Who decides what is neccessary or not?. The high speed drivers needs the nerveous attack to feel better, the bungee jumper dito, the researcher as well.

No, Marcel, if they are involved without their engagement, I´m sure the answer is no. But your question for me sounds like "Why looking for risk as fun".

We are resp. we should act as social beeings. So risk if you want but lonely, just for your own!

I´m convinced that getting well-fed is a certain type of risk, just read statistics about eg heart diseases.

PS where is your first answer?

I don't like accidents!

Cheers

@Marcel et al., risk taking personality causes people to take risks, because they are stifled by boredom. I did not include that in my PhD, although I was aware of that personality dimension. I drive below 90 km per hour :))

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200011/are-you-risk-taker

Dear Miranda,

similar findings as you indicate with the article concerning humans have been reported in animals, including birds (Parus major)

Dear Marcel et al., the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and don't forget that in a Chinese family, I was well caned, when I was a kid :)

"But the risks must be taken, because

the greatest risk in life is to risk nothing.

The only person who risks is truly free."

--Janet Rand

I have a philosophical question: Is it 'taking risks' when people are not aware of the 'risks'? So can a person 'take risks' if he/she doesn't know about the risks/dangers?

Actually, what is a 'risk'? Only when risking your life? What about more emotional risks such as confessing your feelings/love to your beloved? What about risking to lose some bucks on a buddy-bet? What about risking your job because of honesty (e.g. by confessing an mistake/wrong decision)?

Do these different situations have the same basis? Can we break down these situations to just 'people risk something because they expect some reward/benefit' or 'people need adrenalin' or is there more?

Dear Marcel,

Taking risks belongs to our instinctive approach to life and the uncertainty around us.

It seems to me that taking risks may lead – sometimes – to an enormous advantage and success.

I may guess it is genetically coded. I think some hormones may play an essential role in it.

Dear physicians, please help!

@András: Yes the hormones in the regular and especially for males often prolonged puberty are provoking risks.

Dear Marcel, what about my decision, never to decide anything? Thats the best way to avoid your "risk". But boring, tiring and totally fatiguing. Make a better proposal.

Dear Hanno,

it's not a proposition I am mentioning, it's an simple observation....

What is your precise definition of 'risks' in general? For instance, taking a decision involving expectations that are ultimately realised with a higher or lower probability?

Cheers

Dear Marcel, I try it: Risk is the chance to receive higher mals than goods, when performing a job. So I accept the risk to live, because I´ll find more interesting adventures than as not developed egg and spermium. :-)

So, I will try a serious response. The consciouness of risk depends strongly from the intellect because it neeeds the possibility to analyse. If you are not aware of risks because you don´t perceive details of your acting, it´s very probable that you act without any feeling to jeopardise yourself.

Perhaps the consciousness of risks not only depend on details of your acting but also on details concerning interactions between acting and the current environment, perhaps disconnected from the future environment?

You´re right, the environment causes many reactions, because you have to be "cool", not showing any fear. Its a well known behavior during tribunals. Young people seem to be quite normal in front of the judge, but show a very abnormal behaviour during the "normal" life, where they have to impose.

How can one learn to face 'risks' without taking them?

I took risk to sign up at RG, it may had proved to be total waste of time, but now it proved to be a very good move. I have learnt a lot from RG. :-)

This is complicate and is related to the individual and biological variations (e.g., genetic and environmental factors play important roles in general behavior of people). I think, this is has to be studied in large scale (normal people and people with abnormal psychological behavior such as crime and suicide behavior, one group of people is predisposed for many things like aggression, smoking, alcohol and drug intake while other group is not. So, to break a law or not is mainly related to the person behavior and to system punishment. Is it right that CURIOSITY KILLS THE CAT?. Should be looked for.

Is it risky to claim that people that take risks are biologically 'programmed' to do this? Is this an excuse to accept such a behaviour, or not?

Dear Marcel, you are right, a very easy apology!

Of course not, but we have to find a way to educate this subgroup of people. It is like you have sub group of people that will be diabetic or hypertension in the middle of age so, we have to educate them that there are risk factors that enhance the disease. So, we know but we have to help but no excuse to accept, if we do it will be normal and socially accepted.

Dear Fathi

your answer is serious, but not related to the primary question. It´s a really different kind of risk if you get sick when aging (diabetes, cancer). Thats no wilfully accepted risk of life, it´s life. These people need help, of course. But when talking about freely accepted risks (drugs, alcohol, traffic, aggresive behaviour), here effective education and clarification can help, sometimes combined with sanctions to accelerate the learning process..

