Podcast appearances and mentions of David Ropeik

In part because there are over 10,000 known human diseases and symptoms thereof may have numerous possible explanations, frequently diagnostic tests can be in-determinative or less informative than observing (termed: watchful waiting) a suspected disease's clinical course over time.  Because of diagnostic complexities population level diagnostic errors represent a significant public health problem.  Nevertheless, despite the progress made in treating cancer - as Ropeik writes in his introduction two-thirds of nearly 200 types of cancer are either treatable as chronic diseases or entirely curable - cancer today remains the emperor of nosophobias that in turn leads to over-screening, over diagnosis and false positives, over treatment, potentially harmful side effects, death and excessive healthcare budgeting and wasteful spending.  As one reviewer of the book wrote, “Ropeik details how the gravity force of cancerphobia warps risk perception, leading to personal and societal harms and legislative misdirection.”  During this interview Mr. Ropeik begins by clarifying the book's discussion is at the population level, disputes the belief cancer always needs be diagnosed as soon as possible and describes the US Preventive Services Taskforce's (USPSFT's) work upon which his book is based. He next discusses USPSTF's (evolving) mammography screening recommendations for breast cancer, the prevalence of associated false positive diagnoses particularly related to DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ). He discusses his chapter regarding environmental agents as cancer agents or contributing to the fear of cancer, the lack of a relationship between federal funding and the burden of disease, e.g., breast v pancreatic cancer funding. He concludes by discussing policy solutions that can simultaneously reduce cancer phobia and improve the effectiveness and cost cancer care. Mr. David P. Ropeik is a retired Harvard University Instructor, author, and international consultant on risk perception, risk communication, and risk management. He worked as a television reporter for WCVB-TV in Boston from 1978 – 2000 specializing on environment and science issues, wrote a science column for The Boston Globe, taught journalism at Boston University, Tufts University, and MIT, was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and a member of the Board of Directors of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Mr. Ropeik previously published “How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts,” (2010, McGraw Hill), and co-author of “RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You,” (2002, Houghton Mifflin). Mr. Ropeik has also authored more than 50 articles, book chapters, and other essays on risk perception and risk communication published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Scientific American, The Atlantic Monthly, Health Affairs, Issues in Science and Technology and elsewhere. He writes a blog for Psychology Today and blogged at Big Think and The Huffington Post. Among numerous awards Mr. Ropeik is a two time winner of the DuPont-Columbia Award and seven regional EMMY awards. Information on “Curing Cancer-Phobia” is at: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12956/curing-cancerphobia. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

When making a judgment about what to do or believe—when there are risks involved—it becomes important to look at the consequences of our choices, and this involves accurately assessing both the risks and benefits of those choices. With the help of guest David Ropeik, who coined the term "perception gap" and has authored two books on the subject, Bob and Julia examine risk-benefit as a critical thinking tool.

This week, Oregon Governor Kate Brown said most COVID-19 restrictions in the state will be lifted when 70% of eligible Oregonians have had at least one vaccine shot. Just two days later, the CDC put out new guidance saying that people who are vaccinated against the virus can stop wearing masks in most places. But are tired and traumatized Oregonians ready to start returning to something like pre-pandemic life? We'll talk about the challenges of entering the next phase of the pandemic. Our guests are Julia Silverman, news editor for Portland Monthly Magazine, who recently wrote about this issue, and David Ropeik, author of “How Risky Is It Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts.”

Consultant David Ropeik is the author of How Risky Is It, Really? and a former Director of Communications for the Center for Risk Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health.  As part of ISF’s RISK series, he explains to Saira Shah how the challenges we face in the modern world are far more challenging than those from our evolutionary past – and how the wiring of the brain ensures that we’re ‘set up’ to react ‘emotionally more and with reason less.’

Please enjoy this interview with David Ropeik, author, consultant and expert in the field of risk communication. Original music by Jim Cirillo at jimiumgroup.com. Original art by CC Snetsinger. Please send questions to wtswtgt@gmail.com and follow us at #wtswtgt.

Please enjoy this interview with David Ropeik, author, consultant and expert in the field of risk communication. Original music by Jim Cirillo at jimiumgroup.com. Original art by CC Snetsinger. Please send questions to wtswtgt@gmail.com and follow us at #wtswtgt.

