Showing posts with label Neda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neda. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

The Intersection of Crisis Response and . . . Pretty Much Everything

Last week, Eric Morris wrote on the New York Times Freakonomics Blog about what he called the "Danger of Safety." Referring to the recent crash on the D.C. Metro that killed 9 people, he wrote:
The relative rarity of air and rail disasters makes them novel, and hence news. Car crashes bite man, and rail and air crashes bite dog. Intensive coverage of the few air and rail accidents that do occur in turn promotes the widespread — and erroneous — inference that planes and trains are unsafe. In an unfair irony, in transportation perhaps too much safety can be a dangerous thing.
The Quarterback brings this up because in a recent post about the murder of Neda Sultan, I wrote:
We live our lives based on what is likely, not what is possible, in terms of danger. This video brings home in a very vivid way what of course we already knew -- that the world is not safe, particularly if you are a protester in Tehran.
But Morris brings up the flip side of that, which is that trauma messes with our understanding of what is possible vs. what is likely. When something like this happens, we feel like we've been duped. We've been living our lives in a state of complacency, believing, say, that the Metro is safe, and we feel like all of a sudden we have woken up from our stupor to the horrible truth that it really isn't. And the media coverage reinforces that false perception.

On a related note, on Monday Freakonomics posted the following:
In the 1990’s, a call went out for the F.A.A. to stop letting air-traveling parents carry young children in their laps, making them buy a ticket for their children instead, so that every person could wear a seatbelt. The F.A.A. refused, saying that the cost of an extra ticket could force parents to travel by car instead. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for children. On the other hand, the problem of child safety in air travel, the F.A.A. said, “barely exists.” Yet another example of how terrible we are at assessing risk, especially when it comes to our children.
One of the commenters replied:

The response to your blog is simple . . .The overwhelming majority of people are ignorant of the scientific method — thus, probability and risk.

I can't tell you how strenuously the Quarterback disagrees with this analysis. The fact that rational information tells us something different than that upon which we feel compelled to or choose to act does not mean we don't understand better information, or how good information is obtained. It just means that there are things that are psychologically more compelling than empirically derived data in this instance, and that, as the original post notes, we are actually pretty bad at estimating what the empirically derived data on danger will tell us.

Morris understands this when he looks at how the relative rarity and the news coverage of a transportation accident skews our perception of the danger of that mode of transportation. It may be that if you ask people which is safer, a car or the Metro, they will say a car. They will be wrong. But I doubt that if you told them the relevant statistics most people would say, "No, the Metro is still more dangerous." What they will say, however, is, "Even though I know that, my gut instinct is just to avoid the Metro."

Our guts are powerful, and yes, they are influenced by data and by the scientific method. They are also influenced by media coverage, shock, personalization, and perhaps most powerfully, by what we can control. We can avoid a plane, or strap our child in. We can avoid the Metro. We can drive defensively. But what most of us can't do without completely changing our entire lives is avoid driving, so it is important to us that, on a gut level, we continue to be able to drive. We therefore ignore that data, perhaps not cognitively, but instinctively. We're not stupid, we're just trying to get by, to live in the shadow of what is likely and what is possible.

Friday, June 26, 2009

The Crisis that Isn't: RIP Michael Jackson


The Quarterback is somewhat at a loss for a topic for today because apparently the only thing that happened yesterday is that Michael Jackson died. And while I certainly was sorry to hear that, the death of Michael Jackson is not, in point of fact, a "Critical Incident." This might be a good time to talk about what makes a critical incident, and what doesn't.

A critical incident is an event that overwhelms one's usual coping mechanisms. All of us have a set of skills that help us to deal with stressful situations. And all of us have some point past which we can't deal anymore. That point is when incidents become critical, and it is different for everyone.

Certainly there are some things that we can safely presume will constitute critical incidents for most people. Watching your spouse be murdered, for example, would overwhelm most people's ability to grieve and move on. And certainly there are some things that are generally not critical incidents for most people. For example, the death of an elderly grandparent after a long but not particularly painful illness is sad, but not usually overwhelming.

There are a lot of incidents that lie in the middle. What is intolerable for one person is within the realm of tolerable for another. One person may be seriously traumatized by a shooting in the neighborhood, while another is not, perhaps because it happens more frequently for them. As my frequent readers know, there are some predictors of traumatic stress: believing that you are going to die, sensory exposure to the event, triggering of past events, violation of your worldview and the involvement of children in the event are all predictive, but there are others that can cause trauma and these can all be there and a person still not be traumatized.

