Risk Perception & Varying Contexts or Representation that Ruins Pure Mathematical & Quantitative Risk Values or Measurements in the Real World

Before assigning numbers, scales and ratings to matters believed to be that of risk, harm or peril, have you stopped to evaluate or consider the disparate variance and layers of risk perception across individuals, groups, communities or ethnic/national groups? That is, are you celebrating a mathematical achievement and data visualisation outcome above and beyond understanding how humans think, interact, relate and conceive complex and ever-changing environmental factors such as risk? Including yourself?

In other words, is your own evaluation and construct communicating risk constrained to that of a risk matrix, risk formula, risk register or ordinal, ratio or comparative risk number?

Especially where quantitative representation and algorithms are prioritised over human psychology and sociological factors or the purity of mathematical practices over systems thinking and complexity realities of the real world, at scale.

"The social and cultural factors that influence risk perception expand the horizon of interactions between the mental processing of risk and uncertainty, cognitive heuristics, contextual variables and semantic images, on the one hand, and values, communication effects, trust in organizations, cultural prototypes, political arenas and the overall climate of plural and individualized societies, on the other.?"

• Renn, 2008, page 140

"In addition to these classes of independent variables, one can find numerous other suggestions for potential relationships between risk perception and their determinants."

• Renn, 2008, page 140

In other words, risk and perception share a multitude of divergent and intersecting junctions at the time of occurrence, evaluation and communication.

Therefore, any view or numerical representation of risk is both limited and subject to decay and considerable attenuation, beginning with the author or assessor.

This distortion and variance becomes even more prominent or pronounced when groups of all compositions are involved in the production of any 'risk' values, ratings or numerical distillation.

Notwithstanding, risk numbers and values remain very, very small representations of people, communities and cultures, unless otherwise considered in depth, supported by considerable evidence and supporting research. Which in and of itself remains exceptionally rare, difficult to obtain and constrained to very specific hazards, threats and harm along with related contexts.

Any and all evaluations or consideration by humans of threat, harm, hazard, peril or danger remains subjective, influenced by heuristics, bias and social, political and professional factors.

Therefore, risk numbers, ratings, scales and measurement are distorted by these factors in inconsistent ways, especially when considering risk, safety or security on behalf of one or more people. Even more across cultures, and geographical boundaries or jurisdictions.

As a result, the question(s) that requires answering or disclosure when presented with any risk number, value or calculation is...

1. Which path/pathways did the author and findings travel to reach this 'risk' valuation?
2. Where exactly does this risk value sit on a a representative landscape and context of personal, social, political and culture diversity?
3. How and when were the evidence and values captured? Are they large enough or reliable enough to represent the subject and community?
4. What has changed, modified or altered since the risk 'numbers' where formulated or conceived?
5. How many cooks made this broth? What are their personal skills, qualifications, experiences and biases? What model or process was employed to mediate or reduce these divergent, routine distortions?
6. Would you bet your life or that of others on this work product and process?
7. How would a jury of your peers or a court view your answers and practices associated to all the aforementioned responses and objective/external review of your risk-related practice(s)?

In sum, number are great, fast, simple and seem to be universally understood. However, life, people, the world and complexity, systems and everything is messy, unstructured, beyond your view or measurement.

Therefore, remain curious, cautious and critical of risk communicated or represented by numbers, scales and ratings. Because they are NOT YOUR NUMBERS, nor are they real.

While the world has seemingly agreed upon and consistently confirms the physical weight of one kilogram... is has not solve, nor will it, standardise either risk nor your exposure nor perception of what you believe or experience to be a risk, yesterday, today, tomorrow or the future.

In other words, read the fine print...if there is any.

Just like a children's game, plot your pathways and representation on the provided chart. Where are you? Which route did you take to come to a risk judgement or evaluation? Now scale the model by asking 5 people (not related nor living with you), and see where they reside and the pathway(s) they journeyed to reach their risk perception? Now educate them. Share knowledge and information, and see if it alters your pathway and that of others. See, the number you have drawn from the limited risk deck of cards isn't that strong, reliable or accurate. Now multiply this error across all the other bold, numerical risk ratings, calculations and algorithms. Especially those that have converged to form a 'super' risk rating, formula, number or weighting. Routinely claiming to represent the world, countries, cultures and industries.

Ridley Tony

Risk, Resilience, Safety, Security & Management Sciences

Doctor of Public Safety (Candidate)

Risk Management Security Management Crisis Management

Risk, Security, Safety, Resilience & Management Sciences

Reference:

Renn, O. (2008) Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London, p.141