Covid-19 is showing up a general failure by most of the world's governments to prepare for the worst. Manuela Saragosa speaks to Dr Sylvie Briand at the World Health Organization, whose job is to get the world ready for new infectious outbreaks like coronavirus. What was it like for her exhortations to fall on deaf ears up until this year? How prepared was the WHO itself, and does she fear the consequences if the multilateral organisation is defunded? Meanwhile, author and risk consultant David Ropeik explains why human nature makes us so bad at taking action to ward of disasters that happen once in a blue moon. And Jens Orback, head of the Global Challenges Foundation, says pandemics are only one of a host of terrifying cataclysms that we disregard at our peril. (Picture: Asteroid striking the Earth; Credit: puchan/Getty Images)

Risk communications expert David Ropeik joins us to discuss the "perception gap" and how it influences our assessment of risk, how that assessment can lead us to act in ways not necessarily in our best interests, and communicating effectively in the age of COVID-19. David is the author of How risky is it, really? Why our fears don't always match the facts. It's available on amazon.com.

Risk communications expert David Ropeik joins us to discuss the "perception gap" and how it influences our assessment of risk, how that assessment can lead us to act in ways not necessarily in our best interests, and communicating effectively in the age of COVID-19. David is the author of How risky is it, really? Why our fears don't always match the facts. It's available on amazon.com.

ABOUT OUR GUEST: David Ropeik is retired Harvard Instructor, author, and consultant on the psychology of risk perception, risk communication, and risk management. He was the principal faculty member of the professional education course The Risk Communication Challenge at the Harvard School of Public Health. He is author of How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match The Facts, and principal co-author of RISK!!! A practical guide for deciding what's really safe and what's really dangerous in the world around you. Prior to teaching at the Harvard School of Public Health, he was a television reporter in Boston, twice winning the DuPont Columbia Award, often referred to as the Pulitzer Prize of broadcast journalism. GUEST LINKS: WEBSITE: CLICK HERE TWITTER: CLICK HERE BUY HIS BOOK: CLICK HERE   Simon Drew Links Patreon: patreon.com/simonjedrew Coaching: simonjedrew.com/coaching/ Practical Stoic Mastermind: facebook.com/groups/practicalstoicmastermind Facebook: facebook.com/simonjedrew Instagram: instagram.com/simonjedrew LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/simonjedrew Website: simonjedrew.com

This episode continues the last 2 shows as we follow the trajectory of COVID-19 as it moves into the center of our lives and our everyday decisions. Critical thinking is essential during a crisis and we hope you will listen in as we grapple with the new reality we are facing, even since our last show 7 days ago! We use the work of perception psychologist David Ropeik to help us consider biases and factors that influence how human beings perceive and respond to risk. We also talk about how teaching for many of us, including Brian, has moved online and what we are learning about that process. Wash your hands and join us "Critical Thinking for Everyone" airs on FORward Radio, 106.5fm and forwardradio.org, WFMP-LP Louisville, every Thursday at 5 pm EST and repeats Thursday at midnight and Friday at 11 am. Please listen live at www.forwardradio.org/. Find us on Facebook at "Critical Thinking for Everyone". Our music is by Bensound, and it is free and available to anyone to use--www.bensound.com/

Bill’s guests are David Ropeik, Andrew Zimmern, Edward Luce, Lis Smith and Tim Miller. (Originally aired 3/13/20)

Pam discusses our individual and collective increased stress, fear and worry surrounding the current global outbreak of COVID-19 with retired Harvard instructor and risk perception expert David Ropeik. Pam and David discuss what we can each do to reduce our fear and stress and maintain our resilience during challenging times.

