Tue, 30 Aug 1994 15:45:54 -0700 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Michael Gibbons , "John J. Maurer" Subject: Re[2]: fear Date: 30 Aug 94 10:30 EST Okay, I'll jump in with a few not well formulated ideas. The issue under discussion seems similar to the area of risk and decision making in psychology. There's a considerable amount of research out there on risks people fear. The studies indicate that people tend to fear big catastrophic things that have a small probability of occurring (anyone remember when SpaceLab was falling out of its orbit toward Earth and the national panic?). Part of the problem is people's/society's lack of understanding of probability compounded with the inordinate amount of attention improbable or low probability events receive. (I'm not blaming people for not understanding probability, we've all struggled with it and know how tough it is.) The other issue, which is related, seems to be sensationalism. The really horrible stuff makes the news and newscasters are very good at making "little incidents" seem like national epidemics (the "man-eating bacteria"! scare). There seems to be an underlying sentiment on the net that we can't deal effectively with these problems at a national level; I couldn't agree more. One way to overcome the fear, is more local community awareness, reporting, and involvement. One example I have in mind while I write this is my monthly neighborhood newsletter which lists all the reported crimes in my little neighborhood in DC. In looking over the reports, I've noted that the crimes, which are relatively few in number, are mainly thefts from autos and auto thefts, and that the assaults take place on the main street where the bars are. From this, I've concluded that I live in a relatively safe neighborhood (we did have a serial rapist three years ago) and, in general, don't need to be afraid.of being gunned down on my street (although there were people being randomly gunned down in a nearby neighborhood about a year ago). I'm not saying I have no fear, but I try to place it appropriately. I think the point I'm trying to make is people need to view these issues in a local, personal framework, not a national, skewed one and that we as a nation need to work harder at putting high risk, low probability events in the proper perspective. Similarly, crime itself is probably best dealt with at a local level. Witness the decrease in crime in areas that have instituted neighborhood watches and patrols. The Whistle Stop program (I'll describe it at the end) in the late 1970s neighborhood surrounding the U. of Chicago caused the crime rate to drop precipitously. I don't know if there are any studies out there, but I would bet that neighborhoods that have started neighborhood patrols (not policing, not a police states) have evolved into more cohesive, integrated (in the Durkhiemian sense) communities where people know each other and look out for each other than they were before with people leading isolated, atomistic lives and relying one someone else (the state) to solve the problem. As long as I'm being Durkheimian, do I need to add that increases in crime are indicators of dissolution of social structures and social norms? The sociological question then, is how best to develop integrated communities in postindustrial society and (re)instill positive social norms and values? [And why are Republicans so down on programs that try to do this, like midnight basketball???] *The Whistle Stop program involved a large scale distribution of whistles to Hyde Park residents. If you saw a crime, were a victim, or about to be victimized, you were supposed to pull out your whistle and blow it. If you heard a whistle being blown, you were supposed to respond in kind and call the police. Pulling my key chain out with my whistle on it and letting the whistle dangle one my hand caused a stranger on a train who was shadowing me to back off and back off quickly. -- A local solution, not a Federal one. Barbara