Some people claim there is an interaction between life style and the probability to become sick. If people are aware of this, they take unnecessary risks. I think this is what Fathi wishes to say.

Dear Marcel, I´m doubting that people combine there "normal" lifestyle with risk. Most of "fat" people don´t know at all that they risk. There are societies which prefer do be over nourished, because it´s the normal behaviour of these people. They don´t know what they do. They don´t risk by carelessness, they just live ignorant with respect to any risks.

Given the modern communication techniques and science advances, at least in some societies people are overloaded with advice how to live, supported or not supported by scientific research. Despite advice, many prefer short-term pleasure than what they call boring long-term life?

Such a massively applied attitude that prefers short-term pleasure without taking long-term consequences into account can cause significant environmental/global change perhaps having significant consequences for future generations, again as claimed by scientists, or not?

Hi All,

It is a very interesting question raised by Marcel.

Although it is generally believed that awareness about the risk increases “self protective behaviour” but the literature in this area reveals contradictory findings

{see Sims, J.H., & Bauman, D. D. (1983). Educational programs and human response to natural hazards. Environment and Behavior, 15(2), 165–189}.

While trying to decipher the reason behind such findings some studies reveal that a number of socio-psychological factors such as personality trait (optimistic bias, Self-efficacy, Locus of control); the behaviour to be changed (e.g. wearing seatbelt is uncomfortable) etc. influence self-protective behaviour. One of my work is also related to this area{Mishra, S., Suar, D., & Paton, D. (2009). Is externality a mediator of experience–behaviour and information–action hypothesis in disaster preparedness? Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 3, 11-19}

Simply put, it is not education or the awareness of the risk involved in speed driving but certain factors such as the sensation seeking attitude, optimistic bias (nothing wrong will happen to me...it may happen to others) are likely to influence such behaviour in youth.

Would you call sensation seeking attitude an example of 'human instinct'?

I would like to correct myself. "Sensation seeking" is a personality trait. People with such trait search for novel, exciting experiences and are prone to take all types of risk in life including speed driving, rafting in dangerous zones etc....yes even they do not hesitate to take financial risk.

As with all complex human behaviour, risk taking behaviour is probably a combination of biological, psychological and social factors. Though risk taking behaviour is most studied in the realm of cognitive psychology (decision making), other perspectives are appearing in neurobiological research. Some findings (without being exhaustive):

1.biological perspectives show effects of gender (Byrnes 99), brain damage (Raine, 2013; Fairchild 2013), stress (HPA axis and impulsivity, Popma 06), sensation seeking (Zuckerman 94).

2. psychological perspectives show effects of affect (Petrova 13), illusory control (Nordgren 07), aversion loss (Zeelenberg 96), salience (Schie 95), see for overview and theories Trimpop 94 and Yates 92).

3. Social effects for deprivation (Raine, 2013, competition (Jackson 76), groupthink (Janis72), peer influence (Gardner 05).

Our own research with criminal youth (van der Helm, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2011) show the effects of social disadvantage situations on aggression.

Hello,

I agree that as for any biological trait, there is more than one biology-based or environmentally-based cause, and the specific combinations of these factors might be individual specific, perhaps often difficult to identify.

In addition to your remarks on societal influence, I would like to illuminate the almost forgotten theory of Martin (1999). Martin proposes that present-day society differs from mankind’s evolutionary past by a change from immediate returns, when living as hunter–gatherers, to a delayed- return system with the onset of agriculture and urban living. He assumes that a delayed- return system lacks frequent feedback necessary for goal orientation and perceived control, which may lead to various social psychological thinking errors, cognitive distortions and an external locus of control, leading to more risk taking behavior. This was exactly what we found in a sample of criminal adolescents (Groeneweg ea 2012).

I argued before that cars are recent inventions that do not take the human evolutionary past into account. If human personalities were selected in the evolutionary past that could not more than 'walking' and 'running', some of these personalities might take risks when they suddenly are allowed to substantially increase speed of movement when driving a car. For instance, a bold personality that only can walk or run is exposed to lower risks than a bold personality that is allowed to drive a car.

