SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the The-only-thing-we-have-to-fear-is... dept.
Chapman University recently completed its third annual Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2016). The survey asked respondents about 65 fears across a broad range of categories including fears about the government, crime, the environment, the future, technology, health, natural disasters, as well as fears of public speaking, spiders, heights, ghosts and many other personal anxieties.
In addition to the set of fears examined in previous waves, the survey team took a closer look at two fear related phenomena: Americans' beliefs in conspiracy theories and fear of Muslims, sometimes referred to as "Islamophobia."
In its third year, the annual Chapman University Survey of American Fears included more than 1,500 adult participants from across the nation and all walks of life. The 2016 survey data is organized into five basic categories: personal fears, conspiracy theories, terrorism, natural disasters, paranormal fears, and fear of Muslims.
The 2016 survey shows that the top 10 things Americans fear the most are:
- Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015)
- Terrorist attacks
- Not having enough money for the future
- Being a victim of terror
- Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition (new)
- People I love dying
- Economic or financial collapse
- Identity theft
- People I love becoming seriously ill
- The Affordable Health Care Act/"Obamacare"
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-americans-annual-survey-american.html
A comprehensive list of the all the fears is available from The Chapman Survey on American Fears 2016.
A video is also available at: https://youtu.be/Rr0XAFbe8b8
Previously:
What Americans Fear Most (2014)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @08:57PM
Not in the top ten? What are Americans thinking? Do they not know the dangers of strange Clowns standing around and inviting them "into the woods"?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:01PM
I checked the PDF [chapman.edu]. They are trending up.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:20PM
On the cynical side, I wonder if the recent clown-related hysteria was started as viral marketing for the upcoming movie remake of Stephen King's It.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:44PM
I wonder if the recent clown-related hysteria was started as viral marketing for the upcoming movie remake of Stephen King's It.
That is my son's take on it. He seems to have worked it out for himself, I'm not sure if I should be proud or worried about the level of cynicism there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:02PM
You should be proud of the level of cynicism.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:45PM
No. Its anxiety about the orange clown's performances on tv every day. He's literally been giving little kids nightmares.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:51PM
They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll grab 'em by the pussy too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @11:22PM
He gives big kids nightmares too.
(Score: 3, Troll) by driverless on Monday October 17 2016, @02:50AM
It actually shows how out-of-touch most people are with real risks. The actual list of threats is, in order:
Bignum: Terrorism, firearms restrictions, and all the other paranoia on the original list.
Scary to think that someone who's busy wheeling his three chins and four stomachs from the couch to the kitchen (see Risk #2) is worried about "government restrictions on firearms".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @09:58AM
How the fuck is this modded troll? At worst, this is a -1 disagree... even though this really ought to be a Disagree
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @02:59PM
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday October 17 2016, @11:06PM
You missed on #2, which is actually "Clinton becoming president."
Yeah, good point. Mind you the Trump thing was just a joke entry, the rest (medical + accidents) are actual risks, in order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @04:42AM
But they all float out there. Don't you like flying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @05:24AM
The clowns are running for president.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:04PM
My top fear is that millions of stupid people will be allowed to vote.
Running close behind that is the fear that they will believe their vote has any effect whatsoever.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by takyon on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:40PM
So you're saying that your own top fear is completely irrational. Got it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:54PM
Isn't that the nature of fear?
But if they're allowed to vote, they will think the people control the country, which will simply delay getting anything really fixed.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 17 2016, @02:46AM
Should stop thinking of our politicians as leaders. They're not leaders, they're social surfers, riding the waves whichever way they go.
Voters have lots of power, but many are such suckers for fearmongering. They really do control the country, if clumsily. Mostly, if things aren't completely horrible, voters vote for the status quo. Getting experimental is scary, and will not be voted for unless not doing anything looks worse. I was a bit surprised Obama's 2008 campaign on "change" went over so well, but then it did come on the heels of the market crash of 2008 and the start of the Great Recession. Mostly, just what is the status quo and which candidates best maintain it are the questions.
The peddlers of fear have some control, but very limited. Propaganda campaigns can warp public opinion only so far. And there is fierce competition to get heard above all the noise. The slickest propaganda campaign in the world can't get any traction if it goes largely unnoticed and unheard. Even when it works, as the whole fear that Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction did, when people discover it was all a lie, they're going to be very skeptical. Suppose Jeb Bush was about to become POTUS. Is there any way he could sucker the entire nation into going on a crusade, throw a war, Iraq 3.0, or heck, do Iran? I doubt it. Brother George wrecked executive credibility, or as they try to view it, "spent" their credibility. The question of President Jeb! is even more academic than it seems at first glance, as the negative opinions that would stop Jeb from going to war against Iran or Syria or whoever, are the same ones that lead to his presidential campaign fizzling so early.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:53PM
> My top fear is that millions of stupid people will be allowed to vote.
My top fear is that millions of people won't be allowed to vote.
> Running close behind that is the fear that they will believe their vote has any effect whatsoever.
