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.


  1. 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.

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …