The Illusion of Control

I don’t believe I’ve ever met somebody who didn’t consider themselves a good driver – regardless of their driving record – and if somebody is accused of being a bad driver, you can pretty much guarantee they’ll have a hostile reaction to the claim made against them. What constitutes a “good driver” differs from person to person and sometimes from place to place e.g., living/driving in Massachusetts it seems like a “good” driver is somebody who will suddenly speed up and attempt to not let you in when they see you trying to get on to the highway etc. Having worked with good/excellent drivers in the security field, I know that I am not in that top tier of drivers; the ones who can make a vehicle do things that seem impossible, and have the timing and impeccable judgment to move through an environment at high speed, confidently knowing that they can safely deal with anything they come across, etc. However, even knowing that I was in a vehicle with an “expert” behind the wheel, I never feel safer than when I’m the one doing the driving; even though rationally I know that the other person is a safer/better driver. This illustrates a common human fallacy i.e., we feel safer when we are the ones perceived to be in control, even if this isn’t the case. In this article I want to examine how this has led to certain well-intentioned but misplaced pieces of personal safety advice, and how control doesn’t always equate to safety.

If you ask people to picture themselves being subjected to a street robbery, they will usually picture themselves dealing with somebody who has a knife or a gun. However, statistically most street robberies are “strong arm” affairs (about 64% in Boston, over the past five years) where no weapon is presented; this doesn’t necessarily mean that the assailant doesn’t have a weapon on them, but that none is used as part of the robbery. When I tell this to people who practice martial arts/Krav Maga/Self-Defense etc., I often see a lightbulb go on as they start to think/believe that the odds now aren’t really stacked against them, and maybe this is an incident where they can refuse and have a degree of control i.e., they’d never be stupid enough to try and deal with somebody pointing a gun/knife at them, but this is a situation – with all their years of training – where they could come out ahead. Any ideas of acquiescing to the mugger’s demands start to dissipate, as they imagine holding on to their wallet and dispensing some righteous justice against their aggressor. They believe this is an “even” situation, that they are able to control, and they start to feel “safe” about dealing with muggers. Other potential factors start to get forgotten such as the fact their assailant could be carrying a weapon, that they could have third parties nearby to assist them etc. They forget that the person conducting the robbery is driving/controlling the incident and that they psychologically and emotionally have to catch up to them very quickly. Unfortunately, the focus becomes the absence of a weapon, and the desire to take control of the situation, because inherently we believe control equates to safety.

There are probably few industries like that of martial arts and self-defense where untested and untried solutions get presented with the confidence that they have in fact undergone a serious and strenuous scientific process. If something appeals to people’s common sense and rationale, then it passes the credibility test, and is accepted as sound and trusted advice. One question I often get when I engage in corporate training sessions is the wisdom of throwing your wallet/purse away from you when you are targeted in a street robbery. I have written extensively on the logistical reasons why this is a bad idea, but I want to take a moment to look at why this scientifically untested/untried piece of advice is so popular and pervasive, even when all the reasons/arguments as to why you shouldn’t do this are presented and explained. The idea is that when a mugger demands your wallet, you should throw it far away from you, so – like a dog with a ball – they go to retrieve it, presenting you with an opportunity to run/disengage. To quickly reiterate a couple of points as to why this is bad advice: a) you’ll probably be in a relatively confined area when robbed, so there is little room to throw anything far, and b) you’re going against the demands of a mugger, who in just about every instance is going to let you go without using force anyway, so why risk escalating the situation by not doing as they say? However, the reason this advice endures is that it gives the potential victim the ability to take control of the situation, and to emotional logic, control equals safety.

As social creatures, humans want to demonstrate to each other that they can control what happens to them. This can be as simple as not letting somebody onto the highway i.e., that driver is in control of their car and the road in front of them etc. and we don’t want to be the individuals who do what other people say, and follow their demands – and so we will throw the wallet, rather than hand it over etc. I know of gun owners, who after getting their license, have never been back out on the range, but feel safe because they have a tool that they believe will allow them to control a break-in/home invasion should they be victimized in such a way; in reality they are more likely to shoot a family member by accident than an intruder, but the sense of control makes them feel safe. It is a hard bias to overcome, despite being aware of the reality e.g., I feel safer driving my car than being on a plane, even though the statistics clearly point to me being safer in the air. We should always be aware that a sense of control does not by nature make us safe.