http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html
We can identify where the danger zone is located, which I call "the fourth quadrant", and show it on a map with more or less clear boundaries. A map is a useful thing because you know where you are safe and where your knowledge is questionable. So I drew for the Edge readers a tableau showing the boundaries where statistics works well and where it is questionable or unreliable. Now once you identify where the danger zone is, where your knowledge is no longer valid, you can easily make some policy rules: how to conduct yourself in that fourth quadrant; what to avoid.
- - - - - -
while this is en extract from an article on the dangers of predicting outcomes based on statistics i think that the ideas expressed about mapping and the unknown are relevant to the ideas i am exploring in my project. - a map shows you where you are safe, the next step is to domesticate the regions that are unsafe.
how do we make the unknown safe?
understanding ---> control - - - > desensitization
historically we have been fearful of the unknown, we tell stories about monsters in the night, the dark is scary because we cant see what is in it and we cant control it. an effective way of controlling it is by making the scary into something not scary, when we are children we are frightened by monsters, then as we grow up we ourselves they aren't real and surround ourselves with objects and possessions that make us feel safe. we have monsters reduced to cute little cartoon characters, we have hundreds of devices that allow us to control our surroundings, we have a setting where we go specifically to be scared ( going to see a horror movie ), we have locks, we have light. but we are still afraid of whats in the dark.






