Skip to main content

Risk, Language, and Terrorism

Image result for risk board game

The use of the words "risk" and "uncertainty" in vernacular English leaves the relationship between the words imprecise.

That is, if I were to ask you, dear reader, what is the difference between risk and uncertainty, there would be no univocal "right" answer, though the words clearly are not synonyms. In general, we think of risk as a less-than-certain loss, so uncertainty figures into it, but uncertainty figures into a lot of other words too (such as "hope," which we think of as a less-than-certain gain).

In finance, and in other areas as well, there has been some movement toward using the two words in a rigorously paired way, such that, to borrow a formulation from the George W. administration, "risk" represents the known unknowns of a situation, "uncertainty" represents the unknown unknowns.

Here's a straightforward example: I know that a certain stock is interest-rate sensitive. I know that the Federal Reserve is meeting tomorrow to discuss rates. I don't know what they will do in that meeting, but at least I know that I don't know. So does the market in general. Thus, the risk of an adverse decision may be said to have been priced in to the stock already today.

Uncertainty, though, under this pairing is something much woolier. The unknown unknowns. On September 10, 2001, I had no clue that Wall Street and the Pentagon would come under attack the following morning. That wasn't just an unknown like the outcome of a Federal Reserve meeting. It was an unknown unknown, and the consequences for asset values cannot be said to have been priced into anything on 9/10.

The same distinction is also helpful when one tries to think about something as personal as travel plans. Suppose I have plans that involve making a connection at an airport in Israel. Intuitively, I am fearful. I might be at that airport at a moment of terrorist attack??!?

Is my fear a reflection of a risk or of uncertainty? Another way of asking the question: can I get a handle on it quantitatively?

My thoughts on the subject today run no further, though as always I'd be happy to read the wisdom of commenters. And no, I don't have any foreign travel planned. I'm only philosophizing.
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryMay 28, 2017 at 5:59 AM

    A risk is of an adverse consequence of an action. An uncertainty does not imply an adverse consequence. If I buy a lottery ticket, then I risk losing a dollar and I am uncertain whether I will lose a dollar, because I'm uncertain whether I'll win; I do not say that I "risk" winning. Whether a possible consequence is known or unknown is irrelevant. There is both a risk and an uncertainty that Donald Trump will declare the selection of the lottery winner void if it is not he; it doesn't matter that, because he has never threatened to do this, it is an unknown unknown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherMay 29, 2017 at 7:59 AM

      Henry, You're saying that "risk" is "indexical"?

      Delete
    2. HenryMay 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM

      Christopher,

      Do you mean that a consequence that is adverse for me might not be for you? If so (or if not so), I don't understand your point.

      Delete
    3. ChristopherMay 29, 2017 at 11:20 AM

      I'm thinking through your def of risk as the adverse consequence of an action. It doesn't sound right. I can speak of the "risk" of my contracting disease X this year, a risk that will vary will a lot of factors, most of them pretty well known to medical science (known unknowns). Contracting X needn't necessarily by the adverse consequence of any decision of mine. It MIGHT be (I might have made a deliberate decision to forego an available vaccine for X), but that seems irrelevant to the semantic question of whether "risk" is an apt word for the possibility I might get it before Dec. 31.

      Delete
    4. HenryMay 29, 2017 at 11:34 AM

      I agree, but dropping "of an action" does not affect my point that a risk, by contrast with an uncertainty, implies something adverse. You would not speak of the "risk" of recovering from a disease, but you would speak of the uncertainty of whether you'd recover.

      Delete
    5. ChristopherMay 30, 2017 at 9:22 AM

      So risk is analogous to hope? "Risk" in common use is simply our word for an uncertain but plausible bad event, whereas "hope" (as in "my quick recovery from this illness) is our word for an uncertain but plausible good event. Fair enough? I say "plausible" in each case because I still think that risk, and hope for that matter, refer to the known unknowns.

      Delete
  2. UnknownMay 29, 2017 at 7:27 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more