It will have an effect exactly equal to the effort expended. If you think putting in 10 minutes of work in a polling booth once every 4 years ought to make a difference then you are delusional. Voting is like a participation trophy that you get just for showing up. This isn't a lottery, If you want to make a difference then you gotta put in the work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @02:49AM
Because your individual effort in uncovering the truth, is going to be greater than that of the politicians hiding it from you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @06:55AM
Yes, I do - it worked for Edward Snowden.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 17 2016, @08:50AM
That is a very eloquent way to put it. Kudos. Copying and sharing it elsewhere.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 17 2016, @11:33AM
There's more to it than that. Saying "put in the work" and leaving it there can be one of those trite political aphorisms that result in people taking no action, walking away muttering, "that's just the way it is."
I put in the work. I built a grassroots organization of 15,000 people in NYC and worked for four years 60-70 hours a week with no pay. We got the Brennan Center reforms [brennancenter.org] passed. Result: New York politics still hopelessly corrupt.
I say emphatically that there is no way to reform this system by working within the system. We live in a world that is run by money, and nearly all the harm that is being done to the world is being done by those who have stolen all the money ("stolen" in the looser usage of taking through dishonest means).
The only way to change this system now is to burn it all down and start over. There might be good bits left in the ashes. We can put those in the foundation of the next iteration.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 17 2016, @07:40PM
Every time the system is destroyed, the next system is that much smarter. The system has been designed to take care of every thing a smart person can do to a dumbass, so that dumbass can continue to focus on day-to-day life of trying to get food and sex/child care. If you want to bring a change, we really really have no choice but to work within it.
I mean I can give so many examples, but people are so much married to the system they will find something to get offended. Look at Hillary Clinton's email shit. There was once Watergate, which was a watershed moment for american politics. The system learned, and today your wikileaks moment will be eclipsed by a timed release of a video where your oppn. says that women fawn over rich men and you can buy media to spin it all. Then you had Vietnam which was another big controversy and so the system will use a tragedy (911) to go to random war. And if you have a problem with that, the president won't even acknowledge that we are at war, he will just order indiscriminate drone strikes.
I have great respect for people like you who have leadership skills and know how to get things organize. Two minor things and one major quibble - you put too much effort hence the burnout. Instead, you ought to train more leaders and have all of them put smaller effort. Effort is like a continuous reactor - their is a continuous input flow which is not entirely understood until now, but if you put more output than input, you will burn out. Secondly, anti-corruption is a very easy platform to get on board, so a lot of people will easily come together to do something about it and then disperse 'having job done'.
The major flaw is, the hope that you can change society by law. That never happens man! Laws change when society demands it. Obvious conclusion is a) either society in general is corrupt or b) the system has already learned how to work under anti-corruption law. My guess is both, but mostly (b) - which is why it is going to be even more difficult to change the system.
I am myself losing all the hope these days, looking at the strength of the system all over the world. But I am still hoping to bounce back.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by richtopia on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:34PM
Under the Fear of Muslims page there is an infographic which includes other fears in that category. As an atheist, apparently 1 in 3 Americans distrust me (they shouldn't, but I would argue for other reasons). And those of you who believe in Jesus, well 1 in 5 Americans don't trust you.
https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/fear-of-muslims-in-american-society-2/ [chapman.edu]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:39PM
"Strangers" is one heck of a select group.
Another way to look at how the atheists scored: they are 83.6% as mistrusted as MUSLIMS in America. Yet when atheists complain about the situation, they'll be dismissed as militant or euphoric fedora-tippers.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FatPhil on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:38PM
Communists
Which was a remarkably noticeable statistic, noticeable through its absence.
In the groups-of-people feared breakdown, where were the fear of gays, feminists, pacifists, intellectuals, and even foreigners - so much was left unlisted that could have given great insight into the US hive mind.
Note, however, that at 1511 people, this study was *TINY*. Even if performed perfectly, its error bars were pretty sizeable. (A 3% swing from 2014 may be nothing but noise.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @02:44AM
The administration has had over and over again ample evidence to step in and prevent these terror attacks, but the consequence of a willful blindness of a policy that is a matter of administration policy refuses to acknowledge the threat means, over and over again, this administration has allowed the threats to go forward. We cannot combat and defeat radical atheist terrorism without acknowledging it exists and directing our resources to stopping it. An Orwellian doublethink that seeks to excerpt any reference to it, as the administration has done to the president of France, is counterproductive to keeping this country safe.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:50PM
Its very mysterious to me how so many are scared of atheists. Been awhile since I heard about a radical atheist trying to recruit for the faith (LOL) by machine gunning florida nightclubs or blowing up marathons or landing planes in skyscrapers or all that stuff.
From what I understand, really old people considered commies and atheists to be synonyms, which aside from being kinda weird, also doesn't explain the high percentage (like what percentage of the population is over 80 yrs right now, etc)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:15PM
It's simple.