I agree with the above written. But could there be one more factor involved that is based on evolution?; i.e. the fact that risk taking has been admired by other men (presuming that the majority of risk takers are , and has been, males), and admired by fertile women as well? And thereby leading to increased mating success for those (males) who survived their risk taking activities (long enough to mate)?

@Marco, you could be right. But I think your mentioned behaviour is a relict from a early evolutionary status of human beeings. It reminds me very strongly of stony age or of typical manner of animals.

Zero risk!

Dear Marcel,

What about horse riding? See the many accidents!

If you live, you take risks one way or another.....

Dear András, horse riding is one of our really small dangers. Have a look on the smokers, the drinkers, the scientists- then you will see real threats.

Dear András, horse riding is one of our really small dangers. Have a look on the smokers, the drinkers, the scientists- then you will see real threats.

There is a neurological basis for risk acceptance important to neuroeconomics. Also, there is a basis related to framing effects that explain why people do not also make rational decisions as normative utility theory predicts. Risk acceptance is as important to minimizing expectation as is normative conventional models are to maximizing expected utility. I have two studies that or of particular interests.

Reference:

Mishra, S., Gregson, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Framing effects and risk-sensitive decision making. British Journal Of Psychology, 103(1), 83-97. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02047.x

Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making.(Report). Trends In Cognitive Sciences, (3), 108. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.009

People take risks to find harmony and satisfaction as popular in our relationships and worldviews. skills and attitudes that need to be developed to successfully untie knots through our daily life. The issue: the freedom to be alive and to be unique!

By systematically practice the recommendation of the Stoic philosopher Seneca: "Let the difference between what depends on us and what does not depend on us." In what we do depends on our best; for the rest, do not pay attention.

For these people what happens depends on them. They even tend to push this attitude further than the facts alone give it to see. Because they know that this is only if officials say they can change things. To implement and achieve the change they mobilize their energies in a concrete goal, defined and measurable said. Their choices based on an objective analysis of the situation taking into account a sufficient number of parameters. Moreover, their attitudes are always references to values ​​that drive them. After reflection, they make the decisions.

Yet they do not forget the second part of the saying and agree accordingly not control everything. In addition, they take the risks inherent in any business and welcome failure as a way to learn.

To stimulate discussion:

I agree with all your proximate/neurobiological/economic/behavioural approaches to explain why people take more or less risks today. But if risk taking is placed in an evolutionary framework evolutionary biologists may presume that past selection pressures/past environments influenced the gene complexes involved in risk-taking today. Are those gene complexes biologically influencing risk-taking behaviour today still 'adapted' to the novel environments of today? E.g. Risk-taking in environments without a car or without other modern inventions representing past evolutionary selection pressures differs from risk-taking in environments with a car or with other modern inventions. Gene complexes selected in the past seem to be suddenly confronted with new environments expressed during the last demi-century, or not?

However, I like to take risk...but never bet...100% the decision is mine.

Your educative example is a risk that is truly not necessary!

Why do people like to watch other people taking unnecessary risks (e.g. the gladiators in the arenas of the roman empire)?

Marcel: I guess it's psychological of human being to get surprised by watching unusual activities (risks), even though they are not at all necessary.

Marcel, perhaps the reason for that is motivation. People do unnecessary risks such as cheating during exams with the end view of getting a better score and without being caught. So the motivation is two-pronged- a personal advantage, and evading the law. Especially when one has experienced or observed that s/he or others can evade the law.

Dear Eddie,

Indeed, one of the 'proximate'/mechanistic reasons may be motivation. What you call cheating has also been discussed in an evolutionary framework discussing costs and benefits of cheating in different environments.

Dear Eddie,

this implies that what people call 'judging behavioural acts of others' can also involve cheating to be explained in an evolutionary framework.

How to scientifically distinguish between 'conscious' versus 'unconscious' risk-taking when researchers do not have access to the mental state of the actors?

Dear Marcel,

I suppose, that the risk accepting mechanisms are not adopted to modern world and therefore are a relict from unmodern ancient requirements to the humans.

Your gladiator example is imposing, because it shows the pleasant creeps which you feel, if you have just escaped. In this special examples the creeps come without any personal risk. A whole film industry is working with this technique.

But what have been the (ancient) evolutionary benefits to watch people taking (unnecessary) risks?

Not all people take risks. I suppose some are programmed to take more risks. It may be in order to save time, achieve something like satisfaction, adventure, money etc

So people watching other people to taking (unnecessary) risks will help to save time, to achieve satisfaction and adventure??? But what are the benefits to achieve satisfaction by watching people taking (unnecessary) risks?

