Is your claim that people whose “arguments are based exclusively on emotion” are “very bad at estimating risk?”
Do you use the term “argument” as meaning a decision making process or an advocacy method?
Is there a significant population of people who base a decision making process “exclusively” on emotion or is that a straw person? (And how do you know that?)
If there were a significant population of people whose decision making process was based on emotion, how would one falsify the premise that they are “bad at estimating risk?”
Given the causality claim that emotion based decision making poorly estimates risk due to availability cognitive bias, could the same causality claim be made that “educated professionals” are often bad at estimating wholistic risk because tunnel vision is also a product of their specialization?
But some people's arguments are based exclusively on emotion.
And they tend to be very bad at estimating risk, because they literally can't tell the difference between one specific tragedy which triggers their emotions because it's reported in great deal, and millions of tragedies which don't trigger their emotions because they're reported as dry statistics.
If we were being less polite, we'd call this a form of cognitive handicap.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/ttu-pra04092...