I'm really interested in the tradeoffs between agency and safety. Most people report they'd rather have agency over safety, but I suspect this means that lack of agency feels closer/more threatening than lack of safety. How much safety would give up before a loss of freedom?
Conversation
Replying to
Asking people is gonna be weird because a) I think there’s a fish/water scenario where people replete with one don’t think about it and b) we are awash in propaganda
1
11
Replying to
right, exactly. I suspect that people are more replete with safety than agency, which is why people say they value agency more.
But yea the propaganda really fuzzes it all.
8
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
The actual tradeoffs would be interesting to study, but also the psychological perception is interesting. People tend to identify with one value over the other, and seem to have trouble actually evaluating tradeoffs.
2
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
We adapt to deal with risks in the environment. Adapting to a risk that never presents in the environment is a waste of energy, and therefore is 'less safe.'
1
1
Replying to
Many take banal safety for granted until it affects them (negatively) This is evident with food/ medications being sold (you will get exactly what you're told is being sold); it wasn't long ago this wasn't guaranteed in the US. Agency/ Safety trade off for buyers and sellers.
2
Replying to
The proper balance point where limit of freedom is justified for security:
Limitation of freedom for unchecked concentration of power that can threaten liberty.
1