It Britain, the default is "no news is good news", which is a proverb meaning "without information to the contrary you can assume that all is well".

I hear that phrase a lot, but is that how it actually works when things like this happen, or is it just what people say?

I think when things like this happen, it usually falls under the category of "bad news is bad news" and people will want to reach out to friends/loved ones who may have been affected.

If my friend is going overseas for a month (and there aren't any terror attacks or plane crashes or whatever), I will probably assume they're doing just fine, haven't been mugged or gotten lost in the woods or anything unless I specifically hear otherwise.

Well put. "No news is good news" is predicated on no news. If nothing noteworthy happens then most people are fine with assuming you're doing fine until and unless they hear otherwise. But if some disaster (even a localized one) happens in the area where they know you are, that doesn't apply anymore.

That interpretation is actually at odds with my experience and how others have described it to me. I recall my mum describing the fear of receiving a telegram during the war. People would assure themselves nothing had happened to loved ones fighting because they had received no news. And when I myself was in London I think it was 7 7 bombings my family again assumed I wasn't caught up in it because they received no visit from the police. I didn't call until a long time after, despite evacuating the tube one stop from one of the bombs or something. Mind is fuzzy. Anyway, I think that is how the stiff upper lip stoic Brits are. Or were. Perhaps the modern generation are good for nothing self absorbed hugging kinds? Too much Anerican influence perhaps ;)

While it'll obviously depend on the people, this is what my parents basically said to me when I spoke to them a bit after the bombing in Manchester.

I probably wasn't involved, and they'd have heard if I was.

> No, none of this actually influences how normal people think and act.

Well that's bloody stupid and innumerate of them. Surely, enabling such vices can't be good in the long-term.

... and how, again, are these people able to acquire positions of power such that we still have to care-about/interact-with them?

Turns out that having a solid logical understanding of the risks of accidental death is more or less uncorrelated with having the sort of people skills which allow a person to attain positions of power.

But this points to not a specific misunderstanding of accidental death, but to a general inability to comprehend/apply statistics, which includes things such as cost/benefit analyses.

It's fascinating to see nerds weird out over people's inability to comprehend basic probability and statistics (which the human brain is innately bad at) while displaying a complete inability to understand other people (which the human brain is innately great at). And yes, I do it too sometimes.

Stop arguing about why the average person, or even the average powerful person, ought to have an excellent understanding of these things, and start exploring why they don't. You'll come out of it more informed.