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

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

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 majestic wate…