There's a certain class of religious thought that isn't content with "My moral code comes from $HOLY_BOOK. It is the correct one and people who get their moral code elsewhere will have different moral codes that are less correct", and instead reaches for "My moral code comes from $HOLY_BOOK. People who don't accept it have no moral code. When I act morally, it's because I know right from wrong; when they act morally, it's just an act." (Sufficiently close religions (other Protestant denominations, Catholics, Jews, etc.) may or may not get a pass.) These people basically believe that to be an atheist is to be a sociopath.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:26PM
I am afraid of Christian "Universities" in Orange County, (God forbid!) compiling lists of fears. Notice they did not list fear of fear-lists in their list! Lord Russell would be very happy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:46PM
There's a certain class of religious thought that isn't content with "My moral code comes from $HOLY_BOOK. It is the correct one and people who get their moral code elsewhere will have different moral codes that are less correct", and instead reaches for "My moral code comes from $HOLY_BOOK. People who don't accept it have no moral code. When I act morally, it's because I know right from wrong; when they act morally, it's just an act." (Sufficiently close religions (other Protestant denominations, Catholics, Jews, etc.) may or may not get a pass.) These people basically believe that to be an atheist is to be a sociopath.
Is it possible that those who believe that atheists are completely amoral sociopaths extrapolate from their own realization that if they were not bound by the threat of eternal punishment if they did not adhere to whatever $HOLY_BOOK, they would be amoral sociopaths?
If that's the case, I think it's a good thing that they subscribe to these false belief systems.
I'd be interested to see statistics relating religious affiliation with those convicted of rape, child molestation, murder, armed robbery and felony assault. I suspect that atheists would be significantly [wikipedia.org] underrepresented in those groups. Prove [wikipedia.org] me wrong.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @12:27AM
You might want to check out the Wikipedia article on Burden of Proof before telling people to prove you wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @12:35AM
I never said I was right. I said I *suspect*.
That's not making a claim, that's stating a hypothesis. You do see the difference, yes?
"Prove me wrong" was rhetorical flourish, not a claim of rectitude.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:06AM
Is it possible that those who believe that atheists are completely amoral sociopaths extrapolate from their own realization that if they were not bound by the threat of eternal punishment if they did not adhere to whatever $HOLY_BOOK, they would be amoral sociopaths?
I hope, for the sake of the rest of us, that these people never lose their faith!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday October 17 2016, @02:44AM
There is an element of Truth in that. But you miss the bigger horror by attempting to, falsely, virtue signal your superiority.
It is perfectly logical to view atheists with suspicion given that the 'godless communists' murdered more people in the last century than every other contender combined. Add in Islam and you have so close to a total count of mass slaughter for the last century anything else is mostly statistical noise.
No, all atheists are not Communists and every Muslim isn't a monster. On the other hand it IS true that every mass murdering Communist is officially an atheist and every Islamic Terrorist is, by definition, Muslim. It is also true that as matters of official doctrine both Communists and Muslims are a lot more accepting of monsters than the rest of us should be comfortable with.
I have also observed that as a general rule the 'godless', both atheist and agnostic, tend toward amorality with a shockingly high degree of correlation and that goes double for the converted. It really does seem that a threat of hellfire is somewhat effective, purely as a practical matter and especially if that threat is suddenly removed. It is kinda like the matrix, it is dangerous to free a mind beyond a certain age, apparently most simply can't adapt to being required to develop and adhere to a purely internally derived moral code.
Finally, it is undeniably true that while those few atheists and agnostics who DO develop a coherent moral code can be as moral as any traditionally religious person, to date history records zero successful civilizations built upon a godless moral code. We lack any sort of reliable way to transmit the moral code from these few to a general population; something, just to pick one example, the Catholic Church manages to do generation after generation with high success even when monsters have held the Papacy. This is not to say it can't be done, but that it is likely to be extremely fatal for the next few attempts based on the flawless track record of horror to date.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @02:56AM
I have also observed that as a general rule the 'godless', both atheist and agnostic, tend toward amorality with a shockingly high degree of correlation and that goes double for the converted. It really does seem that a threat of hellfire is somewhat effective, purely as a practical matter and especially if that threat is suddenly removed
Where is the statistical evidence to support this?
You aren't making any sort of argument that is (at least you have not provided any) supported by evidence.
Which is why I suggested we look at the religious (non-)affiliations of convicted violent criminals. I would find that data to be both interesting and informative.
You projecting your personal beliefs without any supporting evidence is just you projecting your personal beliefs without evidence -- that is, you spouting off.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @03:12AM
No, all atheists are not Communists and every Muslim isn't a monster. On the other hand it IS true that every mass murdering Communist is officially an atheist and every Islamic Terrorist is, by definition, Muslim.
Got yer evidentiaries right cher!
"No, not all idiots are jmorris, but it is true that every jmorris is an idiot. By reputation, if not be definition."
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday October 17 2016, @03:20PM
Where is the statistical evidence to support this?
Have you even seen a history book? Is your Internet connection sufficient to reach Google and Wikipedia? Communism alone scored a body count greater than a hundred million even if you accept their own version of history, i.e. the official version. Surely there isn't anyone posting here so historically ignorant that they would question the fact as anything other than a 'citation needed' troll and that joke is stale these days.
