A Biased Sample
Fallacy Files hosted by Gary Curtis is one of my favorite sites.
Here is one of his current posts:
Fallacies in the News Howard Kurtz has a column on the recent spate of kidnapping stories in the media. As Kurtz explains, there really is no crime wave; rather, there is a wave of media attention being given to kidnapping. Kidnappings that would have been covered locally are now getting national attention.
The problem with such media feeding frenzies is the so-called, which leads people to oversestimate the likelihood of kidnapping. Not only are people unecessarily frightened--including the children that they seek to protect--but parents are distracted from more significant risks to their kids' safety.
As Gary points out the Volvo Fallacy occurs when the vividness of a recent memory, or the strinkingness of an unusual event, leads one to overestimate the probability of events of that type occurring, especially if one has access to better evidence of the frequency of such events.
I think 9-11 qualifies as vivid and unusual and certainly has been a distraction, perhaps making us less aware of more significant risks we face. Many have argued, reasonably in my opinion, that it is exactly what's happening.
Or the case of the Serial Rapist in Louisiana, where governor Mike Foster, in this story is suggesting that all the women start packing.
The so-called "Volvo fallacy" gets its (bad) name from anecdotes like the following: "I've heard that Volvo is a brand of automobile with a reputation for safety. However, my neighbor is in the hospital after having a wreck in his brand-new Volvo. You won't see me buying a Volvo! They're pieces of junk!" This is an example of the fallacy, since the speaker is allowing the vividness in his mind of his neighbor's recent misfortune to override what he knows about Volvos in general.
The increase in this type of fallacy (also referred to as a biased sample) is likely a result of the rapid improvement in communication, the internet, satellite phones, 24 hour news all which play an important role. The unusual, the vivid, get the preponderance of coverage so it is easy to overreact to such events. It is important to step back and take a more rational reasoned view if we are to avoid becoming victims of such faulty reasoning


Comments
I made some snotty remark about another fallacy entry, so I should stop to note how interesting this one is. A similar but not identical mistake is the common saying that 'Xs (plane crashes, deaths, etc.) happen in threes.' One psychologist suggested that the reason behind this folk numerology is that three is the lowest number at which we begin to identify a pattern in most occurrences (one is surely not a pattern, and two usually not seen as a pattern). There is a disconnect between the level at which we declare a pattern and the level at which coincidences are unlikely. Deaths in one's circle of friends and family can actually happen relatively frequently, but we mistakenly assume that three in a year, say, is very unlikely to happen by mere chance. The "vivid" emotional response to this kind of event may also here be the cause for the hasty declaration of a pattern.
It's not true? Well then, how do you explain Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld :) Interesting comments Dende, Thanks.