[qznc]

They use media coverage and conflate it with "general public sentiment" and how "people think we die". While the wording seems to be carefully crafted that it avoids stating something outright wrong, it does suggest that they are the same.

Are there studies that compare media coverage with surveys on how people think we die?

[owenshen24]

There are! The most famous one is this one https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794... and the results are largely in-line w/ what one might expect.

> Two kinds of bias were identified: (a) a tendency to overestimate small frequencies and underestimate larger ones, and (b) a tendency to exaggerate the frequency of some specific causes and to underestimate the frequency of others, at any given level of objective frequency

[lqdc13]

Problem with such use of statistics is that we underestimate black swan events.

Humans are intuitively better at it. For example, it would be impossible to predict something like 911 event with such frequentist analysis.

Also impossible to predict some sort of nuclear disaster terrorist act that never happened before and could take a million lives.

Another thing to keep in mind is the "missing life" (dying young) and quality of life after disease. That's why something like Alzheimer's seems a lot worse than heart disease.

[im3w1l]

Yeah "dying of war" is much more likely than you would think by looking at what Americans died of last 10 years. The same could go for anything that happens rarely but kills a lot of people when it does.

911 was probably too few deaths to make an impact in the statistics though. You'd need something killing tens of millions of people