Which is why I suggested we look at the religious (non-)affiliations of convicted violent criminals
Apples and oranges.What people do as individuals is mostly regulated by the societal pressures around them. And doesn't get to my bigger point that a society can survive a limited quantity of the godless among it but every single society that has organized around that principle has been a horror. History records zero counter examples so no citation is possible.
The problem seems to be rejecting the religion of a civilization also implies rejecting the moral code that is bundled with it. Most stop there, with no religion and no moral code beyond avoiding punishment by society instead of avoiding punishment by God, Which is, by definition, dangerous. Those few who succeed in building a moral code from scratch have demonstrated little ability to transmit it to those less intellectually advanced so if those few smart atheists are so unwise as to encourage mass rejection of the society's religion they wind up in an amoral hellhole. Again, you will cite zero counter examples because there are none. This is not to say there will never be one, only that it implies the odds of success for the next attempt currently underway in the West will likely end in mass graves.
And yes it is a bundle deal. You can't even keep the U.S. Constitution if you unbundle the religious and moral code implied within it. "We hold these Truths to be self evident: that they are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are....." See the problem? Whole thing is an Appeal to Authority fallacy without the religious element. With it those 'inalienable rights' are beyond any human legislature's lawful authority. Progressivism is godless and sure enough, it was no time before they asserted that our Rights are a gift from the State, revokable at the need of 'the greater good' i.e. their whim. And as sure as night follows day bad things have been coming our way ever since. I'm willing to entertain proposed patches to solve it but none have even been proposed.
So my bottom line is that until our civilizational technology increases greatly the masses must remain religious if we are to retain a civilization because they can't be governed any other way. Throne and Altar works. A religious and moral people could keep a Republic until they were seduced into ceasing to be such.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @04:05PM
Have you even seen a history book? Is your Internet connection sufficient to reach Google and Wikipedia? Communism alone scored a body count greater than a hundred million even if you accept their own version of history, i.e. the official version. Surely there isn't anyone posting here so historically ignorant that they would question the fact as anything other than a 'citation needed' troll and that joke is stale these days.
Your conflation of atheism with brutal totalitarian dictatorships is as amusing as it is flawed. Apparently you're unfamiliar with simple logic. I'll explain, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand: Just because some atheists were/are bloodthirsty, murderous thugs, that does not mean that *all* atheists are bloodthirsty, murderous thugs.
And so you confirm the suspicion of the AC who pointed this out [soylentnews.org]:
By your "logic", since the Spanish Inquisition maimed, tortured and murdered thousands, all Catholics are also murderous thugs who will happily perform such acts, yes?
The problem seems to be rejecting the religion of a civilization also implies rejecting the moral code that is bundled with it. Most stop there, with no religion and no moral code beyond avoiding punishment by society instead of avoiding punishment by God, Which is, by definition, dangerous.
Again, you are incorrectly conflating concepts. You claim that ethical behavior is only possible in a religious society, because only those who are frightened of being punished by some omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent fantasy figure will act in ethical ways. I find your blind reliance on demonstrably false belief systems to be both pitiable and rather humorous.
While a fear of "divine punishment" may be how you, and those with you down at the shallow end of the gene pool, are kept from committing heinous acts, that's not the case for many of us.
What's more, there is no such thing as a "societal" or group morality. Those who share a similar culture may also share similar ideas about ethics and morality, and they may even publicly espouse similar ideas about such things. However, moral choices are always individual choices. Each time someone is faced with a moral/ethical question/quandary/dilemma, they must choose what action they will take. That is inherently an individual choice. Such a choice may be informed or constrained by the culture in which they are embedded, but the choice will be an individual one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 18 2016, @01:55AM
Just because some atheists were/are bloodthirsty, murderous thugs, that does not mean that *all* atheists are bloodthirsty, murderous thugs.
I said no citation was needed or possible, I stand by that. Provide ONE example of a society ruled by an open atheist, without a large religious element to moderate State behavior, that you don't consider one 'run by bloodthirsty murderous thugs'.
those with you down at the shallow end of the gene pool
Nice elevated debate skills ya got there. I have been openly declared as an agnostic since my earliest posts though I tend to consider the religious better allies than most of the godless. Just a reality. But you are intentionally missing my point. Unless you are planning a 'final solution' for the bottom 75% of the population you really should be thinking of some sort of way to keep them in a civilized state. Religions work. Again that is a reality. One I seriously doubt you even intend to challenge.
Those who share a similar culture may also share similar ideas about ethics and morality, and they may even publicly espouse similar ideas about such things.
Try replacing 'may' with 'do' because soon after you lose consensus on ethics and morality you cease having a single civilization and have several, usually followed by a war to settle the new boundaries.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Monday October 17 2016, @02:41PM
I am agnostic. Religious belief doesn't decide government preference. Any possibility that a god exists died for me during my time in the army. No benevolent god would permit the things i saw. A god that does permit such things (even to His believers) is cruel or psychopathic and should be the enemy of good people.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday October 17 2016, @08:09PM
There needs to be a special downmod option for posts using the terms "virtue signal" and "SJW."
