...
【24h】

Assessing Risk in the Absence of Quantifiability

机译:在缺乏可量化性的情况下评估风险

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A substantial literature on risk perception demonstrates the limits of human rationality, especially in the face of catastrophic risks. Human judgment, it seems, is flawed by the tendency to overestimate the magnitude of rare but evocative risks, while underestimating risks associated with commonplace dangers. Such findings are particularly relevant to the problem of crafting responsible public policy in the face of the kinds of threat posed by climate change. If the risk perception of ordinary citizens cannot be trusted, then it would seem logical to base policy decisions on expert judgment. But how rational, how trustworthy, are expert assessments of catastrophic risk? I briefly review the limitations of conventional models of expert risk analysis, especially in dealing with the large uncertainties endemic to the risk of low-probability, high-impact events in the distant future. The challenges such events pose to the underlying assumptions of these analyses are severe enough to question their basic rationality. I argue that a conception of rationality premised on the bounded knowledge of experts and lay citizens alike, based on context-appropriate heuristics, may help us in the search for a more trustworthy basis for decision making.
机译:关于风险感知的大量文献证明了人类理性的局限性,尤其是在面对灾难性风险时。似乎人们的判断存在缺陷,因为它倾向于高估罕见但令人回味的风险的大小,而又低估了与常见危险相关的风险。面对气候变化带来的种种威胁,这些发现与制定负责任的公共政策问题特别相关。如果不能相信普通公民的风险意识,那么将政策决定基于专家判断似乎是合乎逻辑的。但是,专家对灾难性风险的评估有多合理,如何值得信赖?我简要回顾了专家风险分析的传统模型的局限性,尤其是在处理遥远的未来中低概率,高影响事件的风险所特有的巨大不确定性方面。这些事件给这些分析的基本假设带来的挑战非常严峻,足以质疑其基本合理性。我认为,基于上下文和适当的试探法,以专家和非专业人士的有限知识为基础的合理性概念可能有助于我们寻找更可信赖的决策依据。

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