This is your brain on terrorism

Summary

The video script explores how sensationalized media coverage of terrorism can distort public perception of risk, leading to fear and support for ineffective 'security theater' measures. It discusses the psychological impact of news stories versus statistics on our brains, the persistent fear post-9/11 despite the low actual risk of terrorism, and the economic incentives for media to continue dramatic coverage. The script suggests that understanding our cognitive biases and being skeptical of our fears is key to better assessing risk and supporting effective security strategies.

Takeaways

• 📺 Watching news coverage of terrorist attacks can be addictive and stressful.
• 📉 Our brains prioritize stories over statistics, leading to skewed perceptions of risk.
• 🦈 Frequent news stories about rare events, like shark attacks or plane crashes, make them seem more common than they are.
• 💡 Terrorism poses a very low risk to individuals compared to other dangers, but media coverage inflates our fears.
• 📈 Fear of terrorism remains high due to constant sensational news coverage, despite a lack of frequent large-scale attacks.
• 🎭 Security measures that look effective, like border walls and travel bans, are often just 'security theater' and don't enhance safety.
• 🔎 Effective security strategies involve espionage, intelligence, and emergency response, which are less visible and less sensational.
• 📰 Media outlets benefit from high ratings during terror attacks and have no incentive to reduce sensationalism.
• ⚖️ Politicians face pressure to implement dramatic security measures due to the heightened public fear driven by media coverage.
• 🧠 Being aware of how our brains misjudge risks can help us correct our perceptions and make better decisions about safety.

Q & A

What is the common reaction of people when they hear about a major terrorist attack?

People are likely to turn on the TV, particularly cable news, to get updates and watch hours of coverage to understand the situation better.

Why do news channels repeatedly show sensationalized segments about terrorist attacks?

News channels do this to attract viewership and ratings, as sensational stories are more likely to keep people watching.

What does Bruce Schneier suggest about how our brains react to scary news?

Bruce Schneier suggests that our brains are more influenced by stories than statistics, leading us to overestimate the risk of events that are frequently in the news.

How does the media's portrayal of terrorism affect the public's perception of risk?

The media's portrayal of terrorism can make the public overestimate the risk of such events, leading to heightened fear and potentially irrational responses.

What is the actual risk of dying from terrorism compared to other causes?

The risk of dying from terrorism is extremely low compared to other causes, such as choking on food while watching TV.

Why do people continue to watch terrorism coverage despite the fear it induces?

People watch terrorism coverage because they want to stay informed about potential threats to their safety, even though it can cause fear and anxiety.

What is the term Bruce Schneier uses to describe security measures that look good but do not actually increase safety?

Bruce Schneier uses the term 'security theater' to describe measures that seem to increase security but are ineffective in reality.

How does the fear of terrorism influence political decisions and public policy?

The fear of terrorism can lead to the support of hawkish responses and security measures that may not be effective, but seem to provide a sense of safety.

What are some examples of 'security theater' mentioned in the script?

Examples of 'security theater' include the border wall and the Muslim ban, which are public and visible but may not actually increase safety.

Why does sensationalist terrorism coverage make it difficult for politicians to resist implementing security theater?

Sensationalist coverage amplifies public fear, putting pressure on politicians to take visible actions that seem to address the threat, even if they are not effective.

What is the best defense against the psychological impact of sensationalist terrorism coverage?

The best defense is understanding the biases in our perception of risk and being skeptical of our fears, politicians, and the media's portrayal of threats.