Right of Reply

The professor of economic psychology at the University of Stockholm responds to John Adams

Lennart Sjoberg
Monday 02 August 1999 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

THE ARTICLE by Professor Adams in The Independent's Saturday Review ("The perils of living in a risk-free world") failed to make certain crucial distinctions, and hence ended up with the wrong conclusion. Professor Adams says that "attempts to regulate voluntary risk should be abandoned - except for children." Really?

Alcohol is a good example. Do we really want alcohol to be freely available (to adults), at market prices and with no special tax imposed? In Sweden we restrict availability by the use of certain stores with limited business times, and high taxes. It is felt by most people that this is a justified policy because there is a high risk to others.

The distinction between personal risk and risk to others is absolutely crucial. Few people see a larger risk to themselves than to others; most see others at risk, but believe that they can protect themselves against it by skilful and prudent behaviour and judgment. The difference is especially large when it comes to lifestyle risks.

The notion that we weigh risks and benefits when managing our personal risks is misleading. We simply dismiss or even deny the personal risks and go ahead to indulge in our desires. That is how so many people develop addictions and no longer act rationally. We fall prey to cognitive distortions and irrational thinking and twisted reasoning, often under emotional pressure, and therefore relapse in the addictions we try to quit, over and over again. Any smoker who has tried to quit can testify to the existence of these phenomena.

The "nanny state" is the result of attempts to regulate voluntary risk- taking. People want government to regulate risks of all kinds, because they see the danger to others. Is this good or bad? It may be economically rational, since accidents are costly: it saves lives, which is a humanitarian goal; and, though it may infringe on the freedom of taking risks for oneself, the infringement can be minimised. The nanny state is here to stay and, on the whole, something to be grateful for.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in