I read your mail while ago and now that I have a little 'more time I would like to say a few words about the speech security / immigration that Alexander has raised.
I think that what unites the people of today is not understanding what it means to security ... I think that safety is always wrong and in correlation with immigration is not the case in my opinion ...
Let me explain with a metaphor. A psychology have taught us to speak with metaphors so forgive me if I may seem trivial ... consider security as a curved line and immigration as another curved line ... these two lines being curved can weave in some way, in several ways and over ... therefore also for immigration and security is so ... but the two curves are distinct and not always sovrepposte ... This is the main key ... Among those, even Pieve ... I always denote a strong ignorance more ... ignorance understood as a noun to ignore ... not in the pejorative sense. Security is both a feeling something real. Immigration is only reality. And the two things coincidono.La Real security is based on mathematics and about the likelihood of the possible risks and effectiveness of protective measures taken. Indeed, we can easily evaluate how safe is our home than the theft by taking into account factors such as crime rate in the area where we live or our habit of always close and lock the door. We can also easily calculate the probability of being murdered by a stranger on the street or in our home by a family member. Finally, we can calculate the probability of being a victim of identity theft. Given a large enough set of statistics on criminal acts, this is not very difficult: the insurance companies do so for some time. We can also calculate how much a car alarm can increase the safety of our home or how the locking of our bank account will protect you from identity theft. Once again: given a sufficient amount This information is easy. But security is also a way of feeling, a feeling, not based on probability and mathematical calculations but on our psychological reactions to risks and protective measures. You can be terrified by terrorism or vice versa did not feel in any way threatened by it. At the airport you can feel more confident seeing that the shoes of passengers are checked by metal detectors or what can be left completely indifferent. There can be considered high risk with regard to burglary in the medium risk with regard to the murder and at low risk for identity theft. And our neighbor, in the exact same situation, could be considered high-risk compared to identity theft, medium risk against the burglary and at low risk for the murder.
More generally, it can be safe even if you do not feel safe, and conversely feel safe even if in reality you have not. The perception and the actual security are certainly related, but not the same and would probably be better to have two different terms to describe these different situations.
Examples of the first I've taken from an article in Contemporary Psychology few months ago. I do not know, maybe everything is just words on safety dictated by my studies etc, but I think there is little information in general about everything ... I think it's fair to work ... and in this sense that we should try to "acculturate" people for having a more healthy and really discuss the bases and practical knowledge and not based on racial bias.
I hope in some way to have made my contribution to "democracy" in this debate.
Ilaria
0 comments:
Post a Comment