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:48PM
People should be afraid of retarded god worshipers, because the only reason they even act civilized is because a magic fairy in the sky says so.
With the simple realization "There is no such thing as God. Sorry about that :\" (aught to put that on a bumper sticker) everything they think they know, and how to behave all comes crashing down. Of course they will be afraid of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @12:08AM
> People who don't accept it have no moral code.
This. I have one correspondent who fits this to a T -- he's retired, was a sharp engineer, but after losing his first wife, he remarried to a born-again. I self-identify as post-theological (never participated in organized religion as a child or adult). After years of thinking and reading fairly widely, I believe that I have a decent sense of right and wrong...but this guy effectively insists that I'm immoral because I don't follow the Bible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:45PM
"SystemD will infect and F up my favorite OS" 33.3% feared
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:42PM
That is a materialized fear, which is actually a harm at this point :(
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:52PM
As linked in the summary, in 2014 there was a list of "top fears" too. They were:
1. Walking alone at night
2. Identity theft
3. Safety on the internet
4. Being a mass shooting victim
5. Public speaking
These fears seem rather simple, personal, and parochial compared to this new list a mere two years later. Now our top 10 is propagated with not one but TWO terrorism fears, fear of government, corruption, and big government actions, and -- in a striking reversal -- we're apparently more afraid of gun control than being a shooting victim.
Hmm... does two years make such a big difference? (And before you blame this on "The Donald," last year's list isn't much different from this year's.)
I didn't try to track down the original 2014 survey details, but the summaries I've found of 2014 does note a difference in methodology. In 2014, there were FOUR main categories of questions about fear: personal fears, fear of crime, fear of natural disasters, and "fear factors." That last one seems more about traits of fearful people than the actual fears, so there were really three categories. Not surprisingly, the top fears of 2014 therefore were "personal fears" like public speaking and "fear of crime" like walking alone and identity theft.
Now, in 2016, our survey has five [sic] categories of fear questions: "personal fears, conspiracy theories, terrorism, natural disasters, paranormal fears, and fear of Muslims." (I'm not certain here, but that pretty much sounds like six, rather than five.) Anyhow, two of these main categories are related to terrorism fears (terrorism and "fear of Muslims"), so is it any wonder that those are now popping up in the top 10? And if you start asking questions about conspiracy theories, you'll probably get more responses from people who fear government corruption, gun control, full-scale economic collapse, and "Obamacare" (especially if they called it that).
We all know that the form of the survey will affect the response. Sure, it could be that maybe they didn't include questions about some of these in 2014, so they weren't even there for people to rate. Or, it could be that when you're asking people a bunch of questions about "what you're afraid of" and there are like 25 questions saying, "Do you fear Muslims? Do you fear terrorists? Do you fear Muslim terrorists? Do you fear a terrorist in a house? Do you fear a terrorist with a mouse?" etc., that maybe people start saying, "Yeah... they're asking me all these questions about terrorists... maybe there is something to worry about here..." (By the way, I couldn't find the detailed survey methodology on the website for 2016 yet -- they only have the 2015 version, so it's tough to tell how many questions like this there actually were, but since these are two of the five (six?) main categories, one has to assume there are multiple questions on them.)
And then there are concerns about the way questions are worded -- just to pull one question I saw out of the 2015 survey (which is actual posted in full on their website): "Thinking about the Federal Government in Washington D.C., how afraid are you of the following? (1) Government use of drones within the U.S., (2) The Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare, (3) Corrupt Government Officials, (4) Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition." I can't remember the exact name for this type of problematic survey question, but basically what they do is bring up the U.S. government, and the only thing they ask about are these things. Everybody's got some beef with the government (Congress has a perennial approval rating that never seems to get much more than 25%). So it is any surprise that almost everyone would check off their favorite complaint if they could find something like it among these four? Even if you aren't really afraid of gun control, if you're a Republican who supports gun rights, and this one resonates the most with you of those four, you'll probably check that one off as "strongly fear" or whatever... and it suddenly ends up in the top 10%.
TL;DR -- This is really a Top 10 of fears that the researchers decided to include and structured questions and categories that led survey-takers to pay more attention to (and likely weight more strongly). I'd like to see if they did a survey that just had a list of 100 fears or whatever number, with no extra text, and just let people rank freely. Would these "Top 10" still be the same? What if they had a different structure where every person was shown a random selection of 25 fears out of those 100 in random order? Would they see different fear rankings from those who saw 5 questions about Muslims and terrorists, compared to only 1?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:49PM
There's some consistency, but not complete consistency. Check the PDF:
https://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/research-centers/babbie-center/_files/alphabetical-list-of-fears.pdf [chapman.edu]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @03:02AM
23.8% fear illegal immigration, and 25% fear insects. DJT could have kicked off his campaign with a "dog whistle":
When Mexico sends its bugs, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending insects that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing pathogens. They’re bringing famine. They’re pests. And some, I assume, are beneficial insects.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 17 2016, @03:20AM
Maybe 80% of Trump's base fears illegal immigration and only 5-30% fear insects.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:17AM
I put this in my personal queue and haven't gotten around to submitting it.
