Recently I've been thinking of dealing with social problems in the physical world, vs the psychological world, and the victim's world vs the perpetrators world.

Is it more effective to deal with public anxiety over a certain danger, than to deal with the anxiety-provoking stimuli itself? For instance, if gun ownership spreads fear and anxiety among a populace, would it be more effective to address those concerns by education about the threat of increased gun ownership (irrespective of change in actual level of physical danger) or to remove the stimuli (e.g. banning or restricting gun ownership)?

Edit: In the treatment of psychological disorders, OCD and PTSD are treated by exposure, that is, interacting with the stimuli (physical), whereas depression is treated with CBT (psychological). Perhaps problems can be parsed into whether they are about avoidance coping, in which case psychological approaches are preferred, or 'cognitive distortions', in which case psychological approaches are indicated.

Of course, both are psychological, as much as physical. It's just that there isn't terminology to parse them in another differentiating way.

Operationalised: fight fear physically, fight persuasion psychologically.

Looks like a handy hereustic to decide between externalising and internalising.

I suppose prerequisite to this is Dagon's approach to issues. It sort of echoes Eleizer's 'check consequentialism'

Break down the problem, and identify your goals in dealing with it/them. Is your problem one or more of: 1) fear is unpleasant and you'd rather not experience it, regardless of any other experienced or behavioral differences? 2) there are consequences to not using an account? 3) there are consequences to trying to use an account when it's not necessary?