The meaning of "dangerous"

[ritaxis]

When you say something is dangerous
do you mean

A.there is a very high likelihood of something bad happening

or

B.there is any possibility of something extremely -- lethally or near-lethally -- bad happening

or

C. there is a very high likelihood of something very very bad happening?

D. there is either a high likelihood of something bad happening, or any likelihood of something very bad happening or both?


(C is the most exclusive as it requires both a high probability and high stakes: D is the least exclusive as it allows high probability, high stakes or both)

I ask because I was reading a thing and I wasn't sure what I would have meant by saying something about that thing was dangerous, or whether I ought to use the word at all. I am being vague because in the eight and a half minutes it took me to put the question together I have forgotten what I was reading.

Comments

[davidgoldfarb.livejournal.com]

My gut says A is closest, though I think I wouldn't necessarily reserve it for "very" high.

[ocotillo-dawn.livejournal.com]

For me, it implies high stakes more than high probability. I got lost in the wording of each choice, but I get the question.

I wouldn't say it is 'dangerous' to shake hands with someone with a cold (the probability of *dying* from a cold being fairly low).

Probability does play a role though. I wouldn't say it is dangerous to live on the east coast (U.S.) even though there is a (very) small chance that a tsunami could hit us.

In short, it is some combination of the two, with stakes having a greater weight than probability. How much greater likely depends on a person's personal neuroses.

[thomasyan.livejournal.com]

I think for me it is D.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

All of the above. But I'm afraid I also use it much more widely than any of those alternatives). I also use it for "Better be cautious around that (or using that); it can go wrong suddenly in a way that you'd never expect."

It's not just the degree of danger or the likelihood, but the presence of ANY danger where you would never expect any.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

For me, "danger" is all about your definition B. In my lifestyle, there is an extremely high probability that I will experience a paper cut and an extremely low probability that I will be flattened by a falling piano, but I would rate a piano suspended on a crane as much more dangerous than a sheet of paper.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Mostly A for me.

For situation B I would tend to say "potentially dangerous".

So "dangerous" would be going into a cage with a hungry tiger or driving too fast in the dark on icy roads. Potentially dangerous might be running along a cliff path. As long as you don't trip you're OK, but a stumble that would normally result merely in grazed knees could very likely result in death.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

It depends a LOT on the context, the conversation and the people and the topic and the qualifiers.

So apparently I don't use the word terribly precisely.

A, probably. How bad is "bad"? You might cut your finger? You might cut your finger off?

B, it depends. The "any" chances I often ignore. Beyond 6 sigmas? Fuggedaboudit!

For C I would use stronger terms, or at least strong qualifiers. "That's way too close to suicidal!"

D, probably.

[momomom.livejournal.com]

I think C rings truest for me. A is too mild with the type of bad. There is always a possibility of some extreme happening out of the blue so B was out. And D is A or B so D is out.

[del-c.livejournal.com]

In risk assessment we multiply the severity of consequence by the likelihood of occurrence, and if the result is too high, we say the expected consequence is severe, or the danger of occurrence is high. We can draw a risk plot showing all these cases, with a diagonal red line indicating the danger zone above and to the right of the line.

So I'd say D, "high likelihood of mildly bad consequence or low likelihood of very nasty consequence", plus some intermediate cases where the consequence was mildly nasty and the likelihood was middling high.

[carbonel]

I just had to take an online security course, and it didn't use the word "dangerous" at all. Instead, it talked about "risk" and "threat."

"Threat" is all the bad things that could happen to you, from getting a paper cut to being killed by a suicide bomber. You can't change a threat. It exists.

"Risk" is the likelihood of any of those bad things actually happening. There's a lot you can do to affect your risk level, like crossing the street to the lighted side to avoid creepy shapes in the darkness (an example the course was fond of).

So I would probably think of "dangerous" as a combination of threat and risk -- the actual probability of something bad, and how bad it might be. There are an awful lot of things that are high threat, but negligible risk -- which makes them negligible dangers.