject itself wasn't interesting.

As mentioned by other reviewers here, there is a noticeable amount of repetition, but that bothered me less than the feeling that the conversation tended to ramble a lot of the time. The book really needed to be better organised and by that I mean with more than just headings and titles. After about the first third, it just starts to add layer upon layer of interaction of fear factors to the point where you end up thinking, wait, what you're really saying is "it's complicated". You then hope this is going to be broken down a bit but it diverges onto topics like the issue of the media pushing certain bias, but then that's counterbalanced with the point that it's not the fault of the media as they're a business, etc.

Too often I felt the references were overly simplified to make a point but in doing so ignored the nuances that would have influenced people's opinions beyond just the fear factor. An example is the suggestion that it is an irrational fear of nuclear power that influences people's objection to it. That is no doubt true, but it's surely difficult to isolate that from other variables that would influence perception such as, political, environmental, weaponry, etc?

The book isn't without value but I'd probably only recommend reading the first third or so. Even that may just confirm things that you already know such as; people are more loss averse than risk averse, echoing sayings like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

[Jaylia3 · Rating 4 out of 5]

React fast, think later. According to the scientific research Ropeik cites in this useful book, human brains are designed to respond quickly to perceived danger, before there's time to rationally consider what the real risks of the situation are. What served us well in the age of the saber tooth tiger is not as useful for making informed decisions in the modern world, plus all those fight, flight or freeze chemicals streaming through our nervous system create their own health risk. The heart of this book for me is the second and third chapters which describe the natural biases, mental shortcuts and risk factors that can lead to making counterproductive--even deadly--choices in an effort to avoid danger, choices like driving after 9/11 because it felt safer than flying though it instead caused a spike in highway fatalities.

I read much of this same material in Daniel Gardner's book The Science of Fear. The difference between the two books is that How Risky is It, Really is designed to be a personal guide for evaluating decisions. For that it is very effective, but by its later chapters the material has gotten repetitive. The Science of Fear is not as easily used as a daily guide but its scope is broader and deeper and it concerns itself more with implications for the future and for society as a whole.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

getAbstract Book Review: How Risky Is It, Really?

This lively, honest book is a pleasure to read and easy to digest. Journalist David Ropeik demystifies the common mental and social mechanisms humans use to evaluate danger. He explains how people often misrepresent and misunderstand possibly perilous circumstances and tells you how to weigh potential risk more accurately. Some explanations are too long and some “risk perception factors” are a bit similar, but, that noted, Ropeik’s many insights are so instantly applicable that any reader will find them useful. getAbstract recommends his book to anyone involved in risk management and social policy, and to all consumers of the news.

Read more about this book in the online summary:
http://www.getabstract.com/summary/13...

[Todd Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

In How Risky Is It, Really? David Ropeik discusses why people perceive certain activities as risky and others less so. Fortunately, Ropeik has a keen eye for the obvious and lists such contributing factors as:
– our familiarity with the risk
– our control over the risk
– whether we trust the individuals/organizations involved in the risk
– cultural factors
– how the media communicates risk

My biggest irritation with the book is that it contains nothing that any reasonable person couldn’t have come up with on their own had they sat down and thought about it for an hour. Next on the list, is that once a subject is introduced, Ropeik then goes on to repeat himself 4-5 times to drive his unremarkable point home.

The real risk of How Risky Is It, Really? is one of being bored to death.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weak. If there was one word to sum up the argument and delivery of the author's position, it would be "weak." The book was plagued by bad examples. Ropeik would present an idea, like "the Endowment Affect," explain it, say that people exhibit it, and then give an example. It all would seem to make sense and be convincing, but even with a little critical thought these sections fell apart, and the main unraveling came from his examples. The argument for a bounded rationality, risk mis-perception view of humans has potential merit, but David Ropeik was, at best, a flawed messenger.

[Sherry Leffert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has something interesting to say but after having said it, repeats itself over and over. The point is that what we perceive as dangerous is often shaped by the media, by political point of view and by other factors and does not necessarily match the facts. This point is very worthwhile to understand but after that it is all repetition.

[Tracy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, basic introduction to the neurology and psychology of risk perception. It discusses risk perception in both individuals and society at large, and includes tips for both individuals and societies on how to understand our innate responses to fear, and how to incorporate that understanding into our discussions of, reactions to, and policies about risk.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the three months following the September 11 attacks, automobile fatalities rose by 11-34% (depending on which study you believe). Even though air travel, even on September 12, was/is statically safer than driving. But fear almost always wins out over facts, alas.

Some excellent information, but repetitive and over-long.

[Les · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent explanation of the mechanics our brains use to do risk assessment. In addition, the author identifies how people unknowingly rely on their personal opinions and experiences instead of objective information when assessing the existence or impact of a risk, especially in the long term.

[Joe]

The Grave Risk of Rationality Alone

To bring the "feelings" associated with risk to the conscious level is a giant step toward demystifying and dealing with rationality, feelings and risk. Acknowledging this reality is fundamental to healthy functioning individually and collectively.

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

The goal of this book is noble: counter balance the alarmist news. But the guy seems to be a journalist backed up only by a shallow read of Thinking, Fast and Slow.

[Elizabeth]

As heard on Point of Inquiry.

[Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read. Definitely recommend.

[Mattia Ferragina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting and readable insight into how human beings perceive reality around them and how, after all, we are not so different from animals in the way we take decisions.