4 ms·

Wow, I don't know why I am still posting so I can get more downmods, but I really don't get all the hate. The fact that child abuse by educators is rare is no

by frossie 17y ago

Wow, I don't know why I am still posting so I can get more downmods, but I really don't get all the hate. The fact that child abuse by educators is rare is no reason not to do something relatively simple (like a criminal check) to reduce its incidence. Lots of things are rare - liver cancer; plane crashes due to mechanical failure; Rackspace losing a whole data center, twice; I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I thought many of us here spend a lot of time eliminating rare events. There are many professions which require background checks; for example accountants. What's the big deal?

jodrellblank 17y ago
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/false-positives.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/false-po... false positives is one big deal. On the radio the other day, a paediatric surgeon in the UK was lamenting the hassle involved in background checks. Ok, he operates on children, he gets a background check, so far so good. As one of only a few hundred dedicated paediatric surgeons, his skills are in demand, he is called as a consultant to another hospital. They don't accept any checks except their own so they do another. Which takes another month during which he is unable to help. Repeat for every hospital or every NHS zone, every year, for every applicable surgeon. But who cares that treatment for children is being hindered by repetetive bureacracy, at least it's protecting children, right? Oh, wait... In other words, having checks in place is a good thing, but only as far as it is proportionally useful to the costs of doing it. Not just doing anything and everything to anyone and everyone because it might help maybe. I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I thought many of us here spend a lot of time eliminating rare events. How much do you spend on rare event insurance? You read HN so it's a fair bet you earn living from computing, so you'll have particular insurance against losing or damaging your hands, yes?
- frossie 17y ago
  But who cares that treatment for children is being hindered by repetetive bureacracy, at least it's protecting children, right? Oh, wait... Well, that's just a stupid implementation. You evidently should only be cleared once for any NHS facility and anyway, screening a paediatrician is not that useful because (a) they don't typically have uncontrolled access to children and (b) if you are a paedophile, putting yourself through med school just to have access to children is really beyond unlikely. I think the fact that there is a media hysteria is blinding people to the actual issue - that's just like saying "PETA is nuts, let's all have battery-farmed chicken". Many people correctly assume that paedophilia is rare (it is). Also, not many people have unsupervised access to children (in fact only childcare workers, educators and priests typically do). So people put two and two together and say "a childcarer who is a paedophile is a very rare event". But that assumes that the chance of being a paedophile and the chance of having access to children are statistically independent events. They are not - as this well publicised case shows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8284192.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8284192.stm Moreover, the "leverage" of the event is quite high. This is the same problem with plane crashes; they are rare, but when they happen, 300 people die. You would be amazed how many professions in the UK require background checks. Did you know you need a background check to work at the Meteorological Office? And many, many people on HN are working the US on immigrant visas. Frankly if you have been able to get a job without a background check or a drug test or a work permit, you're pretty lucky. How much do you spend on rare event insurance? You read HN so it's a fair bet you earn living from computing, so you'll have particular insurance against losing or damaging your hands, yes? Well losing my hands is just a sub-class of {unable to work for any reason} so no, I don't have specific insurance against that (though for example, more than one famous violinist or pianist does - because their lifetime earning loss is much greater). But when I was pregnant I got screened for cystic fibrosis. That's pretty damn rare. You'd be amazed if you thought about it, how many rare events you insure against. For example, the chance of your house burning down is actually very small. Yet most homeowners have fire insurance.
axod 17y ago
Since all the criminal checks and assumption that it's likely most people may be pedophiles, the number of male teachers has dropped to almost 0. I don't think that's coincidence, and I don't think it's a healthy trend.
mmt 17y ago
I really don't get all the hate. Speaking, at least, for myself, it's not hate so much as that I think you're mistaken. Your position appears not to have been fully thought out, based on your explanation or lack thereof. The fact that child abuse by educators is rare is no reason At the risk of seeming like I'm quibbling over semantics, of course it's a reason. It just may not be a reason you find adequate. not to do something relatively simple (like a criminal check) to reduce its incidence. Herein lie two fallacies. The first is that criminal checks are simple. An earlier commentor points out some potential complexities. Saying they're relatively simple begs the question of simplicity. They're most certainly not simple relative to doing nothing beforehand. The second, in my mind far more significant, fallacy is that doing "something" will reduce the incidence of the rare event. If the event is rare enough, we may not be able to reach any rational conclusions for lack of statistically significant sample size, let alone controlling for confounding factors. Lots of things are rare - liver cancer; plane crashes due to mechanical failure; Rackspace losing a whole data center, twice; I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I think you misinterpret as "no worries" the actual attitude of "I have better things to worry about." Far more importantly, I my efforts (not just worries) are far better focused on something more frequent or at least on something where those efforts will clearly make a difference. Otherwise, it's a shameful waste of time.