(It's not especially time-sensitive, so I figured I could wait for low ebb in the queue.)
Now seems an apt time to include it.
.
As for the fears survey, FatPhil mentioned the small sample size.
I also always want to know how many people they contacted who said, "Take your survey and jam it".
aristarchus also mentioned Chapman University (in the City of Orange in Orange County, CA).
That is a very superstitious county.
A third of residents claim to be Catholic.
(It also used to be very Republican but that's been undergoing strong changes.)
Chapman University is 3 blocks west of the traffic circle at Glassell and 1 block north of Chapman Ave. [googleapis.com]
Keep going on Chapman Ave. west, past the "Orange Crush" freeway interchange, [googleapis.com] till you get to Lewis St., [googleapis.com] and you will be at the Crystal Cathedral. [googleapis.com]
That is a GIANT church (you can actually see it quite a distance off) and it is known worldwide from being on TeeVee weekly for years and years.
Actually, the Protestants went broke after the pastor croaked and they had to sell the thing.
The Catholics bought it and renamed it Christ Cathedral.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @03:05AM
I know someone who wasn't killed* in a fireworks mishap.
* just blinded and maimed
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:55PM
The top item, corruption, is quite strange. You have a system that thrives on money to get elected to government positions and *then* you fear corruption of your officials? That is just so unbelievable and naive.
It seems that propaganda, which was paid for by that same money, has brainwashed enough to believe that the government will do anything in its power to prevent the corruption they themselves profit from. Hm, dream a little dream...
(shaking my head in disbelieve)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:59PM
I suppose its "OK" if the president is completely powned as we've had for some decades now, but it would really suck for me personally if the city treasurer were bribed into foreclosing on my house for nonpayment of prop tax or the local cops expected daily protection money.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:05PM
I'm pretty sure that's only a concern when people have no money to save and have to sell their fishing boats to make ends meet. I doubt the people would give 2 shits about corruption as long as they could take comfortable family trips every Labor Day.
Well, on the bright side, the people are less stupid than I thought - I don't know a single Democrat Hillary supporter who isn't an old baby-boomer dyke or bitchy old Prius-driving bag who never had to work a damn day in her life. And it's good to see the firearm thing becoming a concern, despite what the Jew-run media are telling you, maybe people do give a shit about their free speech and other rights? Actually I'm surprised that the mass-media isn't listed as a concern, when every damn media outfit are shilling for Hillary and unfettered illegal immigrants you know something smells funny.
I think the people waking up is being caused by the media blatantly marching in lockstep as well as the fact that there is less distinction than ever between the agenda of Democrats and Republicans. They see it for what it is - One crooked deep state working against their best interests - and the establishment is so psychotic and power-drunk that they don't even bother hiding it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 17 2016, @12:49PM
They don't bother hiding it. Why should they? They commit outrage after outrage and the rabble don't storm the gates, so they figure they can double-down and get away with that, too. The cycle accelerates. Everyone will miss the small moment, the tiny event that by itself would be meaningless, that will cause the entire system to de-cohere.
I half expect the establishment to put out a full page ad in the New York Times the week before the election, saying, "Go ahead and vote however you want. The outcome has already been decided. All your base are belong to us."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Monday October 17 2016, @05:44PM
IMO there is little difference between today's Democrats and the Republicans of as recently as a decade ago.
The problem is that todays Republicans are so completely batshit crazy that it makes the Democrats look reasonable, despite being corrupt douchebags.
It's not a fight of "may the best person win". It's a fight of "who is the least worst".
The US is fucked this election, no matter which way you slice it. The only real question is, will you be fucked with a chainsaw, or a jackhammer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @11:59PM
You could say pretty much the inverse with equal validity.
Today's republicans are not that far from the democrats of even a decade ago; their stances on gay marriage are evolving, ditto abortion, ditto drugs. But they're arguably much stronger than the democrats on civil liberties today. By contrast, the democrats seem to be all about ratcheting up the surveillance society, the regulation society and the police state in the headlong pursuit of some kind of perfect vision. They're so completely batshit crazy that it makes the republicans look reasonable, despite being corrupt douchebags.
I suspect the reason is that the republicans feel more pressure from the libertarians than the democrats do, while the democrats feel more pressure from the progressives like Sanders and Warren, who keep calling for more regulations and tighter control.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:56PM
The survey screws up results WRT mixing two concepts, the whole fear / bargaining / acceptance stages of grief thingy or whatever its called, vs fear based on likelihood of it happening.
So... I live in an area where its 100% certain we'll have a massive blizzard not just in my life, but next winter. Happens at least once or twice a year, about a foot of snow, etc. No fear. Happens all the time. Huge PITA to miss work and VPN in, massive shovel and snowblower job. No fear though. Maybe 21% of the population lives in southern Florida, I guess.
Likewise the odds of death seem pretty high over the next couple centuries for me. Not any time soon.
