OK, now we at least seem to be getting somewhere as opposed to just shutdowns.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
I am particularly interested in the work being done by neuroscientists and am fortunate enough to live in Boston, where I occasionally get to work and/or associate with true experts in that field. What you may be reading as a "bug up my ass" is that I've developed a healthy appreciation for the value and vulnerability of the human brain. And wearing a helmet in the appropriate circumstances is something I do see as valuable.
No, what I perceived as a bug up your ass were the thinly veiled insults and patronizing tone when I attempted to be civil. I attempted to be honest, and you seemed to try and paint me as wishy-washy rather than realize that I'm simply not being dogmatic. Not terribly conducive to honest discussion if your goal is to have more than dogmatic shouting matches a la ryda.
With regards my 'insult' when I said you had less than a laymen's understanding of risk compensation behavior my intention was not to insult but to simply be honest- you do.
So, if I call you an idiot, I can cop out by saying "Oh, but it wasn't meant to be an insult, I'm just being honest - you are". Yeah, where did I get the idea of incivility on your part? Saying I have a layman's understanding would be true; I'm not an expert in the field, therefore a layman. Saying I have less than that is obviously a thinly veiled insult. I'm not sure how it can be taken otherwise.
Without launching into a dissertation on behavioral science and how incredibly inexact it can be and how sensitively such theories are applied in the field before anything remotely resembling a conclusion is drawn.I'll address a couple of points.
[snip]
Hagen basically already made the points I wanted to make. While the points you make are valid, I think you are ignoring the all-important risk/reward analysis we make when participating in an activity. We know this is a big deal, as I noted in the case of teen risk-taking. Driving too fast with too many distractions or whatnot, is a direct result of the risk/reward perception changing (except in this case due to greater value placed on reward vs less perceived risk). Again, I should think this is somewhat self-evident. Imagine scales with weights on each side. In the case of teen risk taking, adding weights to the "reward" side tilts the balance that way and encourages riskier behavior. In the case of risk compensation, you take weights off of the risk side to achieve the same effect.
I can honestly say I think I've been guilty of the same thing when I started carrying pepper spray (I work nights on the weekend at a not-so-great area). I soon realized I felt I was becoming more "bold" as a result (this is before I really knew about the concept of risk compensation). Now, I wasn't marching through gang-riddled alleys challenging all before me; it was a far more subtle affect. Why did this happen? Because I felt I was at less risk of bodily harm were something to happen.
So again, I take your point that there is a learned element to risk compensation, but I think
perception of risk is terribly, terribly important, and this can easily be seen in other more well-studied areas of risk/reward management, such as the study on teens I mentioned. It certainly isn't to be ignored completely just because studies on how exactly it relates to cycling haven't really been done. Again, I'll freely admit that we don't know the extent that it does, but we definitely know changes in the risk/reward analysis can equal serious changes in risk taking behavior, when either element is changed.