Endlich meldet sich der Psychotalk zurück, und dann auch noch mit dem heißen Thema Klima. Grund für die zwischenzeitliche Zwangspause waren aber keineswegs atmosphärische sondern persönliche und gesundheitliche Störungen der drei Psychologen. Entsprechend gesprächsfreudig geht es in der ersten Stunde zunächst um allerlei Themen: Ganz frisch im Gedächtnis sind der Brexit und die politischen Entwicklungen in Thüringen. In einer Nachfrage zur letzten Sendung gibt es ein paar Informationen zu polyphasischem Schlaf. Sebastian hat die Reform der Ausbildung der Psychotherapeuten weiter begleitet und berichtet über aktuelle Entwicklungen auf den Berufsstand und die unverändert schlechte Situation der Psychotherapie-Versorgung in Deutschland. Hierzu wird auch das Webportal psychotherapiesuche.de empfohlen. Allgemeiner werden Gesundheitskompetenz und ärztliche Leitlinien (wie auf awmf.org) diskutiert. Sven hat im letzten Jahr privat das Thema Elternschaft und Entwicklungspsychologie weiter beschäftigt, und er amüsiert sich über die Erfahrungen Mitleidender (wie im Familienbetrieb). Das bringt uns zu anderen altersgerechten Themen der Psychotalker: Abnehmen (mit herzlichen Grüßen an Nadja Hermann) und körperlicher Verfall bzw. Sport (u.a. bei Kieser). Nach einem passenden Exkurs zum Thema Körperbild und Prüderie geht die erste Stunde zu Ende. Den Beginn des Themas Klima und Klimawandel (genauer gesagt: der wissenschaftlich gesichert von Menschen verursachten Klimaveränderung) machen die Punkte Dissonanzreduktion, Dogmatismus und Extremismus, diskutiert wird aber auch der Sinn der bemannten Raumfahrt. Verschiedene Faktoren beeinflussen, wie bedrohlich wir Risiken wahrnehmen, und anhand des Modells von David Ropeik kommen Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägungen, persönliche Betroffenheit und die wahrgenommene Kontrolle ins Spiel. Die gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung in Polen und Indien wird verglichen, und die Tatsache beleuchtet, dass Bewegungen wir “Fridays for Future” und ihre Protagonistinnen wie Greta Thunberg oder Carla Reemtsma überwiegend der oberen Mittelschicht angehören. In der letzten Stunde geht es zunächst vor allem um religiöse und religionsnahe Aspekte des Klimawandels wie den CO2-Ablass (aka Kompensation) oder “Religions for Future” nach Dr. Michael Rosenberger. Zum politischen Diskurs geht es um die Komplexität der Energiesysteme und ihrer raschen Veränderung, die Unaufrichtigkeit zu den notwendigen Kosten bzw. Opfern und die oft vernachlässigten positiven Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten; gestreift wird auch die besondere deutsche Situation hinsichtlich Automobilindustrie und Fragen wie der des Tempolimits. Ach ja, um Klima(wandel)leugner geht es natürlich auch. An Büchern werden unter anderem erwähnt “How risky is it, really?” von David Ropeik und “How bad are bananas?” von Mike Berners-Lee. An Podcasts wird auf Folge 30 des “Nachgefragt-Podcast” zu Erneuerbaren Energien verwiesen.

"I predict that far in the future, people will still be trying to predict what will happen far into the future. For the same reason, we do it now...to give ourselves the feeling of control over our fate" - David Ropeik , “Psychology Today” Welcome to one of our most bizarre episodes yet, where we discuss the science and magic behind predicting and why humans keep on trying to guess what future holds if they are so often wrong. In this episode we discussed: Why would humans like to know what the future holds, and to what extent? What methods people from different disciplines use to predict the future? Can you get trained in predicting the future and what are the key success factors to make successful forecasting? Who was Edgar Cayce - “The Sleeping Prophet” - and how many of his 14000 predictions came true? The most ballsy, bizarre and controversial predictions for 2019 from Quanturum, Noah the Time Traveler and Nikki the Celebrity Psychic And many more! ------------------- Find out more! You’ve Got 5 Options is a talk-show based Radio Program, where we discuss ordinary topics in an extraordinary way. Inspired by the idea that every challenge has 5 solutions, every transformation process has 5 steps and every great interview has 5 key questions, we have chosen FIVE as a common theme for every program we broadcast. If you want to learn more about us, please don't hesitate to visit our webpage at https://the5options.com You can listen to us on Fridays at 14 00 CET and 98,7 and 89,5 fm in Aarhus, Denmark or worldwide here: http://radiohuset.airtime.pro/

Our EQ: How are many modern social problems fueled by fear and how can we use the emotion to our advantage to make social change?We dig into the topic of fear sharing some of their deepest fears, discussing mass shootings, how arming teachers is asinine (that gun $$ tho), and why white people need to get over themselves--specifically when it comes to films such as Black Panther. Since recording, Black Panther has crossed over $1 BILLION mark!Mentioned in this episode:The Psychology of FearMass Shootings & Mental IllnessAre White People Being Assaulted at Showings of Black PantherBlack Super Heroes Matter The Bechdel TestThe Race Bechdel TestBlack Excellence is an All-Time HighTimeless or Terrible: IphonesDrakeBonfires Do Your Fudging Homework:Annie: Go read “Why we’re so easily manipulated by political appeals to fear” by David Ropeik. It offers some interesting connections to today’s conversation about fear.Hope: 1) Go watch Black Panther. 2) Try to do something to combat your fears. 3) Go watch Black Panther.

How do we rationally assess risk? Following a terrible series of horrifying air travel disasters, reasonable people begin to question what we consider to be "safe." But should we?    To answer this question, our host Josh Zepps is joined by David Ropeik, an international consultant and expert on the subject of risk perception and communication, and author of Risk: A Practical Guide for Deciding Whats Really Safe and Whats Really Dangerous in the World Around You and How Risky Is It, Really?: Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts.    Ropeik discusses how human beings perceive danger versus mathematical probabilities, how fear and optimism affect our perception, and how it might be a good idea to be "gentle" with the word "rational" when it comes to the subject risk. 