Some people might claim that if there is a genetic basis in risk-taking that those that take risks today should have taken risks in the past and survived.... . So those that take risks and survive must be efficient in ......, which could be transmitted to offspring also being efficient in....?

Marcel, I only saw this method in movies but do you think "hypnosis" could help a researcher go through the "sub conscious" and or "unconscious" state of a participant? Or by asking him her/him to record her/his dreams (that could be recollected)? Ed

I mean to say that people take risks to achieve something like adventure or satisfaction etc. Watching other people taking risks is another thing.

Dear Eddie,

People can use lie detectors to measure physiological responses to questions, and why not hypnosis, to detect cheating, but how to identify 'conscious cheating' in wildlife that do not communicate in human language?

You mention 'dreams'. I see/hear people (colleagues, friends,...) expressing their visual and verbal emotions during perceived dreams. What is the link with risk-taking? That I talk about that in public?

Marcel: you mean Narco Analysis?

What is the link between Narco Analysis and risk-taking? That people take drugs increasing risk-taking that can be detected by blood analysis?

Why do people take drugs/substances from an evolutionary adaptive point of view?

Marcel, without the technology that could translate the language of the wildlife into human language, I believe the researcher will have to rely on "observation" the translation of which would require specialized expertise, something which is very difficult and rare, I guess. Ed

Eddie, but how to transform 'observation' into reliable 'interpretation' even with so-called specialized expertise accepting that animals will never talk human language to explain what they feel!

A typical example is sound playback used to understand why birds sing or vocalize. When scientists expose birds to playback of conspecific sounds (e.g. song types, vocalization types) and quantify the birds' behavioural responses (e.g. approach to the playback source, minimal distance of approach, vocalizations in response to the playback) specialists in animal communication try to understand why the birds respond to the sounds, and their to understand the messages and meanings of each vocalization.

Imagine now that we apply exactly the same method to understand a human foreign language. Imagine a European scientist only speaking English that wishes to understand Chinese only using sound playback as experimental tools to study Chinese. The English scientist might send one Chinese word or one Chinese sentence to Chinese people and quantify how they respond to the Chinese sounds. Perhaps different individuals speaking the same language will not respond in the same way to playback of the same word or the same sentence of their own language? Are these methods enough the capture the messages and meanings of vocalizations, in this case Chinese?

To scientists take (necessary or unnecessary) scientific risks when applying such methods? Is interpreting animal behaviour a form of scientific risk-taking?

Marcel, I believe it is. But perhaps the method at this stage is at its raw phase with a lot of facets that can be challenged and questioned.. Maybe someday, new methods could be developed that will minimize if not remove this risk.

Hi Eddie,

History tells us that if knowledge and techniques evolved in the past, they should logically also evolve in the future, also based on the observation that techniques evolved fast during the last 50 years. This is a statement without taking too much risks!

Cheers

Evolutionary biologists would say that animals take a lot of risks when reproduction is at stake, for instance risks to get injured during fights because of antlers, teeth, claws,... . The higher reward is here defined as promise of higher reproductive success. Evolutionary biologists therefore also predict that animals 'negotiate' (e.g. through parades and displays) to avoid fights.

Can examples be found in humans? Do humans parade (e.g. dance) to reduce risk-taking? Evolutionary biologists might argue that military parades are not more than displays to impress to reduce risk-taking (e.g. war). They also might argue that medals put on the chest are not more than badges of status to impress perhaps to reduce future individual risk-taking or not?

Who can give concrete examples of risk-taking on campus?

Hi Marcel,

Culture plays a part when you take into account "educated" or "uneducated" risks-taking strategy. Then again, it is sometimes the person himself is held liable for his own calculated risks among other factors.

If you are using the driving way beyond the safety limit as the benchmark for breaking traffic rules,  I beg to differ.

It does not need any educated or uneducated risk-taking strategy honestly.

Personally, I find it thrilling to drive at 280 km/h because my little country maximum driving limit is only 110 km/h.

Then again, I had been rushing to meet my business counterpart in time than to be late and miss the business opportunities, if at all.

Advices are there to be followed and broken, depending on your needs, culturally, business-wise, intelligently or otherwise.

Conformity is merely for those who are usually meek and see life as monotonous as it could be. But not all would agree to these too owing to lack of universal rules across diversities of sort.

Regards - Mariam