In the Fall of 2020, my colleague, Prof. Immaculata De Vivo of the Harvard School of Public Health, and I wrote an essay about the public perception of risk and uncertainty, especially with regard to COVID-19. In this post, we are gathering comments from students in the Spring 2021 edition of "GenEd 1112: The Past and Present of the Future," an undergraduate course I teach at Harvard. Students were asked to read the essay, and then comment here on which part(s) of the discussion they expect would be most illuminating for non-quantitatively-inclined readers --and/or to suggest another framing of the issues discussed that would be more effective.
1. Which part(s) of the discussion do you expect would be most illuminating for non-quantitatively-inclined readers?
For non-quantitatively inclined readers, the discussion around risk and uncertainty can be made more illuminating by focusing on relatable scenarios and everyday decision-making contexts. Instead of delving deep into numerical calculations and statistical models, emphasizing the practical implications of uncertainty and how it affects personal decision-making could resonate more with such readers.
2. Suggest another framing of the issues discussed that would be more effective.
Another framing could involve using analogies or anecdotes that simplify complex concepts. For instance, likening uncertainty to navigating through foggy weather, where you can't see what's ahead clearly, but you still have to make decisions based on limited information. This analogy could help convey the essence of uncertainty without delving into technicalities. Additionally, using real-life examples, such as deciding whether to wear a seatbelt while driving or choosing between different healthcare options, could make the discussion more relatable and accessible to a broader audience.