The SCIENCE of FEAR

Title: The SCIENCE of FEAR - Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger.

Author: Daniel Gardner

Pages: 324

Genre: Non-fiction

Grade: B+

Synopsis: Daniel Gardner takes a look at why we are so afraid of things that have incredibly slim chances of occurring to us. He compares decisions made by our gut to decisions made with our heads. Topics from terrorism to biology, crime to radiation are discussed. We are always overestimating the risk from crime and terrorism all the while underestimating the risks of major killers such as car accidents and heart disease. Gardner explores how politicians, the media and private corporations all use fear-mongering to their advantage.

My Review: If I had to come up with one word to describe this book it would be 'insightful.' The author cites study after study that shows how humans in general allow their gut to control their decisions and thinking. I often found myself thinking "Well, that doesn't apply to me" or "That's not how I look at it," before I realized that I am pretty much the same as the subjects in these studies. While people don't see themselves as biased by their gut or fear-tactics, we all certainly are. This isn't a book that you can cruise through, and there are some parts that are slower than others, but on the whole, this book was very interesting and one that everybody that is interested in how politicians, corporations, and the media use fear should read.

From the Book: "(p. 3) The safety gap is so large, in fact, that planes would still be safer than cars even if the threat of terrorism were unimaginably worse than it actually is: An American professor calculated that even if terrorists were hijacking and crashing one passenger jet a week in the United States, a person who took one flight a month for a year would have only a 1-in-135,000 chance of being killed in a hijacking--a trivial risk compared to the annual 1-in-6,000 odds of being killed in a car crash."

"(p. 10) Put all these numbers together and what do they add up to? In a sentence: We are the healthiest, wealthiest, and longest-lived people in history. And we are increasingly afraid. This is one of the great paradoxes of our time."

"(p. 24) The rather uncomfortable feeling most of us have when we're around snakes is evidence of how this ancient experience continues to influence us today. Throughout the long prehistory of our species and those that preceded it, snakes were a mortal threat. And so we learned our lesson. Others didn't, but that had a nasty habit of dying. So natural selection did its work and the rule--beware of snakes--was ultimately hardwired into every human brain. It's universal. Go anywhere on the planet, examine any culture. People are wary of snakes. Even if--as in the Arctic--there are no snakes. Our primate cousins shared our long experience and they feel the same way: Even monkeys raised in laboratories who have never seen a snake will back away at the sight of one."

"(p. 130) However hyped the risk of germs may be, it is at least real. Some corporations go so far as to conjure threats where there are none. A television ad for Brita, the German manufacturer of water-filtration systems, starts with a close-up of a glass of water on a kitchen table. The sound of a flushing toilet is heard. A woman opens a door, enters the kitchen, sits at the table and drinks the water. The water in your toilet and the water in your faucet "come from the same source," the commercial concludes. Sharp-eyed viewers will also see a disclaimer a the start of the ad printed in tiny white letters: MUNICIPAL WATER IS TREATED FOR CONSUMPTION. This is effectively an admission that the shared origin of the water in the glass and the toilet is irrelevant and so the commercial makes no sense--at least not on a rational level. As a pitch aimed at Gut, however, it makes perfect sense. The danger of contaminated drinking water is as old as humanity, and the worst contaminant has always been feces. Our hardwired defense against contamination is disgust, an emotion that drives us to keep our distance from the contaminant. By linking the toilet and the drinking glass, the commercial connects feces to our home's drinking water and raises an ancient fear--a fear that can be eased with the purchase of one of the company's many fine products."

"(p. 240) So should we ban or restrict synthetic chemicals until we have a full understanding of their effects? This attractively simple idea is a lot more complicated than it appears. If pesticides were banned, agricultural yields would decline, fruits and vegetables would get more expensive and people would buy and eat fewer of them. But cancer scientists believe that fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk of cancer if we eat enough of them, which most people do not do even now. And so banning pesticides in order to reduce exposure to carcinogens could potentially result in more people getting cancer."

"(p. 233) In 1933, it was in Franklin Roosevelt's political interest to tell Americans the greatest danger was "fear itself." Seventy years later, it was in George W. Bush's political interest to do the opposite: The White House got the support it needed for invading Iraq by stoking public fears of terrorism and connecting those fears to Iraq."