Thread by @m_older

For @ForeignPolicy, I wrote about the fallacy of public panic in disasters, and why elites keep using it as an excuse even though it isn't true. foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/16/tru…

I honestly had to struggle with this assignment not to write "Don't lie to the public about a pandemic because that is stupid" and send that to the editor as the entire piece BUT there really is a bit more to say so I'm glad I had the opportunity to break it down.

1st of all, this article is largely a synthesis of existing research; I'm not the person who came up with these concepts, nor the only one who has tweeted about them (see @SamLMontano's feed, among others).

But it's important to bring it up again and again because the fallacy keeps coming up - and being used to manipulate public opinion - again and again. So, again: EXTENSIVE research shows that there is no mass panic during disasters.

In fact, reactions tend to be pro-social: people help each other. It's well known in international disaster response that locals are generally the real first responders, and there are studies showing people putting together impressive organizations in isolated, crisis situations.

And when I say "EXTENSIVE research" I mean more than fifty years of disaster studies work, quantitative and qualitative, covering all different kinds of events.

So why do we keep seeing this fallacy come up over and over again? One reason is #NarrativeDisorder - we see public panic represented in disaster movies, and we can start to believe it, to the point where we may almost believe we have experienced it.

But there's another reason, one described by Clarke and Chess (2008) and Tierney (2008) among others: the public doesn't panic, but elites - leaders, politicians, the wealthy - do.

They don't usually panic about the disaster, because they're generally well insulated by that. They panic about the idea of the public panicking, because that might shake the status quo that serves them so well.

So when politicians try to make us believe that the reaction to the disaster is more dangerous than the disaster itself - as in this most recent example - it's partly because they believe it is, for them. It's a way to maintain control in a world that got a little more uncertain.

That's how we get politicians talking about shoot-to-kill orders (Tierney's example from Katrina) against "looters" who are either people trying to get food (that will go bad anyway) or in rarer cases stealing from damaged stores. Yeah, stealing is bad, ok, but shoot-to-kill?

And while the politicians will often say that the "looters" are disrupting aid efforts, as Tierney and others have shown it is the exaggerated rumors of looting and disproportionate retaliation by politicians that is most dangerous for affected people.

As with the recent example of peaceful protest, the real destruction and deviation from law and order comes not from the people, but from the elites and their representatives. It adds insult to injury that these elites use "panic" or "disorder" or "lawlessness" as their excuse.

Again: EXTENSIVE research. I've also seen this myself, when I was responding to disasters internationally.

Now, there are some behaviors that are not panicking, are rational, but can still be problematic when everyone rushes to do them at the same time. Like evacuating: we want people to evacuate! but not to get stuck in traffic jams. Or buying toilet paper ಠ_ಠ

This is where leadership and clear communication are important. One of the unsung successes of Hurricane Katrina was the counterflow evacuation plan. NOT useful for people without cars, but they got people to stage departures and use both lanes of the highway. Worked decently.

BECAUSE people weren't panicking. They were evacuating.

So before during and after a disaster, AS IN OTHER NON-DISASTER TIMES, it is a good idea to work WITH the public. They are one of the most powerful agents of disaster response and mitigation, protecting themselves and helping others. Lying to them is stupid.

Oh I'm going to add one more story even though it's tangential, because I like it and I don't think I got to use it enough in my diss. When I was interviewing people from cities hit by the 2011 Japan tsunami, these people who had run to a high ground school to take shelter along

with about 1000 of their neighbors told me that because the main road was blocked by debris, they sent people over the mountain roads to help guide assistance to where they were. Now, it was March. This is northern Japan. It was cold and freezing and after dark when they did this

They told it to me like nbd, but I was impressed. Because that's how much confidence they had that someone was going to come, and that they were going to come soon. That's the kind of trust that makes it easy to do things like NOT grab all the toilet paper, because you trust

there will be more when you need it, or wait to evacuate on a staggered schedule because you believe that what you're being told makes sense and is there for a reason. How did they build this trust?

They had done drills. But mainly, I think, they just take this kind of disaster very seriously. Japan has a national holiday for disaster drills. Everyone is aware that earthquakes could happen to them. And they believe that the govt, and their neighbors (mutual aid was a BIG

success story in Japan as well as after Katrina), would have their backs.
Was the govt's response in Japan perfect? noooo. See Fukushima. Did everyone in these towns have a positive view of the central govt? No way. But in this one area, they trusted them. And that meant

the community did something pretty above and beyond to connect with that assistance and help it on its way.