Comment by happytoexplain
9 months ago
I think this is kind of a tangent - surely we all understand that "I want zero risk" is technically an exaggeration. I think we can talk about the difference between "low" and "virtually zero" without getting into "there's always meteors" territory.
E.g. I'm an American, and I don't want to go anywhere (inside or outside my country) where my risk of being killed by malice or incompetence is "low", for most colloquial definitions of "low". I would like something lower than that. Feeling safe is a really big deal, especially when you have no agency. E.g. I'm happy to go on a, relatively speaking, "dangerous" hike.
I think realistic understanding of the numbers is a potential path for OP to really measure this. 0 being unrealistic ... from there you try to quantify what the other numbers mean for an individual and so on. So I think 0 is less of a tangent and IMO more of a pathway to being a bit more realistic / empowered to make the call.
I don't think 0 is unrealistic because I don't think they meant 0 mathematically, they meant 0 as when humans use the word to describe risk, which is near zero mathematically. I think it's a mistake to try to quantify this, as you suggest. That's not how humans work. I can't tell you what percentage, to two significant places, of risk I am willing to engage in for any given well-defined reward.
> That's not how humans work.
I 100% agree. I mentioned that in my first post.
But then we recognize our emotional responses and even superstitions and we think about it and sometimes by doing so improve our lives.
In the end of course this is OP's call to approach this how they wish.