The death of Michael Jackson is not, for most people, a critical incident. It is sudden and perhaps shocking, and you may feel that it is sad. But it is within the realm of what most of us can cope with. It won't cause most of us nightmares or loss of appetite or drinking or depression. There may be exceptions, either for his family and close friends, those who were there when he died, or for people who have recent similar losses in their own lives. And if you are traumatized by it, that doesn't make you "wrong" or "crazy," just unusual.

Arguably, the death of Michael Jackson is more likely to be traumatizing than the death, also yesterday, of Farrah Fawcett. Hers was a long time coming, she was older, and she was ill, so it was not as sudden and perhaps not as shocking. But neither are likely to traumatize the general public.

Meanwhile, every family who did experience trauma this week now has an added wrinkle. The families of Neda Soltan and Ed Thomas will now add to their story, "and then Michael Jackson died, and everyone stopped looking at us very suddenly." This may be good and it may be bad. Most likely it will be some of each. But let's not lose sight of what a real critical incident really looks like.
Sunday, June 21, 2009

Neda, We Hardly Knew Ye

As the protests over the elections in Iran head into their second week, and the conflict turned deadly yesterday, a video surfaced on YouTube of a woman named Neda dying in the streets of Tehran.

Suddenly, Neda is the rallying cry of the Internet. The video has spread like wildfire and clearly made an impact on those who have seen it. Comments on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter generally fall into three categories: 1) Is this real? 2) Neda, you didn't die in vain and 3) I think I'm going to be sick.

Why? Why is this video, unlike the other pictures and videos of the situation in Iran, so compelling? And why is it so upsetting, particularly in a culture where acts of violence are all over our mass media? After all, this video doesn't show Neda being beaten or even being shot. When the video starts, she is already lying bloody on the ground. We certainly already knew there was violence in Iran, and we don't (as the people in comment category #1, above, point out) even know if the video is real.

First of all, it is certainly the case that people are more affected by things they can see, touch, hear, smell or taste themselves than by descriptions. That is why an appeal from Michael J. Fox is more effective than a typical ad for Parkinson's research: We saw him before the disease, we see him now, and we understand the difference on a very different level than when we hear about it. Seeing Neda die is different from hearing that she died -- we understand it and feel a connection on a deeper level.

Another important clue to why this video is so powerful comes in the form of category #1 questions. The question, "Is this real?" clues us in to the fact that something like this happening violates our worldview. On some deep level, we believe in a world that is safe. That feeling of safety is level two of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which the Quarterback discussed yesterday. It is that belief in safety that enables us to function, to move higher on Maslow's pyramid, and to get out of bed in the morning. We live our lives based on what is likely, not what is possible, in terms of danger. This video brings home in a very vivid way what of course we already knew -- that the world is not safe, particularly if you are a protester in Tehran.

This is also why people feel like they're going to throw up when they see this video. It is not just because it is bloody and graphic, although that is part of it. It is because we presume it to be real, and because that reality violates our fundamental beliefs about the world. That is the hallmark of traumatic incidents. They shake our basic understanding of how the world works, and by doing that throw every other understanding we have into doubt.

Many people seeing this video, particularly if it is unlike any real thing they have seen before, feel unsafe on some level. Our appetite vanishes, we have nightmares, we feel sad or anxious or grouchy. We are experiencing secondary trauma. And if we don't, it may be because we did some other time. The Quarterback remembers feeling very shaken by the video of Nicholas Berg being beheaded in Iraq, even though the most graphic portion of the video was edited out.

I do not mean to imply in any way that the death of Neda is unimportant or that people should not be moved by it. But know what you are doing when you watch it, and when you have others watch it. You are traumatizing yourself. You can choose to do that, and maybe you feel you should, but the usual cautions apply -- find someone to talk to about it, not just about the politics of it but about the emotions of it. Take care of yourself. And be prepared to not feel quite right.

And with that caution, if you care to watch the video, here is the link.

Meet the Quarterback

My Photo
Naomi Zikmund-Fisher
is a clinical social worker, former school Principal and a Crisis Consultant for schools and community organizations. You can learn more about her at www.SchoolCrisisConsultant.com
View my complete profile

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Quarterback for Kindle