Monica Bhatia : Fear, stakeholders, hypothesis

Hypothesis = We are healthier, stronger, safer, and more educated, than in previous generations, but are more afraid of things that in general are not so threatening. Has it come down to what we are really afraid of; other people!? I think the products and systems created do not necessarily warn or protect people as much as they make them paranoid and think irrationally. How can design, perhaps critical design be used to inform people of this universal fear, or actually understand that its not as dangerous (or is it?) out there as we think? Goal = world peace.

Terrorism = outsiders using force to control another party. Extreme actions used, threats, violence, surprising actions, language, etc. An act of terror or an act of war? Is there a difference?

Stakeholders:

Americans: who read the newspaper, take certain precautions when it comes to trusting people, their beliefs, imparting knowledge on their children, and protecting their families

Physiologists: that study fear, treat patients for fears and phobias, and can give insight as to WHY people are conditioned to think there is someone they don't understand that wants to cause harm

News reporters: deal with the information that is fit to print and share, why are warnings made clear in the headlines? Why is every single headline on the front page a warning?

Politicians: understand why terrorism may happen and have ideas of how to react

I'm interested in the topic of fear, especially in regards to terrorism. Humans make great advances of technology and create vaccines to save us from illness, but still have time to worry about things, like what if some people from other parts of the world are developing nuclear weapons to hurt us with? What if they plan on sending them in the mail? Or abducting our children, hijacking cars or airplanes? Despite statistics, many of the articles in the New York times give warning to someone else out there that may be planning to hurt us. I can even think of some evidence that the fear of terrorism has changed the design of our environment since 2001:
-Mail security, inspection, not putting postboxes in transportation terminals
-Strict airline travel, minimal liquids allowed, shoe removal
-Fear of unattended packages, could be a bomb, or chemicals
-Terror (amber) alerts

One theory is that fear is understood by our Head: our brain, “gets it” translates facts, while the Gut: “doesn't understand statistics” is our impulse, our physicality and how we ACTUALLY react to fear. My theory is that it has a lot to do with a loss of control, which may be hardwired into the brain to think: DEATH the ultimate loss of control. And if we ourselves are doing everything right to keep safe it can only be others that are out to do us harm, right? I understand that fear is important and is inherently used to protect us, but it is possible that media hypes up warning to absurdity. I'm interested in media hype, political control, and marketing fear to sell products, such as security systems and hand sanitizers. For my research I think it is important to begin with talking to physiologists and neuroscience focusing on the studies of fear. Talk to politicians and political scientists who are supposed to be protecting against “attacks”, reporters whose job it is to inform the public about national news.
Tools: The game of RISK adapted for current threats. Military pieces replaced with terrorist related threats of hijacking, nuclear weapons, and bio-terrorism.