And then some are kinda rational. I wouldn't "fear" CC fraud, but 1/3 of the population, some card I got gets powned every three or so years, yeah about right. Wouldn't "fear" it because who gives a F, just reverse charges and get new card. Kinda a PITA but its not a real problem, nothing worth fearing.
"The US will be involved in another World War" is smaller than the percentage voting for Hillary (or voting for Trump to avoid it) which is weird.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:25PM
Indeed. Fear and "expectation of bad thing" are not synonymous. I once had a boss bigger and stronger than me loose his temper, stand up huffing and puffing, and threaten to knock my block off. I figured it was pretty likely that if I pressed the issue we were arguing about he would have actually attacked me, so I walked out. When attempting to file a police report though I made the mistake of saying that I wasn't afraid. The cop said that if I wasn't afraid it wasn't illegal.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:21AM
I once had a boss bigger and stronger than me loose his temper,
WOW! You should have been afraid! Just think what could have happened if you had not walked away! The Boss might have tightened his temper, and then there would have been hell to pay! So, did you loose your job, two?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 17 2016, @12:12PM
The cop said that if I wasn't afraid it wasn't illegal.
Well, there's cop law and then there's the actual law.
If the cop wanted to, boss would have gotten a generic "disturbing the peace". Even if the bystanders are all laughing, those are legit.
Its possible if you were demanding a very specific charge then that very specific charge or a very specific type of restraining order in your area requires admission of fear, so the cops like, "ya gotta work with me here buddy".
Probably better off going to a lawyer anyway. There's plenty of problems that can be resolved in civil court whereas the cops are mostly interested in criminal court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:57PM
From the summary:
The 2016 survey data is organized into five basic categories: personal fears, conspiracy theories, terrorism, natural disasters, paranormal fears, and fear of Muslims.
(Yeah, that's six basic categories.)
From the second linked page: [chapman.edu]
The research team leading this effort pared the information down into four basic categories: personal fears, natural disasters, paranormal fears and drivers of fear behavior.
I fear the Muslim conspiracy to introduce discrepancies like this in our summaries to terrorize us!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:58PM
If concerns about corruption in the government are a major issue, it's no wonder that Hillary is widely disliked, and any alternative to her viewed with more interest than would otherwise be the case.
The charitable interpretation, that she's a competent politician who knows how to get things done within the system, and has a Realpolitik understanding of how things actually happen, is easily interpreted by people who worry about government corruption as her being adept at gladhanding, back room deals and coverups. Such people might easily say: "Well, sure, Trump is a racist, sexist, egotistical child of privilege, but at least he isn't living under a double standard where he doesn't get prosecuted because he's in the Beltway Inner Circle."
You don't have to like Trump, or dislike Hillary, to see that dynamic at work.
Now combine that with the concern about firearms, where Hillary is a proven and outspoken gungrabber (sure, she's not coming to take your guns, but she thinks Australia's mandatory buyback aka compensated confiscation was a good idea, and beat the drum for Bill's antigun legislation) and she becomes a really hard package to sell.
Personally I think Trump would do the world a favour by having a tragic car crusher accident, but it's not hard to see how Hillary looks very bad by this calculation.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Monday October 17 2016, @06:45AM
It's an interesting idea, and IMO the level of distrust/belief in corruption also ties up with the conspiracy theories section of the survey - to quote:
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 17 2016, @09:29AM
You have a culture which thinks wishing a man's death is cool and you fear for terrorism. *eyes roll*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @06:07PM
Really? That's what you get from that?
Seriously?
Quite aside from whether the GPposter is afraid of terrorism (wasn't mentioned in the post) I see no contradiction between being willing to wish death on others, and a rational expectation that it might be reciprocated.
Maybe you're just unfamiliar with less sheltered environments than your own?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 17 2016, @07:43PM
You can't see me laughing. Oh man...
There is no excuse to wish anyone's death. If you find yourself doing that, YOU are the one in sheltered environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @07:51PM
"If concerns about corruption in the government are a major issue, it's no wonder that Hillary is widely disliked, and any alternative to her viewed with more interest than would otherwise be the case."
I think this the correlation goes the other direction, or that this fear and Hillary's perception or both symptoms of the current climate. The campaign for the presidency effectively started in 2015, and since then about half of Americans have had fear of government corruption and the idea that Hillary is corrupt marketed to them very heavily. In 2014, people were rightly more worried about direct threats to themselves and their families. Every few years, both sides of the political aisle try to make the electorate feel actual gut-level fear about abstract threats like corruption, low-odds threats like terrorism, and long-term threats like global warming.
That's not to say those things are important. They're all important. But the intensity of the fear and the perceived immediacy are bizarre.
