NGO Security has a good explanation of how to create more granularity and levels for risk assessments with a Likert Scale:

You don’t need to be a math or stats-guru to use a Likert Scale, it’s actually quite simple to implement and understand (an especially good feature when explaining the rationale for security decisions to management). For risk assessment, here’s how it works.

For probability, use the following ratings:

1 – Very improbable
2 – Improbable
3 – Somewhat improbable
4 – Neither probable or improbable
5 – Somewhat probable
6 – Probable
7 – Very probable

For impact, use these ratings:

1 – Very insignificant if it happens
2 – Insignificant if it happens
3 – Somewhat insignificant if it happens
4 – Neither significant or insignificant if it happens
5 – Somewhat significant if it happens
6 – Significant if it happens
7 – Very significant if it happens

Take the rating values for a possible incident and multiple them together. For example, let’s say the potential of someone stealing office supplies at a large NGO’s HQ is probable (6) but insignificant (2). That gives the incident a value of 12.

Compare that to the potential of a staff member being abducted in a certain conflict zone. Let’s say it’s somewhat probable (5) and very significant (7) if it happens. This incident tallies up as a 35.

The higher the number, the more time and effort you should devote toward preventative and contingency measures.

That is a lot easier to read, although less entertaining, than the Lickert post at Oregon State University.

A Lickert scale is a multi-item instrument composed of items asking opinions (attitudes) on an agreement-disagreement continuum. The several items have response levels arranged horizontally. The response levels are anchored with sequential integers as well as words that assumes equal intervals. These words–strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree–are symmetrical around a neutral middle point. Likert always measured attitude by agreement or disagreement. Today the methodology is applied to other domains.

[…]

Referring to ANY ordered category item as Likert-type is a misconception. Unless it has response levels arranged horizontally, anchored with consecutive integers, anchored with words that connote even spacing, and are bivalent, the item is only an ordered-category item or sometimes a visual analog scale or a semantic differential scale.

“I can only strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree with you.”

Quebec, Canada has been added to the list of locations with a flock of dead birds

“All they can tell me is that it’s not avian influenza, it’s not the West Nile virus, and it’s not poison. It won’t stop. I’m finding more birds every day,” [Farmer Sylvain Turmel] said.

Turmel said that once they fall, the pigeons usually lie on the ground for an hour or two before dying.

Swedish authorities claim fireworks are to blame, while Arkansas and Louisiana suspect internal bleeding from noise trauma, Italy says it was lack of oxygen, and Japan still thinks there may be a link to avian influenza.

There are numerous sites debating whether it was a left or right attack on a US federal politician this morning. The cowardly attack involved a semi-automatic weapon fired into a crowd standing and talking peacefully outside a grocery store. The main target, Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head from about four feet away. The bullet penetrated her brain; after neurosurgery she now fights for her life. Six so far are reported dead, including a young girl and a US federal judge.

Perhaps the best way we can look upon this event is not in terms of left or right persuasion but rather moderate to extreme. I realize this puts me in NRA support territory, as they often say criminals are the problem not guns. However, I can not help but ponder that the targeted politician is against gun regulation. She also is married to a NASA astronaut. This is not the sort of person that is consistently right or left but rather a moderate who has stood for genuine care towards the welfare of all others. That is why I suggest the attack is a symptom of radicalization and fear — an attack on moderation and reasoned thought.

The right to free speech

Take the Cleveland Leader report, for example. It highlights a disgusting campaign tactic by extremists who opposed her:

Palin endorsed Jesse Kelly, who ran against Giffords, who used the tagline:

“Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”

It might sound trivial but I noted a lack of punctuation in the actual ad that is highly disturbing.

Likewise Sarah Palin’s facebook page notoriously promoted the use of gun-sight imagery to indicate federal politicians she labelled “the problem”. Note the three placed near Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ area in the State of Arizona :

Here is another version from Sarah Palin’s Facebook and PAC page:

When is a joke or satire not a joke? When is a command not a command? Language is imprecise, and motives are almost never known. With that in mind I suggest again, irregardless of the right or left issues, extremists who advocate violent imagery and harm should be condemned for careless use of high-risk language that has been known historically to incite violence.

The right to bear arms

This reminds me of a recent visit to Colorado that brought some worrying sights to me first hand. As I rode a mountain bike up a large mountain past signs that regulated the use of fire-arms, we suddenly heard gunfire and bullets whizzing through the trees nearby. We pulled off the trail and crouched down; two men and two women stood in a gully no more than 50 feet from the trail and fired towards the trees to knock off branches near the trail, in clear violation of Colorado gun use laws.

We very quickly exited the area by fast descent. As we reached the bottom and entrance to the trail a thin young man in camouflage with his young girlfriend came upwards towards us, both holding large semi-automatic or automatic rifles (AR-15). The woman complained “I can’t do it” as she handed her rifle to the man, at which point he held it with the barrel pointed directly up the trail at me to pound in a large (30+) magazine.

At that moment my thoughts were not on politics. I wondered about this young couples’ upbringing — their obvious lack of common sense and awareness and inability to properly gauge risk. Were they so unaware of history they would not realize when they are moving backwards, repeating past mistakes?

My riding partner, who only had recently retired from the armed forces, had nothing kind to say about the use of guns we saw that day. The moment reminded me of Pakistani and Egyptian students I knew at Macalester College who boasted to me of the weekends spent in the hills at the school Vice-President’s cabin firing AK-47s. What was the point, I asked them; why did they shoot automatic weapons as a hobby? They laughed and told me the freedoms in America were nice but insufficient — they missed their home countries, where they could force a marriage or perform executions without fear of the law. I did not laugh with them.

Speech about armed response

We allow extremism as a form of freedom but as a good friend of mine used to say “your right to punch ends at my nose”. What controls are in place to stop a fist when those who called for its use have set it in motion? Who is responsible to regulate among those who oppose regulations?