• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality
【24h】

Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

机译：作为分析的风险和作为情感的风险：关于情感，理性，风险和理性的一些思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
机译：认知心理学和神经科学的现代理论表明，人类有两种基本的方式来理解风险。 “分析系统”使用算法和规范规则，例如概率演算，形式逻辑和风险评估。它相对较慢，费力，并且需要有意识的控制。 “体验系统”是直观的，快速的，主要是自动的，并且意识意识很难接近。这种体验式系统使人类能够在漫长的进化过程中生存，并且今天仍然是应对风险的最自然，最常见的方式。它依赖于图像和联想，它们通过经验与情感和情感（某种事物的好坏）联系在一起。该系统将风险表示为一种感觉，它告诉我们在这条黑暗的街道上行走或喝这种怪味的水是否安全。正式风险分析的支持者倾向于将对风险的情感反应视为不合理。当前的观点对此观点提出了质疑。理性和经验系统是并行运行的，并且似乎彼此依赖。研究表明，分析推理只有在情感和情感指导下才能有效。理性的决策需要两种思维方式的适当整合。两种系统都有其优点，偏差和局限性。既然我们开始理解情感与理性之间对于理性行为至关重要的复杂相互作用，那么摆在我们面前的挑战就是创造性地思考这对管理风险的意义。一方面，我们如何运用理性来缓和某些风险事件引起的强烈情绪？另一方面，在缺乏经验可能会使我们过于“冷漠理性”的情况下，我们如何注入所需的“感觉”？本文解决了这些重要问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号