by frossie 17y ago

jodrellblank 17y ago

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/false-positives.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/false-po... false positives is one big deal. On the radio the other day, a paediatric surgeon in the UK was lamenting the hassle involved in background checks. Ok, he operates on children, he gets a background check, so far so good. As one of only a few hundred dedicated paediatric surgeons, his skills are in demand, he is called as a consultant to another hospital. They don't accept any checks except their own so they do another. Which takes another month during which he is unable to help. Repeat for every hospital or every NHS zone, every year, for every applicable surgeon. But who cares that treatment for children is being hindered by repetetive bureacracy, at least it's protecting children, right? Oh, wait... In other words, having checks in place is a good thing, but only as far as it is proportionally useful to the costs of doing it. Not just doing anything and everything to anyone and everyone because it might help maybe. I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I thought many of us here spend a lot of time eliminating rare events. How much do you spend on rare event insurance? You read HN so it's a fair bet you earn living from computing, so you'll have particular insurance against losing or damaging your hands, yes?

frossie 17y ago
But who cares that treatment for children is being hindered by repetetive bureacracy, at least it's protecting children, right? Oh, wait... Well, that's just a stupid implementation. You evidently should only be cleared once for any NHS facility and anyway, screening a paediatrician is not that useful because (a) they don't typically have uncontrolled access to children and (b) if you are a paedophile, putting yourself through med school just to have access to children is really beyond unlikely. I think the fact that there is a media hysteria is blinding people to the actual issue - that's just like saying "PETA is nuts, let's all have battery-farmed chicken". Many people correctly assume that paedophilia is rare (it is). Also, not many people have unsupervised access to children (in fact only childcare workers, educators and priests typically do). So people put two and two together and say "a childcarer who is a paedophile is a very rare event". But that assumes that the chance of being a paedophile and the chance of having access to children are statistically independent events. They are not - as this well publicised case shows: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8284192.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8284192.stm Moreover, the "leverage" of the event is quite high. This is the same problem with plane crashes; they are rare, but when they happen, 300 people die. You would be amazed how many professions in the UK require background checks. Did you know you need a background check to work at the Meteorological Office? And many, many people on HN are working the US on immigrant visas. Frankly if you have been able to get a job without a background check or a drug test or a work permit, you're pretty lucky. How much do you spend on rare event insurance? You read HN so it's a fair bet you earn living from computing, so you'll have particular insurance against losing or damaging your hands, yes? Well losing my hands is just a sub-class of {unable to work for any reason} so no, I don't have specific insurance against that (though for example, more than one famous violinist or pianist does - because their lifetime earning loss is much greater). But when I was pregnant I got screened for cystic fibrosis. That's pretty damn rare. You'd be amazed if you thought about it, how many rare events you insure against. For example, the chance of your house burning down is actually very small. Yet most homeowners have fire insurance.

axod 17y ago

Since all the criminal checks and assumption that it's likely most people may be pedophiles, the number of male teachers has dropped to almost 0. I don't think that's coincidence, and I don't think it's a healthy trend.

mmt 17y ago

I really don't get all the hate. Speaking, at least, for myself, it's not hate so much as that I think you're mistaken. Your position appears not to have been fully thought out, based on your explanation or lack thereof. The fact that child abuse by educators is rare is no reason At the risk of seeming like I'm quibbling over semantics, of course it's a reason. It just may not be a reason you find adequate. not to do something relatively simple (like a criminal check) to reduce its incidence. Herein lie two fallacies. The first is that criminal checks are simple. An earlier commentor points out some potential complexities. Saying they're relatively simple begs the question of simplicity. They're most certainly not simple relative to doing nothing beforehand. The second, in my mind far more significant, fallacy is that doing "something" will reduce the incidence of the rare event. If the event is rare enough, we may not be able to reach any rational conclusions for lack of statistically significant sample size, let alone controlling for confounding factors. Lots of things are rare - liver cancer; plane crashes due to mechanical failure; Rackspace losing a whole data center, twice; I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I think you misinterpret as "no worries" the actual attitude of "I have better things to worry about." Far more importantly, I my efforts (not just worries) are far better focused on something more frequent or at least on something where those efforts will clearly make a difference. Otherwise, it's a shameful waste of time.