As long as I'm making an inane, anonymous political post: http://www.fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
A less-stupid voting system is the best thing we can do for the health of the system in the long-term.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:01PM
The list of fears goes to show that propaganda works. When people are told something over and over, it becomes the truth. Terrist attacks and being a victim of such have very low chances of happening. Federal Reserve causing another financial collapse, starting new wars, creating enemies all over the world (in order to make money) is a real threat and should be feared the most along with those responsible for such horror. And gutter journalism should be feared for it is a tool of the devil.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:04PM
You didn't cite your source for The Big Lie [goodreads.com] - Adolf Hitler, with some supporting commentary [jewishvirtuallibrary.org] by Goebbels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @12:55AM
That is a forged quotation:
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm [bytwerk.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:00AM
Another link showing some false quotations.
http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html [ihr.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday October 17 2016, @02:27AM
Hitler and Goebbels merely perfected the propaganda techniques invented by Edward Bernays here in the U.S. working in the Wilson Administration. Asshole literally wrote the book on the subject. (No he can't claim full credit despite writing Propaganda) Once you understand that WWII was a war between competing schools of fascists on both sides you will begin to approach wisdom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @07:07AM
between competing schools of fascists on both sides you will begin to approach wisdom.
Approaching Wisdom, with jmorris! Praising Jesus, with Creflo Dollar! Alex Jones University?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @12:01AM
Of dying of heart disease. I'm afraid of being killed in an automobile crash. I'm afraid of dying in a household accident. I'm afraid of the suffering that comes with dying of cancer. I'm afraid of developing Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia.
I'm afraid of heights (and this has gotten much, much worse over the years).
I'm afraid of skyrocketing coffee prices.
I'm less afraid of being killed in a terrorist attack than I am of being killed in a lightning strike. Which is not at all.
I'm not afraid of government [wikipedia.org] corruption [wikipedia.org], I'm mad as hell about it!
I'm not afraid of people I love dying, I know they (and everyone else) will die. I won't like it. It will make me sad and I will grieve, but *everything* dies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:26AM
I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system at Heathrow.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jelizondo on Monday October 17 2016, @01:55AM
For whatever is worth, I am afraid of heights too.
The funny thing is, part of my income comes from telecom stuff which involves climbing roofs, towers and poles; which I avoided like the plague letting my underlings do all the climbing.
That is until a few years ago when I started to feel ashamed of myself because all my life I told underlings I would never ask them to do anything I wasn't prepared to do myself and this was one glaring exception. Mind you, no one called me on it, it simply downed on me that I was lying to people so I decided to climb on whatever was needed.
I'm old enough to have seen live the Apollo 11 landing and my fear had become a big monster but climb I did. I'm still scared shitless but no longer paralized, it seems that fear feeds on fear itself. Once you realize that yes, there is danger but no as big as you thought, you are able to start facing it.
So go on, climb on something today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @03:05AM
Interestingly, I've had the opposite experience.
When I was a kid, I had no fear of heights. I didn't have any fear of heights until I was in my thirties and even then, while it would bother me, I could handle it without too much trouble. Heck, I even went bungee jumping! While that was kind of scary, it was neither debilitating nor panic inducing.
As I've gotten older, the fear has gotten worse. I was recently on a balcony (third or fourth floor, IIRC) and I was completely panicked at being on the balcony, even though I was nowhere near the edge. I chided myself for my fear and attempted to ignore it. I repeatedly went out on the balcony and my panic level increased rather than decreased.
It's not such a big deal, as I'm not required to do such things, but for me, repeated exposure seems to make things worse, not better. Go figure.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Monday October 17 2016, @06:00AM
That is very interesting. I get vertigo from even watching a movie full-screen of people climbing mountains or flying... but then I been afraid all my life and my climbing is purely will against my base instinct. Funny thing is, I am not bothered at all in a plane or helicopter. Go figure.
What could have changed in your brain? I'm not qualified to even venture a guess but I find it interesting and somewhat unsettling that one could acquire fears as an older person because we are "set" in our ways, that is, barring a traumatic experience.
Cheers
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @06:40AM
Airplanes and the like are just fine for me too. I guess it's not really just heights, but being high up where there is a place I could go over the side.
Hiking in the mountains is no big deal for me either. But put me on a rooftop, a balcony or near the edge of a cliff and I get pretty freaked out.
As for what triggered this? I have no idea.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday October 18 2016, @01:23PM
I was told once by a doctor that fear of heights tends to start in the twenties, and gradually gets worse as one gets older.
In me, it manifests as a sense of disorientation when high up, so I start to lose the natural ability to understand which direction to move to get away from the danger. I have to substitute explicit conscious mathematical reasoning for instinctive avoidance movements.
That's scary.
As I get older (I'm now 70), I also don't balance as well as I used to. That's a further reason to avoid places where I might fall. It applies to ladders as sell as icy streets.
(Score: 4, Funny) by snufu on Monday October 17 2016, @12:01AM
Sorry. My greatest fear is surveys.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday October 17 2016, @01:04AM
I am only afraid of fear itself!
Or being asked what I am afraid of and not having an answer.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @01:51AM
That's my number 1 fear...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @07:53AM
Funnily, my biggest fear is committing suicide by gun shot to the back of my head after critizing Clinton.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday October 17 2016, @03:16AM
Obviously, our greatest anxiety is that we'll run out of Xanax!
The horror!
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Monday October 17 2016, @05:28PM
What are they afraid of? Not going bankrupt if they get sick?