War ja klar, dass es bei Themen wie Kernenergie und Gentechnik auch mal zu Kontroversen kommt, sogar bei unseren drei verträglichen Psychologen. Dieses Risiko war aber vorher absehbar und wurde angemessen gemanagt. Zum Einstieg ging es erst einmal um dissoziative Zustände, eine Gruppe psychischer Störungen, die sich durch das Auseinanderdriften von Gedanken, Gefühlen, Erinnerungen oder Körperempfindungen vom selbst wahrgenommenen Ich auszeichnen. Können wir Erinnerungen an Traumata wirklich vollständig verdrängen, und plötzlich lässt ein einzelner Reiz (trigger) alles wieder hervorbrechen? Gibt es so etwas wie die Multiple Persönlichkeitsstörung (MPS) wirklich, in denen Menschen vollkommen unterschiedliche Persönlichkeiten nebeneinander "beherbergen", und wie unterscheidet sich das von der Dissoziativen Identitätsstörung (DIS)? Was ist der Zusammenhang mit Trance-Zuständen, wie sie durch Riten oder Drogen (siehe auch Folge 12) hervorgerufen werden können, wie zum Beispiel im Schamanismus? Was ist mit angenommener Besessenheit, wie bei Werwölfen oder den Wendigo-Mythen der atlantischen Indianervölker? Gibt es überhaupt so etwas wie kulturspezifische psychische Störungen? Und wie unterscheidet sich Dissoziation von Schizophrenie (siehe Folge 14)? Im zweiten Teil ging es um das Thema Risiko. Hierzu hatten wir den Physiker und Unternehmensberater Dr. Holm Hümmler zu Gast, der Unternehmen bei der Einschätzung ihrer Risiken unterstützt. Was ist Risiko eigentlich, und wie unterscheidet sich das Verständnis des Begriffs in der Betriebswirtschaft und im Ingenieurwesen von unserem Alltagsverständnis? Warum sind wir Menschen so schlecht darin, Wahrscheinlichkeiten und Risiken einzuschätzen, und warum reagieren wir so schnell emotional? Wie beeinflussen unsere wahrgenommene Kontrolle, unsere Angst vor Verlusten, unser Vertrauen in Unternehmen, unsere Sorge um unsere Kinder, die Angst vor Künstlichem und Neuem, die Liebe zur Natur und die Medien unsere Risikowahrnehmung? Wir diskutierten kontrovers (aber freundlich) über unsere eigenen Ansichten zu Kernenergie und Gentechnik, über die vernachlässigten Krankheiten und die tödlichsten Tierarten. Wer mehr zum Thema lesen möchte, dem seien die Bücher von Gerd Gigerenzer und David Ropeik empfohlen.

What is it that truly worries you? Why do some risks feel more frightening than others? In a day where worries and risks include climate change, cancer concerns, and a war on terrorism, how do we decide what risks are actually dangerous and which ones are false alarms? On this encore edition of HearSay, Cathy talks with David Ropeik, author of "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts," about finding a comfortable place between fear and fact.

Host: Chris Mooney When the devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan last month, it left behind not only mass destruction, but also a nuclear crisis that was covered 24-7 by the international media.  Since then, we've been embroiled in a huge debate about nuclear policy—should there be a "Nuclear Renaissance" in the United States, or should we put it on hold? A central issue underlying all this is the scientific question of risk. How dangerous is radiation, anyway? Do we overreact to reactors?  To tackle that question, we turned to two different guests. One is one of the world's foremost experts on radiation exposure and its health consequences; the other is a journalist who's done a new book about why we often misperceive risk, to our own detriment. David Brenner is the director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University. His research focuses on understanding the effects of radiation, at both high and low doses, on living systems, and he has published more than 200 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Brenner was the recipient of the 1991 Radiation Research Society Annual Research Award, and the 1992 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Award for Radiation Protection in Medicine.  David Ropeik is an author, consultant, and speaker on risk communication and risk perception, and an instructor in the Harvard University School of Education, Environmental Management program. He's the author of the 2010 book How Risky is it Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts.

Atsuko Kawashima of Hunter College and David Ropeik, author of “How Risky Is It, Really?” on the earthquake. Plus: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and artist Jon Rafman on his project "The Nine Eyes of Google Street View."

Se aborda un tema que apareció en el portal de Psychology Today en agosto titulado ¿Estamos condenados porque percibimos los riesgos equivocadamente? del autor David Ropeik quien es profesor de educación continúa en la Universidad de Harvard

Why do some risks feel more frightening than others? In a day where worries and risks include climate change, cancer concerns, and a war on terrorism, how do we decide what risks are actually dangerous and which ones are false alarms? David Ropeik, author of "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts," will help us find a place between fear and fact. Join us!