Opinion | Why we might have to accept that this new coronavirus could be here to stay
- Comparisons to Sars are understandable, as is the public’s reaction to the outbreak, but this virus is actually less deadly and more easily spread
- It’s too early to say that containment has failed, but not so to prepare for mitigation – in the knowledge that the virus may never be eliminated
Behavioural scientists have long contended that people often find it very difficult to think in statistical or probabilistic terms, so have highlighted a number of ways in which people’s responses and behaviours depart from what rational choice models predict.
Consider this thought experiment, which is sometimes known as the “Linda problem”.
Linda is single, outspoken, and deeply engaged with social issues. Which is more likely: A) Linda is a bank manager; or B) Linda is a bank manager who is active in the feminist movement? Studies have found that most people instinctively choose option B. But a moment’s introspection should reveal to most of us that option B is a subset of option A, and therefore option A is the correct answer.
The question – conceived by the Economics Nobel Prize laureate, Daniel Kahneman – and others like it show that we do not usually think in statistical or probabilistic terms. Instead, we rely on stereotypes and vivid stories drawn from our memories, our gut instincts, and our emotional reactions – known as the “affect heuristic”. But these are often unreliable, especially in novel and unfamiliar situations. Also, if a scientific or technical analysis does not align with our emotive reactions, instincts or subjective values, we tend to reject the technical analysis, and even find ways to discredit it.
